5 ms·

Seems to be a legitimate advance in a long-disregarded battery tech, I’d be very happy if this ends up reducing lithium mining.

danuker 4y ago
Indeed, and it might also drive down prices. Sodium and sulphur are much more abundant than Lithium (1150x and 260x respectively). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Does the 1150 take into account all the oceans full of NaCl? It sounds a little low.
- ddulaney 4y ago
  Sodium and sulphur are very cheap and easy to get, but not because of this. Sulphur is a byproduct of lots of different industrial processes, usually oil refining. Sodium is most commonly extracted from seawater. Frequency of elements in Earth's crust is a pretty poor approximation for how easy they are to mine.
- flavius29663 4y ago
  This wiki page has a surprising graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust#/media/File:Elemental_abundances.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth... The "rare earths" are actually just as common as Si. It just shows we won't be running out of them anytime soon, it's just a matter of finding ways to extract them.
  - squarefoot 4y ago
    Although, by looking at the places where they are more abundant, I wouldn't be too optimist, at least with the current geopolitical climate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/277268/rare-earth-reserves-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277268/rare-earth-reserv...
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Si is the symbol for silicon, which is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust (after oxygen.) The REEs are certainly not as abundant as that. Si is 270,000 ppm; cerium is 60 ppm.
    - flavius29663 4y ago
      You're right, I'm dumb, the graph is 0 at 10^6 Si. So rare earths are 1 million times more rare than Si. It's similar to copper and Nickel though
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Not a million times more rare, more like ~10,000 times. Also, Ni is more abundant in the oceanic crust than the continental crust. Lots of Ni in mantle rocks (peridotite is about 0.1% Ni.) It's interesting comparing the abundance of copper (and even more so, tin) and iron. It was a huge transition in resource availability when the iron age began.
  - ojbyrne 4y ago
    I’m not sure how you’re interpreting that graph, because Si (Silicon) and Na are orders of magnitude more common than the rare earths. You might have missed that it’s a logarithmic scale.
- usrusr 4y ago
  Is the material that ends up in the cell a significant part of the cost? If steel was free, ICE cars could be dozens of dollars cheaper than they are. I guess material costs are a much bigger factor in batteries, but in many other products is so low that "much bigger" could still be tiny.
hcarvalhoalves 4y ago
Yes. The electrification movement isn’t any “green” if you take into account the impact of current battery technology. PS: the impact of battery technology - I’m not only talking about mining but the entire cycle: usable life, reverse logistics, disposal and recycling, dealing w/ water and soil contamination.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Ah yes. Digging for coal or gas or oil, fracking, etc: just fine Mining for (significant less amount of) lithium or other metals: "oh look they're ruining the environment" As most discussions go, they're heavily biased towards the status quo
  - willnonya 4y ago
    Both of those can be bad at once you know... A lithium mine is much more devastating to the environment than an oil well or franking. That doesn't mean either of these are really good options despite what either side wants to pretend.
    - KyeRussell 4y ago
      This sort of both-sidesing doesn’t further the conversation at all. Do you really think the person you’re replying to doesn’t know that mining Lithium isn’t without its environmental costs? The person you’re replying to quite correctly notes that mining Lithium is an improvement over extracting coal, oil, and gas. The term “green” is so nebulous snd ill-defined that it’s not worth talking about. The best thing humanity can do for the earth is clearly to remove ourselves from it. Anything less than that is compromise. Sure. But sitting here saying “there’s no such thing as ethical consumption” doesn’t really get us anywhere.
    - MonkeyClub 4y ago
      Precisely; it’s not big oil propaganda to understand the environmental effects of lithium mining, just as it’s not lithium propaganda to acknowledge the equivalent consequences of the oil industry on the environment. But if we get to have a way to move at super-human speeds (ie > 5 km/h walking and > 30 km/h running), cheaply and without environmentally detrimental consequences, that’d be great :) (Fellow cyclists, I know, cycling is an excellent solution for single-person small- and mid-range movement. I’m thinking here of mass transportation and goods transportation, where it’d be hard to use cycle-powered lorries across continents.)
supportlocal4h 4y ago
Imagine a desalination process funded in part by producing battery-grade sodium. All you practical people who wait until there is real world manufacturing promise are missing out on the pleasure of wild imagination.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Imagination is great, but there's a blurry line between "imagine a thing and make it happen" and "tell happy stories instead of working". One belongs in science journals; the other belongs in Astounding Stories. Both have their place, and there's even some overlap, but it's no surprise that grumpiness occurs when the conversation crosses that blurry line too far (in either direction).
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  "we're all doomed" "wait, there's a new battery tech that could solve some of the long-standing problems with moving to a clean-energy abundant civilisation, and yesterday they achieved fusion ignition for the first time" "bah, these are all rubbish and will never make any difference, we're still all doomed"

