Scientists develop ‘cheap and easy’ method to extract lithium from seawater(mining.com)
mining.com
Scientists develop ‘cheap and easy’ method to extract lithium from seawater
https://www.mining.com/scientists-develop-cheap-and-easy-method-to-extract-lithium-from-seawater/
298 comments
How is lithium a conflict mineral? 51k tons mined in Australia, then the other top 3 countries are Argentina 16k, Chile and china 8k.
If you want to speak of conflict minerals for EVs, cobalt is WAY more problematic, since it is far more rare and mined mostly in the DRC, where we know child labor and starvation pay is given for the work that allows EV cathodes their precious Co.
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2020/03/lithium...
If you want to speak of conflict minerals for EVs, cobalt is WAY more problematic, since it is far more rare and mined mostly in the DRC, where we know child labor and starvation pay is given for the work that allows EV cathodes their precious Co.
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2020/03/lithium...
Portugal is on the top ten of reserves. Its very concerning
how lobbying pressure to buy political influence is already starting.
Having mineral resources its kind of a curse:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268790/countries-with-th...
Having mineral resources its kind of a curse:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268790/countries-with-th...
I am working the big Albemarle project in Western Australia, plenty of conflict in the project teams...
On the last day of the month, do you get to keep as much lithium as you can carry home? I'm not sure how we can make a joke about conflict minerals.
You can make a joke because that, while conflict minerals are horrible and cause enormous damage to human life, the conflicts between people on a team are also very small. Comparing the two as if they are equivalent, when we all know they aren't, is funny.
You have no idea, there's been 2.5 years of it and the toll on some people has been severe. An impossible contract was signed and this has created some very perverse outcomes.
Yes, but only in the form of carbonate tablets
Hello fellow resource-sector sandgroper!
Some countries use children to mine lithium
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/amnesty-internat...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/amnesty-internat...
That report is about mining cobalt, which has many applications including lithium batteries.
yes.
Bolivia has only recently defeated a US-backed coup.
The idea that the Bolivian transfer of power was motivated by lithium scarcity doesn't make sense, because there's more than enough lithium outside of Bolivia (or even South America) to prevent them from gaining a stranglehold on the price. Also, you're accusing the Trump administration of having a long-term view of a low-carbon future, which is itself suspect.
What makes a lot more sense is that the US doesn't want China to gain a reliable and possibly even prosperous ally on the South American mainland. While Bolivia will not meaningfully affect the global supply of lithium, the demand for lithium will absolutely affect the economic future of Bolivia, and could even make it a regional power. With the Second Cold War increasingly going global, every square on the chessboard counts.
However, the evidence for US involvement in the overthrow of Morales so far consists of a strongly worded letter from OAS, while the fact that Morales actually lost a referendum asking if he should be allowed to run for a fourth term suggests that there was significant internal opposition to his reelection. But Elon Musk made a tasteless joke on Twitter, so that confirms it.
What makes a lot more sense is that the US doesn't want China to gain a reliable and possibly even prosperous ally on the South American mainland. While Bolivia will not meaningfully affect the global supply of lithium, the demand for lithium will absolutely affect the economic future of Bolivia, and could even make it a regional power. With the Second Cold War increasingly going global, every square on the chessboard counts.
However, the evidence for US involvement in the overthrow of Morales so far consists of a strongly worded letter from OAS, while the fact that Morales actually lost a referendum asking if he should be allowed to run for a fourth term suggests that there was significant internal opposition to his reelection. But Elon Musk made a tasteless joke on Twitter, so that confirms it.
Just because there are other sources doesn’t mean capitalists won’t try to get control over Bolivia’s. The US permanent state also doesn’t depend on a specific administration; the interests of industry, banking and monopoly capitalists are always served, with minimal variation.
The fascists that staged the coup had long been supported by the US, the OAS is merely one small part of the imperialist apparatus. And Elon Musk doesn’t need to be in on it to recognise he would benefit.
The fascists that staged the coup had long been supported by the US, the OAS is merely one small part of the imperialist apparatus. And Elon Musk doesn’t need to be in on it to recognise he would benefit.
[deleted]
After reading up on the situation it's probably less to do with lithium and more with the US's "left hand shoving cocaine up our noses while right hand slaps South American countries for making it" policy.
Morales was anti-US influence, pro-coca. The right wingers and Evangelicals were against him, and Morales was socialist... basically fits the profile of exactly the type of leader the CIA would try to depose.
Morales was anti-US influence, pro-coca. The right wingers and Evangelicals were against him, and Morales was socialist... basically fits the profile of exactly the type of leader the CIA would try to depose.
Was lithium the purpose or are there greater issues at hand and Bolivia happens to have lithium deposits?
The timing is highly suspect, right after Bolivia refused a ~5% offer of joint extraction from a German company in favour of a 50% one from a Chinese one. The US also has a long history of aggression for resources.
It could be more than just that too, the Monroe doctrine is alive and well. All South American anti-imperialists get attacked by the US.
It could be more than just that too, the Monroe doctrine is alive and well. All South American anti-imperialists get attacked by the US.
And Elon supported this explicitly.
https://twitter.com/panoparker/status/1318157559266762752?s=...
https://twitter.com/panoparker/status/1318157559266762752?s=...
I'm about as far from a Musk fan as it is possible to be, but this is so clearly a joke that it take a real effort to read some kind of evil intent into it (beyond Musk's normal "I'm trolling on Twitter" annoying nature).
But I've seen people claim this before - I'm curious if there is a source this keeps coming from?
But I've seen people claim this before - I'm curious if there is a source this keeps coming from?
The line between insincere/sarcastic trolling and genuine sincerity has been blurred by people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who seem to freely dabble in both and sometimes use the former to excuse the later. I think understandably, some people have grown fed up with this and have decided to treat all tweets from these men as sincere tweets, to deny these men the use of 'I was just joking' to walk-back sincere remarks.
I agree with this treatment of the "joking... not joking" style of trolling.
I think this individual tweet is the sole evidence cited for Musk's supposed support, and that seems a long bow to draw from it (an equally sinciere reading would be that it is Musk's take on the history of coups in South America),
I think this individual tweet is the sole evidence cited for Musk's supposed support, and that seems a long bow to draw from it (an equally sinciere reading would be that it is Musk's take on the history of coups in South America),
[deleted]
Just throwing this out there, but a lot of working class contractor type drive a RAM/Ford/Chevy 1 ton class diesel trucks with mega cab that typically runs in the neighborhood of 50-70k, so these people WILL transition to electric. I already know republican types in rural areas that even want to get the Cybertruck (even if it means looking like one of those rich types).
My 3/4 ton gas pickup truck gets 8 miles per gallon towing 12 thousand pounds hundreds of miles a month. I blow through multiple Teslas worth of energy per drive. No way is this thing going to be replaced by anything even remotely resembling the lithium ion batteries of today. And even if such a magical thing existed, I would need to charge it somewhere at over 100 amps to be useful.
We need more nuclear power plants sequestering atmosphere carbon dioxide into liquid fuels. My job sites in rural counties lose power regularly in sunny calm wind conditions. I would be utterly helpless and stuck regularly if my vehicle strongly depended on the electrical grid.
Liquid fuels carry so much energy per liter I can store a massive amount of energy in a compact package. This is more important to me than pulling a 55 foot semi trailer filled to the brim with 18650s to have enough energy to tow. I cringe at the cost of lithium ion batteries to meet my energy requirements. God forbid those batteries freeze! Now my precious expensive batteries are destroyed.
We will see electric trucks in the near future on a very small subset of routes where reliable electrical connectivity is available.
We need more nuclear power plants sequestering atmosphere carbon dioxide into liquid fuels. My job sites in rural counties lose power regularly in sunny calm wind conditions. I would be utterly helpless and stuck regularly if my vehicle strongly depended on the electrical grid.
Liquid fuels carry so much energy per liter I can store a massive amount of energy in a compact package. This is more important to me than pulling a 55 foot semi trailer filled to the brim with 18650s to have enough energy to tow. I cringe at the cost of lithium ion batteries to meet my energy requirements. God forbid those batteries freeze! Now my precious expensive batteries are destroyed.
We will see electric trucks in the near future on a very small subset of routes where reliable electrical connectivity is available.
The vast majority of non-commercial truck use is not towing or hauling. Just look at the pickups you see on the road. Most are just luxury vehicles at this point. Not much difference than a slightly more practical sportscar.
I would love for you cite your sources on this...
For Ford, the most popular Truck, 50-60% of Trucks are F150 XL, or XLT, the XL is the base work truck, the XLT as the common features but not level of luxury of the Lariat, or Platinum Trucks.
For Ford, the most popular Truck, 50-60% of Trucks are F150 XL, or XLT, the XL is the base work truck, the XLT as the common features but not level of luxury of the Lariat, or Platinum Trucks.
Was just my observation on the road in the Western USA. I think the stats you have include fleet and commercial which frequently buy the base models, I was just talking about non-commercial use.
Lots of the guys you see driving pickups without hauling might have boats or trailers which are normally at home but they tow from time to time and they need to be capable of doing that.
You can't own medium or larger sized boat or trailer if you don't have a truck to pull it with without jumping through massive hoops like borrowing, renting one, or putting together a dangerous contraption on a vehicle not legally rated to pulling that weight.
You can't own medium or larger sized boat or trailer if you don't have a truck to pull it with without jumping through massive hoops like borrowing, renting one, or putting together a dangerous contraption on a vehicle not legally rated to pulling that weight.
I agree there are many truck owners who do not work their trucks and they would benefit from an electric truck. But it is important not to over estimate this number. GMC/Chevy have been putting out a turbocharged four cylinder since 2019 for this crowd. I can't fathom spending so much money on a truck that can't tow much reliably. Funnily enough the V6 version gets better fuel economy on the highway by 1 MPG. These things really are limited by their terrible aerodynamics. That said, the shape of the regular pickup truck is a perfect use of space once you make use of every aspect of it, from cargo area, hitches, rear seat areas, to engine maintenance. I wouldn't want a different shape truck because it is very compact as-is.
I was thinking about this recently. If we had an efficient way to sequester atmospheric carbon at scale, particularly if it could be done in such a way that it was backwards compatible with existing gasoline and/or diesel engines (perhaps in a formulation with biofuels and/or other sustainably sourced fuels), wouldn't it be preferable to roll that out "overnight" rather than rely on replacing the majority of existing cars with electric alternatives? Maybe there would still be room for both if gas and electric have properties that are nice for different use cases, but at least you wouldn't have to significantly prefer one over the other for environmental reasons.
Further, wouldn't this essentially solve the storage problem with renewables? If the tech were easily scalable / didn't rely on any scare materials, it would essentially be a type of battery that could be used in combination with existing fossil fuel plants (and nuclear of course) for baseline load.
Which, now that I think about it, would actually make any kind of green new deal much more politically viable. If the fossil fuel plants and gas stations get to keep running, it's that much fewer jobs we're axing and hoping to replace with better alternatives.
Further, wouldn't this essentially solve the storage problem with renewables? If the tech were easily scalable / didn't rely on any scare materials, it would essentially be a type of battery that could be used in combination with existing fossil fuel plants (and nuclear of course) for baseline load.
Which, now that I think about it, would actually make any kind of green new deal much more politically viable. If the fossil fuel plants and gas stations get to keep running, it's that much fewer jobs we're axing and hoping to replace with better alternatives.
>> I already know republican types in rural areas that even want to get the Cybertruck
I call BS on that, of the many many many Truck owners I know maybe 10% have any interest in the Cybertruck... Of that 10% none of them use their truck for work or as an actual truck
The CyberTruck is targeting Late Gen X and Millennials the grew up with 80's and 90's movies with nostalgia, not a practical usable truck
Now the F150 Lightening that has about 60-70+% of the Truck Owners I know interested
I call BS on that, of the many many many Truck owners I know maybe 10% have any interest in the Cybertruck... Of that 10% none of them use their truck for work or as an actual truck
The CyberTruck is targeting Late Gen X and Millennials the grew up with 80's and 90's movies with nostalgia, not a practical usable truck
Now the F150 Lightening that has about 60-70+% of the Truck Owners I know interested
Doesn't matter who you vote for if you can show up to a work site with a Diesel-Electric hybrid that has enough torque to unsafely tow a loaded semi trailer and power everything needed for the day. Truck manufacturers will figure it out over the next decade.
Next decade? Try next year. The F150 Lightning will absolutely dominate the fleet truck space if it comes anywhere close to delivering the promised specs.
Assuming they have where to charge it
Irrelevant for fleet trucks, which travel relatively short distances compared to commuter vehicles and always stay at the company yard overnight.
A large charging network is really only relevant to regular consumers, and even that is more of a psychological reassurance than a strict requirement given measured consumer behavior.
A large charging network is really only relevant to regular consumers, and even that is more of a psychological reassurance than a strict requirement given measured consumer behavior.
I mean that the company would have to wire their yard to charge a fleet. One charging station at home is one thing, but 25 sounds like a much bigger project from an infrastructure standpoint
I personally am not interested in the Cybertruck until it gets more mainstream. The thing is a target for every disgruntled driver who sees it in a parking lot. Telsa's already seem to be targeted frequently[0]. I don't need that kind of grief in my life.
