Lithium discovery in U.S. volcano could be biggest deposit ever found

[u/Sort_of_Frightening]

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/lithium-discovery-in-us-volcano-could-be-biggest-deposit-ever-found/4018032.article

[u/spambearpig]

This is actually great news and I’ve got no skin in the game at all, I’m not from the U.S.

But it would seem that if the US can meet it’s lithium requirements domestically then more of the electric vehicle revolution can be done ‘in house’ which should mean lower carbon footprint, fewer miners in awful conditions in other countries and fewer dollars ending up in China.

[u/o08 → u/spambearpig]

Cano mining is much a much better alternative to under sea mining too.

[u/spambearpig → u/o08]

I figured the mining was cleaner and less damaging to the environment, but I wasn’t sure. I’d like to think the US has better environmental laws than many lithium rich countries. But I’m not sure I could bet on that.

[u/Sasquatchii → u/spambearpig]

Despite the comments below, yes, the USA has better environmental laws than most if not all other lithium hot spot countries

[u/mynextthroway → u/Sasquatchii]

The better American environmental laws are one of the forces pushing American industries overseas.

[u/Dantheking94 → u/mynextthroway]

It’s one of the reasons we still have an environment at all. We had flaming rivers at one point, and cities were covered in smog. We’ve come so far that people have forgotten what it really was like.

[u/baby_fart → u/mynextthroway]

That's called corporate greed.

[u/prism1234 → u/Sasquatchii]

Isn't Australia the highest Lithium producer? I would have guessed they would have similarish level environmental laws to the US.

[u/Wizerd51 → u/Sasquatchii]

Laws only get followed by companies if the fines outweigh the profits.

[u/Psyc3 → u/Sasquatchii]

Yes, the USA is above the bar you can't even trip over because it is underground.

What a standard to meet! It would be interesting to know the exact regulations around this however because Lithium mining is generally pretty damaging to the environment with a high water usage, there is a reality that the USA can't be competitive in this market. Which really has no relevance to protecting and utilising a strategic resource for national security reasons. Much like letting a country control your food supply or energy supply is unwise, in future letting a country control the technology supply, and in this case the energy storage supply is unwise.

[u/Sasquatchii → u/Psyc3]

Are you simultaneously arguing that the USA is doing too little to matter but too much to be competitive ?

[u/FrankBattaglia → u/Sasquatchii]

They're also criticizing the environmental regulations as being too lax while simultaneously admitting they don't know what the applicable regulations are, so...

[u/danielravennest → u/Psyc3]

Lithium mining is generally pretty damaging to the environment

The plan for this mine is that nothing leaves the site except lithium. Sulfur comes in to make sulfuric acid. A patch of ground is mined, and the ore layers are treated with sulfuric acid to make lithium sulfate. That leaves to feed battery production. The leftovers are put back in the ground where they were taken from. This is a flat crater bottom, so no rivers flow away to contaminate other places.

[u/Drachefly → u/danielravennest]

There are definite ways that could go wrong.

Still, seems like it's not a bad plan

[u/Psyc3 → u/danielravennest]

A plan indeed, how does it hold up over 100 years is the question, most businesses are thinking in a lot sorter time scales than that, and plan to be out of their liabilities before then with no recourse.

Not saying it won't work, but it sure sounds like a lot of hand waving and claiming it will be fine! Actually cleaning up the mess will cost money after all!

[u/Kestralisk → u/Psyc3]

Not sure on 'exact' but they'll almost absolutely have to create an environmental impact statement (these are massive documents), though sometimes judges will let them get away with an environmental assessment instead. They also have to be compliant with clean air, clean water, and the endangered species act. There are ways to have some impact legally tolerated but mining companies/the government can't just do whatever they want. If the mining will impact water or endangered species that's where a lot of the hold up will come from in my experience

[u/Psyc3 → u/Kestralisk]

Sure, but Trump also signed up to screwing up Alaska with further gas drilling, so who knows what backhander would have got you to get around all that.

Facts are a solution to this has significant nuance, what is the cost of a enviromentally sustainable lithium ion car battery for instance, it is one thing if it is $10K instead of $7K, another if it is $30K-50K.

[u/v4ss42 → u/Sasquatchii]

Australia is the largest single producer of lithium and no the US doesn’t have better environmental laws than Australia.

[u/Sasquatchii → u/v4ss42]

A for accuracy D for reading comprehension

[u/v4ss42 → u/Sasquatchii]

Ah shifting the goalposts. That’s an instant F my pedagogically inclined friend.

[u/JustaRandomOldGuy → u/spambearpig]

Rare earths are not that rare. It's just some countries have minimal environmental protections and near slave labor. It's not cost competitive for a Western country to mine them.

[u/padishaihulud → u/spambearpig]

The US having strict environmental laws is actually the reason we rely on foreign countries for our rare earth metals. We have our own deposits, but it would be too expensive for us to mine them with care for the environment. It's cheaper to let a more desperate country ruin their environment instead.

[u/Toadsted → u/padishaihulud]

Not "too expensive" to do, "not as much profit" to do.

We could get by just fine under the strictest of regulations and a 90% tax rate. We did just that for decades.

It's just not nearly as good for share holders to do so.

[u/Safranina → u/padishaihulud]

Just that the evironment isn't really only "theirs". Pollution will affect them first, of course, but the consequences are global.

[u/Nekzar → u/Safranina]

I'm no expert in mining, but that certainly depends on what kind of environmental damage. It doesn't have to be emissions but could be ground water or something else.

