• halfempty@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Better than exploiting other countries, I suppose. But I think Lithium is a transitional battery source, and that we will move to much more efficient designs within a decade.

    • Art35ian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a chance.

      Right now we’re using lithium-ion. In maybe a decade we’ll move to lithium-sulphide, and in perhaps 25 years we might see lithium-oxygen.

      Either way, lithium is all you’ll see in commercially viable batteries for the next 50 years because lithium as an anode is as good as it gets on the Table of Elements.

      Yes, you’ll see 100 reports per year about new battery tech but none of them will ever be scalable, safe enough, or cheap enough.

      • IndefiniteBen@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean, this kinda only applies to devices that need the highest energy density.

        For situations where space isn’t much of an issue, it can make more sense to use other forms of batteries that are cheaper per MWh. I agree Li-ion won’t be replaced in phones etc. but for some applications that are stationary, it can make commercial sense to use something else.

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’ll be moving bulk storage to molten sodium over the next 3 decades, lithium will be for high density applications, but they’re working on sodium-air designs because the density is even higher than lion.

      • conasatuta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lithium is the most energy dense so most suitable for private transport but I think industrial and domestic storage won’t be dominated by lithium in a decade or 2

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Were still going to need lithium batteries for longer ranges for quite awhile.

          Sodium Ion/LFP can get up to 160wh/kg right now, which is fine for things like the standard range cars or commuter cars, but when you want the longer range vehicles they’re to big/heavy compared to the 250-300wh/kg of the lithium ion batteries using nickle.

          I’m sure they’ll keep improving them, but so will the lithium ion ones. Maybe LFP/Sodium make it to 250, but nickle make it to 400-450.

          Then you gotta consider weight differences and what not and the impact on efficiency so it’s not neccesarily end game if they reach the mid 200’s.

          I’m super excited to see the continued improvements in these lower power density batteries though. They’re going to make the transition a lot easier as not everyone will want a longer range vehicle, and they’re more sustainable.

          And of course, for storage where density doesn’t matter, they’re amazing.

          Edit: Oh and once we get into the cost effective 400-450+ range, we can start transitioning flight as well, so we’ll still need it then as well.

  • Dulce Maria@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    The volcanic crater is found along the Nevada-Oregon border.

    The Lithium Americas Corporation “expects to begin mining in 2026. It will remove clay with water and then separate out the small lithium-bearing grains from larger minerals by centrifuging. The clay will then be leached in vats of sulfuric acid to extract lithium.”

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      All subsequent waste products will then be released into local waterways via “unfortunate accident” on a regular schedule, to maximize shareholder profits.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sigh.

        Sulfuric acid is one of the few chemicals that is bad to have around and can be controlled. The very first wet scrubbers to be designed (per WW2 tech here) were for dealing with it. Add water plus a calcium base like Diatomaceous earth and you get harmless sulfur-calcium salts. There are almost no local waterways and mining is very regulated.

        Maybe be happy for once that more mining will be happening in a country that bothers to regulate environmental stuff and is closer to the consumer market.

        • nxdefiant@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I legitimately am, this is a win, especially since the deposit is in an entirely different economic and political sphere of influence from where all the other lithium is.

          It’s just so easy to assume the worst when it happens so often.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t happen often. You hear about it happening often. Observation bias. No one reads an article “everything fine at the mine”. No, they read an article about a disaster from the 1970s caused by a scumbag.

            A lot of freaken work and regulations has gone into make sure chemical plants don’t explode and mining doesn’t mess things up for decades. And no one gets credit for that. Any site this big is going to have at least monthly inspections there from the local DEP. Taking soil samples, reviewing logs, checking for the very things you mentioned like getting into waterways. Which again, desert.

            The biggest environmental dangers I am betting they are going to have is a fight over city water and of course the normal greenhouse gas emissions that all of us are going to ignore.

  • elouboub@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now all they need is some poor immigrants to work on extracting it and they can make fat stacks

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why bring in immigrants when we have hundreds of children yearning for hard work and life building experiences.

      • elouboub@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is that the state where they signed into law that the work hours of children could be extended?

        along the Nevada–Oregon border

  • Tilgare@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s also 32 million metric tons in Niland, California that can be harvested with green energy. I assume the same could be done with this deposit. Could be very good for domestic battery production and cost.

      • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It means we don’t have to go to the Congo or through Russia, China, or others anymore. Which is a pretty big political relief because it means that we have a little bit more resource independence.

        Maybe even a way we could compete on the global market if we play our cards right.

        If they’re smart, they’ll use it to beef up our power grid for the global warming shock.

        Unfortunately, I imagine @poopa_mo is right, and this is just going to beef up someone’s bank account. Or rot in a warehouse.

        • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most Lithium comes from South America and Australia and has for some time. I do not believe that Lithium has ever had the geopolitical issues that other rare earth metals such as cobalt have had.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the difference between lithium and oil is that oil is a consumable. If the price of oil goes up, that has an instant effect on energy/transportation costs. If the price of lithium goes up, it’ll only affect the price of new batteries, and anything that’s already in use is unaffected. It’ll slow down investments in new projects, people might delay the purchase of a new car, etc, but it’s a way smaller economic impact.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no good reason to use lithium for utility-scale power storage. We need it for transportation because it has the best power compared to its weight. Utility storage doesn’t care as much about weight, and there are plenty of better options.

        • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The best way for it to beef up someone’s bank account is for us to play our cards right and use it to compete on the global market.

      • Mdotaut801@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bullshit. Look at “inflation” right now. Companies like food companies increased prices massively because everyone else was. No other reason.

    • htrayl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      China owning the vast majority of raw lithium is not the world you want to live in. The world absolutely benefits from a greater spread of lithium sources.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If this works out and is feasible it would be something of a game changer and would weaken some of our international dependencies