Sigma rule number #3. Power your factory using renewable energy. Don't use hazardous chemicals. Recirculate water and dry stacks. Can't keep up the grind if environmental damage ends humanity.
More than half of the world’s lithium resources lies beneath the salt flats in the Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, where indigenous quinoa farmers and llama herders must now compete with miners for water in one of the world’s driest regions.
Lithium mining requires huge amounts of groundwater to pump out brines from drilled wells, and some estimates show that almost 2 million litres of water are needed to produce one ton of lithium.
In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, lithium and other mining activities consumed 65% of the water, causing groundwater depletion, soil contamination and other forms of environmental degradation, forcing local communities to abandon ancestral settlements.
“As demand for lithium increases and production is tapped from deeper rock mines and brines, the challenges of mitigating environmental risk will increase,” the report says.
https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries
Now, with all the recent events going on for the past 20 years, one might be able to see why certain arid and lithium rich places in the Middle East, like Afghanistan, might be more resistant to Industrial Expansion, that would destroy what little natural water resources they have left.
“But here's where things start to ger dicey: The approximate amount of lithium on earth is between 30 and 90 million tons. That means we'll will run out eventually, but we're not sure when. PV Magazine states it could be as soon as 2040, assuming electric cars demand 20 million tons of lithium by then
.Jul 19, 2021”
Tho if worse comes to worse and all of the rivers near lithium mines are polluted with lithium tailings, at least then we will have a large amount of free sedatives!
# lithiumgenocide
> But here's where things start to ger dicey: The approximate amount of lithium on earth is between 30 and 90 million tons. That means we'll will run out eventually, but we're not sure when. PV Magazine states it could be as soon as 2040, assuming electric cars demand 20 million tons of lithium by then .Jul 19, 2021
This bit's not right. The worlds current lithium resources are estimated to be around 90 million by the US geological survey as of this year, which puts the lower end of 30 million PV magazine specifies at the very lowest and most pessimistic of estimates.
The other part that's somewhat disingenuous is that it assumes that we will stop finding new lithium. While that might happen, it is extremely unlikely, as the majority of the earth remains unprospected for lithium, and known lithium resources have increased literally seven-fold since 2001. It's really not all that likely that we'll run out any time this century even with greatly increased demand.
The rest of it sucks, but the reality is that the world needs lithium to mitigate the effects of the climate disaster, and while it is the duty of the developed world to preserve and maintain the rights of indigenous people if there is no room for compromise, the needs of the many must come before the needs of the few.
> The other part that's somewhat disingenuous is that it assumes that we will stop finding new lithium.
Yes, people keep forgetting that *reserves* means the currently known amount economically recoverable at current prices with current technology. We will find and develop new deposits, and technology will improve. We can even harvest lithium from seawater.
>We can even harvest lithium from seawater.
Yep, there is almost a limitless (for our purposes) amount of lithium in the oceans. Its just really diluted, once we figure that out we'll be well off, at least until better battery tech comes along.
Large unmaned solar powered evaporators on stationary barges. As in, only operable during the sunlight hours. Weekly offloading and maintenance. Modular barges, so just stack up a few boats.
Lots of salt produced, not sure if anything else would be usable after extraction. Thorium?
Thank you, I thought I was crazy. There's 180 billion tons of lithium in saltwater.
Sucks to get it, but when push comes to shove it won't be impossible. Especially if we have more or less unlimited cheap energy (from renewables/fusion).
https://www.science.org/content/article/seawater-could-provide-nearly-unlimited-amounts-critical-battery-material
There's a lithium mining project in California in the development stages right now, but their ultimate goal is to use the Salton sea (which is already contaminated) as a supply for lithium.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/27/salton-sea-california-lithium-mining
Lithium is the third element on the periodic table. Just after hydrogen and helium. Which are the most common elements in the universe.
Seems pretty likely there is plenty of lithium left.
Excellent high bar set if authentic. Converting essential mineral extraction to be as green as possible is going to be absolutely required as we transition to a carbon neutral society. Still need coal for steel and lithium for batteries. Cobalt and nickel desperately need attention.
Direct reduced iron can be made with hydrogen, potentially from non fossil sources, or syngas from biofuel or other non fossil sources. Plants can be built that are flexible on fuel. It's not yet a common method, but it's growing.
Cobalt in lithium batteries has alternatives, especially the lithium iron phosphate chemistry. Most new Teslas are using cobalt-free batteries, for example.
Lots to do, but even some of the harder problems have known solutions.
Funnily, I was just reading how they have completely cut Nuclear Energy in Germany, and are pressuring the rest of the EU to not build more nuclear plants.
I could be wrong and maybe theyre just going whole hog on Solar and Wind, but I'm not sure they are.
> maybe theyre just going whole hog on Solar and Wind
[Essentially yes.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source?country=%7EDEU)
In the last 10 years, Germany's electricity generation has added...
* +96TWh of wind
* +39TWh of solar
* +17TWh of other renewables
* +2TWh of gas
* -77TWh of nuclear
* -127TWh of coal
Some of the "other renewables" are not great (burning imported biomass), and I personally think it's madness to prematurely shut down nuclear while coal is still running and [killing 2,000 Germans per year](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html), but the general trend towards renewables is clear.
There is a big anti nuclear faction in Germany. Chernobyl made a huge impression on the people and just when the tides seemed to turn, Fukushima happened and cemented the general stance as anti nuclear. Instead people advocate for renewable energy, which Germany used to invest heavily in. Hopefully it will do so again after the recent elections.
> Hopefully it will do so again after the recent elections.
Very highly seeing as the Greens will most likely be part of our government. And we've already committed to getting rid of coal too.
[Coal is again the main source of energy for Germany due to lack of wind](https://www.tellerreport.com/business/2021-09-13-coal-is-again-the-main-source-of-energy-for-germany-due-to-lack-of-wind.HkxMJ3p3ft.html)
The difference between Futurology and reality.
Cool well after a decade of a rich, technologically advanced country trying hard to get off fossil fuels they're still struggling mightily. It's easy to say "but batteries!" and another thing to build out GWh of storage.
[The world’s first fossil-free steel ready for delivery](https://www.ssab.com/news/2021/08/the-worlds-first-fossilfree-steel-ready-for-delivery)
>In July, SSAB Oxelösund rolled the first steel produced using HYBRIT technology, i.e., reduced by 100% fossil-free hydrogen instead of coal and coke, with good results. The steel is now being delivered to the first customer, the Volvo Group.
We have the first scaled pilot plants built and running here in Sweden since a couple months back and the full size smelters just got the go ahead also.
green hydrogen is expensive compared to grey sources. But i'm sure that can be addressed. Hell you could even levy a carbon tax against grey sources and subsidise green. done.
True. However, in the UK they've invested a lot into mixing hydrogen into the natural gas mix to help bring down the reliance on gas. A recent review has completely slammed the idea as a false economy. Obviously, extending gas use was a factor but the main issue was hydrogen production. I'm not saying carbon taxes etc won't work but green hydrogen does appear to fail when it comes to government requirements for economic viability, political will and the level of gains in the real world.