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzpNC2zMAys (dramatic, but there are plenty more of these kinds of videos)
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzpNC2zMAys (dramatic, but there are plenty more of these kinds of videos)
I planned on jumping straight to a diesel Prius.
That way both sides hate me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QXTKWBtke8
That way both sides hate me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QXTKWBtke8
Nah, that's just boring. Go with a diesel Insight. There have been a few diesel swaps on the 1st gen Insights that manage the same or better fuel economy than the gas hybrid version.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/38291/this-2000-honda-insight-...
The Honda hybrid tech of that time is a lot easier to swap engines on. A Prius has the motors in the transmission, so it's harder to simply bolt a new engine on. You'd have to either drive the transaxle with your own control algorithms, or figure out another way to make it behave with a different engine. The Honda electric motor was on the engine crankshaft, and you could get the Insight with a manual transmission, so it's really just "bolt in the motor and go."
https://www.thedrive.com/news/38291/this-2000-honda-insight-...
The Honda hybrid tech of that time is a lot easier to swap engines on. A Prius has the motors in the transmission, so it's harder to simply bolt a new engine on. You'd have to either drive the transaxle with your own control algorithms, or figure out another way to make it behave with a different engine. The Honda electric motor was on the engine crankshaft, and you could get the Insight with a manual transmission, so it's really just "bolt in the motor and go."
But of course you'd get a diesel Prius or Insight only to be "rolling coal" with it.
EDIT: Sorry, only watched the YouTube clip now -- OMG, seems that was the purpose! Sheesh, you think you're making an obviously absurd jokey take on something... America, you never (cease to) disappoint.
EDIT: Sorry, only watched the YouTube clip now -- OMG, seems that was the purpose! Sheesh, you think you're making an obviously absurd jokey take on something... America, you never (cease to) disappoint.
Anecdotally, macho gearhead types seem to generally respect the premise diesel-electrics, because freight trains. Because it's been so successful in locomotives, these sort see diesel-electric as proven, powerful, and sufficiently macho.
No, this is a good thing.
All Tesla's have cameras running on them nearly all the time. Any "disgruntled" driver who does any amount of various illegal things to them can easily be found and punished in the legal system. Quickest way to end the bullshit.
All Tesla's have cameras running on them nearly all the time. Any "disgruntled" driver who does any amount of various illegal things to them can easily be found and punished in the legal system. Quickest way to end the bullshit.
In Germany, this would probably end badly for the owner of the car doing the filming in a public space and the vandal would probably walk free with his/ her legal fees getting paid by the owner of the car, if the vandal would caught at all. It is illegal to monitor a public space and violates personality rights.
A reasonable judge might perhaps give the owner of the car a hefty fine for violating personal rights and order the vandal to pay for the damage. IANAL. Either way, I don't see it as a winning strategy to film anything in a public space in Germany, it will get you in trouble and will most likely not solve anything.
I think vandalism is the kind of thing that cannot be excused in adults. Certainly damaging anybody's car on purpose is something only a complete idiot would do.
A reasonable judge might perhaps give the owner of the car a hefty fine for violating personal rights and order the vandal to pay for the damage. IANAL. Either way, I don't see it as a winning strategy to film anything in a public space in Germany, it will get you in trouble and will most likely not solve anything.
I think vandalism is the kind of thing that cannot be excused in adults. Certainly damaging anybody's car on purpose is something only a complete idiot would do.
The German take on privacy in public spaces is obviously absurd and needs to be adjusted.
It is illegal ? So when are they shutting down all those cameras in Berlin, apparently its the second most surveilled city in Europe after London:
https://www.statista.com/chart/19268/most-surveilled-cities-...
I do not think that Tesla would be making a gigafactory in Germany if they were to make them disable a primary feature of the car.
I could be wrong. I don't know, but I've never heard of anybody bringing up this issue.
I could be wrong. I don't know, but I've never heard of anybody bringing up this issue.
On paper I'm the type of person who ought to be interested in a cybertruck but I'm finding myself a lot more interested in the Ford F-150 Lightning.
Same here. Being in the UK means getting an F150 is pretty unlikely as I'd be worried about it fitting on some of our roads, but it is far more appealing than the cybertruck even for me as a soft, liberal tech worker.
When Tesla first introduced the cyber truck they were unsure about the demand and also unsure about the 4680 cell manufacturing. Both of these are now settled. It's not impossible that Tesla will drop the prices substantially when they finally go on sale.
Considering that they said 12-18 months more for volume 4680 production, I don't think that is settled yet.
> I already know republican types in rural areas that even want to get the Cybertruck (even if it means looking like one of those rich types).
Not entirely on topic, but I'm curious whether their interest will shift to the electric Ford truck.
Not entirely on topic, but I'm curious whether their interest will shift to the electric Ford truck.
Anecdotally, I know someone who saw the Electric Hummer commercial during the Super Bowl earlier this year and it led him down a path that ended in him buying a Model Y a few weeks ago. Other players announcing vehicles that are years away from production is a net positive for Tesla sales. It's counter intuitive so not many people under stand that but it is definitely a thing from what I've observed. The mechanism is that you have these companies talking about electric vehicles which brings more attention to the coming change in technology and Tesla has a wider selection of best in class for the price electric vehicles than anyone else that you can buy right now and not wait.
I think the Ford electric F150 will sell like mad if it's reliable. Modern gas and diesel trucks are kinda a mechanical nightmare at this point. Used to be they were simpler than cars. Easy to work on. Now they are as complex. And as hard to work on as vans, of not more so. Means if anything goes wrong $$$.
Electric, more reliable, easier to work on. With the same or better performance.
If the early adopters have a good experience, everyone else is going to follow.
Electric, more reliable, easier to work on. With the same or better performance.
If the early adopters have a good experience, everyone else is going to follow.
> This paves the way for electric cars that a working class mom and dad can afford to get to and from work and the store.
Are we not already there in terms of car prices? In SF, a used nissan leaf can be had for from $10k-15k. New EVs aren't actually vastly different in price from new economy cars, especially if you take into account various credits.
To me, it seems like the main reason electric cars are relatively uncommon is not because the sticker price is too high, but rather because of factors like home charging (requires dedicated parking & possibly an expensive charger installed), fear of needing a second car _anyway_ for longer trips (partly due to awful charging infrastructure / range issues), and relatively few of them existing on the used market.
Are we not already there in terms of car prices? In SF, a used nissan leaf can be had for from $10k-15k. New EVs aren't actually vastly different in price from new economy cars, especially if you take into account various credits.
To me, it seems like the main reason electric cars are relatively uncommon is not because the sticker price is too high, but rather because of factors like home charging (requires dedicated parking & possibly an expensive charger installed), fear of needing a second car _anyway_ for longer trips (partly due to awful charging infrastructure / range issues), and relatively few of them existing on the used market.
Exactly. VW say that an ID.3 is much cheaper to make than a Golf but it's still a lot more expensive to buy
The Nissan Versa starts at ~$15,000 new.
I'm not sure that it's possible to exclude it from the "economy car" category.
I'm not sure that it's possible to exclude it from the "economy car" category.
> New EVs aren't actually vastly different in price from new economy cars
There is a different, but it's not so huge. A new nissan leaf starts at ~$25k new, after the federal tax credit. It might be slightly less if you get a state-level credit as well.
$15k vs $25k is in the same ballpark.
There is a different, but it's not so huge. A new nissan leaf starts at ~$25k new, after the federal tax credit. It might be slightly less if you get a state-level credit as well.
$15k vs $25k is in the same ballpark.
$15k vs $25k is in the same ballpark.
I disagree.
I disagree.
It's only 67% more. Practically the same price!
What do replacement batteries cost, though?
Very few people replace their car battery. Like very few people replace their car engine. It happens, preferably under warranty, but it's not really something you consider when you buy a car.
If the battery degradation makes the car unfit to your needs, it's a bit weird because it would mean you were on the limit, but anyway it's more economic to sell the car as it is and buy another car. Someone will enjoy the old battery.
If the battery degradation makes the car unfit to your needs, it's a bit weird because it would mean you were on the limit, but anyway it's more economic to sell the car as it is and buy another car. Someone will enjoy the old battery.
There is a big difference between replacing a car engine vs replacing a car battery. The hardest part is lifting the heavy battery out and putting the new one in. With a gas engine, there is belts, timing, oil, and lots of other things I am not even aware of.
Almost all of those things -- all you mention, and most of the "lots of other things" -- are within (or firmly attached on the outside of) the engine itself, and are swapped out as integral parts with the engine.
I recall this article about the total maintenance costs of a Model X cab with 400k miles. It’s a very interesting look at total cost of ownership over time.
https://electrek.co/2020/05/11/tesla-model-x-extreme-mileage...
https://electrek.co/2020/05/11/tesla-model-x-extreme-mileage...
That is, unfortunately, anecdata. Everyone keeps telling me that electric cars have fewer moving parts and have such low maintenance costs that they cost 90% less to maintain, at which point I turn around and ask why Tesla doesn't offer a bumper to bumper 20 year warranty, because they can benefit from the law of large numbers. If the repair costs are so much better, this should be easy to do, right? That's the point where my interlocuter usually walks away as they have no answer.
One way you can try to estimate what the real maintenance cost is in the first X years is to look at what automakers set aside for warranties. In that case, (the last I looked), Tesla seemed in the middle of the pack vis-a-vis major ICE makers. But then you have the 20-X years of service, and the dirty secret is that those years are also paid for by new owners except they pay those repairs forward as depreciation when they sell. So then you look at depreciation curves, to see if Tesla is holding up much better than ICE vehicles due to lower expected maintenance costs and there, too, Tesla appears to be right in line with other major producers. So bottom line, I can't find any evidence for the thesis that getting rid of all these components will significantly reduce lifetime maintenance costs, while the battery costs remain a big unknown.
Now part of this is just not having enough data. In 20 years, we'll have a lot more data, and then maybe the warranty policies and depreciation curves will look very different. But this goes back to my point which is why isn't Tesla insuring the buyers against this risk by selling massive 20 year waranties to stand behind these claims of long service life and very low maintenance costs? Why leave people searching for anecdata in a new car whose service costs they don't have the data to estimate?
For most people a car is a major portion of their net-worth and they tend to be conservative in making this purchase. Sure, for high income buyers, they can afford to take risks but most buyers can't. So why doesn't Tesla do more to insure prospective buyers against this risk? It seems like such a no brainer, and yet many companies insist on pushing risk onto the customer. This isn't just an issue with Tesla, but I see it in many industries, where the producer is the one who has the survivorship data, they benefit from the law of large numbers, and they have financial backing, they are in a position to sell insurance, and people would buy the insurance, but the insurance just isn't being offerred, and if it is offered, it's on absolutely terrible terms, rather than as something to remove purchase frictions.
One way you can try to estimate what the real maintenance cost is in the first X years is to look at what automakers set aside for warranties. In that case, (the last I looked), Tesla seemed in the middle of the pack vis-a-vis major ICE makers. But then you have the 20-X years of service, and the dirty secret is that those years are also paid for by new owners except they pay those repairs forward as depreciation when they sell. So then you look at depreciation curves, to see if Tesla is holding up much better than ICE vehicles due to lower expected maintenance costs and there, too, Tesla appears to be right in line with other major producers. So bottom line, I can't find any evidence for the thesis that getting rid of all these components will significantly reduce lifetime maintenance costs, while the battery costs remain a big unknown.
Now part of this is just not having enough data. In 20 years, we'll have a lot more data, and then maybe the warranty policies and depreciation curves will look very different. But this goes back to my point which is why isn't Tesla insuring the buyers against this risk by selling massive 20 year waranties to stand behind these claims of long service life and very low maintenance costs? Why leave people searching for anecdata in a new car whose service costs they don't have the data to estimate?
For most people a car is a major portion of their net-worth and they tend to be conservative in making this purchase. Sure, for high income buyers, they can afford to take risks but most buyers can't. So why doesn't Tesla do more to insure prospective buyers against this risk? It seems like such a no brainer, and yet many companies insist on pushing risk onto the customer. This isn't just an issue with Tesla, but I see it in many industries, where the producer is the one who has the survivorship data, they benefit from the law of large numbers, and they have financial backing, they are in a position to sell insurance, and people would buy the insurance, but the insurance just isn't being offerred, and if it is offered, it's on absolutely terrible terms, rather than as something to remove purchase frictions.
Tesla doesn't have a problem selling the cars it makes. Why take on an additional financial risk in order to increase demand?
That's a good argument.
But if you think Tesla is averse to taking on risk, how much more risk-averse would the customers take on? Tesla has the law of large numbers and technical data available to them. They are in a position to arbitrage that and get (expected) free money by selling long term insurance to buyers for whom the insurance is a lot more valuable than what it costs Tesla, so why wouldn't they do that?
If indeed the EVs are so much more durable and have such lower maintenance costs but are surrounded by a cloud of doubt, why not remove that cloud? Even if Tesla doesn't ramp up production faster, the increased demand would allow them to command a higher price until production was ramped up.
So if indeed the market is wrong and depreciation curves are too steep, Tesla can arbitrage that. Why they don't should raise some questions, at least it does to me.