[u/Defconx19 → u/spambearpig]

The EPA has been weakened significantly in recent years sadly

[u/ascandalia → u/Defconx19]

Contractor for epa here, the Biden admin has really emboldened epa. My career started in the Obama administration , but I haven't seen EPA working this aggressively to enforce regulations in all my career

[u/another_gen_weaker → u/ascandalia]

Didn't they just scrap the 2006 EPA Clean Water Act or something to that effect?

[u/ascandalia → u/another_gen_weaker]

They were ordered to by a judge

[u/IShouldBWorkin → u/ascandalia]

That doesn't change that it made the EPA weaker.

[u/ascandalia → u/IShouldBWorkin]

That was a big blow. But it's not all epa does. Compared to the Trump and Obama years, they're enforcing regulations overall much more aggressively

[u/aoskunk → u/ascandalia]

That’s cool to hear man.

[u/nate33231 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, as long as Congress continues to ring its hands about doing literally anything, I think it's fair that the executive attempts to make positive changes. At least then some part of government is trying to follow the will of the people

[u/TMNBortles → u/[deleted]]

I still prefer experts at agencies to make calls on subject matter over politicians. But if the politicians really want to make that decision, all they have to do is pass a law stripping the agency of their rulemaking power on whatever pet project they want.

[u/ascandalia → u/[deleted]]

It's like we've got a complex system with an agile executive balanced by a judicial and legislative branch to check its power

[u/time2fly2124 → u/ascandalia]

That judicial branch is looking a little shakey these days

[u/ascandalia → u/time2fly2124]

So is congress, but that's because one party has been seized by cynical fascism. Bad, but hopefully temporary

[u/time2fly2124 → u/ascandalia]

Congress is a little easier to fix with direct voting. The supreme court is a bit harder with justices serving for decades, and hoping they were appointed by your prefered flavor of president

[u/unpolishedparadigm → u/Defconx19]

Something about appointing a guy with dozens of open lawsuits against the agency to run it. What could’ve gone wrong?

[u/dalerian → u/unpolishedparadigm]

Not “wrong” If it’s exactly to plan. :(

[u/Minion_of_Cthulhu → u/unpolishedparadigm]

"Who better to run an organization than the person who loathes its very existence the most? Just think of all the budget cutting that can happen!"

-Republicans, probably

[u/Cephalophobe → u/spambearpig]

I'm pretty sure the US is part of the reason why lithium rich countries don't have good environmental laws.

[u/TerraMindFigure → u/spambearpig]

Do these countries with large lithium deposits just happen to have lax laws or do we open lithium lines in these countries because of said laws?

I was always under the impression we had plenty of lithium in the U.S.

[u/GreenStrong → u/o08]

Undersea mining was never proposed for lithium, as far as I know. Deep sea mining is being explored for manganese nodules, which basically sit on the seabed in some regions. In addition to manganese, they contain cobalt nickel and copper, all of which are needed for batteries and other applications in the energy transition.

It is possible that deep sea mining has a small environmental impact. It is wise to be skeptical about that possibility, but also open minded.

[u/korinth86 → u/GreenStrong]

Not when the idea is to basically rake/vacuum the seafloor to pick them up.

Environmentally speaking it's going to be horrible for the area.

[u/Striper_Cape → u/korinth86]

Dredging already sterilizes the sea floor.

[u/alonjar → u/korinth86]

Environmentally speaking, the overwhelming majority of the sea floor is a barren wasteland with nothing to damage.

[u/korinth86 → u/alonjar]

Wasteland attributes that it doesn't support life. Many of these areas do support life in some way or another.

This particular area, while not teaming with life does support sponges and potentially countless other animals. Even if it's only a place to lay eggs.

I actually favor deep sea mining. I'm not going to delude myself that it has "nothing to damage." Hopefully even if we start with the raking plan, we can develop less destructive ways to harvest them as we progress.

[u/GreenStrong → u/korinth86]

The companies who ant to do that say it is fine, and that the sediment plume is limited in scale and brief. I'm skeptical of this claim, but we need third party assessment, and the UN has not even written regulations yet.

I do think that it is possible for robots with grippers to pick them up from the seabed with less sediment disruption. Sea life would need replacement rocks. Sponges and similar things prefer to anchor to a hard surface, and these nodules are generally the only hard surface.

[u/Geawiel → u/GreenStrong]

NOVA to the rescue. I can't find the episode on it, just the 1979 one. There was a more recent one that revisited the issue.

They covered this type of mining. A test drag was made. They came back 15? years later and it was still visible. It had affected sea life in the area of the test drag.

[u/peteroh9 → u/GreenStrong]

Where are they dredging? If they're far enough away from land, there's a good chance it will already be pretty much barren.

[u/GeoGeoGeoGeo → u/korinth86]

Manganese nodules form on vast deep-water abyssal plains and comprise primarily of manganese and iron, though significant amounts of other metals are also found in these structures. The main constituents of interest in addition to manganese (28%) are nickel (1.3%), copper (1.1%), cobalt (0.2%), molybdenum (0.059%), and rare earth metals (0.081%). Nodules also contain traces of other commercially relevant elements including platinum and tellurium, which are important constituents of technological products such as photovoltaic cells and catalytic technology.

Among other marine mineral deposits are seafloor massive sulfides (SMS), which are associated with both active and inactive hydrothermal vents and are rich in copper, gold, zinc, lead, barium, and silver.

