3 ms·
Depends on how high. Hauling less weight means you need less energy storage. Plus lithium is horrible to mine not only for the environment but also because ever
by IgorPartola 1y ago
Depends on how high. Hauling less weight means you need less energy storage. Plus lithium is horrible to mine not only for the environment but also because every site is a completely different mining process. Alternatives would be very nice to have.
- Reason077 1y ago> "Plus lithium is horrible to mine not only for the environment" Lithium extraction has a tiny fraction of the environmental footprint compared to the global oil industry. It's a bit of a straw man argument to complain about the environmental credentials of batteries when the alternative is much worse.
- nomel 1y agoThe alternative to the alternative is much better, environmentally and (we'll have to wait and see final specs) technically by every single metric, other than momentum (both kinds).
- Reason077 1y agoWhat alternative are you referring to? You know that these solid state batteries still use lithium, right?
- nomel 1y agoMy understanding is that the there’s less, and potentially no, cobalt. Double checking, it looks like they haven’t made the composition public (and also haven’t finalized it). I guess we’ll have to wait and see for the environmental point (benefits of increased usage aside).
- Reason077 1y agoLess cobalt would certainly certainly be a win. But note that the majority of the world's EVs shipping today already have cobalt-free batteries in the form of LFP. But even if they're not cobalt-free and not cheaper, if Toyota have managed to combine NMC's energy density with LFP's safety profile and cycle life, that's a win already.
- nomel 1y agoOh wow, that was a quick change!