But if you think Tesla is averse to taking on risk, how much more risk-averse would the customers take on? Tesla has the law of large numbers and technical data available to them. They are in a position to arbitrage that and get (expected) free money by selling long term insurance to buyers for whom the insurance is a lot more valuable than what it costs Tesla, so why wouldn't they do that?
If indeed the EVs are so much more durable and have such lower maintenance costs but are surrounded by a cloud of doubt, why not remove that cloud? Even if Tesla doesn't ramp up production faster, the increased demand would allow them to command a higher price until production was ramped up.
So if indeed the market is wrong and depreciation curves are too steep, Tesla can arbitrage that. Why they don't should raise some questions, at least it does to me.
I'm not finding a hole in this argument. It's especially interesting because Elon has a reputation as a risk-taker, so I would expect him to steer Tesla in this direction if it were possible and profitable.
[deleted]
Even if it’s not 90% less maintenance cost, I can tell you in the 2 years since I’ve owned my Model 3 (20k miles) I’ve brought it in for maintenance items zero times. In an ICE car that would have been like 6 annoying oil changes by now? That’s more than enough to convince me.
6 oil changes in 45,000 km/2 years?
In Europe, on a modern (diesel but gasoline wouldn't be much different) car, lubricated with semi-synthetic oil that would be 1 oil change at around 30,000 km or at the most two (first one at 15,000 and second one at 45,000, or similar).
As a side note, it depends, but "no maintenance" unlike many people think, is not such a good idea, overall, I'll try to explain myself.
Many years ago, fully synthetic oils came out, they were awfully expensive but guaranteed something like 80,000 km on diesel and 120,000 km on gasoline without any change, you only had to refill to level and change (at double the normal interval, usually 15,000 or 20,000 km x 2= 30,000 or 40,000 km the oil filter).
And, people with older cars might remember this, lamps burned out much more often than modern leds, non-electronic distributors needed maintenance, as well as carburetors and spark plugs (or on diesel pumps/injectors), and to this you add the (normal for mineral oil) 10,000-15,000 km oil change.
This meant that every three to six months your car was normally put for one day in the hands of a professional that - besides doing these maintenance chores - tested your car, made sure that brakes and suspensions were in an efficient condition, could notice and repair minor leaks, loose bolts/parts, could (much better than what you normally can do) "feel" if anything in wheels, suspensions, steering wheels (and its servo)was fine, etc.
The adoption of fully synthetic oil meant that the car, unless you found yourself an issue/defect, was seen/tested by a professional mechanic once every 1 1/2 to 2 years, and this was not a good thing, for the overall "heath" (and safety) of the car.
In Europe, on a modern (diesel but gasoline wouldn't be much different) car, lubricated with semi-synthetic oil that would be 1 oil change at around 30,000 km or at the most two (first one at 15,000 and second one at 45,000, or similar).
As a side note, it depends, but "no maintenance" unlike many people think, is not such a good idea, overall, I'll try to explain myself.
Many years ago, fully synthetic oils came out, they were awfully expensive but guaranteed something like 80,000 km on diesel and 120,000 km on gasoline without any change, you only had to refill to level and change (at double the normal interval, usually 15,000 or 20,000 km x 2= 30,000 or 40,000 km the oil filter).
And, people with older cars might remember this, lamps burned out much more often than modern leds, non-electronic distributors needed maintenance, as well as carburetors and spark plugs (or on diesel pumps/injectors), and to this you add the (normal for mineral oil) 10,000-15,000 km oil change.
This meant that every three to six months your car was normally put for one day in the hands of a professional that - besides doing these maintenance chores - tested your car, made sure that brakes and suspensions were in an efficient condition, could notice and repair minor leaks, loose bolts/parts, could (much better than what you normally can do) "feel" if anything in wheels, suspensions, steering wheels (and its servo)was fine, etc.
The adoption of fully synthetic oil meant that the car, unless you found yourself an issue/defect, was seen/tested by a professional mechanic once every 1 1/2 to 2 years, and this was not a good thing, for the overall "heath" (and safety) of the car.
Ive always been told I need oil changes every 3-5,000 miles, if that’s not true it’s news to me. Also, my state mandates annual inspections so I assume a professional is checking for those things during the inspection.
It is not that it isn't absolutely true, it isn't true anymore with many (most) engines and lubricants, and unless "special" cases.
Lubricating oils have changed a lot in the last 30-40 years, as well as materials used in the engine construction.
The differences between mineral oils and semi-synthetic or fully synthetic oils is huge, modern oils are simply not comparable.
A related old discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969605
The manufacturer is the one that knows (obviously) the most about the engine so you should stick to the recommended type of oil and recommended oil change interval, doing it more often than that is simply a waste.
Lubricating oils have changed a lot in the last 30-40 years, as well as materials used in the engine construction.
The differences between mineral oils and semi-synthetic or fully synthetic oils is huge, modern oils are simply not comparable.
A related old discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969605
The manufacturer is the one that knows (obviously) the most about the engine so you should stick to the recommended type of oil and recommended oil change interval, doing it more often than that is simply a waste.
I think that stopped being the rule in the 1970s; if not, at the latest in the 1980s.
Depreciation with an electric car is driven more by advancement in batteries, and other new technology that is advancing relatively rapidly compared to ICE cars.
I dont really know why you are getting downvoted for a well reasoned counter-argument to the boundless optimisim.
How much do replacement engines cost for ICE cars? I bet you don't know that or think about it when getting an ICE car.
Engine replacement rates will probably be historically higher than battery replacement within standard car lifetimes. It's possibly that a battery car will last longer than an ICE due to less moving parts, but even then I think long-lived EV cars will be relegated to city car duties with reduced ranges.
Batteries usually degrade rather than catastrophically fail (exempting the dramatic but rare battery fire which I believe happen less than ICE fires).
Engine replacement rates will probably be historically higher than battery replacement within standard car lifetimes. It's possibly that a battery car will last longer than an ICE due to less moving parts, but even then I think long-lived EV cars will be relegated to city car duties with reduced ranges.
Batteries usually degrade rather than catastrophically fail (exempting the dramatic but rare battery fire which I believe happen less than ICE fires).
Batteries usually degrade. That's why people ask this question. We have all been carrying around phones with batteries that start to perform badly enough after a couple years that we end up buying a brand new phone.
Not everybody wants to buy a new phone every couple years, and not everybody agrees what a standard car lifetime is.
Not everybody wants to buy a new phone every couple years, and not everybody agrees what a standard car lifetime is.
Generally, if something fails in the battery it is individual cells and those can be replaced separately. It is rare for the entire battery pack to fail at one time.
If you have the chance to visit China, I suggest doing so. They’ve already converted most personal vehicles to electric. Cars aren’t nearly as
popular as scooters, rickshaws, etc., which cost $100s (or maybe low $1000’s) in US dollars, new.
At that price point, consumables for an internal combustion engine start to be a significant fraction of the vehicle cost.
Lithium batteries are hardly only a plaything for the rich.
At that price point, consumables for an internal combustion engine start to be a significant fraction of the vehicle cost.
Lithium batteries are hardly only a plaything for the rich.
EV + PHEV vehicle marketshare in China in 2019 (most recent year with data) remains under 5%, though it's doubled in 2 years.
China is far from majority-EV quantitatively, and at least four doublings (8 years) from a 50% share in new vehicles temporally.
That's actually excellent progress. But it's nowhere near your claim.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050111/china-electric-c...
China is far from majority-EV quantitatively, and at least four doublings (8 years) from a 50% share in new vehicles temporally.
That's actually excellent progress. But it's nowhere near your claim.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050111/china-electric-c...
I think OP is saying a lot of 'cars' in China wouldn't fall under that definition of a car, so aren't in the stats...
If so, that was stated quite unclearly.
Though yes, the thought occurred after I'd posted.
Per capita car ownership might help tease that out (along with sales of car substitutes).
US car ownership is 804 vehicles per 1,000. In China it's 204 vehicles/1,000 pop.
Wikipedia's Transport in China page could use some updating, but also fails to support OP's claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_China#Road
Though yes, the thought occurred after I'd posted.
Per capita car ownership might help tease that out (along with sales of car substitutes).
US car ownership is 804 vehicles per 1,000. In China it's 204 vehicles/1,000 pop.
Wikipedia's Transport in China page could use some updating, but also fails to support OP's claims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_China#Road
According to that article, total car ownership in 2003 was equal to one year of sales of motorized bikes.
And what fraction of motorised bikes are electric?
Again, your original claim doesn't stand to any evidence I've found.
You've presented none yourself.
Again, your original claim doesn't stand to any evidence I've found.
You've presented none yourself.
The base level Tesla Model 3 already costs just under the US average ($40,875) for a new car. [0] A Tesla has been affordable to the average middle class person for several years now. Maybe not on part with the cheapest new cars (~$20k) but within the next 5 years they will be.
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-now-the-average-pr...
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-now-the-average-pr...
According to quick googling, sales of used cars outnumber new car sales by about 2.5:1 in the US. The ratio is almost certainly higher in other parts of the world. Anyway, globally speaking the US middle class is, of course, extremely wealthy. Even in most Western countries €$£40k cars are not really affordable to the middle class.
Well, my used 2016 Nissan Leaf was $11k so while you're correct that Telsa appeals to the well-off, not all EVs have the same market.
$11K is still a lot for a lot of people who need a car. I generally put a limit of $4K on a car, and I could easily afford to buy brand-new. Some people don't have that choice.
> and of course electric trucks that have obscene amounts of torque means never "getting stuck" behind a slow truck ever again
If you've ever read old car advertisements, they would say the exact same thing about old supercars that would lose a drag race against a Toyota Corolla.
In reality speed and torque is an arms race among most road users. For a short while whoever has the nicest car has the ability to rapidly outrun anyone else, but that advantage diminishes as the technology gets cheaper and more common. In 20 years a modern Tesla will not be considered fast at all.
If you've ever read old car advertisements, they would say the exact same thing about old supercars that would lose a drag race against a Toyota Corolla.
In reality speed and torque is an arms race among most road users. For a short while whoever has the nicest car has the ability to rapidly outrun anyone else, but that advantage diminishes as the technology gets cheaper and more common. In 20 years a modern Tesla will not be considered fast at all.
you can only apply so much power thru the tires before adhesion is lost, we are close to that limit now
lifetime? Companies like Hyliion are targeting a RNG+electric class-8 launch this year from what I have read
Can't diesel engines run on jet fuel? For this reason, I can't imagine diesel engines ever going away as long as there are amateur pilots.
Non-jet engine aircrafts run on avgas, which isn't diesel like jetfuel, basically just high octane gasoline.
Nitpick: A minority of general aviation planes have diesel engines.
Huh? There are approximately zero amateur pilots that own jet aircraft -- they cost too much.
Certainly not enough to help keep alive the market for diesel pickup trucks.
Certainly not enough to help keep alive the market for diesel pickup trucks.
According to a 2017 report by the Airline Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) [1], general aviation -- defined as all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline service -- consumed 209 million gallons of avgas and 1.8 billion gallons of jet fuel.
NB: turboprop aircraft also consume jet fuel.
[1] http://download.aopa.org/hr/Report_on_General_Aviation_Trend...
NB: turboprop aircraft also consume jet fuel.
[1] http://download.aopa.org/hr/Report_on_General_Aviation_Trend...
The more I read this document, the more confused I get. I am most curious about the proportion of this jet fuel being burned by helicopters. The document has some information about rotorcraft, confirming that helicopters are included (though rotorcraft also includes petrol-burning gyroplanes...)
Page 5 for instance lists rotorcraft. But page 5 is confusing to me; has the categories 'single engine', 'multi-engine', 'turboprop', 'turbojet', 'rotorcraft', etc. Are aircraft being double-counted in these categories? Is a single-engine turboprop plane counted twice, in both the turboprop and single-engine categories? Is a Bell 206, a multi-engine turboshaft helicopter, counted as multi-engine, rotorcraft... and also turbojet/turboprop? There is no category on this page for turboshaft aircraft. Maybe the nature of these classifications is clear to a pilot, but they aren't to me.
Page 7 breaks down total operations into the categories jet/piston/turboprop, and seems to have piston operations as about 1/3rd of the total. 1/3rd is a far cry from 1/9 ratio suggested by 209 million gallons of avgas vs 1.8 billion gallons of jet fuel. Here is my suspicion: that difference comes from turboshaft helicopters. Typical turboshaft helicopters burn many more gallons of fuel per hour than other forms of GA aircraft.
Also a nitpick: GP mentioned amateur pilots, but many general aviation pilots are doing it professionally. I would wager most helicopter-hours are probably being flown by professional pilots. For instance, all the helicopters being flown for news stations and police departments have professional pilots and fall under general aviation.
Page 5 for instance lists rotorcraft. But page 5 is confusing to me; has the categories 'single engine', 'multi-engine', 'turboprop', 'turbojet', 'rotorcraft', etc. Are aircraft being double-counted in these categories? Is a single-engine turboprop plane counted twice, in both the turboprop and single-engine categories? Is a Bell 206, a multi-engine turboshaft helicopter, counted as multi-engine, rotorcraft... and also turbojet/turboprop? There is no category on this page for turboshaft aircraft. Maybe the nature of these classifications is clear to a pilot, but they aren't to me.