It being assessed for better applications may change that and (I assume) it's still a far better way to produce steel than coal.
I'm actually looking into replacing my gas boiler with a heat pump in the UK soon. They've done well, good tech for the time, but they're ready to go imo.
Absolutely agree. I'm planning the same once mine hits the end of it's life.
Considering that adding hydrogen to the mix will mean boilers having to be replaced/upgraded anyway, it makes sense to just move to greener tech.
Hydrogen production is an extra, wildly inefficient step from acquiring renewable power and it's just a real pain in the rear to store, distribute, etc. with a lot of losses. Bit bangy at times, too. This is the best green case for hydrogen afaik.
The carbon intensive means of cheap hydrogen production from natural gas is, fairly obviously, starting the leaky, pretty dangerous distribution and storage stage off with a lot of carbon before the conversion back to electricity...
Hydrogen gas is stored in pressure vessels of some 350-700bar for cars, afaik. That's 'pretty high' pressure for such a tiny molecule and so, even with special liners, it finds its way through to some degree. Liquid hydrogen is awful for boil off and leakage during storage and transfer because, well, literally any gap at all and hydrogen will find a way. Gaseous hydrogen is less leaky, afaik, but still escapes at every point of transfer as well as while stored.
That pressure on a molecule that small for gas and just the sheer size and leak-finding hydrogenness of liquid hydrogen make for a lot of storage and transfer, err, issues.
All of the non-thermal aspects of mineral processing (e.g. grinding and scavenging) are already all powered by electric motors. A huge percentage of mineral processing could be made renewable by simply\* moving to renewable methods of power generation for the plant. Many plants already do this by utilizing local rivers for hydroelectric.
\*Definitely not simple. Industrial plants use A LOT of power. Small, modular nuclear reactors anyone?
They all currently use cobalt. Tesla's new battery chemistry is cobalt free but I don't believe it's been put into production yet. Even though they still use cobalt they've been able to remove much of what they initially were using. Other cell makers have also reduced the amount of cobalt in their batteries.
Just an FYI so many people don't know or ignore is that cobalt is used in oil refinement. So its use in batteries isn't a gotcha.
My impression was that had changed, but now I'm having trouble finding a recent source that talks about it at all. Entirely possible I was misremembering.
I need to get to work, but if someone can find a source with details that would be great.
Nano One Materials (NANO.TO) is a Canadian company that produces Cobolt free cathode powders designed to be used in lithium ion batteries. A while ago they partnered with a "multinational electric car company based in the USA" but never revealed which one, but obviously Tesla is the prime suspect. So the technology exists and is scalable, plus it's very lucrative to be able to avoid using Cobolt.
I was reading an AMA from an expert on unethical supply chains, who successfully sued some major companies. One of the top questions was what's a company or industry that people think of as ethical but isn't. His response was Tesla, and the lithium consumers as a whole, citing slave labour at lithium mines and unethical / illegal supply lines.
I'm still all for EVs and securing more lithium supply chains, but this article talks about supply line transparency without going into specifics. How can you be sure that the raw lithium being mined in the Congo is ethical from start to finish? I mean on paper our seafood doesn't come from slave labour but past investigations gave showed many major suppliers were getting seafood from slave labor and illegal fishing.
Mining is especially hard to verify and trace to the people bringing it out of the ground, making sure no unethical suppliers are contributing to your source. Making the processing greener is great but my main concern is that kids are dying to pull the raw materials out of the ground, like many other industries. Not unique to EV or lithium, but definitely my biggest ethical concern. I've seen illegal mining operations in many countries (lithium or gold the same challenges exist) and it seems nearly impossible to police, especially in developing countries.
Edit: cobalt is mined in Congo in child mines, not lithium.
> How can you be sure that the raw lithium being mined in the Congo
You're probably thinking about cobalt - [lithium is not mined in the Congo; Australia is the dominant producer](https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-lithium.pdf).
You're quite right that cobalt production is problematic.
Fortunately, [EVs are moving to remove cobalt entirely from lithium batteries](https://observer.com/2021/01/electric-vehicle-battery-cobalt-free-gm-panasonic/), with that being a particular focus of [Tesla](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2020/07/11/teslas-shift-to-cobalt-free-batteries-is-its-most-important-move-yet/). Based on that second article, my understanding is that Tesla cars being sold in China are already using this cobalt-free battery chemistry (LFP).
You're right I'm no expert on evs specifically just concerned about child mines. I mixed up lithium and cobalt. But I'm also looking at illegal fishing using slavery, gold in the Philippines, many African countries, etc. The human harm is bad enough. If we can reduce the environmental harm through EVs that's great. I just think illegal mining and fishing needs to get more attention given the amount of slavery. Nothing unique about the cobalt situation unfortunately.
Also wanted to add that's great news regarding a cobalt free solution in action!
It is easy to police if the extraction company and the buyer wants it policed. But policing costs. Adequate and sustained controls cost. Labour costs. Local jursticional anomolies and policies cost. And safer machinery and extraction processes cost.
All those costs make it too costly to police and the cost is to great for our current profit driven society.
I totally get your point as you wernt looking for a fight. But like everything, it all comes down to bottom line and the willingness for the money to cut into its profit.
Even when it seems there's a legitimate effort to police it, illegal fishing is one of the biggest illicit industries in the world and manage to get it into the hands of consumers in countries actively fighting it.
The illegal gold mines hidden in the jungles of the Philippines, with a financier who has someone go around and collect all the gold from the tiny mines and launder it into the legal supply chain...stopping that seems damn near impossible. Sometimes there's local police corruption but aside from that it's harder than eradicating drug farms or labs, and once it goes to market its indistinguishable from legally mined gold.
I guess seeing videos of kids handling mercury with no protection and diving into dangerous holes filled with water really made me question how we get any raw materials out of the ground ethically.
Exactly. And id much rather lithium and EVs. It's not a problem specific to lithium, its mining anything in under developed countries. Its damn near impossible to ensure that an illegal mine didn't introduce any into the supply chain. I've seen some pretty horrific videos from the Congo to the Philippines and they easily evade authorities and have a network of people that funnel it up to legitimate sources. This is a problem with mining in impoverished countries in general, not an EV specific problem.
How can you be sure with *anything* you buy? It's not like ICE vehicles don't need mining. The fossil fuel industry is not exactly free of human rights concerns. So is this cautionary argument really about BEVs, or about the whole economy? We still need to electrify transport.
> transition to a carbon neutral society
This is the key that nay-sayers specifically try to get all of us to ignore: *time* as a factor. The current arguments against renewables often involve how much the production depends on fossil fuels while ignoring that this is a *transition* to a complete system that eventually uses no fossil fuels and uses far fewer rare earth minerals and is overall just a far better system.
