6 ms·

I like that the article doesn't answer or even ask the question in the title: "How long?". But the tl;dr seems to be that while lithium is cheaper than sodium,

I like that the article doesn't answer or even ask the question in the title: "How long?". But the tl;dr seems to be that while lithium is cheaper than sodium, the performance is way worse and practical problems remain. And a startup making a vaporware-ish promise of 2020. Lithium batteries is 50 year old technology, so I guess one might be optimistic and halve that. Unless there's a big, unforeseen lithium supply or production crunch coming, I'd expect sodium batteries to be common in about 25 years then?

sremani 9y ago
I agree with you, the bigger problem with Li-ion is that once they become popular, there are about six countries with massive deposits of Li. Even among them, the most are in Chile-Bolovia-Argentina triangle. The more popular Li-ion gets the more scarce or expensive Li becomes (say 10 years from now), so we have to move to batteries made of really abundant resources like Na (sodium). 2040 seems to be about right time, Startfor science analyst predicted something like that an year or so ago.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Wonder how cost effective nuclear transmutation of H into Li could become, depending on demand
  - pjc50 9y ago
    You can extract it from seawater far more easily.
  - hliyan 9y ago
    I'm surprised it's not more abundant. Usually, the smaller the atomic number, the more abundant the element is in the universe. But surprisingly, Lithium, Beryllium and Boron are not that abundant (compared to, say, Carbon). Edit: at least not in the Earth's crust...
    - taneq 9y ago
      I thought this was a good question so I looked it up. While on average, lighter elements are more common, it looks like after hydrogen and helium, the rest are far less common and not in atomic mass order ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elem... ). This seems to be due to matter being created in two phases, primordial nucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis) where hydrogen and helium formed out of protons and neutrons, and then later stellar neucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis) where heavier elements were formed inside stars via fusion. This explains the distribution of heavier elements, because they were created by specific fusion pathways rather than just hot stuff cooling down.
      - jessriedel 9y ago
        My guess is that that explanation doesn't provide even a good first approximation to the abundances of element in the Earth's crust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth... I think there's just a lot of chemistry and geology going on.
        taneq 9y ago
        I think neither chemistry nor geology can alter the relative abundance of elements.
        jessriedel 9y ago
        You'd be wrong. First, light gases escape from the Earth's gravity, which is why there's no molecular hydrogen or almost any helium whatsoever. Second, the crust is not the same thing as the Earth, and the distribution of elements by depth depends a lot on the density and other properties of the material elements are chemically bonded into.
- Retric 9y ago
  You need about 1kg of lithium per kWh of battery, which is not nothing but Lithium is common and not used up by battery's making this far less significant than many assume. It's actually fairly common, we have ~700 times as much carbon but coal is 32$ per ton and the United States produces 1 billion tons of coal per year. Divide that by ~700 and your talking about a billion 1kwh batteries per year before recycling comes into play.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    I think it's more like 1kg per 10 kWh. 1kg/kWh sounded too much to me, so I did a quick Google search: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_content_of_pure_lithium_eg_kg_kWh_in_Li-ion_batteries_used_in_electric_vehicles https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_content_of_pur...
    - Retric 9y ago
      That actually sounds more reasonable, I was using "63 kg of lithium in a 70 kWh Tesla Model S battery pack" from here: https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla-batteries-possible-bottleneck/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla... Anyway, my point was we currently mine highly concentrated lithium, but as long as we are willing to spend more it's not going to be an issue because it's not used up and overall it's very abundant.
- awalton 9y ago
  We have no issue with lithium scarcity - it's tremendously abundant on earth, and we could recycle old batteries if we gave a damn... the lithium is just not currently worth recovering, that's how damned common it is. The problem now is the huge demand outstripping the on-hand supply, which has caused lithium prices to soar... but this year has seen a surge in new lithium projects and companies like Albemarle have seen their share prices surge accordingly. We've also seen numerous new projects in the Americas start producing lithium. Just let supply and demand fix this market, and it'll be smooth sailing. ...Cobalt, otoh, is more worrisome in the upcoming future and much, much worse to mine. Western demand for L-ion batteries has had China turn Africa into a wasteland (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/c...) in search for more and more cobalt and copper to keep electrification projects going. But it's not all bad news. There are alternative lithium chemistries that use less or no cobalt, just to date they either don't offer the same energy density or are not practical for mass production yet (lithium-sulfur).
scriptproof 9y ago
It is hard to compete with a new technology against an older that was optimized for decades (see electric cars). But in the present case, resources in lithium are not unlimited so we expect its cost to rise in the future.
- davidgerard 9y ago
  Note that it took a decade or so before lithium batteries were reliable and trustworthy. I remember every second report in the '80s being "fascinating technology! huge capacity! whoops it caught fire again, but" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery#Lithium_and_lithium-ion_batteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery#Lithium...
Gibbon1 9y ago
I keep reading that there is an issue with sodium ion batteries in that the sodium ions are larger and tend to change size as they are absorbed by the anode. Which tends to degrade the anode quickly. Answer might turn out to be never, as with a bunch of replacement candidates for silicon in semiconductors. Most have failed except for niche applications. GAS for radio front ends, etc, others for LED's.