Page 7 breaks down total operations into the categories jet/piston/turboprop, and seems to have piston operations as about 1/3rd of the total. 1/3rd is a far cry from 1/9 ratio suggested by 209 million gallons of avgas vs 1.8 billion gallons of jet fuel. Here is my suspicion: that difference comes from turboshaft helicopters. Typical turboshaft helicopters burn many more gallons of fuel per hour than other forms of GA aircraft.
Also a nitpick: GP mentioned amateur pilots, but many general aviation pilots are doing it professionally. I would wager most helicopter-hours are probably being flown by professional pilots. For instance, all the helicopters being flown for news stations and police departments have professional pilots and fall under general aviation.
Air cargo is probably the majority of that 1.8 billion gallons. Then there are chartered aircraft and aircraft owned by corporations and other wealthy organizations. The helicopters operated by news organizations. The aircraft used to supply areas where ships and trucks cannot go, e.g., Antarctica. The vast majority of the aircraft I just described are operated by professional pilots.
A turboprop engine will cost millions of dollars in purchase cost and maintenance cost over its lifetime just like other jet engines will.
A turboprop engine will cost millions of dollars in purchase cost and maintenance cost over its lifetime just like other jet engines will.
Adding another solution to the issue of mining lithium for batteries at scale is awesome, I hope they find a way to deal with the brine that this produces (Edit: it does not really produce brine in the classical sense according to the paper [0]).
Maybe this process could be a way to deal with brine from seawater desalination [1] by at least removing lithium ions from the waste water. Since the ion concentration in the waste water is higher than in seawater, it should theoretically make the lithium separation process easier, shouldn't it?
Another thing: combining this with cheap solar power and seawater lithium mining might be a part of a possible solution for a post-oil industry in the Gulf States? They did the tests on Red Sea seawater which has a higher salinity than most other seawater but apparantly the eastern Mediterranean matches or even surpasses that [2].
[0] "It is also noted that the total concentration of other salts after the first stage is less than 500 ppm, which implies that after lithium harvest, the remaining water can be treated as freshwater. Hence, the process also has a potential to integrate with seawater desalination to further enhance its economic viability", from page 5, (PDF) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2021/ee/d1ee00354...
[1] I am not linking to a particular article but this is what I am talking about: https://www.google.de/search?q=toxic+brine+seawater+drinking...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity#/media/File:WOA09_sea...
Maybe this process could be a way to deal with brine from seawater desalination [1] by at least removing lithium ions from the waste water. Since the ion concentration in the waste water is higher than in seawater, it should theoretically make the lithium separation process easier, shouldn't it?
Another thing: combining this with cheap solar power and seawater lithium mining might be a part of a possible solution for a post-oil industry in the Gulf States? They did the tests on Red Sea seawater which has a higher salinity than most other seawater but apparantly the eastern Mediterranean matches or even surpasses that [2].
[0] "It is also noted that the total concentration of other salts after the first stage is less than 500 ppm, which implies that after lithium harvest, the remaining water can be treated as freshwater. Hence, the process also has a potential to integrate with seawater desalination to further enhance its economic viability", from page 5, (PDF) https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2021/ee/d1ee00354...
[1] I am not linking to a particular article but this is what I am talking about: https://www.google.de/search?q=toxic+brine+seawater+drinking...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity#/media/File:WOA09_sea...
Would there even be any brine? If they take out the lithium but don't take any water out (remix everything other than lithium) then the net effect on salinity would be almost nothing. It would make economic sense to colocated, to also do freshwater extraction at the same facility, but the removal of the lithium would then be beside the point.
I wonder if the process can work for other more valuable substances. Uranium from seawater has been done for a while now. This process might make it cheaper than mining. The world could change if every country with access to the sea can start extracting such things.
I wonder if the process can work for other more valuable substances. Uranium from seawater has been done for a while now. This process might make it cheaper than mining. The world could change if every country with access to the sea can start extracting such things.
The concern over brine is something I'm willing to contemplate but on the face of it, it seems to me that brine would only be a problem in the immediate zone where it is returned.
And then again the fresh water produced along with the brine will end up back in mostly the same surrounding after it gets used, so it's not like we're producing saltier and saltier water over time?
So aside from the increased salinity at the specific location where the brine is returned to the sea, is there another issue? Am I missing something that makes all this a large scale problem?
And then again the fresh water produced along with the brine will end up back in mostly the same surrounding after it gets used, so it's not like we're producing saltier and saltier water over time?
So aside from the increased salinity at the specific location where the brine is returned to the sea, is there another issue? Am I missing something that makes all this a large scale problem?
Not necessarily a “large scale” problem but the increased salinity means you create a enormous dead zone near your output system unless you spend a ton of energy to mitigate it.
We had Bechtel design us a desalination/RO system for a biofuel startup I worked with and to prevent the dead zone, you need a massive system of buried pipes in the ocean. Iirc, it was the most expensive part of the entire design since you need to output it over something like a square kilometer and you need to mix in fresh seawater at several points to dilute the effluent before you release it. So in addition to the CapEx of a construction project in a horribly hostile environment, you have permanent energy consumption even past the filters.
And of course, since it’s coastal, there are tons of regulations and government bodies interested in making sure you don’t cut corners.
We had Bechtel design us a desalination/RO system for a biofuel startup I worked with and to prevent the dead zone, you need a massive system of buried pipes in the ocean. Iirc, it was the most expensive part of the entire design since you need to output it over something like a square kilometer and you need to mix in fresh seawater at several points to dilute the effluent before you release it. So in addition to the CapEx of a construction project in a horribly hostile environment, you have permanent energy consumption even past the filters.
And of course, since it’s coastal, there are tons of regulations and government bodies interested in making sure you don’t cut corners.
There must be some creative solutions to the brine problem. At the end of the day we’re really not processing much seawater compared to the size of the ocean.
Right but the size of the ocean is the wrong metric - it’s really only the coastal region adjacent to the desal plant that you have to work with, and the chemistry and power realities mean that you just have a ton of very salty water to pump through pipes.
Put the lithium plant on a barge and tug it around without lingering too long in any one spot.
Awesome idea! Or even build on a platform and locate in a major current like the Gulf Stream. That could mix it pretty fast.
I wonder if one could not simply pump it into some old oil reservoirs. The nations that need to do seawater refining should have some nearly empty oilfields lying around.
Salt water intrusion into the aquifer is pretty bad for agriculture. Not sure if that would be a problem with refilling oil reservoirs but I'm not an expert.
Interesting answer and thanks for providing it. Do you think the geography of the coast changes how expensive this gets? I'd think a coast that goes deep quickly or has strong currents wouldn't need as much spread out disposal infrastructure as one in a shallow area.
Yeah it 100% does - mixing rate is a big design driver. We actually had decided that is was better for our primary effluent pipe to be several KM longer to reach the “coast” vs the smaller bay that we were immediately adjacent to.
But even then, if the ends of your system are in 50’ deep ocean, the water column is such that the top ~10% sees really good mixing and exchange due to wind and wave action but the rest really doesn’t. It’s rare that there are strong currents near enough coastlines to take advantage of.
But even then, if the ends of your system are in 50’ deep ocean, the water column is such that the top ~10% sees really good mixing and exchange due to wind and wave action but the rest really doesn’t. It’s rare that there are strong currents near enough coastlines to take advantage of.
Wow, most people never consider the dead-zone around desalination plants. Us landlubbers just think of it as manna from heaven, “free freshwater.”
The way we discuss technical solutions is woefully inadequate. Everything is still presented as a miracle-cure for our problems. We should have a more mature understanding of how these things are constructed and maintained.
The way we discuss technical solutions is woefully inadequate. Everything is still presented as a miracle-cure for our problems. We should have a more mature understanding of how these things are constructed and maintained.
The ocean is pretty big. That's why fish poop and pee in it. Not much of a problem. And if you weren't already aware, did you know plants also excrete waste through their roots? I only found out recently. But yes, all waste needs to be spread out and able to diffuse into the large atmosphere or it causes dead zones.
Yes.
One piece of poop in the forest—nature.
A sewer pipe discharging a river of poop from an entire city into a forest—a toxic waste dump.
The entire surface of the sea is evaporating fresh water and the resulting brine is slinging constantly. It’s not creating a dead zone because it’s distributed. A river of brine in the oceans would be like a toxic cloud of ammonia that kills anything it touches…until it mixes sufficiently.
One piece of poop in the forest—nature.
A sewer pipe discharging a river of poop from an entire city into a forest—a toxic waste dump.
The entire surface of the sea is evaporating fresh water and the resulting brine is slinging constantly. It’s not creating a dead zone because it’s distributed. A river of brine in the oceans would be like a toxic cloud of ammonia that kills anything it touches…until it mixes sufficiently.
Which was my point. As long as the outtake is distributed, it would be fine. I think everyone is aware of that..even the landlubbers..
We kind of figured it out 150+ years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink
We kind of figured it out 150+ years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink
Plant wastes are a part of an eco system. They are cunsomed and transformed into other wastes. Actually, only human beings see wastes as a definitive lost. For every sustainable cycles, a waste is going to be transformed into you will consume again.
The brine problem is played up because environmentalists don’t like building new industry to solve environmental problems. A big part of their psyche is that man must suffer for his sins against nature. IMO.
No, environmentalists simply say that it’s worth to preserve the environment that humanity evolved in. One reason is for our grandchildren to be able to experience it and another is we don’t really know what happens if we destroy too much of it - we do have localized examples though and they’re really not good.
Environmentalists are mostly political today, they focus their efforts on benign & wealthy countries instead of the most polluting. (Which are often poor or run by dictatorships)
I, too, focus on problems at home that I have any hope of changing rather than yelling at countries on the other side of the planet that have zero incentive to listen to me.
Are you suggesting no country should tell any other country how to be environmentally conscience?
I would argue that those countries that are cleaner have the moral authority to lead the way to a cleaner planet.
I would argue that those countries that are cleaner have the moral authority to lead the way to a cleaner planet.
I'm suggesting it is bullshit to disparage environmentalists just because theyre focused on problems in their local country.
Countries should totally put pressure on others, but individual environmentalists putting pressure on their local countries makes sense.
Countries should totally put pressure on others, but individual environmentalists putting pressure on their local countries makes sense.
the US, by virtue of having guns pointed at the leaders of every other country, should be telling every other country to be environmentally conscious.
Unfortunately, the US itself needs to beinfluenced into being environmentally conscious
Unfortunately, the US itself needs to beinfluenced into being environmentally conscious
of course they're political, how else do you get to change policies? chaining yourself to trees doesn't do much nowadays.
The environment. Yes or no?
Candidate 1: No. It's junk science.
Candidate 2: Two words: Condor attack. Don't want that. Got to say no.
...
Candidate 5: Enviro-mite!
Candidate 1: No. It's junk science.
Candidate 2: Two words: Condor attack. Don't want that. Got to say no.
...
Candidate 5: Enviro-mite!
This brine argument makes no sense - they are extracting lithium - you can pump everything else back if you want
> fresh water produced along
Oh, if they are producing fresh water as well then isn't this good as desalination is already needed in some area's. So the studies upon the brine they output would be useful to measure any impact. Which would be localised - how localised and impacting is really the question here and for that we can look at existing drinking water from sea water production.
Oh, if they are producing fresh water as well then isn't this good as desalination is already needed in some area's. So the studies upon the brine they output would be useful to measure any impact. Which would be localised - how localised and impacting is really the question here and for that we can look at existing drinking water from sea water production.
Between this and the discovery of producing Graphene without mining, the future of battery tech should be really interesting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-ran...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-ran...
It depends. There is chemistry here too, not just physical membranes. Higher concentrations of everything else might interfere with only getting at the lithium.
You can obtain a few things from desalination brines. Magnesium is the most plentiful, besides salt, of course. There's also some sulfur, bromine and boron that might be worth recovering. It's mostly theoretical, of course.
The solutions described are not the ultimate ones, yet.
The real solution will be to:
"Make salt magnetic and pull it out of the water, in real-time, with electro-magnets."
https://audio.kryon.com/en/What's%20Wrong%20Today.mp3 (start the audio at 18:20, for the gist and some more details)
The real solution will be to:
"Make salt magnetic and pull it out of the water, in real-time, with electro-magnets."
https://audio.kryon.com/en/What's%20Wrong%20Today.mp3 (start the audio at 18:20, for the gist and some more details)
It's one of those "hipster" podcasts by the UI designer at _that_ startup:
https://whats-wrong-with-the-podcast.simplecast.com/
"Make oxygen magnetic and then just pull it out of water to produce hydrogen"
I too like to fantasize. :-)
"Make oxygen magnetic and then just pull it out of water to produce hydrogen"
I too like to fantasize. :-)
> Make oxygen magnetic and then just pull it out of water
Liquid oxygen is paramagnetic and it is attracted to a magnet.
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae493.cfm
Disclaimer: Sorry if that was what you were alluding to... the person on the GP's audio clip was too annoying for me to waste time listening to it.
Liquid oxygen is paramagnetic and it is attracted to a magnet.
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae493.cfm
Disclaimer: Sorry if that was what you were alluding to... the person on the GP's audio clip was too annoying for me to waste time listening to it.