Then there are cobalt-rich crusts, also referred to as ferromanganese crusts, which form on the slopes and summits of seamounts and contain manganese, iron and a wide array of trace metals (cobalt, copper, nickel, and platinum)

The ecology around nodules is that of sponges and molluscs that are unique to the surfaces of nodules, with nematode worms and crustacean larvae having been found within crevices.

There's really not a lot going on at these depths:

... in nodule-rich areas, a recorded 14–30 sessile individuals per 100 m2, and 4–15 mobile individuals per 100 m2; while in nodule-free areas there were up to 8 sessile individuals per 100 m2 and 1–3 mobile individuals per 100 m2.

If we're going to transition to renewables and away from fossil fuels we're going to need precious and base metals. While there are certainly environmental concerns, they are clearly not in the same league as the environmental and ethical concerns from current operations for some of these metals on land.

I would much rather improve the lives of cobalt miners (children and adult), reduce our emissions and reduce our environmental impact than not harm worms and sponges in the abysal muds.

That's not to say we shouldn't try to reduce our impact in every sense of the manner but it saying we need to be pragmatic about moving forward and away from our reliance on fossil fuels.

[u/lurksAtDogs → u/korinth86]

I don’t understand why that’s the only option. Underwater drones exist. Why not pick the nodules up, drop them in a net, and lift the net? No giant vacuum/rake needed? Seems like it could be minimally invasive, if a little more expensive. Still, probably cheaper than a decade of environmental reviews

[u/korinth86 → u/lurksAtDogs]

It's just the proposed plan.

Big machines would scrape the seafloor, scooping up nodules while kicking up clouds of sediment, potentially damaging the deep sea on a vast scale by removing habitat and species and altering ecosystems.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deep-sea-mining-could-begin-soon-regulated-or-not/

I agree we could likely find a better way. Though, I wouldn't think drone collection would be economically viable.

[u/Captain-Matt89 → u/lurksAtDogs]

So far when they’ve tried to do it, they suck them into a net. It’s not that bad, some people will cry with zero knowledge

[u/Captain-Matt89 → u/[deleted]]

I could not even imagine a more ecologically harmless way to go about mineral resource extraction

[u/salty_sashimi → u/GreenStrong]

Even if it does completely destroy the habitats, the ability those nodules confer to reduce global warming is worth it imo. The destruction from that, unchecked, would be worse, and the seas will bear the brunt of it. Plus, many mines are in congo, indonesia, and china, which are destroying far more biodiverse habitats, like rainforests, to make room for mines. Anyways, robot submarines, replacing nodules, and limiting tract coverage will prevent complete destruction of the nodule fields.

This goes over details: https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-3/mineral-resources/manganese-nodules

The manganese in the nodules is greater than the world land supply. That will likely be needed as africa and asia grow in population and energy consumption per capita. The land supply of these minerals won't be sufficient without major battery or electric grid improvements.

[u/fruitmask → u/o08]

Cano mining is much a much

what language is that?

[u/wildfire98 → u/o08]

Cano wins. Sorry, I couldnt resist.

[u/[deleted] → u/spambearpig]

We are entering into a window of global development that is going to require a massive increase in the annual lithium production via mining. Estimates put our requirements by 2030 at literally 10x what we currently produce.

And we need it with some immediacy. If this pans out, it will add to, not replace, current lithium mining elsewhere.

[u/tinyLEDs → u/[deleted]]

If this pans out, it will add to, not replace, current lithium mining elsewhere.

Profitability depends 100% upon extraction cost.

There are places all over the world to find gold. You can find it in Nebraska. England. It is everywhere. It isn't mined in such places ONLY because it is not profitable, and IS mined elsewhere, because it costs less to extract/produce.

Gold mines all over the world (and copper, and tin, and iron, and oil, and ________) have gone in, and out,and back into business as demand fluctuates. And mines where large volumes of ore are easily accessed HAVE driven other mines out of profitability, and closed them.

Gold and oil mining history will bring the easiest examples, if you care to look deeper at this.

[u/[deleted] → u/tinyLEDs]

these things - gold and old - are established commodity markets with largely inelastic demand.

lithium represents a sort of "new" market in that its demand in manufacturing and consumer goods is about to go through a massive ramp in scale. we really are at a moment where we're trying to figure out HOW to meet this emerging demand and that means developing new capacity altogether.

[u/tinyLEDs → u/[deleted]]

Gold and oil demonstrate the mining industry and how demand/supply changes affect viability based upon mining operation costs (which is determned by, among other things, extraction method)

I realize they are not direct parallels, but they are proof of concept. If the find in the OP, or any other find, were fundamentally a mother lode,) then it will impact the viability of other mines with supply shock.

Lithium may be a new commodity, but it is a commodity nonetheless.

[u/CliftonForce → u/tinyLEDs]

Reasons why we are not going to "run out" of any particular mineral. It will just get exponentially more expensive as we tap sources that were previously ignored, but there will always be something to be had.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Uhh.. There are plenty of estimates that show our lithium use will only be slightly higher by 2030 too. There are a LOT of emerging technologies that greatly reduce or eliminate lithium altogether. And the larger the battery needs (think local grid storage), the need for lithium will be completely gone by 2030.

There will be uses for the lithium we mine either way, but a 10x increase just in demand of lithium in 6 years is a bit exaggerated. Actually its a lot exxagerated...

