Live data from Hacker News

Why are lithium prices collapsing?

internationalbanker.com

421–430 of 524 posts

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changes are incremental in general, because change takes time, at least if you want change with not too many unwanted side effects. Suppose you would say, from tomorrow on, it is totally forbidden to burn any fuel. Most activities would stall and as a result people would starve.

I’m not sure I was suggesting anywhere that we shouldn’t pursue incremental change. Moreso we should pursue incremental change that the public can get behind (private jet emissions charges and such) before pursuing incremental change that the public is hesitant to make when people suggesting the change are the biggest polluters comparatively. Honestly just think about it. You really think it’s fruitful to try to star…

Sorry i guess i misunderstood. Okay the incrementalness is not the thing. The thing is more, the injustice, the unevenness so to say. Well, I think we should not try to solve the injustice problem and the environmental problem with the same measures.

For every rule, there will be people that break it, does that mean nobody should follow that rule?

Also, for every form or quantity of pollution, there are heavier forms. The jet owner will say that the old-aeroplane-collector or a war in a neighboring country pollutes more.

My point is, following that kind of reasoning, it will be almost impossible to take any action.

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems, you both are rather debating semantics. Of course it is "speculating" trying to estimate fuel prices, but this is not meant, when people condemn "gambling" on the stock market. What they mean is people with lots money investing wherever short term profits are possible and often gaming the market while doing so. So creating unexpected price changes for the actual industries needing those supplies and t…

> So creating unexpected price changes for the actual industries needing those supplies and they obviously don't like that. Followed by > But I couldn't draw a clear line between "necessary gambling" and "unnecessary gambling". What? you literally just drew a very crisp line.

I merely brought 2 examples and I can surely bring more, but this is not the same as in general being able to draw a clear line on the topic.

Basically, I couldn't define this clear line in a law. And I am not sure, anyone can.

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#424
post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, methane breaks down in the atmosphere. What does it break down into again? > The point is if we invest much more in nuclear, it will become too cheap to meter So if we ignore the financial costs (invest today) it'll become too cheap to meter. If nuclear plants can generate with costs If nuclear is cheaper than all other energy sources (too cheap to even meter in costs) why is there any energy kind of en…

Methane breaks down into CO2, which is a part of the Carbon Cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle CH4 -> CO2 -> grass -> cow -> CH4 | \/ steak -> human -> CO2 and so on... > If nuclear plants can generate with costs Because they're too expensive to build, because of regulation and lack of economies of scale. Similar to why rockets were expensive, before SpaceX. If we invested more, both in research and in…

> Methane breaks down into CO2, which is a part of the Carbon Cycle.

So it's pretty disingenuous to act as if methane emissions are unrelated to CO2 emissions, isn't it? That methane released in agriculture eventually does turn in to CO2 emissions. You even drew a graph showing my point. Thanks!

> You're mixing up or conflating total cost vs marginal cost

I'm going by total cost, because ultimately that's what society will pay. We can't just act like building a nuclear power plant costs $0.

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former citizen of the USSR, I have to object to linking environmental issues to private property. The Soviets did all kinds of tremendously bad things ranking, from geo-transformation to placing the heavy industry in the middle of cities. From what I read about North Korea, the entire country is ruined by various extraction and industrial projects.

Yes and: One view is private vs public capitalism. USSR vs USA, respectively. Extreme wealth concentration at the expense of everyone else. Both are anti-democratic.

The USSR did call itself democratic. In a sense, since it was central control for all. The USA did NOT call itself democratic -- the preferred term up to the '70s was "constitutional republic". To avoid the flattening that "democracy" was perceived to produce. The argument is that democracy ALWAYS leads to tyranny and collapse.

To quote "Both are anti-democratic". Which I don't understand. Is your claim that both systems (as practiced in the USSR and USA) led to extreme wealth concentration? Did the economy increase during this concentration? If so, do you still consider this "anti-democratic".

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#427
This report talks about Chinese demand, but there is demand coming online from European auto-makers such as VW which is spending billions to electrify its fleet (not to mention US and Japanese car makers).

Copper is another decarbonisation-related element that is predicted to have large shortfalls in supply compared to demand in the future.

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#428
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much more money is spent on climate change propaganda than there is on gas propaganda. I see climate change propaganda almost every day, but pro fossil propaganda extremely rarely. I think that this is because fossil fuels are extremely useful in practice, and so the users don’t need to be convinced of their benefits.

> climate change propaganda almost every day, but pro fossil propaganda Most people would understand those two phrases to mean the same thing. Is there any other kind of propaganda?

[flagged]

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because gas stoves are the easiest to replace. If someone doesn't have gas lines in their house, they'll just use an electric stove. Replacing a water heater or furnace either needs heat pumps or resistive heat and it becomes potentially much more expensive. Stoves don't matter in the big picture here, they are secondary to whatever people are already doing for heat.

If you have a gas stove, you probably don't have a circuit or wiring or receptacle to plug in an electric stove. So you'll need to get a 240V circuit installed, which for most people will require hiring an electrician. Same as putting in a heat pump.

I sure do and my house was very much a basic median market build but built by a smaller builder who only does 2-6 homes a year. An electric oven is far superior to a gas oven but I do enjoy my gas cooktop. It’s all in one like a standard range but is listed as a dual-fuel model. As an easy first step, we need to mandate the 220v hookup in all new kitchens and then phase out the gas. A simple building code adjustment would do the trick and putting the receptacle in at the time of construction is cheap compared to a retrofit.

Re: Why are lithium prices collapsing?

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and: One view is private vs public capitalism. USSR vs USA, respectively. Extreme wealth concentration at the expense of everyone else. Both are anti-democratic.

The USSR did call itself democratic. In a sense, since it was central control for all. The USA did NOT call itself democratic -- the preferred term up to the '70s was "constitutional republic". To avoid the flattening that "democracy" was perceived to produce. The argument is that democracy ALWAYS leads to tyranny and collapse. To quote "Both are anti-democratic". Which I don't understand. Is your claim that both sys…

Democracy is inherent and implicit in a republic. And I think you're mistaken about "constitutional republic." That term really wasn't used much, though representative democracy and "democratic republic" were terms that were used more frequently.

The entire argument about the US not having a democracy but a republic really stems (in modern times) from the John Birch Society.

Post reply on HN