The oxygen in water is bound and O, not O2. So the paramagnetism doesn't mean much. But that's an interesting fact.
And yeah, cringe podcast :-/
And yeah, cringe podcast :-/
What's wrong with the link? :-P
> "Unconfigured Simplecast Domain You are seeing this page because your website is not configured properly."
> "Unconfigured Simplecast Domain You are seeing this page because your website is not configured properly."
It couldn't deal with HN traffic I guess. Here's a cache link:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ImywwL...
To extract 1 kg from 0.2 ppm seawater, you need to process 5e6 kg of water.
$5 of electricity at $0.09/kWh is 200 MJ, which is enough to pump that much water 40 m high, or push it through a membrane with 4 bar pressure drop.
So you can't do very much to seawater at that price point. Like many "scientists develop cheap ___" headlines, it may just cover part of the process and not the whole operation.
$5 of electricity at $0.09/kWh is 200 MJ, which is enough to pump that much water 40 m high, or push it through a membrane with 4 bar pressure drop.
So you can't do very much to seawater at that price point. Like many "scientists develop cheap ___" headlines, it may just cover part of the process and not the whole operation.
They discuss this on pages 3 to 5 of the paper if you want to read up on this. Here is an excerpt:
"Based on these data, we estimated the total electricity required to enrich 1 kg lithium from seawater to 9000 ppm in five stages to be 76.34 kWh. Simultaneously, 0.87 kg H_2 and 31.12 kg Cl_2 were collected from the cathode and the anode, respectively. Taking the US electricity price of US$ 0.065 per kWh into consideration, the total electricity cost for this process is approximately US$ 5.0. In addition, based on the 2020 prices of hydrogen and Cl_2 (i.e., US$ 2.5–8.0 per kg and US$ 0.15 per kg, respectively), the side-product value is approximately US$ 6.9–11.7, which can well compensate for the total energy cost. It should also be noted that the current Cl_2 utilisation capacity in the chlor-alkali industry is ~ 80 Mtons/year. Even in the case where all the world lithium capacity is produced from our extraction process, the amount of Cl_2 produced will be 3 Mtons, and so will have very little effect on the total market", from https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2021/ee/d1ee00354...
"Based on these data, we estimated the total electricity required to enrich 1 kg lithium from seawater to 9000 ppm in five stages to be 76.34 kWh. Simultaneously, 0.87 kg H_2 and 31.12 kg Cl_2 were collected from the cathode and the anode, respectively. Taking the US electricity price of US$ 0.065 per kWh into consideration, the total electricity cost for this process is approximately US$ 5.0. In addition, based on the 2020 prices of hydrogen and Cl_2 (i.e., US$ 2.5–8.0 per kg and US$ 0.15 per kg, respectively), the side-product value is approximately US$ 6.9–11.7, which can well compensate for the total energy cost. It should also be noted that the current Cl_2 utilisation capacity in the chlor-alkali industry is ~ 80 Mtons/year. Even in the case where all the world lithium capacity is produced from our extraction process, the amount of Cl_2 produced will be 3 Mtons, and so will have very little effect on the total market", from https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2021/ee/d1ee00354...
So it's both efficient and the electricity cost is covered by the profitablity of the side products.
Pretty amazing innovation, certainly a more sustainable solution than overthrowing the Bolivian government and murdering Native protestors.
To think that an entire mineral mining industry could be replaced by processing seawater is revolutionary.
Pretty amazing innovation, certainly a more sustainable solution than overthrowing the Bolivian government and murdering Native protestors.
To think that an entire mineral mining industry could be replaced by processing seawater is revolutionary.
Do you remember this guy, Kanzius, who showed that you can burn saltwater when pumping it with radio waves? Yet, the citation trail seems dead because scientists assumed that he was a crank claiming he got more power out than he put in. No, he just demonstrated a really neat approach to electrodeless hydrolysis.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a2840/4271398/#:~:t....
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a2840/4271398/#:~:t....
The article contains a broken link to the paper but I think I found it on Sci Hub. It's short by the way, just three or four pages of own content:
https://sci-hub.do/10.1179/143307508/270875
Edit: it's a bit of a strange paper with a lot of talk about unrelated things (imo) but there seems to be this unexpected effect which might make it worthwhile to investigate it independently from what one thinks of this paper. The setup seems to be simple and cheap enough that there should not be huge obstacles to get easy and fast results.
https://sci-hub.do/10.1179/143307508/270875
Edit: it's a bit of a strange paper with a lot of talk about unrelated things (imo) but there seems to be this unexpected effect which might make it worthwhile to investigate it independently from what one thinks of this paper. The setup seems to be simple and cheap enough that there should not be huge obstacles to get easy and fast results.
Personally, I read it as "mostly unmodelled, difficult to calculate experiment behaves in a way no scientist ever predicted, but not very far from what simpler ones do".
If I was looking for something to research, I wouldn't pick this one. It's not strange enough to compensate for how hard it is to understand it. (But then, I wonder how I the photoelectric emission fits on that dimension...)
If I was looking for something to research, I wouldn't pick this one. It's not strange enough to compensate for how hard it is to understand it. (But then, I wonder how I the photoelectric emission fits on that dimension...)
If I understand, you are saying you wouldn't try to empirically research this because 1. burning salt water isn't strange enough and 2. it would be difficult to calculate and model.
That seems reasonable and yet unfortunate. It seems like the kind of experiment that a scientist would try to undertake out of sheer curiosity.
That seems reasonable and yet unfortunate. It seems like the kind of experiment that a scientist would try to undertake out of sheer curiosity.
Thanks for the edit. I view this all through the lens of the politics of science. Some radio technician figures out a really unexpected natural effect, it gets major news coverage by a scientifically illiterate press (claiming free energy), and the scientific mainstream pounce: "how foolish they were to think that energy could be extracted from water!" And yet (and this is the thing that makes me jump up and down), we still have a really unexpected property of nature! Study that shit, people! I might be wrong, but it seems that the reason the topic isn't studied—even to measure the inefficiency—is due to some unhealthy politics in modern science.
I expect it will first be studied by YouTubers like "the plasma channel".
I expect it will first be studied by YouTubers like "the plasma channel".
> Study that shit, people!
From a practical point of view, It looks like an interesting demo, but I don't think it has too many applications. I only can imagine that it may be useful as a sterilization process, whatever virus or bacteria that is in the solution will be extremely unhappy with so much H2 and O2 around. The flame and the small risk of an explosion is a problem.
From a theoretical point of view, it's easy to model isolated small molecules. Big molecules or combination of molecules is exponentially more difficult, like in ~exp(5*N) where N is the number of atoms and 5 is an oversimplification. There are some approximations that reduce it to a polynomial time like ~(5N)^12 or ~(5N)^9 less if you use more approximations. And with more approximations you can calculate it in linear time that is very useful for biochemistry that are interested in big molecules. Anyway, most of these methods assume that atoms don't move, or don't move too much, or use a lot of simplifications.
Simulation water at the molecular level is a nightmare. You need to simulate many molecules, each one moving around, that form bounds between them that are not stable enough to simulate like a fixed length, but stable enough to be ignored. And now you need to add a strong electromagnetic field to the mix, and the nightmare is upgraded to the Freddy Krueger level.
From a practical point of view, It looks like an interesting demo, but I don't think it has too many applications. I only can imagine that it may be useful as a sterilization process, whatever virus or bacteria that is in the solution will be extremely unhappy with so much H2 and O2 around. The flame and the small risk of an explosion is a problem.
From a theoretical point of view, it's easy to model isolated small molecules. Big molecules or combination of molecules is exponentially more difficult, like in ~exp(5*N) where N is the number of atoms and 5 is an oversimplification. There are some approximations that reduce it to a polynomial time like ~(5N)^12 or ~(5N)^9 less if you use more approximations. And with more approximations you can calculate it in linear time that is very useful for biochemistry that are interested in big molecules. Anyway, most of these methods assume that atoms don't move, or don't move too much, or use a lot of simplifications.
Simulation water at the molecular level is a nightmare. You need to simulate many molecules, each one moving around, that form bounds between them that are not stable enough to simulate like a fixed length, but stable enough to be ignored. And now you need to add a strong electromagnetic field to the mix, and the nightmare is upgraded to the Freddy Krueger level.
There seem to be a lot of low hanging fruits to characterize the phenomenon, so I would not try to simulate the process yet. Dependence of the amount of produced gases on the concentration and type of salt, the temperature, radio frequency, input power seem very easy to check if the necessary equipment is available. Pick a few parameters and hand the task over to a bachelor/master student or maybe research assistant and see what results come out.
"Effects of different parameters on the efficiency of electrode-less water splitting", sounds like an acceptable topic for a bachelor thesis for example ;)
"Effects of different parameters on the efficiency of electrode-less water splitting", sounds like an acceptable topic for a bachelor thesis for example ;)
I agree, there are many interesting variables (temperature, concentration, frequency, shape of the container, localization of the beam, ...), and impurities/catalyzers open another huge amount of tweaking opportunities.
It's just that most papers pretend that the result has some practical or theoretical application, and I think it's difficult to get one.
It's just that most papers pretend that the result has some practical or theoretical application, and I think it's difficult to get one.
But isn't that challenge of simulation exactly why empirical study would be valuable?
I'd want to know how the Hydrolysis effect varies as a function of EM frequency and salt composition. Hypothetically, different EM frequencies could produce resonance effects in water. Basically, I'm curious how the flame might grow bigger at different EM frequencies.
If anyone has any access to EM equipment like this, I'd definitely pay $1000 to catalyze. Seriously! I haven't been this curious about a physics phenomena since I learned about sonoluminescent bubble implosions "Mysterious Glowing Bubbles". Seriously. https://www.newswise.com/articles/mysterious-glowing-bubbles
RIP Dr. Apfel, he was a big influence on me.
I know Alan McGaughey at CMU does water modeling at a molecular level, pretty cool stuff: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HmNtygkAAAAJ&hl=en
I'd want to know how the Hydrolysis effect varies as a function of EM frequency and salt composition. Hypothetically, different EM frequencies could produce resonance effects in water. Basically, I'm curious how the flame might grow bigger at different EM frequencies.
If anyone has any access to EM equipment like this, I'd definitely pay $1000 to catalyze. Seriously! I haven't been this curious about a physics phenomena since I learned about sonoluminescent bubble implosions "Mysterious Glowing Bubbles". Seriously. https://www.newswise.com/articles/mysterious-glowing-bubbles
RIP Dr. Apfel, he was a big influence on me.
I know Alan McGaughey at CMU does water modeling at a molecular level, pretty cool stuff: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HmNtygkAAAAJ&hl=en
The RF probably just turns the glass into a capacitor plate. The AC nature of RF helps to deal with the fact that glass is a poor conductor, so a DC field couldn't create much gas before the surface saturated with charge.
This should work without the RF stage using electrodes coated with glass, and using AC to drive it at high frequency.
This should work without the RF stage using electrodes coated with glass, and using AC to drive it at high frequency.
http://www.rexresearch.com/kanzius/kanzius.htm Some news articles and patents.
(Rex Research is mostly crackpottery. But not all of it. The tricky bit is sorting the horse from the horseshit, eh?)
(Rex Research is mostly crackpottery. But not all of it. The tricky bit is sorting the horse from the horseshit, eh?)
If you can piggyback on desalinization of water, some of this process becomes 'free'.
I wonder if we are wasting valuable brine as part of our established desalinization processes?
I wonder if we are wasting valuable brine as part of our established desalinization processes?
Interesting point. Lets do the numbers. Supposedly desalination is 86.55 million m3/day (https://iwa-network.org/desalination-past-present-future/). 1m^3 is 10^3 kg. So 8610^9 kg desalinated water, I dont know the conversion rate, but lets say rougly 110^11kg water from sea pumped. Divided by 5e6 we have 2*10^4 kg/ day. 20 tons of lithum per day. Sounds a lot. That's roughly 8000 tons of lithium per year. Worldproduction is 80000 tons per year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/606684/world-production-...
So while not insignificant it doesnt seem a game-changer. (I might have miscalculated a factor of 10 somewhere, probably..)
They include selling the H and Cl gases also produced to bring the net cost down to $5.
It’d be cool if they could combine this with extraction of Uranium 235 for a more sustainable source of nuclear fuel.
EDIT: For more context, nuclear power could be a great tool in reducing carbon emissions. I read somewhere that mining Uranium 235 from seawater at scale would cost roughy 2x to 3x what it costs to get the fuel from the ground at today's prices. I was trying to say that if we're going through all of the trouble to extract Lithium from seawater, it'd be cool if extracting Uranium at the same time made both processes more economical.
EDIT: For more context, nuclear power could be a great tool in reducing carbon emissions. I read somewhere that mining Uranium 235 from seawater at scale would cost roughy 2x to 3x what it costs to get the fuel from the ground at today's prices. I was trying to say that if we're going through all of the trouble to extract Lithium from seawater, it'd be cool if extracting Uranium at the same time made both processes more economical.
?
Seawater contains uranium among other things:
"Seawater contains about 3.3 parts per billion of uranium by weight, approximately (3.3 µg/kg) or, 3.3 micrograms per liter of seawater.[6] The extraction of uranium from seawater has been considered as a means of obtaining the element.", from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment#Nat...