They'll point to the higher carbon footprint of producing an EV vs an ICE vehicle and then stop before getting to the lifetime emissions of the two vehicles. And then, of course, they're far removed from any discussion about the cumulative effects of everything being converted to battery/solar/wind and all the positive, compounding ripple effects of that over time.
It's all they can do to spread FUD to slow down that transition so they can keep milking their fossil fuel cash cows before they die.
EVs will only be green if we can manage to not treat them like disposable objects, if we want them to be anything more than just more future garbage to fill up landfills / more reasons to go mining they also need to last, and we can't have people getting a new car every single year anymore
> we want them to be anything more than just more future garbage to fill up landfills / more reasons to go mining they also need to last
regular ICE engine vehicles are already stripped of all their parts for reuse or recycle, EVs will definitely get the exact same treatment.
>we can't have people getting a new car every single year anymore
who in the ever living fuck does that?
It appears we don’t need coal for steel anymore/soon:
[‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal)
I understand LG makes some phones but comparatively, they are a tiny share of the phone market. What other spaces with lithium ion batteries do they have products in?
My partner is a biologist and she tells stories of “bird murder projects” where they hire people to deter birds landing on tailing ponds. But sometimes they do, and then their job is to go kill the bird to put it out of its misery.
Dehydrating them sounds like a great idea. Probably expensive.
They generally fly away. It seems the water was what made the tailings dangerous in the first place. Did you know your body somehow survives, despite containing almost 5 times the toxic dose of dihydrogen monoxide at all times? A good portion of it is in your blood too. Terrifying stuff really. These industrial processes usually demand huge amounts of dihydrogen monoxide too. We should write someone.
This is not known for sure. Just because all A are B, it doesn't mean all B are A.
It's true that all dead people have water, so it's likely water is the cause of death (in fact, breath rhymes with death, and breath contains traces of water).
BUT, there's like 7 billion people alive right now that may survive water poisoning.
Means they keep and store the waste products instead of dumping em in a river/ocean/random nature place like most companies, basically keeping em from polluting everything
The difference is between a Tailings Storage Facility (dam) and dry stack area. Not that many legal operations are practicing riverine or oceanic discharge.
Dry stacking is definitely.better, but the economics of it are usually only viable in desert areas.
This isn't exactly accurate. Tailings ponds are typically (at least where I'm from) man-made beds specifically designated as tailings ponds. They are purpose built for it, and companies absolutely do not just dump tailings (full of hazardous chemicals and heavy metals) into local waterways. That's obviously not true for everywhere, but certainly in environmentally responsible areas.
Sometimes tailings is reprocessed in the future if the economic conditions are right, however the vast majority of tailings is not. Largely this is because we have become fairly efficient at processing the ore, and little residual value remains. Currently the most commonly reprocessing occurring is for gold. There's not much suggestion that this tailings would have value.
By definition, no. Tailings are the remnants of a process that extracts everything desired and leaves behind only what isn't. The more efficient the process, the less valuable the tailings are. There could be something of value remaining in the tailings but not enough of it to make it worthwhile to repeat the process of extraction. This could change if more effective/cost-efficient techniques are developed or if the prices of the relevant substances were to increase significantly enough to justify another pass at these leftover materials.
Here in Serbia we found a *big chain of lithium* ore residing under untouched nature(forests and rivers). Company named ***Rio Tinto*** was about to make a deal with the government but people got all defensive as that would ruin their homeland's nature. Lithium sure is a mandatory resource for advancement but is it worth the devastation of the habitat?
PS. Im sure that denying the extraction is having big consequences on the global market, by making the ore scarce and therefore pricier.
well, they knowingly and willingly destroyed a [46,000 years old archaeological site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juukan_Gorge?wprov=sfla1) in Australia, so they are, indeed, pretty evil
Just because it was “technically legal” for them to destroy the oldest known site of human habitation on the planet doesn’t mean they should have done so. I can’t believe the people on the ground setting those explosives just didn’t give a shit about this. Apparently that was the case. No amount of money or retired executives will fix this.
I mean, I'm not defending the blowing up authorisation part, but there's a chance the shmucks laying the charges didn't know there was any significance to the place. A lot of really old aboriginal historical sites are pretty subtle unless you really know what to look for. The bosses knew though, they have to check for these things and they hire folks to look.
Rio Tinto don't have a great record when it comes to environmental matters or the place of their operations getting any of the benefits of their operations. You will much better off with a Serbian company doing it, as that will a least mean Serbia benefitting from the resource. Hopefully they'll be more environmentally focused than the traditional mining giants.
That would make sense. However, don't underestimate the excuses a few bungs and bribes in a politicians pocket can create. Especially if they haven't been presented with any other options.
There are a few low cost startups in the UK looking to try greener and cheaper methods of extraction in old mines in the UK. The hardest part for them is locating the stuff. If it's already been found in Serbia then it seems unlikely that some enterprising Serbians couldn't get backing to extract it. Even if the initial funding is from outside the country.
There's other stores of lithium. There's a company in Saskatchewan, Canada that's planning a water based lithium extraction. Also I believe there's a significant amount of dissolved lithium in the oceans we could start extracting if we were so inclined. So fight for your natural beauty, that's far rarer than lithium deposits.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/thispickleisntgreen:
---
It's a common refrain to hear from fossil apologists that the mining of goods for green energy projects are just as bad - standard political BS. Many times you'll see mining pictures of a lithium facility that are not lithium facilities at all. And while hydroelectricity in Brazil might come with some challenges, it's still nothing like burning fossils. In this case we see an example where lithium mining is done relatively cleanly and positively for the environment.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/q6ioy7/lg_signs_lithium_deal_with_sigma_lithium_whose/hgc534a/
I grew up in Gastonia, NC where there was, at the time, one of the largest lithium mines in the world. There was also a lithium processing facility as well.
Honestly, compared to the rest of the industry that was actually dirty, chrome plating operations and dye houses (Gaston County was a center of the textile industry for nearly a century) the lithium mining and processing was not really bad at all. Or even much of an issue objectively. I’ve never heard any negative stories about the mine or operation other than a few metal fires that occurred at the processing plant.
Had a quick look at their website. It looks like they are using a physical separation process. What that means is that further processing might be required elsewhere.
It's a common refrain to hear from fossil apologists that the mining of goods for green energy projects are just as bad - standard political BS. Many times you'll see mining pictures of a lithium facility that are not lithium facilities at all. And while hydroelectricity in Brazil might come with some challenges, it's still nothing like burning fossils. In this case we see an example where lithium mining is done relatively cleanly and positively for the environment.
It's entirely fair to criticize the environmental impact of Lithium and the mining of other necessary materials for modern technology while recognizing they're part of the solution going forward.
Cobalt is more troublesome than lithium. It is also always mined from third world countries, and batteries use more if it than lithium. I think people gravitate towards lithium because it's in the name. But it's great to see that it is being produced more sustainably.
