Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#51

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #42

The problem with Rare Earth is that the West collectively acts like 3 year old who are to dumb to solve incredibly simple problems. Rare earth contained lots of Thorium and that has to be handled as nuclear waste and that means you have 1000s of tons of nuclear waste on your hands. This is of course completely idiotic because Thorium not really a big problem as it is not radioactive. The few Rare Earth mines that do…

Thorium is radioactive, just not very much. It's toxic in the way a lot of heavy metals are. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp147.pdf

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#52

Post by Jweb_Guru » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

ed_balls wrote: post #44

When I was in school - 15 years ago - I remember reading that we will run of oil in 2030. Seems like a similar wrong estimate.

The fact that we haven't run out of oil yet doesn't really change anything about the fact that oil-based industry is not sustainable. I don't see why this isn't a similar situation.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#53

Post by maratd » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #36

nutjob2 wrote: post #26

It's peak cobalt! Just like peak oil.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then. The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market…

> the environment is not something the market will automatically solve

Not quite true. The market can easily solve for it. You just have to internalize the external costs. Usually done through taxes (ie carbon tax).

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#54

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

xigma wrote: post #12

pyre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> High prices isn't a signal that we have run out, it is a signal that more mines are needed. It is likely the market will heed the signal. It is a signal that there is a high demand, and not enough supply (whether naturally or artificially -- e.g. diamonds) to meet that demand. That's it. Building more mines can only happen if the resources exist to mine. This idea that "the market" is a magic wand to wave at proble…

>> Building more mines can only happen if the resources exist to mine. The resources do exist to mine. Only a tiny fraction of rare earth minerals are actually being mined, because it's not economical in most places.

[deleted]

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#55

Post by Retric » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 1:58 PM UTC

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #18

We should invest in space mining as well, there's no practical limit to the natural resources of the solar system at humanity's current scale.

There is over a cubic km of earths crust that can be mined per person on the planet using current technology. There is zero need for space mining as actually rare materials we care about like Oil don't exist in space.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#56

Post by tyu100 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 2:03 PM UTC

l_camacho84 wrote: post #50

ggm wrote: post #8

Oh god, another Erlich/Simons bet is needed: what's low is the level of rare earth exploration and exploitation not absolute supply. Is there a supply chain problem? Yes. Are we approaching a mad-max hell war for the last vestiges of humanities wonder mineral? Alas.. no. The ten years meme is based in a false premise. The article even says Australian known sources are only utilised at 14% and yet predicts a long term…

Australia is not utilising only 14% of their resources, they have only 14% of the known world resources. More than 50% is based on Congo were the work is performed in miserable conditions. We are all happy that we still don’t reach peak oil, but if we don’t change the way we think about progress and economic growth, in a world with finite resources will have severe consequences.

There is tons of cobalt in the world (pun intended). In Canada alone there are at least a dozen junior miners with prospects looking for capital (there's even a town called Cobalt in Ontario from a previous mining era). It's just not economic to mine at current prices. This is a non-issue and I'm disappointed Nature published this dumb article.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#57

Post by olivierlacan » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #53

3pt14159 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then. The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market…

> the environment is not something the market will automatically solve Not quite true. The market can easily solve for it. You just have to internalize the external costs. Usually done through taxes (ie carbon tax).

I want you to realize that you just said "the market can easily solve for it" followed by "done through taxes".

Either the market (which has no tax-levying power) can solve it on its own, or it can't. What you're describing is legislators fixing the market because it's stuck in a vicious circle — not the market fixing itself, let alone easily.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#58

Post by 3pt14159 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #53

3pt14159 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember trying to explain basic Econ 101 to a classmate while in third year engineering. Peak Oil was a religion back then. The same isn't true for the environment. Unlike Peak Oil where economic incentives simultaneously would encourage smaller cars with more efficient engines while also directing research into more advanced oil retrieval (or at the very worst biofuels) the environment is not something the market…

> the environment is not something the market will automatically solve Not quite true. The market can easily solve for it. You just have to internalize the external costs. Usually done through taxes (ie carbon tax).

That's the political employing the market to solve the actual. The market is the policy maker's tool. Take carbon taxes, if implemented incorrectly they may change incentives so harshly on CO2 that industries start creating more methane (a much worse GHG). This isn't "the market solving it" it's policy makers solving it because the tax base is used to fund the studies used to create the regulations necessary to harness the market intelligently. I'm not arguing against the market, far from it, but I do not think it solves things like the environment easily.

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#59

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #52

ed_balls wrote: post #44

When I was in school - 15 years ago - I remember reading that we will run of oil in 2030. Seems like a similar wrong estimate.

The fact that we haven't run out of oil yet doesn't really change anything about the fact that oil-based industry is not sustainable. I don't see why this isn't a similar situation.

Is anything truly sustainable when we live on a planet of finite resources?

Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?

#60

Post by bluGill » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

tompccs wrote: post #43

ggm wrote: post #8

Oh god, another Erlich/Simons bet is needed: what's low is the level of rare earth exploration and exploitation not absolute supply. Is there a supply chain problem? Yes. Are we approaching a mad-max hell war for the last vestiges of humanities wonder mineral? Alas.. no. The ten years meme is based in a false premise. The article even says Australian known sources are only utilised at 14% and yet predicts a long term…

Another point the article missed: although batteries have a lifetime of 15-20 years (which they claim makes recycling infeasible), most people currently replace their cars far more frequently than that. Which means that either the cars will be scrapped and the battery materials recycled (if they really are all that valuable), or the global production of cars per capita will slow as people keep their cars for the life…

Most cars today are scraped because the body wears out, not because the engine fails. Of course if you are reading this you probably trade in your car much sooner, and send it on down the line to poorer and poorer people, eventually the car ends up in Mexico/Central America (US/Canada), or Africa (Europe), where they keep it running until it is ~20 years old and the body fails. You probably are more ware of engine failures because you don't have any experience with a car that actually wears out, only cars where there is either premature engine failure, or is in an accident.

The only reason 15 year batteries are not recyclable are it will be 15 years before current cars get old enough to need that infrastructure. There is plenty of money to be made if you want to invest in recycling them, but you need to invest at the right time. You probably should be thinking about recycling in Central America or Africa (consider political issues before investing!), and make sure you don't over invest, lead acid batteries fundamentally need twice as much infrastructure because they are replaced twice as often.