3 ms·

Could have done without the first paragraph. :) I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia (supply locked up by China) or Chile (read anything re: politics

Could have done without the first paragraph. :) I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia (supply locked up by China) or Chile (read anything re: politics last 5 years) as my sources. the general thrust that youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading instead of illuminating is correct. (requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??) and specifically only lithium, and Chile and Australia)

jdewerd 3y ago
> Could have done without the first paragraph. :) Sure, let's turn down the temperature. > youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading instead of illuminating Let's turn down the temperature. > I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia ... or Chile ... as my sources China is even less excited than you are to have Australia and Chile as their sources. Eliminating a small pain from the USA and a big pain from China gives a net benefit to China, so it's weird to see it advertised as a net benefit for the USA. That said, raw material availability isn't the limiting factor here. We probably shouldn't even be discussing it. > requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??) That's the alternative Na-ion has to beat. We could build lithium refining and manufacturing capacity in the US sphere of influence. Evaluations of any new technology should compare it to the best available alternatives, yes?
Qwertious 3y ago
>Australia (supply locked up by China) What's that based on? Australia exporting most of it to China doesn't prove anything except that China is a major trading partner for Australia. If the problem is securing lithium for the US, then 1) the US could buy more (Lithium is sold for cash, not given away), or 2) it could set up more mines in Nevada (which has a ton of lithium, and would have lower transport costs to boot).

jdewerd 3y ago

> Could have done without the first paragraph. :) Sure, let's turn down the temperature. > youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading instead of illuminating Let's turn down the temperature. > I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia ... or Chile ... as my sources China is even less excited than you are to have Australia and Chile as their sources. Eliminating a small pain from the USA and a big pain from China gives a net benefit to China, so it's weird to see it advertised as a net benefit for the USA. That said, raw material availability isn't the limiting factor here. We probably shouldn't even be discussing it. > requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??) That's the alternative Na-ion has to beat. We could build lithium refining and manufacturing capacity in the US sphere of influence. Evaluations of any new technology should compare it to the best available alternatives, yes?

Qwertious 3y ago

>Australia (supply locked up by China) What's that based on? Australia exporting most of it to China doesn't prove anything except that China is a major trading partner for Australia. If the problem is securing lithium for the US, then 1) the US could buy more (Lithium is sold for cash, not given away), or 2) it could set up more mines in Nevada (which has a ton of lithium, and would have lower transport costs to boot).