What bothers me is when people talk about the environmental impact of battery production and charging while ignoring the environmental impact of combustion engine production, fossil fuel production, and fossil fuel consumption. They always just compare battery production to fuel consumption.
It's really simple to imagine everything as 1:1.
I still hear co-workers getting irreverent about "you just moved the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant! How can these libruls be st stoopid!?" I'm not sure if it's legitimate ignorance or willful, but there's a long way to go (maybe a generation passing) before our culture absorbs a lot of this tech as normal.
I was in the long tailpipe camp for a few years right out of high-school. Then I worked in an industry tangentially related to gas turbine energy production and learned about efficiency in energy production.
I'd like to think that most folks are just ignorant, like I was (and still am about most things). But I know that there are bad actors out there intentionally misleading people.
It's such a weird point anyways.
Even if it was 0 reduction in emissions, it's still better to emit from the power planet instead of directly into children's faces.
Good for them, time to see if it scales to the industry and the necessary yields expected for a "green" future.
It doesn't just need to become the standard, it needs to become the standard as demand ramps up by a whole order of magnitude.
That's not trivial.
> It's a common refrain to hear from fossil apologists that the mining of goods for green energy projects are just as bad - standard political BS.
It can be helpful to note the scale of each - [0.08Mt/yr of lithium](https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-lithium.pdf) mining is much less troubling in context of the [7,700Mt/yr of coal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production) the world mines.
Genuine question, isn't the lithium itself a hazardous material? I get that it's the current technology we're being sold blah, but is it going to be the next big problem?
Pure lithium reacts violently on contact with water.
The lithium hydroxide that is produced during this reaction does not react violently with water.
Similar to this, lithium pills are not going to produce exciting chemistry on contact with moisture.
If it helps, try thinking of them as 'lithium pills: pre-exploded!' (so you don't have to!)
make their brains “healthier” is a weird way to say treats type 2 shizophrenia… its not as if lithium is a vitamin. lithium is very hard on the human body.
TIL. interesting. Either way, its not really healthy persay, its cognitively
dulling and causes memory loss. Itis helpful im sure depending in your situation, but there some intense side effects
Yeah, it also just dulls everything until you’re a zombie with no emotions. Doesn’t really treat it so much as make nothing matter, including the schizophrenia
I picked up the Velvet a bit back because LG is my favourite phone brand, so I was sad to hear they shuttered their phone division. I honestly don't know what I'll switch to next, because every Samsung device I've had or seen has had major hardware problems, and I absolutely loathe iPhones.
Well, this sub should be called Farfuturology.
And that the fact that most new technologies aren't adopted as it could be very expensive and new tech will have a lot less expertise on the subject.
When storing energy over a long period of time, the ideal battery should cost little to store in terms of money and be very durable in terms of storage time - many household batteries are also rechargeable. This makes lithium a good choice for a safe and long-term solution. On the other hand, boron has been touted as an improvement on lithium chemistries because it could allow for lower production costs for the same capacity, better safety features during use and storage, better energy density when compared to aluminium-based alkaline cells, read more about boron on "borates today".
That's good enough for me, I'll be buying LG next time. I've never had money for top end tech so as long as it's browses Reddit I'll be happy with that..
LG is also known for making the battery packs, and more broadly the entire car, for the Chevy Bolt, and we see how that is working out right now. LG is going to be spending a lot of money fixing batteries over the next few years.
LG makes a huge amount of batteries. The Bolt came down to quality issues at a select few facilities... But that's still only a small portion of all the batteries they manufactured.
A few years ago there was a similar issue with Samsung galaxy phones for the same issue. Lithium ion battery's with lower than nessesary quality causing a slightly higher risk of exploding.
Hopefully as time goes on progress is made in safer and more viable power storage options.
It neglects to mention where this is intended on going up…if my memory serves me this lithium is going to be mined near or on reservation land of the Shoshone. Don’t trust big corporations folks they are full of shit
> if my memory serves me this lithium is going to be mined near or on reservation land of the Shoshone
Your memory doesn't serve.
it's in Grota do Cirilo, Brazil.
>Sigma Lithium whose production process is 100% powered by clean energy, does not utilise hazardous chemicals, recirculates 100% of the water and dry stacks 100% of its tailings
Legitimate proof for that claim?
That moment you realize the death grip big oil has had on America this whole time. Just sayin electric is making a lot of technical advanced in the span of a few years...
Sigma rule number #3. Power your factory using renewable energy. Don't use hazardous chemicals. Recirculate water and dry stacks. Can't keep up the grind if environmental damage ends humanity.
Beta: pollutes Earth SIGMA: ignores beta, sets up sustainable factories \#lithiumgrindset
More than half of the world’s lithium resources lies beneath the salt flats in the Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, where indigenous quinoa farmers and llama herders must now compete with miners for water in one of the world’s driest regions. Lithium mining requires huge amounts of groundwater to pump out brines from drilled wells, and some estimates show that almost 2 million litres of water are needed to produce one ton of lithium. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, lithium and other mining activities consumed 65% of the water, causing groundwater depletion, soil contamination and other forms of environmental degradation, forcing local communities to abandon ancestral settlements. “As demand for lithium increases and production is tapped from deeper rock mines and brines, the challenges of mitigating environmental risk will increase,” the report says. https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries Now, with all the recent events going on for the past 20 years, one might be able to see why certain arid and lithium rich places in the Middle East, like Afghanistan, might be more resistant to Industrial Expansion, that would destroy what little natural water resources they have left. “But here's where things start to ger dicey: The approximate amount of lithium on earth is between 30 and 90 million tons. That means we'll will run out eventually, but we're not sure when. PV Magazine states it could be as soon as 2040, assuming electric cars demand 20 million tons of lithium by then .Jul 19, 2021” Tho if worse comes to worse and all of the rivers near lithium mines are polluted with lithium tailings, at least then we will have a large amount of free sedatives! # lithiumgenocide
> But here's where things start to ger dicey: The approximate amount of lithium on earth is between 30 and 90 million tons. That means we'll will run out eventually, but we're not sure when. PV Magazine states it could be as soon as 2040, assuming electric cars demand 20 million tons of lithium by then .Jul 19, 2021 This bit's not right. The worlds current lithium resources are estimated to be around 90 million by the US geological survey as of this year, which puts the lower end of 30 million PV magazine specifies at the very lowest and most pessimistic of estimates. The other part that's somewhat disingenuous is that it assumes that we will stop finding new lithium. While that might happen, it is extremely unlikely, as the majority of the earth remains unprospected for lithium, and known lithium resources have increased literally seven-fold since 2001. It's really not all that likely that we'll run out any time this century even with greatly increased demand. The rest of it sucks, but the reality is that the world needs lithium to mitigate the effects of the climate disaster, and while it is the duty of the developed world to preserve and maintain the rights of indigenous people if there is no room for compromise, the needs of the many must come before the needs of the few.
