Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

wolfstreet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 184 posts

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#151

Post by lucubratory »

VintageCool wrote: post #144
throwitaway222 wrote: post #62

Worlds largest lithium deposit found in NV, a state which is 90% government owned, and we're having trouble deciding what to do. Other countries are probably going like - wow, they just found a Lithium mine and they're just going to sit on it... and they are asking us to ramp up production???

Construction of the lithium mine at Thacker Pass began in June, and it is expected to start producing lithium by 2026. There is a (super nutty ) environmentalist group and some Native Americans protesting and trying to delay the mine, but it looks like they have so far been unsuccessful at convincing judges, and blockers have been getting cleared out. I consider myself an environmentalist, so I'm a bit sensitive abou…

Is this Deep Green Resistance? If it is, the anti-trans thing is a combination of things, one of them being that they view hormone replacement therapy as an unnatural "big pharma" thing that can't survive in their idyllic future where the Earth has a population of 100,000, just like insulin for diabetics. The other is just that they had significant factional splits with thin voting margins, and the faction that kept the name was fighting against another faction that had some transgender members, so "Transgender people are industrialised freaks and/or rapists" was a convenient way to try to expel enough voting members of the opposing faction to seize control of the faction. A lot of the time when you see a random extreme political organisation that's nominally left-wing have a strongly anti-transgender stance, it's because at some point in their organisational past transgender people were casualties in some larger factional dispute.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#152

Post by rnk »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #101
RobRivera wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldnt you want to have a motherlode hoarded when supplies dry up 100 years from now, a commodity that fuels advanced avionics?

What do you mean? If you’re referring to lithium battery powered aircraft my understanding is that will never be viable for anything but the smallest aircraft.

What does small mean? We have puddle jumpers (few miles between islands) already in service, like 5-10 miles. I expect it to creep up over time as efficiency slight increases but battery energy increases at the battery moore's law like rate it has. Prices go down and capacity/weight goes up.

I agree it will have limits, I doubt I'll see long flights like 200 miles. But I see no reason it can't improve by 10% a year just like the batteries. I believe the ones in service are using lfp batteries, which are safer than lithium batteries, but also have lower energy density - and these have gone up over time too in energy density.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#153

Post by paulddraper »

boringg wrote: post #67
bee_rider wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t obvious to me (although, I am dumb about this stuff) why China would pay more for lithium if they (presumably) use more… wouldn’t we expect economies of scale and all that to make it cheaper for them?

1. You have transportation costs. 2. I believe their economy was in a shutdown somewhat so market was askew. 3. If they are the major buyer but lithium being sold to them is monopolistic market structure in its origins then supplier can set the price. 4. They buy lithium in long term contracts so spot price is probably a proxy for whats at the margins as opposed to what the big companies are paying. 5. Speculators.

6. If what the lithium consumers are doing well financially, they are capable of paying more.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#154

Post by paulddraper »

xkekjrktllss wrote: post #95
nativeit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if speculators don’t ruin everyone’s fun betting from the sidelines in volumes that outpace the influence of legitimate trade.

Are you implying that stocks are not legitimate trade? That's anti-freedom.

> stocks are not legitimate trade?

Most commodity futures are not legitimate trade; i.e. most parties that will never actually possess the commodity.

They're speculation.

> That's anti-freedom.

No, that idea is not anti-freedom.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#155

Post by comte7092 »

xkekjrktllss wrote: post #95
nativeit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if speculators don’t ruin everyone’s fun betting from the sidelines in volumes that outpace the influence of legitimate trade.

Are you implying that stocks are not legitimate trade? That's anti-freedom.

The position you are espousing is not universal outside of dogmatically libertarian circles. Most people have much more nuanced views than simple “trade == freedom, therefore ++trade implies ++freedom” equations.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#156

Post by trompetenaccoun »

otherme123 wrote: post #120
passwordoops wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the article points out it's just good old fashioned speculation in the commodities market! Clearly there was a massive bubble over the past couple of years driven by hype. The spot price is still higher than 2020

Everyone can recognize a bubble once it pops. But the last three years, what you call "bubble" was rational (?) speculation that lithium 1) was going to be needed on a massive scale and 2) virtually all the profitable sources were already being mined. Also, between 2020 and 2023 we have a ~20% inflation, and the price is not yet stable.

>and 2) virtually all the profitable sources were already being mined

There have been massive investments in lithium mining over the past few years, especially in Western countries, partly for business and partly for strategic geopolitical reasons. So there's nothing rational about that assumption and I don't think any serious investor made it either because all this is public knowledge among insiders and easily researched. The price spikes are simply based on demand and speculation. Short term there was/is a serious shortage and that's reflected in the price. Also once production of EVs really ramps up, this could repeat. There's definitely no sign of overinvestment in terms of mining and processing.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#157

Post by Jensson »

VygmraMGVl wrote: post #148
wkat4242 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's called a rare earth mineral because the concentration in ore is so low not because there's little of it in total. It does unfortunately mean that you need to excavate a lot to mine it which is not great for the environment either (even though lithium is currently key to most renewable technologies)

Lithium is not a rare earth mineral. Typical weight fraction in ore is 0.5-8%.

> Typical weight fraction in ore is 0.5-8%.

The lithium mine in question is 0.22%, doesn't seem like your range is that typical.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#158

Post by benbojangles »

epistasis wrote: post #147
benbojangles wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nickel also down in price

Not sure which players could cause huge shifts in both lithium and nickel commodity prices, for the goal of undercutting oil. Especially since standard learning curves deliver huge drops in battery prices year after year anyway. Seems like a futile effort.

future looking electric

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#159

Post by trompetenaccoun »

AlbertCory wrote: post #90

Commodity prices fluctuate wildly. Fundamentals have very little to do with it.

You're right but it's a bit of both. There was a real shortage, we're just now slowly coming out of it. Prices are falling in anticipation because one can already see the mining capacity that's being added.

Re: Lithium “shortage” bubble implodes again

#160

Post by dpflan »

gumby wrote: post #35

As famously predicted by Julian Simon back in the 70s and 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager

The Analysis section seems to paint a differing picture, one where if you change the variables (commodities chosen and time-scale) either one of them could've won the bet. Do you know of another example?
Post reply on HN