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I mean, we're part way up the curve from the released study (2020), but it's an academic estimate.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220158/global-lithium-demand-volume-by-application/#:~:text=Global%20lithium%20demand%20volume%202020%2D2030%2C%20by%20application&text=In%202020%2C%20the%20total%20demand,approximately%202.5%20million%20metric%20tons.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I can't really see anything beyond the graph, but what does the * mean next to the dates provided in the graph?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

it says in the supplementary information that the asterisk indicates that that data is projected rather than observed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well we're 40% through that study's window, so there is that as far as an x10 increase from where we are now.

But, yea electric cars and small electronics are going to use a lot of lithium, but batteries are at the stage now where every year there are big breakthroughs and the latest round seem to be all including vast reductions of lithium. And technology can be built around the battery without being tied to it.

I don't disagree we'll be using a lot of lithium for the next 10 years, but you could have done an academic study on myspace growth by 2020, but the study doesn't include disrupters, which quite a few emerged for lithium since that study.

[u/Akimotoh → u/[deleted]]

Is it a gigantic waste of resources to use the Lithium now with our weaker EV battery technology as a opposed to investing more money into research and development of better batteries with the Lithium deposits in the future?

[u/[deleted] → u/Akimotoh]

I think the question is what happens when todays batteries fail. Do they end up in a landfill? Or do we have the technology to efficiently reclaim that lithium?

I think that’s the critical thing…not that we’ve “solved” batteries.

[u/Buttermilkman → u/spambearpig]

There was also something about Biden signing in a bill that would make the US the biggest clean energy market on the planet. This discovery would be insane for that.

[u/eliguillao → u/Buttermilkman]

How clean is lithium mining?

[u/MetalGhost99 → u/eliguillao]

That really depends on what your mining it out of. This particular spot is clay so it should be cleaner than most.

[u/MrSnowden → u/spambearpig]

And fewer bloody proxy battles in poor countries with local warlords armed to the teeth by superpowers.

[u/cereal7802 → u/spambearpig]

if the US can meet it’s lithium requirements domestically then more of the electric vehicle revolution can be done ‘in house’ which should mean lower carbon footprint, fewer miners in awful conditions in other countries and fewer dollars ending up in China.

more likely it will be used to flood the global market to drop pricing, then suddenly stop producing more so it can be kept as a "strategic reserve".

[u/Jscottpilgrim → u/cereal7802]

That's the American way!

[u/tinyLEDs → u/cereal7802]

Is that a zero sum game, somehow?

Hegemony/world order exists independently of technology advancement, though it can be 1 tool to establish/maintain (of many)

[u/DesolatumDeus → u/spambearpig]

Unfortunately, the world is meh once again. Doing some basic digging into lithium nevada, the company who will do the mining, reveals their biggest shareholders are a Chinese company. Specifically china's biggest lithium company. So good chance China will get richer alongside the united states instead of less wealthy.

[u/EllieLuvsLollipops → u/spambearpig]

China uses toxic chemicals to improve yield and quality. If this could be done in a way that won't poison the environment like building a specific facility with its own independent drainage and collection, it could do what fracking did and make the USA self sufficient.

[u/Psyc3 → u/spambearpig]

Lithium isn't a particularly rare resource, it is just its extraction is highly polluting, often damages the landscape, and also requires a large water consumption.

This is why it was outsourced to China, so they can destroy their country and people can pretend their technology is green because it isn't dumping CO2, NO, SO2 straight into their face. Same thing the West did with air pollution, and plastic waste.

[u/helphunting → u/spambearpig]

Or they can use this source to control the market price and still buy from developing nations at rock bottom prices.

[u/Thrent_ → u/spambearpig]

Afaik basically +90% of all Lithium refining in the world is done in China despite the biggest producers being Australia, Chile and Argentina.

The US better heavily subsidize this activity if they expect that US Lithium to actually be produced from scratch in their own country.

Otherwise they'll be just like all other producers sending their ore to China cuz it's cheaper.

[u/loupgarou21 → u/spambearpig]

The US has a bunch of lithium deposits, but most areas here don’t permit it’s mining because it’s such an environmentally damaging process

[u/Chlamydia_Penis_Wart → u/loupgarou21]

And that's why hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go for eco friendly cars, especially if you could use nuclear energy or renewables for the energy to make the hydrogen

[u/reggiestered → u/spambearpig]

So you you sort of have skin in the game.

[u/spambearpig → u/reggiestered]

By being a citizen of earth and having values and a perspective on things yes, I do. I suppose you are right about that.

But I don’t own any shares in mining companies or anything like that.

So I’ll accept your point and hope you’ll accept my meaning.

[u/reggiestered → u/spambearpig]

I absolutely do.

[u/BloodyRightNostril → u/spambearpig]

Not to mention less inclination for US-backed regime change in other countries!

[u/RexManning1 → u/spambearpig]

Lithium based batteries for EVs will soon be replaced with sodium based batteries. Twice the storage capacity in half the size.

[u/[deleted] → u/RexManning1]

Will or might? There’s a lot of battery companies making big claims to get investor funding right now.

[u/Echoeversky → u/[deleted]]

It's all bs to me until a line is ramping with this tech at 1000 cars per week.

[u/dolche93 → u/Echoeversky]

I could count the "amazing new battery tech" articles I've read either on here or /r/technology over the years on, like, two hands.

Still using lipo batteries for everything that isn't heavy as hell.

[u/oohhh → u/Echoeversky]

1,000 a week? Modern Automotive final assembly plants are capable of producing over 1000 cars a day.

[u/PsyOmega → u/[deleted]]

Na-ion cell production ramped last year. Products are due out soon.