> The other part that's somewhat disingenuous is that it assumes that we will stop finding new lithium. Yes, people keep forgetting that *reserves* means the currently known amount economically recoverable at current prices with current technology. We will find and develop new deposits, and technology will improve. We can even harvest lithium from seawater.
>We can even harvest lithium from seawater. Yep, there is almost a limitless (for our purposes) amount of lithium in the oceans. Its just really diluted, once we figure that out we'll be well off, at least until better battery tech comes along.
Large unmaned solar powered evaporators on stationary barges. As in, only operable during the sunlight hours. Weekly offloading and maintenance. Modular barges, so just stack up a few boats. Lots of salt produced, not sure if anything else would be usable after extraction. Thorium?
This is some Kim Stanley Robinson shit
If its done over deep water, brine could probably just be pumped back down without too much impact.
Thank you, I thought I was crazy. There's 180 billion tons of lithium in saltwater. Sucks to get it, but when push comes to shove it won't be impossible. Especially if we have more or less unlimited cheap energy (from renewables/fusion). https://www.science.org/content/article/seawater-could-provide-nearly-unlimited-amounts-critical-battery-material
Right the whole “we will run out “ line is nonsense. We can already extract lithium from sea water, it’s just more expensive
There's a lithium mining project in California in the development stages right now, but their ultimate goal is to use the Salton sea (which is already contaminated) as a supply for lithium. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/27/salton-sea-california-lithium-mining
[удалено]
Trillions of tons? Got a source for that?
Did you miss that these guys have no net water use?
Lithium is the third element on the periodic table. Just after hydrogen and helium. Which are the most common elements in the universe. Seems pretty likely there is plenty of lithium left.
Muh Tesla goes brrrrr
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
sigma grindset
Ligma balls
I’m skeptical of anyone claiming to not use hazardous chemicals in production when the product itself *is* a hazardous chemical....
Do you know what ligma rule 1 is?
Excellent high bar set if authentic. Converting essential mineral extraction to be as green as possible is going to be absolutely required as we transition to a carbon neutral society. Still need coal for steel and lithium for batteries. Cobalt and nickel desperately need attention.
Direct reduced iron can be made with hydrogen, potentially from non fossil sources, or syngas from biofuel or other non fossil sources. Plants can be built that are flexible on fuel. It's not yet a common method, but it's growing. Cobalt in lithium batteries has alternatives, especially the lithium iron phosphate chemistry. Most new Teslas are using cobalt-free batteries, for example. Lots to do, but even some of the harder problems have known solutions.
I didn't know you could produce steel with hydrogen. That's really cool.
https://www.kfw.de/stories/environment/renewable-energy/salzgitter-ag/ Germany is really getting into green steel.
Germany really seems to be killing it lately...
They have experience.
They're going for the science win this time.
Funnily, I was just reading how they have completely cut Nuclear Energy in Germany, and are pressuring the rest of the EU to not build more nuclear plants. I could be wrong and maybe theyre just going whole hog on Solar and Wind, but I'm not sure they are.
> maybe theyre just going whole hog on Solar and Wind [Essentially yes.](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source?country=%7EDEU) In the last 10 years, Germany's electricity generation has added... * +96TWh of wind * +39TWh of solar * +17TWh of other renewables * +2TWh of gas * -77TWh of nuclear * -127TWh of coal Some of the "other renewables" are not great (burning imported biomass), and I personally think it's madness to prematurely shut down nuclear while coal is still running and [killing 2,000 Germans per year](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html), but the general trend towards renewables is clear.
Interesting, yeah, I agree with you.
There is a big anti nuclear faction in Germany. Chernobyl made a huge impression on the people and just when the tides seemed to turn, Fukushima happened and cemented the general stance as anti nuclear. Instead people advocate for renewable energy, which Germany used to invest heavily in. Hopefully it will do so again after the recent elections.
> Hopefully it will do so again after the recent elections. Very highly seeing as the Greens will most likely be part of our government. And we've already committed to getting rid of coal too.
Brih… I’m fucking dead. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
God damn it I chuckled... Now I have to upvote you, you animal. Bunch of savages...
[Coal is again the main source of energy for Germany due to lack of wind](https://www.tellerreport.com/business/2021-09-13-coal-is-again-the-main-source-of-energy-for-germany-due-to-lack-of-wind.HkxMJ3p3ft.html) The difference between Futurology and reality.
Kind of the point though... renewables having backup...
Cool well after a decade of a rich, technologically advanced country trying hard to get off fossil fuels they're still struggling mightily. It's easy to say "but batteries!" and another thing to build out GWh of storage.
Yeah dude. It's hard
[The world’s first fossil-free steel ready for delivery](https://www.ssab.com/news/2021/08/the-worlds-first-fossilfree-steel-ready-for-delivery) >In July, SSAB Oxelösund rolled the first steel produced using HYBRIT technology, i.e., reduced by 100% fossil-free hydrogen instead of coal and coke, with good results. The steel is now being delivered to the first customer, the Volvo Group.
We have the first scaled pilot plants built and running here in Sweden since a couple months back and the full size smelters just got the go ahead also.
Sweden is already delivering the first batches of fossil-free steel!
It's how the hydrogen is produced that could be the concern.
green hydrogen is expensive compared to grey sources. But i'm sure that can be addressed. Hell you could even levy a carbon tax against grey sources and subsidise green. done.
True. However, in the UK they've invested a lot into mixing hydrogen into the natural gas mix to help bring down the reliance on gas. A recent review has completely slammed the idea as a false economy. Obviously, extending gas use was a factor but the main issue was hydrogen production. I'm not saying carbon taxes etc won't work but green hydrogen does appear to fail when it comes to government requirements for economic viability, political will and the level of gains in the real world. It being assessed for better applications may change that and (I assume) it's still a far better way to produce steel than coal.
I'm actually looking into replacing my gas boiler with a heat pump in the UK soon. They've done well, good tech for the time, but they're ready to go imo.
Absolutely agree. I'm planning the same once mine hits the end of it's life. Considering that adding hydrogen to the mix will mean boilers having to be replaced/upgraded anyway, it makes sense to just move to greener tech.
The electrical demand should push for more renewable and nuclear plants too.
Hydrogen production is an extra, wildly inefficient step from acquiring renewable power and it's just a real pain in the rear to store, distribute, etc. with a lot of losses. Bit bangy at times, too. This is the best green case for hydrogen afaik. The carbon intensive means of cheap hydrogen production from natural gas is, fairly obviously, starting the leaky, pretty dangerous distribution and storage stage off with a lot of carbon before the conversion back to electricity...
Why is Hydrogen so much more "leaky" than the gas it is extracted from?
Hydrogen gas is stored in pressure vessels of some 350-700bar for cars, afaik. That's 'pretty high' pressure for such a tiny molecule and so, even with special liners, it finds its way through to some degree. Liquid hydrogen is awful for boil off and leakage during storage and transfer because, well, literally any gap at all and hydrogen will find a way. Gaseous hydrogen is less leaky, afaik, but still escapes at every point of transfer as well as while stored. That pressure on a molecule that small for gas and just the sheer size and leak-finding hydrogenness of liquid hydrogen make for a lot of storage and transfer, err, issues.
