What about graphene-based batteries?
Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
111–120 of 261 posts
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#112The Broken Hill Proprietary Company, BHP, comes from Broken Hill, Australia. It is one of the largest mining companies in the world. Now what is interesting about Broken Hill is I have it on reasonable authority that the area as a whole has had "20 years of remaining reserves" for the last 60 years, because the explorers only bother to go out and 'discover' new parts of the deposit when they get below 15-20 years of…
This happens in pretty much every mining and extraction industry. Oil reserves have been enough for about 50 years for the last 50 years iirc. There's no point in trying to find all the reserves ahead of time since your technology will change and things that were previously unviable become viable.
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah is radioactive but you can build a bed out of it and sleep on it so its not radioactive in any practical sense. And of course Toxic is not a problem because most of the metals a rare earth mine would deal with would be toxic. You can actually find heavily concentrated earth in the US that would basically count as nuclear waste because nuclear policy is so insane.
To Woah: You might look here [0]. A great quote about the radiation levels: "Searching for uranium is in some ways easier than for other mineral resources because the radiation signature of uranium's decay products allows deposits to be identified and mapped from the air." Key phrase: mapped from the air That's a pretty high level. [0] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
It's not so much that it's highly radioactive as it is that radiation detectors are really sensitive. It's not inert, but its specific activity is pretty low. The types of radiation it emits do mean it is significantly more dangerous if you breathe it (say as dust) or otherwise absorb it into your body.
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Unlike petroleum, batteries are almost 100% recyclable. Our "peak battery" is bounded at the product of "peak population" and per-capita battery need, both of which are fairly constrained. Not really the right analysis.
[deleted]
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#115When things get more scarce, they become more valuable.
When things get more valuable, they become more expensive.
When things get more expensive, people find new ways to sell them.
FUD over supply and demand is so boring!
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fa…
>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.
Which is why the brands of cars less wealthy people buy are over-represented in the 15-25yo age group on US roads compared to when they were newer. All the stuff rich people buy get traded in, auctioned and (mostly) shipped to Central America. The stuff less well of people buy sticks around because they get private party sold to the next guy and the next guy and the next guy. You'll have an easier time finding early '00 Hyundai parts than early '00 Honda parts.
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
A market doesn't exist in a vacuum, there is always a framework of rules or fees in place. A carbon tax is simply a convenient way to recoup the true costs of market activity.
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with the Earth's crust is all the stuff on top of it. We can't extract 100% of the earth's crust's value, or anywhere near it, without disrupting huge swaths of wild and human habitats. We're already causing a mass extinction at our current rate of consumption, do you really want to increase that? We need to move away from oil so that we don't kill ourselves with climate change regardless.
That's just cost / benefit. We can keep the top ~5 meters of earth and extract what's beneath it without disrupting ecosystems. However, the current approach of massive mines is cheaper and frankly we have such a vast abundance of resources that's working fine it's not like every person on the planet has any need for 20+ lb of gold. Further, we can always just mine old garbage dumps as elements are not destroyed just…
But this very article is talking about the possibility of running out. Do you disagree with the premise of the article? Nature is a respected publication, if you think they're wrong you should work on a properly sourced and peer reviewed rebuttal.
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#119Earlier 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…
Why is biofuels the very worst? Are you an oil shrill? (I'll admit to having an interest in biofules)
Pretty sure he meant worst case in terms of reducing oil reliance, i.e. if use and demand can't be reduced to maintain existing supply then biofuels have to make up the difference.
Re: Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries?
#120The solution is investment in public transportation and a reduction in consumption. There's absolutely no reason for most people in industrialized countries to own a car, other than the fact that the public transportation infrastructure sucks. With the shift of gas to electrically powered vehicles, there's even less of a reason for people to own an electric vehicle with a massive battery. We need higher density publi…
And then you have the mayors of North Fulton (for example Mayor Mike Bodker of Johns Creek) that are fundamentally opposed to expanding various forms of rapid transit into their supposedly low density housing suburban communities:
https://www.johnscreekga.gov/NewsAndEvents/News-Archive/2018...
Having moved to Johns Creek from Boston last year, I think the Red Line should go all the way up 400 to Cumming and they should add more express lanes along 400.
But there are two messages I hear consistently around town when I ask various people about this issue:
1. People like their low density housing, and you are never going to be able to put in enough rail access (like Boston's T or NYC's Subway) close enough to where people live or where they need to be on the other end to eliminate cars off the road through most of the area.
2. They don't want particular groups from other parts of Atlanta having easy access to where they live...essentially to keep possible criminal elements away.
Point 1 is a legitimate concern, but commuter rail systems do exist in other areas of the country, and parking garages can be placed next to rail stations. Would definitely ease the nightmare that is rush hour on 400.
Point 2 is just a terrible legacy of racism that still exists in the South (and I'm a Southern boy born and raised until living in Boston for 10 years). There is a terrible acronym for MARTA that I have heard multiple times since moving here that just needs to disappear.