The downside is that capacity is lower per lb than Li-ion

The upside is that they aren't fire risks.

Na-Ion cars will be sold in regions like china or europe first.

The american car market demands range and low cost above all else.

[u/StateChemist → u/PsyOmega]

Weight is a major issue for vehicle batteries.

Yet there is going to be considerable demand for large scale stationary batteries as well.

Room for more than one tech to solve more than one problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/StateChemist]

Yup. Could definitely have shorter range vehicles for people with shorter commutes and larger range for those who need it for a premium.

Would be great if the implementation is actually swappable. Same physical footprint just different intervals.

[u/Jeffalltogether → u/[deleted]]

i've seen replaceable batteries for motorcycles / mopeds. where you would just swap out your dead batteries for fresh ones at charging stations. they could probably do something similar for cars

[u/Same-Strategy3069 → u/[deleted]]

I drive max 50 miles a day and have two cars. I would be fine with 100 miles a charge for 1 and a longer range hybrid for the other. I want an all electric 7 seater with a 100 mile range.

[u/[deleted] → u/Same-Strategy3069]

I have an EV. The issue with your statement isn’t entirely the range, but also the charging rate. Faster chargers also decrease battery life.

I have an ioniq5 and my commute is just 14 miles round trip, three days a week. I can easily just drop charge/level 1 charge it every other day to keep it under 80%.

If you have a 50 mile commute and need to charge it daily, there could be an issue if you end up going somewhere after work and only have 8 hours or so of charging. Though if it’s intermittent, then using a level 2/3 charger every now and then isn’t s big deal.

[u/vkashen → u/StateChemist]

Yep, while the size and weight (and obviously energy density) is definitely a concern in cars, it's important but less so in stationary storage like powerwalls, and facilities that will be storing excess energy from alternative energy sources.

[u/vkashen → u/PsyOmega]

As a firefighter, MVAs that involve EVs are always a big concern for us. There are two big issues:

1. You can douse a fire, but the battery, if ruptured, can spontaneously ignite again even hours after the scene is though to be clear (or, similar to vehicles with magnesium steering columns, they just burn and you can't douse it, you just have to let it burn for 6 or so hours).

2. If we use the cutters in the wrong place we die. Typically the cables carrying the charge are labeled and/or color-coded, and we're trained on where to cut, not cut, and what to look for in most of the major EV manufacturers, but you never know when either a volley with less experience and training may make a mistake and even those of us who have been in the service for a long time can make a mistake; we're all human.

That said, I personally like that EVs are gaining in popularity and we need to do all we can to preserve the Earth for our children, families, etc., but it's still so new that mistakes happen. And it's already a dangerous job, so we need to be extremely careful with EVs as you never know if there's a rupture and the battery may spontaneously ignite while we're doing an extrication. Technology is geat, but it does come with its complexities and dangers.

[u/1668553684 → u/vkashen]

Hey, hoping you can clear up something for me - I've read that EVs are much more dangerous when on fire, but that they're much less likely to catch fire in the first place compared to ICE cars - is this true?

[u/vkashen → u/1668553684]

If the battery is ruptured and the substrate is exposed to atmo then it's "good luck trying to put it out," it's damn near impossible. There are a few techniques to try to coat the car/battery area with foam or just hitting it hard with the hose for an extremely long time, but it's still no guarantee. Plus, even if you do manage to extinguish the battery fire, once it dries it can spontaneously re-ignite a few minutes or even a few hours later as lithium-ion batteries simply do that when exposed to oxygen. It's a very different situation than an internal combustion engine and gasoline (of course quite dangerous too), and we have to be both careful and quick as you never know if there's a rupture or not, so it's extremely dangerous. I'll work the scene, but I'm far, far more careful to listen for sounds that may indicate this possibility.

As for "less likely to catch fire," well, that's a different set of variables. On one hand, there's no fuel tank to rupture so no gasoline all over the road and the car(s) and other flammable fluids, so a stray spark won't ignite the vehicles & people in that regard, but the big concern is that it's often difficult to know if the battery reqgion has ruptured and can ignite spontaneously at any moment and if it does, it's really, really bad. There is a lot of protection around the battery, though, to prevent ruptures, but nothing is perfect. And different manufacturers engineer their protection in different ways, so they are not all the same.

To be honest, I've yet to see statistics on the safety of an EV over a "normal" car, and as every MVA is different, there are so many variables that I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess as that's all it would be. But I will say that when an MVA involves an EV, it's "Watch out guys and be careful, it's an EV" is one of the first things we'll hear from the incident commander or dispatch, so in my mind, it's hard to know which is more dangerous. I definitely like not having to worry about gas all over the place that hasn't ignited, but I've seen EV packs ignite with incredible force, and even hours after the MVA, so personally I see it as a crapshoot.

tl;dr: I'm not certain as I haven't seen any statistics and EVs are still a small percentage of cars on the road, so I'm not sure. But I'm far, far more careful when I respond to an MVA involving an EV and it's not just a ding. If it's bad, and a rupture is possible, we're definitely more on edge.

[u/RexManning1 → u/[deleted]]

JAC is already working on producing an EV with a HiNa battery, so I’m going to say that it’s inevitable.

[u/Retify → u/RexManning1]

Toyota and BMW are also producing hydrogen cars. I guess battery cars are going to die out for hydrogen too since all R&D is inevitably going to end up successful?