(Mining uranium is as environmentally unfriendly as other mining operations, just do a web search for "uranium mining".)
"Seawater contains about 3.3 parts per billion of uranium by weight, approximately (3.3 µg/kg) or, 3.3 micrograms per liter of seawater.[6] The extraction of uranium from seawater has been considered as a means of obtaining the element.", from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment#Nat...
(Mining uranium is as environmentally unfriendly as other mining operations, just do a web search for "uranium mining".)
The trick here is to use a ceramic filter that have holes that are so small that only Lithium can pass through.
Actually the only "molecules" smaller than Lithium are Hydrogen and Helium. Helium is not a problem because it's too easy to pull apart and Hydrogen (H+ and H2) are not problem because H2 is another of the products.
(Actually^2 H+ is not isolated, it's combined with water in H3O+, but I guess the holes need some room for the water around the Li+ ions. The technical details are probably more complicated, but "small holes only allow H, He and Li to pass" is a good approximation.)
But Uranium atoms are huge. They are bigger than most atoms, and I'm not sure if the common form in seawater is a combination of Uranium and Oxygen. A hole that big will allow most mineral to pass, so you will just get brine. Using it in the other direction with holes just smaller than Uranium is also not very useful, because you will get Uranium mixed with a lot of crap, many of the contamination are not isolated atoms (that are mostly smaller) but molecules that combine a few atoms are are bigger.
Actually the only "molecules" smaller than Lithium are Hydrogen and Helium. Helium is not a problem because it's too easy to pull apart and Hydrogen (H+ and H2) are not problem because H2 is another of the products.
(Actually^2 H+ is not isolated, it's combined with water in H3O+, but I guess the holes need some room for the water around the Li+ ions. The technical details are probably more complicated, but "small holes only allow H, He and Li to pass" is a good approximation.)
But Uranium atoms are huge. They are bigger than most atoms, and I'm not sure if the common form in seawater is a combination of Uranium and Oxygen. A hole that big will allow most mineral to pass, so you will just get brine. Using it in the other direction with holes just smaller than Uranium is also not very useful, because you will get Uranium mixed with a lot of crap, many of the contamination are not isolated atoms (that are mostly smaller) but molecules that combine a few atoms are are bigger.
> But Uranium atoms are huge.
And heavy. Some gravitational fractionation should do it.
And heavy. Some gravitational fractionation should do it.
Centrifuges, even, typically.
Of course, there's precious metals and rare-earth elements in there too, but are they economically-viable to process?
Yes, I know all about the externalities of uranium mining as a portion of my extended family who lived in a particular house around the Four Corners/Durango area all died within a matter of years from horrible cancers due to contaminated drinking water.
https://www.ewg.org/research/170-million-us-drink-radioactiv...
Yes, I know all about the externalities of uranium mining as a portion of my extended family who lived in a particular house around the Four Corners/Durango area all died within a matter of years from horrible cancers due to contaminated drinking water.
https://www.ewg.org/research/170-million-us-drink-radioactiv...
The electricity cost is ~$5, the sale of H and Cl2 is separate from that. Pages 3-5 of the paper.
Isn’t Lithium an anti-depressant? If it’s extracted from drinking water, won’t you end up with miserable people?
Just pirates and fisherman would be affected but they are salty to begin with.
No we're not, you bloody idiot!
Returns to mending nets and counting seagulls.
Returns to mending nets and counting seagulls.
OP you replied to was saying the remnant waste brine from desalination may contain valuable lithium.
No, lithium is a mood stabilizer. It is mainly used to treat manic episodes in bipolar disorders and is not a particularly effective treatment for major depression.
I doubt drinking water contains anything close to therapeutic doses of lithium.
I doubt drinking water contains anything close to therapeutic doses of lithium.
whoa I was making the exact same point simultaneously in a sibling comment
The idea is that when the cheap lithium is no longer available, this becomes the only viable alternative.
I remember in 2005 my earth science teacher told me "shale in north dakota will never be viable with all this saudi oil lying around"
I remember in 2005 my earth science teacher told me "shale in north dakota will never be viable with all this saudi oil lying around"
IIAN, 5,000 tons of water is 5,000 cubic meters' worth, right?
Wouldn't this process also quickly reduce the local concentration of Lithium in the water surrounding the processing station? Making sustained operations difficult?
Wouldn't this process also quickly reduce the local concentration of Lithium in the water surrounding the processing station? Making sustained operations difficult?
In 1891 Chicago built a water intake four miles offshore in Lake Michigan, with pipes under the lakebed. I bet we could do a lot better than that, over 100 years later.
Likewise between the tide and currents you might have sufficient mixing if new seawater.
Likewise between the tide and currents you might have sufficient mixing if new seawater.
We could repurpose offshore oil rigs.
It's still not clear that the mixing will be faster than the flow through the Lithium extractor, if that extractor needs 5000 m^3 / Kg of output, and wants to get to, oh, 1000 Kg / day.
The sea is big, pipes can be long
that would be a non-issue in existing desalination plants
sounds promising but papers tend to overpromise, so we'll see if it's viable - cheap and abundant lithium batteries would be a major breakthrough for renewables
sounds promising but papers tend to overpromise, so we'll see if it's viable - cheap and abundant lithium batteries would be a major breakthrough for renewables
While still significant, the impact of lithium cost on battery cost is commonly far overestimated:
"A 50% increase in lithium prices would for instance increase the battery pack price of a nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) 811 battery by less than 4%." [1]
Nevertheless, together with improvements in (low-cobalt) battery chemistry, this sounds like an important piece of the puzzle.
[1] https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-b...
"A 50% increase in lithium prices would for instance increase the battery pack price of a nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) 811 battery by less than 4%." [1]
Nevertheless, together with improvements in (low-cobalt) battery chemistry, this sounds like an important piece of the puzzle.
[1] https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-b...
I'm assuming there's other advantages in terms of supply chain. We can put saltwater lithium extractors anywhere and have them be mostly automated. I don't know much about conventional lithium extraction but mining anything tends to be dirty business for both workers and the environment.
It would be a breakthrough for vehicles, but not necessarily for the electrical network.
Batteries still have a lifespan, their manufacture emits CO2, and they need to be disposable or to be recycled.
Nuclear is still the best energy in terms of carbon.
Batteries still have a lifespan, their manufacture emits CO2, and they need to be disposable or to be recycled.
Nuclear is still the best energy in terms of carbon.
The manufacturing process indirectly produces CO2 in the same way the staff driving to a nuclear power plant produces CO2. Aka it’s all indirect and could be replaced with EV and clean energy.
Nuclear is a non starter from a cost perspective at this point. You get vastly more bang for the buck subsidizing battery backed up wind / solar which can actually load follow without becoming even more expensive.
Nuclear is a non starter from a cost perspective at this point. You get vastly more bang for the buck subsidizing battery backed up wind / solar which can actually load follow without becoming even more expensive.
> indirectly produces CO2 in the same way the staff driving to a nuclear power plant
The same way? Mining, processing, shipping, etc... There is a difference between "the same way" and an actual carbon accounting.
Money doesn't matter, only carbon matters. Nuclear is a long term investment, it doesn't mean it's more expensive.
The same way? Mining, processing, shipping, etc... There is a difference between "the same way" and an actual carbon accounting.
Money doesn't matter, only carbon matters. Nuclear is a long term investment, it doesn't mean it's more expensive.
First, Nuclear is more than 10c/kWh unsubsidized at 90% capacity factor, which only gets worse as you try and scale up. France got into the 70% range and they had countries to export to. Nuclear is not even vaguely competitive even without energy storage involved. Just the fuel rod lifecycle alone costs almost as much per kWh as solar. 24/7/365 security is only the tip of the iceberg when you look into why Nuclear is so stupidly expensive. Maintenance for example takes up roughly 1 month per year of operation and you can’t send the guards home.
Anyway, it’s the same in that their all indirectly producing CO2. In a full accounting all of those things that make nuclear expensive actually produce CO2 because construction equipment, mining to produce the parts to build a reactor, etc etc all produce CO2 in the current economy.
In fact if you do the full breakdown for all activities related to Nuclear Reactor Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning their a very significant CO2 source in large part because all economic activity is and their really expensive. Regardless of how easy to draw arbitrary lines that ignore say CO2 emissions from workers daily commutes etc.
The only way to move past that is to have serious energy storage that’s used for all equipment and thus very widespread adoption of cheap battery technology. At which point Nuclear costs become an even larger issue because cheap batteries tank the cost of battery backed up wind/solar. In the end far northern countries can make some use of Nuclear, but it’s a dead end technology without a significant role in actually solving climate change.
Anyway, it’s the same in that their all indirectly producing CO2. In a full accounting all of those things that make nuclear expensive actually produce CO2 because construction equipment, mining to produce the parts to build a reactor, etc etc all produce CO2 in the current economy.
In fact if you do the full breakdown for all activities related to Nuclear Reactor Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning their a very significant CO2 source in large part because all economic activity is and their really expensive. Regardless of how easy to draw arbitrary lines that ignore say CO2 emissions from workers daily commutes etc.
The only way to move past that is to have serious energy storage that’s used for all equipment and thus very widespread adoption of cheap battery technology. At which point Nuclear costs become an even larger issue because cheap batteries tank the cost of battery backed up wind/solar. In the end far northern countries can make some use of Nuclear, but it’s a dead end technology without a significant role in actually solving climate change.
Some pretty wild unsourced claims masquerading as facts.
As with pretty much any energy source, (including wind, solar, gas..) nuclear tends to get cheaper the more you build. You can look up FOAK vs NOAK and note the curves. Not sure what you're referring to re difficulty of increasing %share?
How are you measuring "fuel rod lifecycle"? And how does that possibly comparable to "$/kWh solar"?
Here's [0] a good source for some facts. You should note that accounting for the whole lifecycle of mining/processing/operating/defueling/decommissioning, nuclear is ~1/4 of the emissions of solar. And this is only considering electricity; we still have 2-3x the kwh to source for our heating requirements. You're suggesting we get that all sorted with solar & wind too?
0 - https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the...
As with pretty much any energy source, (including wind, solar, gas..) nuclear tends to get cheaper the more you build. You can look up FOAK vs NOAK and note the curves. Not sure what you're referring to re difficulty of increasing %share?
How are you measuring "fuel rod lifecycle"? And how does that possibly comparable to "$/kWh solar"?
Here's [0] a good source for some facts. You should note that accounting for the whole lifecycle of mining/processing/operating/defueling/decommissioning, nuclear is ~1/4 of the emissions of solar. And this is only considering electricity; we still have 2-3x the kwh to source for our heating requirements. You're suggesting we get that all sorted with solar & wind too?
0 - https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the...
First your source is heavily biased, dig into the numbers they use and they skip for example workers commuting emissions as nobody lives within walking distance of a reactor. Making their comparison absolutely meaningless.
More importantly nuclear very specifically gets more expensive as you ramp up the percentage of grid energy your supplying. For a simple fact check look at the capacity factor of French nuclear reactors, for example:
France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chooz_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Capacity factor 70.6% and around 700 full-time workers
USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St...
Capacity Factor: 87.70% (lifetime)
Lower capacity factors directly translate into higher costs as you still need to pay for the building and security guards etc, you just don’t generate as much energy from identical infrastructure.
PS: If you don’t want to do the leg work just compare national averages around 2000-2005 and then realize France needed to import and export a lot of electricity because they simply couldn’t afford to operate in isolation at 70+% nuclear generation.
More importantly nuclear very specifically gets more expensive as you ramp up the percentage of grid energy your supplying. For a simple fact check look at the capacity factor of French nuclear reactors, for example:
France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chooz_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Capacity factor 70.6% and around 700 full-time workers
USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St...
Capacity Factor: 87.70% (lifetime)
Lower capacity factors directly translate into higher costs as you still need to pay for the building and security guards etc, you just don’t generate as much energy from identical infrastructure.
PS: If you don’t want to do the leg work just compare national averages around 2000-2005 and then realize France needed to import and export a lot of electricity because they simply couldn’t afford to operate in isolation at 70+% nuclear generation.
If you plug yourself to nearby nuclear plant, I guess it's possible to make electricity much cheaper, as long as you can plan your energy consumption.
There's no real need though with this: anything where the product is not on-demand electrical power can and should be able to be run off of intermittent solar or wind power.
Amortized over a year, letting the plant shut down because it's cloudy a few days should be fine.
Amortized over a year, letting the plant shut down because it's cloudy a few days should be fine.
In other words lithium from the seawater adds 0.5% into the battery price.
(Assuming lithium battery cost is USD 100/kWh and 100 g of Lithium metal (not LCE) per kWh)
(Assuming lithium battery cost is USD 100/kWh and 100 g of Lithium metal (not LCE) per kWh)
They're still at the bench-top stage with this, from the pictures. This is something that ought to work, since lithium is commercially extracted from denser brines.[1] Extraction from seawater is quite possible but not yet cost-effective. So cost is the big question. This is the usual problem when articles announcing "cheap and easy" come from the surface-chemistry crowd.