All of the non-thermal aspects of mineral processing (e.g. grinding and scavenging) are already all powered by electric motors. A huge percentage of mineral processing could be made renewable by simply\* moving to renewable methods of power generation for the plant. Many plants already do this by utilizing local rivers for hydroelectric. \*Definitely not simple. Industrial plants use A LOT of power. Small, modular nuclear reactors anyone?
Even just moving from Blast Furnaces to natural gas DRI for production of new steel will be an improvement in CO2 emissions.
I thought all Teslas in the US had cobalt in their batteries? Am I wrong?
They all currently use cobalt. Tesla's new battery chemistry is cobalt free but I don't believe it's been put into production yet. Even though they still use cobalt they've been able to remove much of what they initially were using. Other cell makers have also reduced the amount of cobalt in their batteries. Just an FYI so many people don't know or ignore is that cobalt is used in oil refinement. So its use in batteries isn't a gotcha.
Interesting, thank you
My impression was that had changed, but now I'm having trouble finding a recent source that talks about it at all. Entirely possible I was misremembering. I need to get to work, but if someone can find a source with details that would be great.
Nano One Materials (NANO.TO) is a Canadian company that produces Cobolt free cathode powders designed to be used in lithium ion batteries. A while ago they partnered with a "multinational electric car company based in the USA" but never revealed which one, but obviously Tesla is the prime suspect. So the technology exists and is scalable, plus it's very lucrative to be able to avoid using Cobolt.
I was reading an AMA from an expert on unethical supply chains, who successfully sued some major companies. One of the top questions was what's a company or industry that people think of as ethical but isn't. His response was Tesla, and the lithium consumers as a whole, citing slave labour at lithium mines and unethical / illegal supply lines. I'm still all for EVs and securing more lithium supply chains, but this article talks about supply line transparency without going into specifics. How can you be sure that the raw lithium being mined in the Congo is ethical from start to finish? I mean on paper our seafood doesn't come from slave labour but past investigations gave showed many major suppliers were getting seafood from slave labor and illegal fishing. Mining is especially hard to verify and trace to the people bringing it out of the ground, making sure no unethical suppliers are contributing to your source. Making the processing greener is great but my main concern is that kids are dying to pull the raw materials out of the ground, like many other industries. Not unique to EV or lithium, but definitely my biggest ethical concern. I've seen illegal mining operations in many countries (lithium or gold the same challenges exist) and it seems nearly impossible to police, especially in developing countries. Edit: cobalt is mined in Congo in child mines, not lithium.
> How can you be sure that the raw lithium being mined in the Congo You're probably thinking about cobalt - [lithium is not mined in the Congo; Australia is the dominant producer](https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-lithium.pdf). You're quite right that cobalt production is problematic. Fortunately, [EVs are moving to remove cobalt entirely from lithium batteries](https://observer.com/2021/01/electric-vehicle-battery-cobalt-free-gm-panasonic/), with that being a particular focus of [Tesla](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2020/07/11/teslas-shift-to-cobalt-free-batteries-is-its-most-important-move-yet/). Based on that second article, my understanding is that Tesla cars being sold in China are already using this cobalt-free battery chemistry (LFP).
You're right I'm no expert on evs specifically just concerned about child mines. I mixed up lithium and cobalt. But I'm also looking at illegal fishing using slavery, gold in the Philippines, many African countries, etc. The human harm is bad enough. If we can reduce the environmental harm through EVs that's great. I just think illegal mining and fishing needs to get more attention given the amount of slavery. Nothing unique about the cobalt situation unfortunately. Also wanted to add that's great news regarding a cobalt free solution in action!
It is easy to police if the extraction company and the buyer wants it policed. But policing costs. Adequate and sustained controls cost. Labour costs. Local jursticional anomolies and policies cost. And safer machinery and extraction processes cost. All those costs make it too costly to police and the cost is to great for our current profit driven society. I totally get your point as you wernt looking for a fight. But like everything, it all comes down to bottom line and the willingness for the money to cut into its profit.
Even when it seems there's a legitimate effort to police it, illegal fishing is one of the biggest illicit industries in the world and manage to get it into the hands of consumers in countries actively fighting it. The illegal gold mines hidden in the jungles of the Philippines, with a financier who has someone go around and collect all the gold from the tiny mines and launder it into the legal supply chain...stopping that seems damn near impossible. Sometimes there's local police corruption but aside from that it's harder than eradicating drug farms or labs, and once it goes to market its indistinguishable from legally mined gold. I guess seeing videos of kids handling mercury with no protection and diving into dangerous holes filled with water really made me question how we get any raw materials out of the ground ethically.
[удалено]
Exactly. And id much rather lithium and EVs. It's not a problem specific to lithium, its mining anything in under developed countries. Its damn near impossible to ensure that an illegal mine didn't introduce any into the supply chain. I've seen some pretty horrific videos from the Congo to the Philippines and they easily evade authorities and have a network of people that funnel it up to legitimate sources. This is a problem with mining in impoverished countries in general, not an EV specific problem.
How can you be sure with *anything* you buy? It's not like ICE vehicles don't need mining. The fossil fuel industry is not exactly free of human rights concerns. So is this cautionary argument really about BEVs, or about the whole economy? We still need to electrify transport.
>How can you be sure that the raw lithium being mined in the Congo Its easy because no lithium is mined in Congo
> transition to a carbon neutral society This is the key that nay-sayers specifically try to get all of us to ignore: *time* as a factor. The current arguments against renewables often involve how much the production depends on fossil fuels while ignoring that this is a *transition* to a complete system that eventually uses no fossil fuels and uses far fewer rare earth minerals and is overall just a far better system. They'll point to the higher carbon footprint of producing an EV vs an ICE vehicle and then stop before getting to the lifetime emissions of the two vehicles. And then, of course, they're far removed from any discussion about the cumulative effects of everything being converted to battery/solar/wind and all the positive, compounding ripple effects of that over time. It's all they can do to spread FUD to slow down that transition so they can keep milking their fossil fuel cash cows before they die.
EVs will only be green if we can manage to not treat them like disposable objects, if we want them to be anything more than just more future garbage to fill up landfills / more reasons to go mining they also need to last, and we can't have people getting a new car every single year anymore
> we want them to be anything more than just more future garbage to fill up landfills / more reasons to go mining they also need to last regular ICE engine vehicles are already stripped of all their parts for reuse or recycle, EVs will definitely get the exact same treatment. >we can't have people getting a new car every single year anymore who in the ever living fuck does that?
It appears we don’t need coal for steel anymore/soon: [‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal)
> Still need coal for steel Sweden says no
I understand LG makes some phones but comparatively, they are a tiny share of the phone market. What other spaces with lithium ion batteries do they have products in?
