4 ms·

How sure are we that some new tech won't replace lithium ion batteries? I'd want to know that if I was investing in a mine.

nsnick 9y ago
The reason lithium is used for batteries is that it is an excellent anode the lightest metal. Lithium will always be used for batteries that need to be light.
- snowmaker 9y ago
  Relevant article from 11 days ago on sodium battery development: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938642
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    Comment from there: If price was the only factor that matters, we could be using nickel-metal-hydride batteries. They also last longer. + Lithium is safer as it seems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IT2I3LtlNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IT2I3LtlNE
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Sodium is not fundamentally better material than lithium, though. It's just a bit more abundant (but lithium is very abundant and can be extracted from actual ocean water, though because of lithium's abundance, that will never be the cheapest way to get lithium). Lithium is the third lightest element and the lightest (regular) metal. Sodium is much heavier.
- mrob 9y ago
  True, but we can't be sure that no breakthrough in fuel cells or supercapacitors will make batteries obsolete.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    We can't be sure that there won't be a breakthrough that will make all our phones and cars run on adenosine triphosphate, like everything else on this planet. But right now we have to work with what we have, and whatever knowledge and experience we thus gain will likely be useful post-unexpected-breakthroughs anyway.
    - mrob 9y ago
      According to Wikipedia: ATP + H2O → AMP + PPi ΔG° = −45.6 kJ/mol (−10.9 kcal/mol) And at 507.18g/mol + 18g/mol for the water, that's only about 87J/g, which is worse than lithium ion batteries.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        In terms of energy density, maybe, but the magic of ATP is the whole process of creating it and the precision with which it is used to power things :).
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      ATP is not a storage medium. That's like withing to make cars run on electricity. Duh! Generating that electricity on demand is still the hard part.
  - skrebbel 9y ago
    Yes we can, because "breakthroughs" don't happen over night. There's often at least a decade between the first lab result and wide industrialization of technologies like these. That means you can use today's lab results to predict the "breakthroughs" in 10 years. I'm no expert whatsoever but if there's no promising lab results currently for lighter batteries than lithium, then I doubt they'll be replaced any time soon.
- fpoling 9y ago
  Battery based on aluminium theoretically can have much better capacity than lithium both per volume and per weight. But it is much harder to make batteries from it. Still there were a progress of making non-rechargeable fuel cells based on aluminium. As aluminium is safer to handle even compared with gasoline, loading/unloading few bars of it from a car should not be a problem.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
A new tech may or may not replace lithium ion. But, I think that energy storage and logistics may change into a heirarchy. The power company or energy creation things will be at the bottom. Battery's above that and then new things like super-capacitors or new types of batteries like software defined batteries. The competing technologies don't have to eliminate the other solutions they can work on side of them until they reach where they should be.
cpursley 9y ago
> can increasing scientific knowledge and technological innovation overcome any limitations to economic growth posed by the depletion of non-renewable resources? > Stanford University economist Paul Romer has observed, "Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding: possibilities do not merely add up; they multiply.” http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/peak-everything http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/peak-everything
- kpennell 9y ago
  You'd like Ramez Naam's 'infinite resource' if you like this quote.
- srtjstjsj 9y ago
  on the other hand, population does not simply add up, it multiplies. _Reason_ magazine ignores the existence of famine and war and pollution. Abundance is not a law of nature.

nsnick 9y ago

The reason lithium is used for batteries is that it is an excellent anode the lightest metal. Lithium will always be used for batteries that need to be light.

snowmaker 9y ago
Relevant article from 11 days ago on sodium battery development: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15938642
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  Comment from there: If price was the only factor that matters, we could be using nickel-metal-hydride batteries. They also last longer. + Lithium is safer as it seems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IT2I3LtlNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IT2I3LtlNE
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Sodium is not fundamentally better material than lithium, though. It's just a bit more abundant (but lithium is very abundant and can be extracted from actual ocean water, though because of lithium's abundance, that will never be the cheapest way to get lithium). Lithium is the third lightest element and the lightest (regular) metal. Sodium is much heavier.
mrob 9y ago
True, but we can't be sure that no breakthrough in fuel cells or supercapacitors will make batteries obsolete.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  We can't be sure that there won't be a breakthrough that will make all our phones and cars run on adenosine triphosphate, like everything else on this planet. But right now we have to work with what we have, and whatever knowledge and experience we thus gain will likely be useful post-unexpected-breakthroughs anyway.
  - mrob 9y ago
    According to Wikipedia: ATP + H2O → AMP + PPi ΔG° = −45.6 kJ/mol (−10.9 kcal/mol) And at 507.18g/mol + 18g/mol for the water, that's only about 87J/g, which is worse than lithium ion batteries.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      In terms of energy density, maybe, but the magic of ATP is the whole process of creating it and the precision with which it is used to power things :).
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    ATP is not a storage medium. That's like withing to make cars run on electricity. Duh! Generating that electricity on demand is still the hard part.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Yes we can, because "breakthroughs" don't happen over night. There's often at least a decade between the first lab result and wide industrialization of technologies like these. That means you can use today's lab results to predict the "breakthroughs" in 10 years. I'm no expert whatsoever but if there's no promising lab results currently for lighter batteries than lithium, then I doubt they'll be replaced any time soon.
fpoling 9y ago
Battery based on aluminium theoretically can have much better capacity than lithium both per volume and per weight. But it is much harder to make batteries from it. Still there were a progress of making non-rechargeable fuel cells based on aluminium. As aluminium is safer to handle even compared with gasoline, loading/unloading few bars of it from a car should not be a problem.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

A new tech may or may not replace lithium ion. But, I think that energy storage and logistics may change into a heirarchy. The power company or energy creation things will be at the bottom. Battery's above that and then new things like super-capacitors or new types of batteries like software defined batteries. The competing technologies don't have to eliminate the other solutions they can work on side of them until they reach where they should be.

cpursley 9y ago

> can increasing scientific knowledge and technological innovation overcome any limitations to economic growth posed by the depletion of non-renewable resources? > Stanford University economist Paul Romer has observed, "Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding: possibilities do not merely add up; they multiply.” http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/peak-everything http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/peak-everything

kpennell 9y ago
You'd like Ramez Naam's 'infinite resource' if you like this quote.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
on the other hand, population does not simply add up, it multiplies. _Reason_ magazine ignores the existence of famine and war and pollution. Abundance is not a law of nature.