The authors write "a preliminary economic analysis shows that the process can be made profitable when coupled with the chlor-alkali industry." So they apparently want to run this off of the reject stream from a plant that extracts chlorine and sodium hydroxide from brine. Running this downstream of a chlor-alkali plant means somebody else already has a brine source and a way to get rid of all the rejected brine. This sort of thing is common. A lot of rare mineral extraction is done as part of a process that extracts a less-rare mineral.
Profitability is going to turn on all the usual problems with membrane systems - how long does the membrane last, how often does it have to be backwashed, what parts in the system corrode, and similar routine engineering problems. That's usually the hard part.
[1] https://www.samcotech.com/is-it-possible-to-extract-lithium-...
The authors write "a preliminary economic analysis shows that the process can be made profitable when coupled with the chlor-alkali industry." So they apparently want to run this off of the reject stream from a plant that extracts chlorine and sodium hydroxide from brine. Running this downstream of a chlor-alkali plant means somebody else already has a brine source and a way to get rid of all the rejected brine. This sort of thing is common. A lot of rare mineral extraction is done as part of a process that extracts a less-rare mineral.
Profitability is going to turn on all the usual problems with membrane systems - how long does the membrane last, how often does it have to be backwashed, what parts in the system corrode, and similar routine engineering problems. That's usually the hard part.
[1] https://www.samcotech.com/is-it-possible-to-extract-lithium-...
The Japanese seem to have a head start on this process. Article from 2016.
https://www.miningweekly.com/article/over-40-minerals-and-me...
Last year, researchers at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency’s Rokkasho Fusion Institute revealed that they had developed a new way of extracting lithium from seawater. This involves dialysis. It employs a dialysis cell containing a membrane made from a superconducting material. Lithium is the only ion in the seawater that can pass through the membrane. It moves from the negative electrode side of the cell to the positive electrode side. They reported that the system displayed good energy efficiency and that it would be easy to scale it up. However, they also cautioned that the process is years away from being commercialized.
https://www.miningweekly.com/article/over-40-minerals-and-me...
Last year, researchers at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency’s Rokkasho Fusion Institute revealed that they had developed a new way of extracting lithium from seawater. This involves dialysis. It employs a dialysis cell containing a membrane made from a superconducting material. Lithium is the only ion in the seawater that can pass through the membrane. It moves from the negative electrode side of the cell to the positive electrode side. They reported that the system displayed good energy efficiency and that it would be easy to scale it up. However, they also cautioned that the process is years away from being commercialized.
We're nowhere near materials that superconduct above water's freezing point (even salt water); how could this work?
The answer seems to be that it is a misnomer or at least bad choice of name. They talk about (lithium) ionic superconductors at each occurence of the term superconductor which makes me think that they actually mean materials that only let lithium ions through but not others (because this is how their device actually works).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001191641... (Open Access)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001191641... (Open Access)
There are many criteria by which superconductors are classified.
Superconductor material classes include chemical elements (e.g. mercury or lead), alloys (such as niobium–titanium, germanium–niobium, and niobium nitride), ceramics (YBCO and magnesium diboride), superconducting pnictides (like fluorine-doped LaOFeAs) or organic superconductors (fullerenes and carbon nanotubes; though perhaps these examples should be included among the chemical elements, as they are composed entirely of carbon).[12][13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
Superconductor material classes include chemical elements (e.g. mercury or lead), alloys (such as niobium–titanium, germanium–niobium, and niobium nitride), ceramics (YBCO and magnesium diboride), superconducting pnictides (like fluorine-doped LaOFeAs) or organic superconductors (fullerenes and carbon nanotubes; though perhaps these examples should be included among the chemical elements, as they are composed entirely of carbon).[12][13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
This is amazing development taking in consideration how devastating classic lithium mining can be for surrounding nature.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environmen...
At the same time by this method lithium it can become available almost for all countries on the planet (minus 45 that do not have sea).
At the same time by this method lithium it can become available almost for all countries on the planet (minus 45 that do not have sea).
The actual footprint of lithium mining is absolutely tiny compared to pretty much any other metal in demand. Iron, copper, and aluminum mining have left giant gaping scars in the earth that are thousands of times larger than anything anyone has even proposed doing for lithium. And that's before we start to talk about surface coal mining, tar sands, and all the land that's been scraped flat for oil and gas exploration and production. Get some perspective on this by getting out of your house and looking around. Those photos in the article that are intended to shock me would amount to a single medium-scale table salt evaporation facility.
That looks like a fallacy reasoning. In the same way if we would compare any harm that is happening on our planet to let say: Solar system, galaxy or universe, combined with age of a star, so it would be negligible and therefore justifiable?
Collateral damage is justifiable unless you are not that damage isn't it?
Better reasoning could begin with the question: would I leave my comfortable home, go there, and live there in community where water is contaminated by lithium mining sludge. Would I drink that water every day? Is there anyone who is suffering so I could enjoy comfortable life?
Collateral damage is justifiable unless you are not that damage isn't it?
Better reasoning could begin with the question: would I leave my comfortable home, go there, and live there in community where water is contaminated by lithium mining sludge. Would I drink that water every day? Is there anyone who is suffering so I could enjoy comfortable life?
I'm not suggesting that you should move to a salt flat in Bolivia where nobody lives, no, nor am I suggesting that you move to an acidic retaining pond at an old copper mine in Shasta County, California. What I am suggesting is that there are already way, way more people suffering from global consumption of gold, copper, lead, nickel, iron, cadmium, and other metals than are or will potentially suffer from lithium mining.
I'm saying that more people suffering from other type of mining does not justify more lithium mining just because it is polluting less in comparison to another long establish industries.
Instead it should concentrate people thinking power to solve those other issues in mining industry of metals as gold, copper, lead, nickel, iron, cadmium...
Also going outside and seeing that it is beautiful kind of sounds as ostrich way of dealing with problems buy turning on the blind eye concentrating to things in local vicinity, convincing yourself that all is good and we should move on.
Instead it should concentrate people thinking power to solve those other issues in mining industry of metals as gold, copper, lead, nickel, iron, cadmium...
Also going outside and seeing that it is beautiful kind of sounds as ostrich way of dealing with problems buy turning on the blind eye concentrating to things in local vicinity, convincing yourself that all is good and we should move on.
If only the price if lithium mined in these ways included the a tax for these environmental externalities.
I don't think Argentina, Chile, or Bolivia's governments will increase taxes on the people their bribes come from.
A really cool example of lithium from seawater is underway on the Salton Sea using geothermal plants. The water in the Salton Sea is incredible high in lithium and there’s enough there to supply the demand for US EVs.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/990867075/californias-white-g...
I believe there’s a few startups rushing to get there first.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/990867075/californias-white-g...
I believe there’s a few startups rushing to get there first.
Salton Sea is one of the most disgusting and hazardous places in the USA. I’m glad something good can come of it. Hopefully profits will be used for remediation and cleanup.
I think this is a far better idea. This is the first time I'm hearing about this.
Does somebody know the environmental impact of this? Would the lithium concentration in seawater become meaningfully lower, and if so have we verified that organisms aren’t dependent on it?
Two snippets from the Google search for scale:
"The world's oceans contain an estimated 180 billion tons of lithium"
"Lithium mines produced an estimated global total of 82,000 metric tons of lithium in 2020"
"The world's oceans contain an estimated 180 billion tons of lithium"
"Lithium mines produced an estimated global total of 82,000 metric tons of lithium in 2020"
Only one way to find out!
Jokes aside, this would be awesome for Portugal, there's a lot of protests when lithium mines open in here.
Have an option to start extracting lithium from the ocean (which Portugal has LOTS of) would be really cool, but I doubt anyone would put a finger on it without have proper studies on the environmental impact.
Have an option to start extracting lithium from the ocean (which Portugal has LOTS of) would be really cool, but I doubt anyone would put a finger on it without have proper studies on the environmental impact.
The solution is simple: just dump used batteries back into the ocean :)
Just kidding, of course.
Just kidding, of course.
Oddly enough, there's a meme about this (although it's lead-acid rather than lithium)...
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/throwing-car-batteries-into-t...
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/throwing-car-batteries-into-t...
Keep in mind that that is not the only possible environmental impact. In order to extract such large volumes of water, ecosystems may be damaged.
No. Damage from extracting 'large volumes' is insignificant. (waste is another issue)
You are completely off scale. The oceans contain 1.34e+21 L. Humanity uses 1.38e+17J annually. If we take ~10J to move 1Kg 1m up. That means if we spend all our energy on moving sea water, we can move 0.00001% of the ocean up by 1 meter per year.
Any novel ecosystem is close to shore, from those ecosystems most are already damaged by other means.
You are completely off scale. The oceans contain 1.34e+21 L. Humanity uses 1.38e+17J annually. If we take ~10J to move 1Kg 1m up. That means if we spend all our energy on moving sea water, we can move 0.00001% of the ocean up by 1 meter per year.
Any novel ecosystem is close to shore, from those ecosystems most are already damaged by other means.
Animals clogging up nuclear power plants is a common occurance[1][2][3].
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-21/french-nu...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/jellyfish-clog...
[3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hinkley-poin...
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-21/french-nu...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/jellyfish-clog...
[3]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hinkley-poin...
Had the same thought, are there repercussions?
Sounds similar to what EnergyX is doing: https://energyx.com/technology/#lithium-refinery
They built technology to separate lithium from brine that has high concentrations of it. Their short term plan is to test this in Bolivia where lithium is currently being mined by evaporating water in basins (using the sun). This takes huge amounts of water and a lot of time. This would potentially be a lot more efficient. The same company is also working on solid state batteries.
Doing the same with sea water would just require pumping a lot of water, I imagine. If you are desalinating that, you'd end up with a brine with relatively high concentrations of salt, lithium, etc. Same for hydrogen production. So, not the worst idea to do something productive with that brine (as opposed to dumping it back in the sea).
They built technology to separate lithium from brine that has high concentrations of it. Their short term plan is to test this in Bolivia where lithium is currently being mined by evaporating water in basins (using the sun). This takes huge amounts of water and a lot of time. This would potentially be a lot more efficient. The same company is also working on solid state batteries.
Doing the same with sea water would just require pumping a lot of water, I imagine. If you are desalinating that, you'd end up with a brine with relatively high concentrations of salt, lithium, etc. Same for hydrogen production. So, not the worst idea to do something productive with that brine (as opposed to dumping it back in the sea).
"This means that the value of hydrogen and chlorine produced by the cell would end up offsetting the cost of power, and residual seawater could also be used in desalination plants to provide freshwater."
Yes if you run electrodes in water you get Oxygen and Hydrogen at the respective electrodes. Add salt as you get in seawater and you get Hydrogen and Chlorine.
Is the demand for Chlorine that high?
[EDIT ADD] YES, it is and thank you for the replies, the epoxy one I had no idea (never even thought about it even).
Yes if you run electrodes in water you get Oxygen and Hydrogen at the respective electrodes. Add salt as you get in seawater and you get Hydrogen and Chlorine.
Is the demand for Chlorine that high?
[EDIT ADD] YES, it is and thank you for the replies, the epoxy one I had no idea (never even thought about it even).
The global demand for chlorine is 25-30 times as high as the amount of chlorine they would expect to produce when replacing all current lithium production with their process.
You need chlorine to produce epoxy so yes it's pretty high.
Yes. Chlorine is used in many industrial processes and as a base material for a lot of things, including PVC plastic.
I really hope this is not something like the false joy i had when it was said we were able to remove ligogen from hardwood completely and that the carbon structure was almost as strong as steel. Three years later, i'm still waiting for it :/
You must be young, or only started reading about science in mainstream media recently.
The kind of false joy you are talking about has been my constant pain for like 25years.
You just have to understand that « scientific paper hyped up in mainstream media » != « new technology entering the market ».
The kind of false joy you are talking about has been my constant pain for like 25years.
You just have to understand that « scientific paper hyped up in mainstream media » != « new technology entering the market ».
Every now and then it happens. e-ink being the example I remember as a kid. It happened!
Did I get this right: the primary process is basically an LTO battery where salt-water sits behind the LTO's membrane, and when the battery is "charged", the Lithium ions are "sucked" into the battery-side's electrolyte by osmosis?
Not a chemist so I'm just trying to see if I grokked it. If I did, then this is remarkably simple!
Not a chemist so I'm just trying to see if I grokked it. If I did, then this is remarkably simple!
That's my read on it. It's kinda obvious when you frame it that way. Use a substrate which limits the ion size and apply an electric field.
See also New patented process to enable lithium extraction from geothermal in Germany: https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/new-patented-process-to-enabl...
But won’t this make the fish sad?!
Poor eels.
This need more upvotes lol
Please don't. I like that this place isn't reddit.
But you people visit Reddit as well. Is this your alter ego on HN? Why not behave the same way you do in other communities, why put on a mask for the HN folks?
> Is this your alter ego on HN?
Come now, let's not be obtuse. People naturally behave differently in different social contexts, a thing that is totally normal and expected.
For instance, consider how you'd behave in a professional situation, vs when drinking with your friends, vs when catching up with your grandmother.
Having different standards in different online communities seems no different.
Come now, let's not be obtuse. People naturally behave differently in different social contexts, a thing that is totally normal and expected.
For instance, consider how you'd behave in a professional situation, vs when drinking with your friends, vs when catching up with your grandmother.
Having different standards in different online communities seems no different.