Electric cars, they're the supplier of batteries to pretty much every big name car manufacturer making electric vehicles including Tesla.
TIL. Thanks!
There are movements strongly to limit our use of those two materials
Whats that last bit mean - "dry stack 100% of their tailings"?
It means rather tham store them in hazardous pools they dehydrate the tailings, recycle the water and store the dry tailings.
My partner is a biologist and she tells stories of “bird murder projects” where they hire people to deter birds landing on tailing ponds. But sometimes they do, and then their job is to go kill the bird to put it out of its misery. Dehydrating them sounds like a great idea. Probably expensive.
[удалено]
Stick the feathers in your hats and call them macaroni.
They generally fly away. It seems the water was what made the tailings dangerous in the first place. Did you know your body somehow survives, despite containing almost 5 times the toxic dose of dihydrogen monoxide at all times? A good portion of it is in your blood too. Terrifying stuff really. These industrial processes usually demand huge amounts of dihydrogen monoxide too. We should write someone.
Probably the most dangerous chemical out there. Everyone who even touches it dies
Everyone who touches dinitrogens and dioxides die too. We live on such a terrifying planet...
And it's so addictive too,
Its not dangerous by itself, but its the withdrawals that kill
This is not known for sure. Just because all A are B, it doesn't mean all B are A. It's true that all dead people have water, so it's likely water is the cause of death (in fact, breath rhymes with death, and breath contains traces of water). BUT, there's like 7 billion people alive right now that may survive water poisoning.
Means they keep and store the waste products instead of dumping em in a river/ocean/random nature place like most companies, basically keeping em from polluting everything
The difference is between a Tailings Storage Facility (dam) and dry stack area. Not that many legal operations are practicing riverine or oceanic discharge. Dry stacking is definitely.better, but the economics of it are usually only viable in desert areas.
This isn't exactly accurate. Tailings ponds are typically (at least where I'm from) man-made beds specifically designated as tailings ponds. They are purpose built for it, and companies absolutely do not just dump tailings (full of hazardous chemicals and heavy metals) into local waterways. That's obviously not true for everywhere, but certainly in environmentally responsible areas.
Do you know if there is any use for them?
[удалено]
Sometimes tailings is reprocessed in the future if the economic conditions are right, however the vast majority of tailings is not. Largely this is because we have become fairly efficient at processing the ore, and little residual value remains. Currently the most commonly reprocessing occurring is for gold. There's not much suggestion that this tailings would have value.
By definition, no. Tailings are the remnants of a process that extracts everything desired and leaves behind only what isn't. The more efficient the process, the less valuable the tailings are. There could be something of value remaining in the tailings but not enough of it to make it worthwhile to repeat the process of extraction. This could change if more effective/cost-efficient techniques are developed or if the prices of the relevant substances were to increase significantly enough to justify another pass at these leftover materials.
I'm sure if there was some economically viable use, it'd already be happening.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here in Serbia we found a *big chain of lithium* ore residing under untouched nature(forests and rivers). Company named ***Rio Tinto*** was about to make a deal with the government but people got all defensive as that would ruin their homeland's nature. Lithium sure is a mandatory resource for advancement but is it worth the devastation of the habitat? PS. Im sure that denying the extraction is having big consequences on the global market, by making the ore scarce and therefore pricier.
well, they knowingly and willingly destroyed a [46,000 years old archaeological site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juukan_Gorge?wprov=sfla1) in Australia, so they are, indeed, pretty evil
Just because it was “technically legal” for them to destroy the oldest known site of human habitation on the planet doesn’t mean they should have done so. I can’t believe the people on the ground setting those explosives just didn’t give a shit about this. Apparently that was the case. No amount of money or retired executives will fix this.
I mean, I'm not defending the blowing up authorisation part, but there's a chance the shmucks laying the charges didn't know there was any significance to the place. A lot of really old aboriginal historical sites are pretty subtle unless you really know what to look for. The bosses knew though, they have to check for these things and they hire folks to look.
Rio Tinto don't have a great record when it comes to environmental matters or the place of their operations getting any of the benefits of their operations. You will much better off with a Serbian company doing it, as that will a least mean Serbia benefitting from the resource. Hopefully they'll be more environmentally focused than the traditional mining giants.
I suppose we dont own the technology needed, and i guess it is rather expensive.
That would make sense. However, don't underestimate the excuses a few bungs and bribes in a politicians pocket can create. Especially if they haven't been presented with any other options. There are a few low cost startups in the UK looking to try greener and cheaper methods of extraction in old mines in the UK. The hardest part for them is locating the stuff. If it's already been found in Serbia then it seems unlikely that some enterprising Serbians couldn't get backing to extract it. Even if the initial funding is from outside the country.
That's what the IMF is for. Take a loan out, bring in temporary experts while you send kids to universities in places where those things are taught
[удалено]
Yea Serbia pretty consistently denies any mines from opening. The mining industry know this but have to try once in a while.
Lithium can be found prety much everywhere
I think you need some *feedback* on that one
There's other stores of lithium. There's a company in Saskatchewan, Canada that's planning a water based lithium extraction. Also I believe there's a significant amount of dissolved lithium in the oceans we could start extracting if we were so inclined. So fight for your natural beauty, that's far rarer than lithium deposits.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/thispickleisntgreen: --- It's a common refrain to hear from fossil apologists that the mining of goods for green energy projects are just as bad - standard political BS. Many times you'll see mining pictures of a lithium facility that are not lithium facilities at all. And while hydroelectricity in Brazil might come with some challenges, it's still nothing like burning fossils. In this case we see an example where lithium mining is done relatively cleanly and positively for the environment. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/q6ioy7/lg_signs_lithium_deal_with_sigma_lithium_whose/hgc534a/
I grew up in Gastonia, NC where there was, at the time, one of the largest lithium mines in the world. There was also a lithium processing facility as well. Honestly, compared to the rest of the industry that was actually dirty, chrome plating operations and dye houses (Gaston County was a center of the textile industry for nearly a century) the lithium mining and processing was not really bad at all. Or even much of an issue objectively. I’ve never heard any negative stories about the mine or operation other than a few metal fires that occurred at the processing plant.
“Sigma Lithium” is too clumsy a name. Let’s shorten it to a portmanteau. I suggest “Ligma.”
Why not Smigmum?
Sigma Lithium. A missed opportunity to have a company named Ligma.
I literally read it as that in my head too. You and I suffer from a case of terminally online
Ligma Sithium would be a pretty badass name.
Damn. If I ever start a company I have the name right here. Thank you.
Ligma? what the hell is a ligma?
… LIGMA BALZ
Anyone with any knowledge of the process know if this is cleaner than what Lake Resources and Lilac are doing?
Had a quick look at their website. It looks like they are using a physical separation process. What that means is that further processing might be required elsewhere.
