4 ms·

I already responded to you elsewhere. Perhaps you ignored it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460846 Catho

I already responded to you elsewhere. Perhaps you ignored it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460846 Cathodes are not a giant chunk of elemental lithium, as you believe.

Manuel_D 4y ago
But lithium still dominates the cost of the cathode. Iron is not the main driver of battery expenses.
- coder543 4y ago
  13% is not 50%. It makes a huge difference in the cost scaling under discussion. In fact, nickel dominates the cost of the cathode, in case you missed what I had posted. But there are nickel-free chemistries out there.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    And for those nickel-free battery chemistries, what inputs are the main cost drivers? And as per my response, nickel is also experiencing shortages and cost spikes. My core assertion remains true regardless of the fact that different chemistries require different inputs: battery production has become a resource extraction problem, rather than a manufacturing problem. Unless we find a way to somehow make mining exponentially more efficient, we're not going to be seeing exponential growth in battery production.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Your core assertion remains false because (1) lithium is not the only battery chemistry, and (2) batteries are not the only, or even cheapest, storage technology. CAT-L, the biggest battery maker in the world, is today ramping up sodium battery production capacity. Will you now insist on a sodium supply bottleneck?
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Lithium is the only viable battery chemistry we have presently. Lead acid decays after 100-200 cycles. Who knows if sodium will be viable, it'd be a lot better to argue for its efficacy when it's actually on the market. The other forms of storage have other shortcomings: hydroelectric storage is geographically dependent. Most of the other form of storage people are mentioning in this tread have never been operated outside of prototypes: like hydrogen electrolysis or compressed air. Again, technological feasibility and market viability are two vastly different things. If compressed air storage works, but it's more expensive than nuclear power what's the point?
        moloch-hai 4y ago
        Lithium is not, in fact, the only viable battery chemistry. CAT-L, the world's largest maker of batteries, is today ramping up production of sodium batteries. Numerous other chemistries are also being fielded, at $billions scale. Pumped hydro storage is not, in fact, geographically dependent: there are a lot of hills (which you knew). Compressed air is used in production (which you knew). Hydrogen electrolysis is operated in the millions of tons (which you knew). Relying on falsehoods is a strange way to argue. It depends on your audience remaining ignorant.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        And then there are various thermal storage schemes. Pumped thermal (reversible thermal cycle with hot and cold storage) could have up to a 75% round trip efficiency with cheap materials and no geographical restrictions. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        And has anyone actually built an electrical thermal storage system - not district heating - with 75% round trip efficiency? Or is this just more marketing hype?
        4y ago

Manuel_D 4y ago

But lithium still dominates the cost of the cathode. Iron is not the main driver of battery expenses.

coder543 4y ago
13% is not 50%. It makes a huge difference in the cost scaling under discussion. In fact, nickel dominates the cost of the cathode, in case you missed what I had posted. But there are nickel-free chemistries out there.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  And for those nickel-free battery chemistries, what inputs are the main cost drivers? And as per my response, nickel is also experiencing shortages and cost spikes. My core assertion remains true regardless of the fact that different chemistries require different inputs: battery production has become a resource extraction problem, rather than a manufacturing problem. Unless we find a way to somehow make mining exponentially more efficient, we're not going to be seeing exponential growth in battery production.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Your core assertion remains false because (1) lithium is not the only battery chemistry, and (2) batteries are not the only, or even cheapest, storage technology. CAT-L, the biggest battery maker in the world, is today ramping up sodium battery production capacity. Will you now insist on a sodium supply bottleneck?
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Lithium is the only viable battery chemistry we have presently. Lead acid decays after 100-200 cycles. Who knows if sodium will be viable, it'd be a lot better to argue for its efficacy when it's actually on the market. The other forms of storage have other shortcomings: hydroelectric storage is geographically dependent. Most of the other form of storage people are mentioning in this tread have never been operated outside of prototypes: like hydrogen electrolysis or compressed air. Again, technological feasibility and market viability are two vastly different things. If compressed air storage works, but it's more expensive than nuclear power what's the point?
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Lithium is not, in fact, the only viable battery chemistry. CAT-L, the world's largest maker of batteries, is today ramping up production of sodium batteries. Numerous other chemistries are also being fielded, at $billions scale. Pumped hydro storage is not, in fact, geographically dependent: there are a lot of hills (which you knew). Compressed air is used in production (which you knew). Hydrogen electrolysis is operated in the millions of tons (which you knew). Relying on falsehoods is a strange way to argue. It depends on your audience remaining ignorant.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        And then there are various thermal storage schemes. Pumped thermal (reversible thermal cycle with hot and cold storage) could have up to a 75% round trip efficiency with cheap materials and no geographical restrictions. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4994054
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        And has anyone actually built an electrical thermal storage system - not district heating - with 75% round trip efficiency? Or is this just more marketing hype?
        4y ago