The differences between a professional situation/drinking with friends/talking with grandmother are way too big compared to the differences between HN and Reddit. The latter two are actually extremely similar in how content gets posted and discussed.
In other words, there appears to be no reason why HN and Reddit folks should behave differently when on the opposite platform. These behavior differences are artificial and ad hoc (i.e. 'we want to keep HN free from obtuse memes.. because we said so!')
In other words, there appears to be no reason why HN and Reddit folks should behave differently when on the opposite platform. These behavior differences are artificial and ad hoc (i.e. 'we want to keep HN free from obtuse memes.. because we said so!')
> In other words, there appears to be no reason why HN and Reddit folks should behave differently when on the opposite platform.
The site rules would be a pretty obvious reason why people should and do act differently here vs Reddit.
The site rules would be a pretty obvious reason why people should and do act differently here vs Reddit.
You don't accept that different online communities can have sufficiently different cultures that "memes" are more acceptable in one than the other, even if said communities have somewhat of an overlap in audiences?
I'll give you an unrelated example - I watch lots of developer conference presentations and read articles on developer blogs. My pet peeve is when writers include reaction GIFs in between some code example or one-sentence epiphany. I'm here to learn, not to waste bandwidth on some dumb five frame 80MB file. GIFs are for casual "throw-away" conversations, not learning resources.
I like that HN is a learning resource. I like that I can read perspectives from people in many different fields and across the various economic classes. I also like reddit - I like the memes, the in-group culture (when it's funny), the bots, the one-liners, what have you. But I don't want humor and generalizations to dominate HN comments; I want educational content to float to the top so that authors are rewarded for sharing their perspective. I can find funny takes on HN headlines on reddit already.
I like that HN is a learning resource. I like that I can read perspectives from people in many different fields and across the various economic classes. I also like reddit - I like the memes, the in-group culture (when it's funny), the bots, the one-liners, what have you. But I don't want humor and generalizations to dominate HN comments; I want educational content to float to the top so that authors are rewarded for sharing their perspective. I can find funny takes on HN headlines on reddit already.
The point is that HN and Reddit are not extremely similar. This is more like a work place (more rules, more interesting), reddit is more like 8th grade recess (less rules, more fun)
you people visit Reddit as well
That’s a generalization, not everyone visits reddit.
That’s a generalization, not everyone visits reddit.
I think its about keeping one place for meaningful discussion and other for meme creation.
It's a big deal, if just to provide a signal that lithium supply can be distributed in the future and mineralized, concentrated, and potentially politicized sources won't dominate. The biggest effect might be to chill R&D on alternative chemistries to lithium for motorized transport batteries as well as lithium recycling research.
It appears that this method is more profitable than mining Bitcoin if electricity cost is >.03/kWh and Lithium $10/kg.
Too bad you get any GPUs, guess electric car will have to wait.
I just wonder if any creature depends on the lithium levels being what they currently are to survive. It seems we're great at discovering X but at the expense of the unknown Y and by the time we discover the problem in Y, it's too late to fix it. And now we have also have a problem with Z caused by Y.
In other comment above, quick math shows the scale of this concern ends up being completely off.
The oceans are just so much bigger than we can easily conceptualize. So very much bigger.
The oceans are just so much bigger than we can easily conceptualize. So very much bigger.
> The oceans are just so much bigger than we can easily conceptualize. So very much bigger.
Yes, so big in fact that at one time we didn't think that little 'ol mankind could alter it, just like the rest of the planet. What does raising the ocean temp by a measly 1-2 degrees do to thousands of different plants and animals in the sea? Did we know that 100 years ago? These very large complex systems aren't as immune to small changes as we once thought and often cascade into other systems.
Yes, so big in fact that at one time we didn't think that little 'ol mankind could alter it, just like the rest of the planet. What does raising the ocean temp by a measly 1-2 degrees do to thousands of different plants and animals in the sea? Did we know that 100 years ago? These very large complex systems aren't as immune to small changes as we once thought and often cascade into other systems.
In Michigan there is a special class of mining known as injection wells where they force water into wells and extract either salt or potassium fertilizer. Makes me wonder if they could extract lithium as a byproduct of this process?
This is being attempted with lithium as well: https://financialpost.com/commodities/mining/meet-the-compan...
Its hard to say as the process is not described well. It seems to be, but i know that this kind of article is obscure on purpose to let readers imagine all kind of applications.
To put the amount of lithium in seawater in perspective:
Just 2% of that would be enough to create storage capable of holding a year's worth of the world's electricity consumption.
Just 2% of that would be enough to create storage capable of holding a year's worth of the world's electricity consumption.
I wonder, what's the cost of lithium in battery making?
I've seen a video of how smartphone batteries are made, it's pretty advanced...
I've seen a video of how smartphone batteries are made, it's pretty advanced...
There's around 160-200g of lithium in 1 kWh of batteries, meanwhile lithium costs ~$13.50/kg, so in 1 kWh there's around $2.70 worth of lithium.
[deleted]
$5 a kilogram from seawater seems almost magical, I look forwards to the actual proof.
$5 per kg for the electricity expenses is far from magical, but it should be low enough to make the extraction profitable.
I do not know the current price of lithium, because most previous information sources, like the metal exchanges, no longer make their data public.
Nevertheless, a few years ago lithium was around $66 per kg.
So $5 would be just about 7.5% of the price per kg, but there are a lot of other costs, like replacing from time to time the expensive LLTO ceramic membrane and the very expensive Pt-Ru coated cathode and also many other operational costs and the amortization of the investment.
For reversible batteries, the conversion of lithium phosphate to another lithium salt might be enough, but for applications that need metallic lithium, like primary batteries or Li-Al alloys, the lithium phosphate must be converted into lithium chloride or other suitable salt and the metallic lithium must be extracted by electrolysis, with additional, higher, costs for electric energy.
However, the method described is sound and there are also useful byproducts to ensure or increase the profit.
The method is not new, but the major achievement is finding a suitable material for the selective membrane, which passes lithium but blocks the much more abundant sodium & potassium.
Unlike many such announcements, this appears to have good chances to eventually be used for lithium extraction.
I do not know the current price of lithium, because most previous information sources, like the metal exchanges, no longer make their data public.
Nevertheless, a few years ago lithium was around $66 per kg.
So $5 would be just about 7.5% of the price per kg, but there are a lot of other costs, like replacing from time to time the expensive LLTO ceramic membrane and the very expensive Pt-Ru coated cathode and also many other operational costs and the amortization of the investment.
For reversible batteries, the conversion of lithium phosphate to another lithium salt might be enough, but for applications that need metallic lithium, like primary batteries or Li-Al alloys, the lithium phosphate must be converted into lithium chloride or other suitable salt and the metallic lithium must be extracted by electrolysis, with additional, higher, costs for electric energy.
However, the method described is sound and there are also useful byproducts to ensure or increase the profit.
The method is not new, but the major achievement is finding a suitable material for the selective membrane, which passes lithium but blocks the much more abundant sodium & potassium.
Unlike many such announcements, this appears to have good chances to eventually be used for lithium extraction.
> the very expensive Pt-Ru coated cathode
The Pt-Ru is just a catalyst, no? Maybe it gets contaminated but it would hopefully be recycled. Might even go up in value over time rather than be consumed.
The Pt-Ru is just a catalyst, no? Maybe it gets contaminated but it would hopefully be recycled. Might even go up in value over time rather than be consumed.
makes me think of https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/project-natick... and using the "wasted" heat those servers generate to do something with seawater like extract lithium or just salt and make fresh drinking water?
Could this be done far away at sea, perhaps close to oil and gas platforms?
I remember reading a story like this a few years ago. I think, in that case, it was about rare earth minerals.
Don’t get me wrong; I really want this to work, but until the extraction plant gets built and is producing at scale, I won’t hold my breath.
Don’t get me wrong; I really want this to work, but until the extraction plant gets built and is producing at scale, I won’t hold my breath.
How does this compare to current prices?
What would the sea corals say about us taking their lithium away?
Do they even like lithium? Maybe we're doing them a favor.
Do they even like lithium? Maybe we're doing them a favor.
Head start
relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/678/
Soon: a global reduction of lithium levels in seawater makes fish more aggressive.
I can already see the 2050 headlines: fish populations rapidly depleting from lithium deprivation.
Nice! You predict fish remain in 2050!
I am not sure, but sadly, it seems the reduction in carbon footprint from EVs is nullified by the expanded carbon emissions from lithium mining:
http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/exploring-lithium-ion-electric-...
They/you lose me out of the gate:
> An entry-level Honda Civic, which we believe is a more appropriate comparison, would improve the ICE fuel efficiency by 20%.
Someone shopping for a Tesla model 3 isn’t also in the market for a base-model civic. The primary market they’ve been eating is bmw and Audi. And the author has to know that because it’s published monthly and he’s at least pretending to have done some research.
When you link to a blog making obvious bad-faith assumptions, the rest of the message is rather irrelevant and people are going to let you know.
> An entry-level Honda Civic, which we believe is a more appropriate comparison, would improve the ICE fuel efficiency by 20%.
Someone shopping for a Tesla model 3 isn’t also in the market for a base-model civic. The primary market they’ve been eating is bmw and Audi. And the author has to know that because it’s published monthly and he’s at least pretending to have done some research.
When you link to a blog making obvious bad-faith assumptions, the rest of the message is rather irrelevant and people are going to let you know.
I would like that EVs would prove to be solution to carbon footprint reduction.
Its just that with information I looked at so far, for ex. the fact batteries do not seem to last more than 130,000 Km and the expansion of lithium mining it looks like the jury is still out of EVs really are helping reducing overall carbon footprint. If you look at some of the studies you will seen depending on the data there a reduction only of 10% maybe 15% and according to other sources its basically flat. I would love to be proven wrong, as clearly we are facing a climate change emergency.Plus hydrogen as a solution does not seem to be around the corner. Producing hydrogen also has its challenges.
Its just that with information I looked at so far, for ex. the fact batteries do not seem to last more than 130,000 Km and the expansion of lithium mining it looks like the jury is still out of EVs really are helping reducing overall carbon footprint. If you look at some of the studies you will seen depending on the data there a reduction only of 10% maybe 15% and according to other sources its basically flat. I would love to be proven wrong, as clearly we are facing a climate change emergency.Plus hydrogen as a solution does not seem to be around the corner. Producing hydrogen also has its challenges.
It seems many of you do not agree, so please give me the benefit of the doubt and review some data points:
"Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions" https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...
"Analysis of the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries and how to measure it" https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
"Climate explained: the environmental footprint of electric versus fossil cars" https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-the-environmen...
"Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions" https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...
"Analysis of the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries and how to measure it" https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
"Climate explained: the environmental footprint of electric versus fossil cars" https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-the-environmen...
Two of these citations undermine your original claim that "the reduction in carbon footprint from EVs is nullified by the expanded carbon emissions from lithium mining."
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-the-environmen...
says
So on the basis of recent studies, fossil-fueled cars generally emit more than electric cars in all phases of a life cycle.
and https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
says
Overall, electric vehicles typically have much lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than a typical car in Europe, even when assuming relatively high battery manufacturing emissions.
The first link does not appear to directly compare internal combustion vehicles against battery electric vehicles.
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-the-environmen...
says
So on the basis of recent studies, fossil-fueled cars generally emit more than electric cars in all phases of a life cycle.
and https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
says
Overall, electric vehicles typically have much lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than a typical car in Europe, even when assuming relatively high battery manufacturing emissions.
The first link does not appear to directly compare internal combustion vehicles against battery electric vehicles.
And some other data points indicate its not that clear cut and that is my point. From the second link you mentioned:
"On the other hand will the total CO2 footprint from battery production increase in unprecedented pace and to an enormous scale. If the value from GREET 2018 is used (73kg CO2e/kWh) the industry will go from 12 million tonnes CO2 equivalents to 106 million tonnes which is equal to almost two thirds of GHG emissions from aviation in Europe . Even if this contributes to a decrease of direct fossil fuel emissions, through the 30 replacement of ICEVs to EVs, it will be a large source of CO2 emissions "
"On the other hand will the total CO2 footprint from battery production increase in unprecedented pace and to an enormous scale. If the value from GREET 2018 is used (73kg CO2e/kWh) the industry will go from 12 million tonnes CO2 equivalents to 106 million tonnes which is equal to almost two thirds of GHG emissions from aviation in Europe . Even if this contributes to a decrease of direct fossil fuel emissions, through the 30 replacement of ICEVs to EVs, it will be a large source of CO2 emissions "
Lithium is a conflict resource. its scarce, its hard to mine, and as a result so far electric cars are a fanciful plaything for what i would consider "the rich." This paves the way for electric cars that a working class mom and dad can afford to get to and from work and the store. and of course electric trucks that have obscene amounts of torque means never "getting stuck" behind a slow truck ever again. it also means cleaner cities and hopefully cheaper trucking for over the road drivers and owner/operators.
Ive told my coworkers and apprentices this for as long as i can remember: expect to service elecric long-haul trucks in your lifetime. Learn the powertrain, the dynamics, the performance characteristics and keep pace with the technology as it evolves. Make it part of your expectation in the future, because the economic model of diesel is a last-ditch effort at best in the 21st century.