danuker 4y ago

Indeed, and it might also drive down prices. Sodium and sulphur are much more abundant than Lithium (1150x and 260x respectively). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Does the 1150 take into account all the oceans full of NaCl? It sounds a little low.
ddulaney 4y ago
Sodium and sulphur are very cheap and easy to get, but not because of this. Sulphur is a byproduct of lots of different industrial processes, usually oil refining. Sodium is most commonly extracted from seawater. Frequency of elements in Earth's crust is a pretty poor approximation for how easy they are to mine.
flavius29663 4y ago
This wiki page has a surprising graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust#/media/File:Elemental_abundances.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth... The "rare earths" are actually just as common as Si. It just shows we won't be running out of them anytime soon, it's just a matter of finding ways to extract them.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  Although, by looking at the places where they are more abundant, I wouldn't be too optimist, at least with the current geopolitical climate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/277268/rare-earth-reserves-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277268/rare-earth-reserv...
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Si is the symbol for silicon, which is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust (after oxygen.) The REEs are certainly not as abundant as that. Si is 270,000 ppm; cerium is 60 ppm.
  - flavius29663 4y ago
    You're right, I'm dumb, the graph is 0 at 10^6 Si. So rare earths are 1 million times more rare than Si. It's similar to copper and Nickel though
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Not a million times more rare, more like ~10,000 times. Also, Ni is more abundant in the oceanic crust than the continental crust. Lots of Ni in mantle rocks (peridotite is about 0.1% Ni.) It's interesting comparing the abundance of copper (and even more so, tin) and iron. It was a huge transition in resource availability when the iron age began.
- ojbyrne 4y ago
  I’m not sure how you’re interpreting that graph, because Si (Silicon) and Na are orders of magnitude more common than the rare earths. You might have missed that it’s a logarithmic scale.
usrusr 4y ago
Is the material that ends up in the cell a significant part of the cost? If steel was free, ICE cars could be dozens of dollars cheaper than they are. I guess material costs are a much bigger factor in batteries, but in many other products is so low that "much bigger" could still be tiny.

hcarvalhoalves 4y ago

Yes. The electrification movement isn’t any “green” if you take into account the impact of current battery technology. PS: the impact of battery technology - I’m not only talking about mining but the entire cycle: usable life, reverse logistics, disposal and recycling, dealing w/ water and soil contamination.

raverbashing 4y ago
Ah yes. Digging for coal or gas or oil, fracking, etc: just fine Mining for (significant less amount of) lithium or other metals: "oh look they're ruining the environment" As most discussions go, they're heavily biased towards the status quo
- willnonya 4y ago
  Both of those can be bad at once you know... A lithium mine is much more devastating to the environment than an oil well or franking. That doesn't mean either of these are really good options despite what either side wants to pretend.
  - KyeRussell 4y ago
    This sort of both-sidesing doesn’t further the conversation at all. Do you really think the person you’re replying to doesn’t know that mining Lithium isn’t without its environmental costs? The person you’re replying to quite correctly notes that mining Lithium is an improvement over extracting coal, oil, and gas. The term “green” is so nebulous snd ill-defined that it’s not worth talking about. The best thing humanity can do for the earth is clearly to remove ourselves from it. Anything less than that is compromise. Sure. But sitting here saying “there’s no such thing as ethical consumption” doesn’t really get us anywhere.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    Precisely; it’s not big oil propaganda to understand the environmental effects of lithium mining, just as it’s not lithium propaganda to acknowledge the equivalent consequences of the oil industry on the environment. But if we get to have a way to move at super-human speeds (ie > 5 km/h walking and > 30 km/h running), cheaply and without environmentally detrimental consequences, that’d be great :) (Fellow cyclists, I know, cycling is an excellent solution for single-person small- and mid-range movement. I’m thinking here of mass transportation and goods transportation, where it’d be hard to use cycle-powered lorries across continents.)

supportlocal4h 4y ago

Imagine a desalination process funded in part by producing battery-grade sodium. All you practical people who wait until there is real world manufacturing promise are missing out on the pleasure of wild imagination.

jfengel 4y ago
Imagination is great, but there's a blurry line between "imagine a thing and make it happen" and "tell happy stories instead of working". One belongs in science journals; the other belongs in Astounding Stories. Both have their place, and there's even some overlap, but it's no surprise that grumpiness occurs when the conversation crosses that blurry line too far (in either direction).
marcus_holmes 4y ago
"we're all doomed" "wait, there's a new battery tech that could solve some of the long-standing problems with moving to a clean-energy abundant civilisation, and yesterday they achieved fusion ignition for the first time" "bah, these are all rubbish and will never make any difference, we're still all doomed"