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

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

#181

Post by 394549 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #142

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…

Exactly right. But it makes for a catchy title doesn't it? And if you're research lab is working on anodes for batteries you need to pitch urgency to get the big funding, who wants to fund research for problems that are 50 years out? But cynicism aside, the key to making renewables a practical base load replacement for fossil fueled plants is a solid battery infrastructure. And those batteries aren't 'car batteries'…

> But cynicism aside, the key to making renewables a practical base load replacement for fossil fueled plants is a solid battery infrastructure.

No, it's a solid storage infrastructure, of which batteries are only one type.

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

#182

Post by hwillis » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

abakker wrote: post #139

The thing that I always thing about is that there are other uses for rare-earths. Vanadium, for example is used in structural steel as a alloying element that make steel MUCH stronger. Neodymium is used in magnets and lasers. Thorium is used in TIG welding. We can't just siphon off all the Rare Earths for batteries without impacting other industries.

Good news! None of those are used in batteries. In fact, there are no rare earth elements in batteries. Also, the article does not mention rare earths a single time.

Even better: neodymium is unlike the other rare earths in that it is commonly found on its own. All the other rare earths almost always only occur together. Neodymium is quite easy to find an extract, and has always been of least/little concern.

Back when fears about rare earth shortages were a thing, the element of concern was tellurium, as it was assumed that thin film cadmium-telluride solar panels were the next big thing. They are now virtually obsolete.

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

#183

Post by gepi79 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #142

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…

Exactly right. But it makes for a catchy title doesn't it? And if you're research lab is working on anodes for batteries you need to pitch urgency to get the big funding, who wants to fund research for problems that are 50 years out? But cynicism aside, the key to making renewables a practical base load replacement for fossil fueled plants is a solid battery infrastructure. And those batteries aren't 'car batteries'…

I agree.

Where weight and size do not matter, more choices for batteries are possible.

E.g. redox flow batteries.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/its-big-and-...

In the near future, atmospheric CO2 will be recycled to create organic fuel.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/09/18/solar-fuel-system-recyc...

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-r...

Solid state batteries are also interesting. Lithium-ion batteries will be replaced because they can develop dendrites and catch fire.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/26/the-solid-state-lithium...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324734826_Non-Tradi...

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/04/19/016213/the-slas...

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

#184

Post by syncsynchalt » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

w-m wrote: post #74

The inclusion of the metal price graph[1] is very strange. What are they trying to tell with that? To me it demonstrates that nickel and cobalt prices are currently right where they should be in the market (considering the concentration), compared to the other metals. So if cobalt prices quadrupled from 22$ to 81$ recently, doesn't it mean that cobalt was highly undervalued before and is now correctly priced? [1] htt…

I believe the graph was to support their argument that it's better to [fund their research in electrodes that] use Cu and Fe rather than Ni and Co, since their abundance will always make those materials cheaper.

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

#185

Post by misterprime » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #167

dbingham wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone currently dealing the consequences of being far too cavalier with long term environmental pollutants like PCBs and lead, I would argue that behavior you're describing as being that of a "3 year old" is actually a good example of government sanity, not stupidity. It's reasonable long term caution to avoid creating a bigger problem in the future. The true 3 year old behavior on display here is the market beh…

What does soil have to do with this? You think they’re just going to put the thorium in fertilizer or drop it all over the country from the air? Lithium ion batteries are incredibly important if we want to make a fast transition to green energy. The environmental calculus is 100% in favor of finding a thorium disposal site and making rare earths / lithium cheaper now , rather than being picky about where minerals are…

>Global warming, especially if it reaches a runaway tipping point

Thought we reached that a long time ago, and yet things haven't really changed.

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

#186

Post by stevew20 » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #167

dbingham wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone currently dealing the consequences of being far too cavalier with long term environmental pollutants like PCBs and lead, I would argue that behavior you're describing as being that of a "3 year old" is actually a good example of government sanity, not stupidity. It's reasonable long term caution to avoid creating a bigger problem in the future. The true 3 year old behavior on display here is the market beh…

What does soil have to do with this? You think they’re just going to put the thorium in fertilizer or drop it all over the country from the air? Lithium ion batteries are incredibly important if we want to make a fast transition to green energy. The environmental calculus is 100% in favor of finding a thorium disposal site and making rare earths / lithium cheaper now , rather than being picky about where minerals are…

But the trees man... My god, think of the trees

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

#187

Post by sametmax » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

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…

Still, it's a finite resource and we consume it more and more. Obligatory link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=list_other&list=SP6A1FD1...

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

#188

Post by hwillis » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #75

skybrian wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about the availability of cobalt and nickel, which are not rare earth metals.

Same exact thing applies to many of these metals and worrying about cobalt and nickel is really not close to as important as rare earth mines. You need rare earth for batteries as well, also for many other things in the new electric transport infrastructure.

> You need rare earth for batteries as well

This is a pervasive and utterly false idea. There are no rare earth elements in li-ion batteries and never have been. It's a weird kind of free-association that people think so.

Also, nickel and cobalt mining are completely different from rare earth mining. The only rare earth element used in EVs in any significant amount is neodymium, about 1.6 kg in 200-300 horsepower PM motors. Induction motors, like those in the Model S and X, use none at all. Neodymium is entirely replaceable for EVs and has perhaps a 1% impact on range. If it becomes expensive it won't be used.

According to the USGS the US has enough mapped, recoverable neodymium for 1 billion EVs[1]. Australia already produces enough for over 10 million cars per year.

[1]: https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earth...

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

#189

Post by ghein » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #105

ryanianian wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your comment to say that cobalt should simply be more expensive to compensate for the negative externalities of obtaining it?

I think he's saying that eventually we will run out of economically viable to extract resources and we should start planning for that now. I'm not quite so sure because there are still tons of people living in awful conditions and they need a lot of this resource extraction to raise their standard of living.

People here really misunderstand and misapply the concept of economically viable to extract.

As cheaper sources are exhausted, the more expensive ones become viable. So we won't run out on the projected time horizon.

The main reason why US and Australian rare earth production has gone away is because Chinese sources are so much cheaper (aka no pollution or safety regs). No production, no exploration, and no development of rare earth sources.

As cheap production goes away, people again look for, build, and use other sources.

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

#190

Post by gok » Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #122

ajross wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also fundamentally wrong in its headline and lede conclusion. And it even admits as much: > Recycling cannot replenish supplies. Lithium-ion batteries last for 15–20 years, 3 times longer than the 5–7 years for lead-acid batteries. Refiners might exploit poorer quality ores, especially as prices climb. But greater processing costs would push the prices higher. So... no. We aren't going to run out. We'll see a co…

Batteries might get more expensive, but if that happens then we'll see old batteries having scrap value, just like with aluminum today. People will hold onto their old batteries instead of trashing them or recycling them for free, and will re-sell them to recyclers, and recycling rates will go way up. Just look at the recycling rates today for car batteries (lead acid): it's nearly at 100%, though of course part of t…

> ban the selling of devices with sealed-in batteries altogether in major markets [...] making batteries at least somewhat easily removed to facilitate recycling.

The opposite is true; removable batteries almost entirely end up in landfills.

Putting batteries non-removably inside devices makes them much more likely to be recycled, along with the rest of the recyclable components of the device.