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

Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 396 posts

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#381

Post by protomolecule »

some_furry wrote: post #302
chefkd wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think is just the way of the world. Not saying it's right but it's just reality. I come from a place where people kill and do horrible things for 10 dollars a day to build the same battery with maybe a 10 percent drop in quality. I doubt anyone in the US would be willing to work for that comparative advantage or something at play. How would you ensure that doesn't happen? Making everyone equal via something like Ma…

Uplift labor and human rights movements everywhere so they can retain self-determination but still extinguish the hellscape of exploitation that we have currently. We don't need anything top-down. I understand there would be challenges with doing that, but I like to think a better world is possible and it starts with respecting others' humanity.

"Uplift labor ... movements "

You can't do that if there are no jobs. And 10 dollars a day is hell of a job in those places.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#382

Post by protomolecule »

some_furry wrote: post #283
topspin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good analysis, until you got here: > While this is a baseless comment, let's look at it anyway: It's not baseless. This is a golden boy startup, blessed with save the Earth kudos and highly subsidized. The DOE spun this outfit up in 2020 with $19M. Michigan and Whitmer have fast tracked the one, modest, token plant, delivered the tax breaks and signed the contracts for a sodium battery power facility in the state. VC…

> At that point you have a choice: fail, or build out where labor is cheap, workers are disposable and regulators are just low-cost party agents, and use your position as US company to readily import your foreign made products. Why are any of us okay with humans being "disposable" anywhere on Earth?

>Why are any of us okay with humans being "disposable" anywhere on Earth?

Because being a disposable worker beats being unemployed.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#383

Post by some_furry »

protomolecule wrote: post #381
some_furry wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uplift labor and human rights movements everywhere so they can retain self-determination but still extinguish the hellscape of exploitation that we have currently. We don't need anything top-down. I understand there would be challenges with doing that, but I like to think a better world is possible and it starts with respecting others' humanity.

"Uplift labor ... movements " You can't do that if there are no jobs. And 10 dollars a day is hell of a job in those places.

But there are jobs there now. So uplifting labor movements now will have an impact.

If we do this across the board, shitty companies will eventually run out of humans to exploit.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#384

Post by tooltalk »

twobitshifter wrote: post #315
pfdietz wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LFP batteries are also lithium ion batteries, just a different kind.

Lithium isn’t problematic on its own. They can take enough of it from the Salton Sea without any mining.

Lithiums are highly reactive and are never found in their pure form in nature.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#385

Post by tooltalk »

jdewerd wrote: post #239
ForOldHack wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that is a lot to unpack, but ever since I saw University of Santa Clara use one of these batteries, I have been interested: Yes, ALL your points are both well taken and accurate. The DRC is a disaster in many ways: https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how...

Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) has been ramping for a decade, with "no cobalt" as a selling point. It's not huge in the US, but it is in China. https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/en/blog/themen/batterie-update...

The industry trend is to minimize the use of cobalt as much as possible. While the early generation of lithium ion batteries had high cobalt content, the most cutting edge ones -- eg, NCM/A-9 -- has already reduced the cobalt content by 50%-80%. SK On who supplies such batteries with high energy/nicke and low cobalt to Ford (F-150), Hyundai/Kia (Ioniq5/6, EV6/9). They also announced zero-cobalt NCM9+ -- meaning less than 1% in cobalt content.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#386

Post by tooltalk »

ggreer wrote: post #174
adriand wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cobalt, however, which is used in common lithium battery chemistries, is mostly sourced from the DRC (Congo), much of it under terrible conditions: forced labour, child labour, and rampant environmental degradation. The book Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives [1] is a real eye-opener if you haven’t read it. Fascinating and deeply disturbing. 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60784614-cobalt-…

Since 2022, the majority of EVs manufactured have no cobalt in their batteries. Most manufacturers use lithium iron phosphate chemistry (LFP), which is cheaper and safer than NMC or NCA. The cobalt-based chemistries are only used in higher performance vehicles, where LFP's lower energy density becomes a problem.

>> Since 2022, the majority of EVs manufactured have no cobalt in their batteries. LFP is a low-end battery most suitable for small/compact EVs with "urban" range.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#387

Post by lazide »

protomolecule wrote: post #382
some_furry wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At that point you have a choice: fail, or build out where labor is cheap, workers are disposable and regulators are just low-cost party agents, and use your position as US company to readily import your foreign made products. Why are any of us okay with humans being "disposable" anywhere on Earth?