[u/Milk-and-Cookies → u/RexManning1]

I thought it was the other way around? Half the storage for twice the size? Correct me if I’m wrong. Still useful for stuff like home and grid storage though.

[u/MC_Babyhead → u/Milk-and-Cookies]

Stop waiting for this guy. I think he found out you were right and just didn't follow up. The only advantage sodium ion has over lithium is cost of materials, temperature range, less reactive but more conductive(higher C-rate). Soon even those advantages will be negated by li-ion's economy of scale, increasing energy density, and extended cycle life. The next generation of NMC li-ion will settle this debate for good. The cycle life on the test cells being developed by Tesla have now reached 19.5k cycles, equivalent to 3.7 million miles or 53 years as stationary storage. Furthermore, at 16.5k cycles they are seeing very little degredation so it's not even known how long these cells with last but it seems like they might outlive their owners. The best part is you only need to supply the world once because the anode and cathode are 100% recyclable.

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20221222VL205/ev-battery-sodium-ion.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922003630

[u/RexManning1 → u/Milk-and-Cookies]

It was until recently. I’m looking for an article on the advancement.

[u/Burrito_Butt → u/[deleted]]

He’s still looking.

[u/ChecoP11 → u/RexManning1]

Looking for BS some scam startup claimed you mean.

[u/[deleted] → u/RexManning1]

Sodium could take over since it is just about as good as lithium, especially if we can get them to "solid state" non-electrolyte designs. However, like lithium if you can't get the weight down and density up with the solid state approach the core chemistry is just not quite good enough in weight to energy ratio where I'd expect it to last all that long as the top choice for those applications.

AKA lithium or sodium batteries need to be able to lose their need for electrolyte to reach the general energy density or they aren't quite good enough for the job of EVs and they are already prohibitory heavy and not very good for things like flight compared to gas, especially when gas is used for thrust vs internal combustion as the efficiency of thruster is much higher and can tap more of the fossil fuels rather awesome energy density.

I do expect to move off lithium to a higher energy density option like Iron-Air batteries or something similar with much better energy to weight potential or better volumetric and specific/gravimetric energy density to make it sound smart.

[u/danielravennest → u/[deleted]]

Iron is much heavier than lithium, so it makes heavy batteries for stationary storage. But iron is much cheaper than lithium, so those batteries will be cheap.

[u/spambearpig → u/RexManning1]

Hope so. Lots of promising battery tech on the horizon. Might take a while to filter down to en-masse usage across the auto industry. Lithium is very tried and tested and granted, it did catch fire and spew acid in some of those tests but it’s the devil we know. But I’ll be damned pleased when they crack it up a notch with battery tech.

I’m holding out hope for synthetic liquid fuels and fuel cell electric motor cars. So we use renewables to drive the chemistry of making a petrol-like liquid fuel (kerosine or similar maybe) from mostly just air and water, we fill the car at a pump station with something like 50-100L and we can drive 500-1000 miles on electric power from a fuel cell before filling up at the pumps. Your ‘battery’ is now a tank of liquid so the car is so so much lighter and you get all the performance benefits of electric motors plus the car farts water vapour out the back. That for me, is the golden recipie for cars. Then I can have a sub 1000kg, rear wheel drive sports car with 300bhp and a load of mod-cons, good mileage and more luggage space than the equivalent petrol car. My god it’d be beautiful. No more charging wires, expiring batteries to dispose of and we can use the infastrucutre we already have to transport and administer liquid fuel.

One day maybe!

[u/RichardPeterJohnson → u/spambearpig]

Your mixing of SI and U.S. Customary UoMs is activating my fake OCD.

[u/mdwstoned → u/RichardPeterJohnson]

Your abbreviations are triggering my anxiety

[u/vapescaped → u/spambearpig]

At the heart of it, any fuel or storage device will contain a lot of energy(shocker). Fuel or battery, they will all burn.

Batteries are recycled, which gives it a leg up over fuel, which is gone once you use it.

Cost wise, it is far more expensive to transport liquid fuel than it is to transport electricity. Also, we already need to expand and update our electrical grid anyway, we are energy guzzlers regardless of if we use electric vehicles. It is also less safe to transport, and does contribute to increases traffic and wear and tear on the roads.

I'm definitely with ya that we are a solid decade behind the curve on battery technology.

A friend just drove cross country in his rivian. He said with the right charger he could charge at a rate of 400 miles of range per hour. I find that really impressive.

Only bringing up counterpoints. There is still a large "fuel crowd", and yea, the stigma does need to be addressed. I feel it's akin to the carburetor crowd. When fuel injection came out, a lot of people hated it. But once they understood it, popularity soared.

I will claim some of what I feel are hard truths, feel free to disagree or dispute:

The very nature of a combustion engine, or even hydrogen fuel cell, will always be less efficient than a motor and battery. Electricity is cheaper to produce and transport than any fuel in terms of energy, and electric motors are far more efficient than any alternatives(hydrogen fuel cells reach 60%, not counting production, and electric motors are 75%, combustion being 30-35%)

Electric vehicles have far fewer moving parts and require less maintenance. That doesn't mean they are more reliable, yet, because they are packed with the latest technology, but it took almost a century to get gas vehicles as reliable as they are today, and modern gas vehicles are loaded with tech that does act up regularly.

[u/RexManning1 → u/spambearpig]

I was a proponent of HFC tech for vehicles at the turn of the century and it just didn’t pan out. I have an EV (about to order a second one) and ESS for my home so I’m all about the battery technology. I think personal storage utilization is something that can save a lot of money over time and help decentralize some of the utility in some countries like the U.S where it’s privatized in a lot of places.