sremani 9y ago

I agree with you, the bigger problem with Li-ion is that once they become popular, there are about six countries with massive deposits of Li. Even among them, the most are in Chile-Bolovia-Argentina triangle. The more popular Li-ion gets the more scarce or expensive Li becomes (say 10 years from now), so we have to move to batteries made of really abundant resources like Na (sodium). 2040 seems to be about right time, Startfor science analyst predicted something like that an year or so ago.

raverbashing 9y ago
Wonder how cost effective nuclear transmutation of H into Li could become, depending on demand
- pjc50 9y ago
  You can extract it from seawater far more easily.
- hliyan 9y ago
  I'm surprised it's not more abundant. Usually, the smaller the atomic number, the more abundant the element is in the universe. But surprisingly, Lithium, Beryllium and Boron are not that abundant (compared to, say, Carbon). Edit: at least not in the Earth's crust...
  - taneq 9y ago
    I thought this was a good question so I looked it up. While on average, lighter elements are more common, it looks like after hydrogen and helium, the rest are far less common and not in atomic mass order ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elem... ). This seems to be due to matter being created in two phases, primordial nucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis) where hydrogen and helium formed out of protons and neutrons, and then later stellar neucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis) where heavier elements were formed inside stars via fusion. This explains the distribution of heavier elements, because they were created by specific fusion pathways rather than just hot stuff cooling down.
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      My guess is that that explanation doesn't provide even a good first approximation to the abundances of element in the Earth's crust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth... I think there's just a lot of chemistry and geology going on.
      - taneq 9y ago
        I think neither chemistry nor geology can alter the relative abundance of elements.
        jessriedel 9y ago
        You'd be wrong. First, light gases escape from the Earth's gravity, which is why there's no molecular hydrogen or almost any helium whatsoever. Second, the crust is not the same thing as the Earth, and the distribution of elements by depth depends a lot on the density and other properties of the material elements are chemically bonded into.
Retric 9y ago
You need about 1kg of lithium per kWh of battery, which is not nothing but Lithium is common and not used up by battery's making this far less significant than many assume. It's actually fairly common, we have ~700 times as much carbon but coal is 32$ per ton and the United States produces 1 billion tons of coal per year. Divide that by ~700 and your talking about a billion 1kwh batteries per year before recycling comes into play.
- mtgx 9y ago
  I think it's more like 1kg per 10 kWh. 1kg/kWh sounded too much to me, so I did a quick Google search: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_content_of_pure_lithium_eg_kg_kWh_in_Li-ion_batteries_used_in_electric_vehicles https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_content_of_pur...
  - Retric 9y ago
    That actually sounds more reasonable, I was using "63 kg of lithium in a 70 kWh Tesla Model S battery pack" from here: https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla-batteries-possible-bottleneck/ https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/breakdown-raw-materials-tesla... Anyway, my point was we currently mine highly concentrated lithium, but as long as we are willing to spend more it's not going to be an issue because it's not used up and overall it's very abundant.
awalton 9y ago
We have no issue with lithium scarcity - it's tremendously abundant on earth, and we could recycle old batteries if we gave a damn... the lithium is just not currently worth recovering, that's how damned common it is. The problem now is the huge demand outstripping the on-hand supply, which has caused lithium prices to soar... but this year has seen a surge in new lithium projects and companies like Albemarle have seen their share prices surge accordingly. We've also seen numerous new projects in the Americas start producing lithium. Just let supply and demand fix this market, and it'll be smooth sailing. ...Cobalt, otoh, is more worrisome in the upcoming future and much, much worse to mine. Western demand for L-ion batteries has had China turn Africa into a wasteland (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/c...) in search for more and more cobalt and copper to keep electrification projects going. But it's not all bad news. There are alternative lithium chemistries that use less or no cobalt, just to date they either don't offer the same energy density or are not practical for mass production yet (lithium-sulfur).

scriptproof 9y ago

It is hard to compete with a new technology against an older that was optimized for decades (see electric cars). But in the present case, resources in lithium are not unlimited so we expect its cost to rise in the future.

davidgerard 9y ago
Note that it took a decade or so before lithium batteries were reliable and trustworthy. I remember every second report in the '80s being "fascinating technology! huge capacity! whoops it caught fire again, but" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery#Lithium_and_lithium-ion_batteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery#Lithium...

Gibbon1 9y ago

I keep reading that there is an issue with sodium ion batteries in that the sodium ions are larger and tend to change size as they are absorbed by the anode. Which tends to degrade the anode quickly. Answer might turn out to be never, as with a bunch of replacement candidates for silicon in semiconductors. Most have failed except for niche applications. GAS for radio front ends, etc, others for LED's.