>Why are any of us okay with humans being "disposable" anywhere on Earth? Because being a disposable worker beats being unemployed.

How do you propose changing any of that, concretely?

Not buy anything directly or indirectly from any countries without US style labor protections?

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#388

Post by ggreer »

tooltalk wrote: post #386
ggreer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since 2022, the majority of EVs manufactured have no cobalt in their batteries. Most manufacturers use lithium iron phosphate chemistry (LFP), which is cheaper and safer than NMC or NCA. The cobalt-based chemistries are only used in higher performance vehicles, where LFP's lower energy density becomes a problem.

>> Since 2022, the majority of EVs manufactured have no cobalt in their batteries. LFP is a low-end battery most suitable for small/compact EVs with "urban" range.

Tesla’s LFP Model 3 is rated for 272 miles of range. People go on road trips with them all the time.

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#389

Post by elihu »

kube-system wrote: post #363
elihu wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point they were making is that a suitable technology to deliver power to a moving vehicle has been around a long time, not that everyone should get rid of their cars and use trolleys. If we combine a modern EV with 100 year old tram technology, you get the ability for a car to charge itself when travelling on roads that have a compatible system of overhead power lines. Having a huge pantograph on top of t…

My point is that those solutions are impractical for any sort of widespread use.

Impractical compared to what? The U.S. burns about 4 million barrels of gasoline and about the same amount of diesel per day, mostly just pushing ground vehicles around. That sort of works, but I wouldn't call it practical in the long run.

Converting to EVs is the obvious alternative, but batteries are expensive and we haven't scaled up battery manufacturing yet to the degree necessary to replace ICE vehicles. We can get more EVs on the road though if the average EV can get by with a much smaller battery.

On some level it's an optimization problem: using the U.S. as an example, there are about 280 million cars/trucks currently registered. Is it cheaper/better to build about 280 million EVs with about 60kwh of batteries each on average, or build 280 million EVs with about 30kwh of batteries each and electrify our major highways?

If batteries cost $100/kwh, then 280 million * $100 * 30 = 840 billion dollars. If electrifying the major highways can be done for under $840 billion dollars, then it makes sense to do.

The interstate highway system is about 50,000 miles.

Sweden spent about a million euros per kilometer to electrify a section of road using the slot-embedded-in-the-road system. That's about $1.7 million per mile, or $86.5 billion.

You'd probably need to do more than just the interstates, but then at the same time you don't need to electrify 100% of the length of those highways. Maybe just 10% or 20%, as long as electrified section come at regular intervals.

This is all kind of simplistic and hand-wavey, but it seems like it passes the threshold of "we should at least consider doing this."

Re: Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production

#390

Post by kube-system »

elihu wrote: post #389
kube-system wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that those solutions are impractical for any sort of widespread use.

Impractical compared to what? The U.S. burns about 4 million barrels of gasoline and about the same amount of diesel per day, mostly just pushing ground vehicles around. That sort of works, but I wouldn't call it practical in the long run. Converting to EVs is the obvious alternative, but batteries are expensive and we haven't scaled up battery manufacturing yet to the degree necessary to replace ICE vehicles. We can…

> Impractical compared to what? The U.S. burns about 4 million barrels of gasoline and about the same amount of diesel per day, mostly just pushing ground vehicles around. That sort of works, but I wouldn't call it practical in the long run.

Maybe you mean it isn't 'sustainable'? ICE vehicles are the epitome of practical, they are used in practice all around the world.

> You'd probably need to do more than just the interstates, but then at the same time you don't need to electrify 100% of the length of those highways. Maybe just 10% or 20%,

The people who developed that project estimated they'd need to implement it on 25% of all roads. Also the project is just in a technical demonstrator phase. It is literally just a tech demo, and there are still major concerns about adoption, implementation, and maintenance.

> This is all kind of simplistic and hand-wavey, but it seems like it passes the threshold of "we should at least consider doing this."

I agree it should be tested further, but there are likely significant barriers that will prevent it from being useful, particularly in less dense areas.

Post reply on HN