[u/spambearpig → u/RexManning1]

The HFC problem is all chemistry at the core. Pumping hydrogen around is a wacky idea so how to make our hydrogen safe and stable enough? Many things have been tried for decades but what we really want is to have our hydrogen hanging off a chain of carbon atoms in a liquid form. And getting that done in a way that competes with digging it up as liquid fossils has proven to be extremely difficult. If they can make an energy efficient enough way to do this at scale, it’ll take off. Materials science at the most cutting edge, exploring catalysts in quantum mechanics models. It’s what my Dad does not specifically for the auto industry but in academia.

[u/RexManning1 → u/spambearpig]

I agree with you. I was hoping they would find a way to stabilize the fuel cell, but it never happened. Now we just have to complete the move to get away from the rare metals.

[u/spambearpig → u/RexManning1]

I think the day will come. It might take 30 years but in a world where renewable energy is becoming prolific I can see that this model has big benefits. So when the chemistry catches up if it really is a better way, I believe we will end up, adopting it sooner or later. That’s if we don’t invent, magical sci-fi crystals that contain limitless power or something crazy like that.

[u/RexManning1 → u/spambearpig]

I’m sure. Everything will eventually happen. Whether it’s during my lifetime or not is another story. For now, I will keep using LiPO batteries for my home and cars until there is better technology. Even though they use rare earth metals, it’s still a much better solution than non-renewables.

[u/Volodux → u/spambearpig]

Synthetic fuel is viable for some applications, but burning fuel is extremely innefficient. If you power process by fossil fuels, you burn more then you get (but yes, you "turn coal to fuel).

Power by renewablea? One liter of gasoline takes at least (calculating with 100% eff.) 13kWh to make, and gives you 15-20km? Or you can use it to charge EV directly with maybe 10kWh (roughly 40 to 60km range).

[u/spambearpig → u/Volodux]

Liquid fuel method has many advantages. It’s very hard to store electricty, especially from renewables. But you can put the liquid in a tank and leave it there. It’s very inefficient to transport electricty over long distances, but you can ship a tanker full of liquid fuel, and that turns out far less energy inefficient. So if in some areas you had more solar power than you knew what to do with, why not make liquid synthetic fuel? The bottom line efficiency at the point of using the fuel is not the whole sum at all.

The more we expand, renewable energy, the more that we will have way too much sometimes and too little other times. We will also be able to generate much more power than we need via renewables if we put our minds to it.

So if we managed to generate enormous amounts of solar in the Sahara desert, for example, a world that turns it into synthetic fuel doesn’t produce hundreds of millions of batteries that later needs to be disposed off and they didn’t have to mine all those raw materials to do so.

So your point is not wrong, but it does not make this decision simple.

[u/Volodux → u/spambearpig]

Yes, those are special applications. Liquid fuel has it uses and it makes sense to develop it.

But if batteries get cheaper, it makes more sense (imagine 100kWh battery in each home) as batteries are more efficient. Fuell cella are also interesting, but I consider them as batteries.

[u/Ad_Honorem1 → u/spambearpig]

There are a lot more energy storage options than just batteries and fuel. I personally think, at least for stationary energy storage, mechanical storage options like flywheels and gravity based systems are the way to go.

[u/RexManning1 → u/spambearpig]

I don’t think there will ever be more solar than we know what to do with.

[u/spambearpig → u/RexManning1]

Why not?

[u/Oerthling → u/spambearpig]

E-fuels won't be a thing. Far too inefficient.

It's a fig leave for legacy car manufacturers and fossil fuel industry.

[u/Psyclist80 → u/RexManning1]

The sodium batteries I have seen are more cost effective, but are heavier and don't have the capacity of thier lithium counterparts. I feel like these will be put in lower end cars, lithium in mid tier, and solid-state in high end cars.

[u/MountainDrew42 → u/Psyclist80]

Shouldn't we be putting the sodium batteries into powerwalls and megapacks?

[u/RexManning1 → u/MountainDrew42]

They will be. It’s actually easier to use them in non cylindrical shapes.

[u/RexManning1 → u/Psyclist80]

Would you agree the lower end EVs are really what is needed in the market? Most of the world cannot afford the high prices of US and Euro branded EVs.

[u/Psyclist80 → u/RexManning1]

100% when you can give more of society access to EV as an option that helps adoption rates and our overall transition for sure. Moving from a single source element like lithium, to more plentiful sources like sodium makes sense as well, less Geo political protectionist BS due to scaricity of rare elements.

[u/korinth86 → u/RexManning1]

Twice the storage capacity in half the size.

This is not true. Lithium has better density and supposedly lifecycle too.

Sodium will be much cheaper, that's about the only advantage.

[u/shufflebuffalo → u/spambearpig]

I'm not worried about lithium. I'm worried about aluminum. Lots of red sand and hugely energetically expensive to refine, unlike lithium. While the batteries will require lithium, the chassis, construction material, and raw material to build will require other metals. Copper, iron, cobalt, nickel. Etc. While I know this is a resource rich country, it's the cost of extracting and refining these metals that's the truthteller in this tale of the green revolution.

I've got my hopes. I'm sure engineers will figure something out that will let us have our cake and eat it too. But looking back on the pioneering days of America, it's hard to not notice what natural treasures we lost.

[u/PHATsakk43 → u/shufflebuffalo]

Why do you think Alcoa is the second biggest electricity producer in NC behind Duke Energy?