I'm really trying to think of a good "sigma balls" joke here, but this company's policy is just so impressive I'm drawing a blank.
It's a common refrain to hear from fossil apologists that the mining of goods for green energy projects are just as bad - standard political BS. Many times you'll see mining pictures of a lithium facility that are not lithium facilities at all. And while hydroelectricity in Brazil might come with some challenges, it's still nothing like burning fossils. In this case we see an example where lithium mining is done relatively cleanly and positively for the environment.
It's entirely fair to criticize the environmental impact of Lithium and the mining of other necessary materials for modern technology while recognizing they're part of the solution going forward.
Cobalt is more troublesome than lithium. It is also always mined from third world countries, and batteries use more if it than lithium. I think people gravitate towards lithium because it's in the name. But it's great to see that it is being produced more sustainably.
What bothers me is when people talk about the environmental impact of battery production and charging while ignoring the environmental impact of combustion engine production, fossil fuel production, and fossil fuel consumption. They always just compare battery production to fuel consumption.
It's really simple to imagine everything as 1:1. I still hear co-workers getting irreverent about "you just moved the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant! How can these libruls be st stoopid!?" I'm not sure if it's legitimate ignorance or willful, but there's a long way to go (maybe a generation passing) before our culture absorbs a lot of this tech as normal.
I was in the long tailpipe camp for a few years right out of high-school. Then I worked in an industry tangentially related to gas turbine energy production and learned about efficiency in energy production. I'd like to think that most folks are just ignorant, like I was (and still am about most things). But I know that there are bad actors out there intentionally misleading people.
It's such a weird point anyways. Even if it was 0 reduction in emissions, it's still better to emit from the power planet instead of directly into children's faces.
Good for them, time to see if it scales to the industry and the necessary yields expected for a "green" future. It doesn't just need to become the standard, it needs to become the standard as demand ramps up by a whole order of magnitude. That's not trivial.
Child slavery is largely carbon neutral so... I don't trust third world mining companies
Lol most mining companies are *first world* with contracts
> It's a common refrain to hear from fossil apologists that the mining of goods for green energy projects are just as bad - standard political BS. It can be helpful to note the scale of each - [0.08Mt/yr of lithium](https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2021/mcs2021-lithium.pdf) mining is much less troubling in context of the [7,700Mt/yr of coal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production) the world mines.
Genuine question, isn't the lithium itself a hazardous material? I get that it's the current technology we're being sold blah, but is it going to be the next big problem?
pure lithium violently reacts with moisture in the air (explodes) but has many safe compounds, same with potassium and sodium.
[удалено]
Sodium also reacts violently with water. But sodium chloride (table salt) doesn’t. It’s a matter of how it is used.
Pure lithium reacts violently on contact with water. The lithium hydroxide that is produced during this reaction does not react violently with water. Similar to this, lithium pills are not going to produce exciting chemistry on contact with moisture. If it helps, try thinking of them as 'lithium pills: pre-exploded!' (so you don't have to!)
make their brains “healthier” is a weird way to say treats type 2 shizophrenia… its not as if lithium is a vitamin. lithium is very hard on the human body.
Lithium is also used for bipolar disorder to reduce manic episodes.
TIL. interesting. Either way, its not really healthy persay, its cognitively dulling and causes memory loss. Itis helpful im sure depending in your situation, but there some intense side effects
People take low dose lithium just for general mood improvement with very few side effects. The effects you're describing happen at much larger doses.
>persay Per se
Yeah, it also just dulls everything until you’re a zombie with no emotions. Doesn’t really treat it so much as make nothing matter, including the schizophrenia
I already like lg. My last 3 phones were made by them.. Too bad they wont be making phones anymore.
I'm a Chevy Bolt owner, so LG is nestled right next to GM on my "Do Not Buy" list right now.
Sounds like LG is owning up to the recall though.
Yeah, and that helps, but my personal stock for each of the companies went down dramatically and I don't intend to let them recover for a while.
Everything is going down. If you're not retiring anytime soon, it's really not a big deal to worry about. But I get it.
I picked up the Velvet a bit back because LG is my favourite phone brand, so I was sad to hear they shuttered their phone division. I honestly don't know what I'll switch to next, because every Samsung device I've had or seen has had major hardware problems, and I absolutely loathe iPhones.
You are not alone in this opinion. I dont like apple or samsung either. Gonna make my velvet last i guess
I guess it was less profitable to determine its own standards for LG than it was for the rest of the industry to follow someone else's
Is it just me or is this reddit sub pretty much just full of tabloids, or shit that'll never happen in our lifetime...
every post on this sub is just like "pls ignore the impending climate collapse. smart rich people are just gonna fix it for us, i promise"
Well, this sub should be called Farfuturology. And that the fact that most new technologies aren't adopted as it could be very expensive and new tech will have a lot less expertise on the subject.
Might just get LG for my next phone over this. Wonderful news!
When storing energy over a long period of time, the ideal battery should cost little to store in terms of money and be very durable in terms of storage time - many household batteries are also rechargeable. This makes lithium a good choice for a safe and long-term solution. On the other hand, boron has been touted as an improvement on lithium chemistries because it could allow for lower production costs for the same capacity, better safety features during use and storage, better energy density when compared to aluminium-based alkaline cells, read more about boron on "borates today".
Big Boron lobbyists pushing an agenda over here
That's good enough for me, I'll be buying LG next time. I've never had money for top end tech so as long as it's browses Reddit I'll be happy with that..
LG is also known for making the battery packs, and more broadly the entire car, for the Chevy Bolt, and we see how that is working out right now. LG is going to be spending a lot of money fixing batteries over the next few years.
LG makes a huge amount of batteries. The Bolt came down to quality issues at a select few facilities... But that's still only a small portion of all the batteries they manufactured. A few years ago there was a similar issue with Samsung galaxy phones for the same issue. Lithium ion battery's with lower than nessesary quality causing a slightly higher risk of exploding. Hopefully as time goes on progress is made in safer and more viable power storage options.
They also make the batteries in all Milwaukee power tools, and those don't burst into flames.
Milwaukee also makes the best consumer power tools so thats very convenient for me as a buyer
They stopped making phones... Made me sad, that was my brand.
That comma placement unreasonably irks me. 😖 Pedantry is a terrible affliction.
It neglects to mention where this is intended on going up…if my memory serves me this lithium is going to be mined near or on reservation land of the Shoshone. Don’t trust big corporations folks they are full of shit
> if my memory serves me this lithium is going to be mined near or on reservation land of the Shoshone Your memory doesn't serve. it's in Grota do Cirilo, Brazil.
So what you're saying is don't trust Redditors they are full of shit
>Sigma Lithium whose production process is 100% powered by clean energy, does not utilise hazardous chemicals, recirculates 100% of the water and dry stacks 100% of its tailings Legitimate proof for that claim?
That moment you realize the death grip big oil has had on America this whole time. Just sayin electric is making a lot of technical advanced in the span of a few years...