They’ve shipped their smelting overseas, but kept all the hydro power plants they built to power them.

[u/BS-O-Meter → u/spambearpig]

What is it that makes you think that those miners will be better off without a job than with a job with bad conditions?

[u/spambearpig → u/BS-O-Meter]

That’s a valid point and it is a very complicated issue. The world is looking at massive lithium expansion at the moment. So in reality, I think it would be more of a case of fewer new miners being hired than many existing miners losing their jobs. But nevertheless, it’s taking money from one country.

But I’m pretty sure the USA is well within their rights to mine their own lithium rather than keep, importing it from somebody else. The customer doesn’t really owe the shopkeeper a job.

But I imagine, robotics will also threaten manual mining jobs. Perhaps quite a lot more seriously than the USA mining some more lithium themselves.

But perhaps AI and robotics can help an impoverished country with bad working standards to improve living standards for its people.

Perhaps not. It’s a tough world.

[u/princeflacko → u/spambearpig]

Why is china always the boogeyman for y’all?

[u/marcocanb → u/spambearpig]

I see you fail to understand US labor laws.

[u/strcrssd → u/spambearpig]

Sort of. Lithium exists in a global market. It can be done by the US domestically, but it won't be unless there's a financial reason to do so. Miners not subject to OSHA and not unionized enable cheaper extraction and that will be used until it becomes more expensive to operate than US operations.

There's also possible discouragement by the government in order to hold it as a reserve for military or financial reasons.

[u/rancorog → u/spambearpig]

Yeah I’m not holding out hope electric cars are gonna do much of any good for the environment in America until I see more states move away from using fossil fuels as their primary energy source,live in Georgia and think driving a leaf is saving the environment?,in the long run it’s really not,we get a lot of our electricity from coal,especially if Georgia power is the one providing said electricity

[u/spambearpig → u/rancorog]

It may just be one leaf in the forest but it’s a small part of the change. On its own it’s not much but it adds up when it’s part of lots and lots of small changes. Your leaf will not shut down the coal power plant but the reasons the leaf was even made and sold are working their way through the whole economy and may well reach the coal power plant sooner or later.

[u/rancorog → u/[deleted]]

The next biggest ones being natural gas and nuclear,I know everything I’ve seen on natural gas is awful for the environment and the most recent nuclear plant here was insanely over budget and time which if that is the case would mean it is also awful for the environment in a different way.Merica’ gonna merica’ especially in the southeast

[u/DepressedVenom → u/spambearpig]

Both governments are horrible.

[u/LeonBlacksruckus → u/spambearpig]

Nope it will cost way too much to do here because of labor rules/costs and environmental concerns

[u/spambearpig → u/LeonBlacksruckus]

I would be very suprised if the US didn’t capitalise on this enormously valuable pile of mineral wealth. It’s a very in-demand resource world-wide.

Lithium, so hot right now.

[u/poop_magoo → u/spambearpig]

Some American company will have to be willing to sell lithium at a loss if they are going to do it. Labor and costs associated with regulatory compliance are drastically lower in developing nations. There is a reason why so much labor intensive/highly regulated manufacturing and raw material extraction has moved out of the US. When your total cost to employ a manual laborer here is $50 an hour, but you can pay the same worker in a developing nation less than that hourly amount for an entire day of work, the profitability analysis of doing the work here falls apart very early. Unless the government steps in and heavily subsidizes this, I wouldn't be surprised if this deposit goes untouched for a very long time.

[u/RedneckRafter → u/spambearpig]

We will just "go bigger" somewhere else to make up for it.

[u/bigfatmatt01 → u/spambearpig]

Ship some west Virginians over there and you help with the jobless issue there too.

[u/spambearpig → u/bigfatmatt01]

I’m not a Lithium mining expert but do you just pour West Virginians over the ground and sit back wait for profit?

[u/cool-beans-yeah → u/spambearpig]

Agreed, but I've been reading about there being breakthroughs in battery technology (more range, longer product life, etc) using other metals, such as nickel, etc. I just wonder if lithium will remain the de facto metal for batteries.

[u/im_at_work_now → u/spambearpig]

Conversely, it may slow or halt any progress away from lithium batteries - something sorely needed

[u/OutlawLazerRoboGeek → u/spambearpig]

A lot of wars happen because one country needs something desperately, while some other country has nearly complete control over that thing.

[u/1668553684 → u/spambearpig]

This is my understanding as well.

The doomsday alarm clock is teetering on the edge of 9AM, anything that can help us wake up is sorely needed at this point.

[u/haight6716 → u/spambearpig]

Yes all this. But as Elon keeps telling us, lithium is not rare. Refining is the bottleneck. Finding it is easy.

[u/Swear2Dogg → u/spambearpig]

Invading Mexico to take out the cartels and get exclusive rights to lithium…

[u/start3ch → u/spambearpig]

The government passed a bunch of incentives for lithium batteries made in the us through the Inflation Reduction Act. That’s what’s driving most of this domestic production.

[u/Stick-Man_Smith → u/spambearpig]

The problem in the US was never the availability of the mines. It was the unwillingness to pay to mine them. The early cheap rare earth metals from China had all the local producers just give up and start buying from them instead.

[u/InconspicuousWolf → u/spambearpig]

Labor costs in America are too high for mining domestically to be the best choice. If American politicians want any industry to return to the U.S., heavy protectionist policy has to be implemented

[u/BakedMitten → u/spambearpig]

And fewer third world governments overthrown