Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

The last 5 to 10 years has had a succession of doom-sayers riding the Paul Ehrlich line to "we will run out" -And as Julian Simons bet [0] showed, it may be true but it's based on a false premise of supply chain logistics, mining and planning.

In absolute terms yes, there is a finite amount of lithium in the crust. Transmutation aside, What we see in real life is unequal distribution and then bad modelling on assumptions this represents all available lithium when in reality it mistakes availability for existence. There is a lot more lithium in the world. The problem is finding it, and its price in extraction complexity, density, and other "costs"

The ramp up time to replace all ICE with EV will consume a lot of Lithium. I have no doubt there will be rises and falls in costs of Lithium extraction, as a function of the investment cycle and demand. What I do doubt, is that we will "run out" for any reason other than investment in this discovery and extraction. What they're doing in the Salton Sea is sensible, and what will happen in Australia (which also has lithium rich soils) is sensible, and no, we're not entirely captive to some fantasy of "there isn't enough lithium in the world"

Aside from anything else, there are other battery chemistries out there. Lithium battery chemistry is only the one we like now.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Sodium Ion batteries are approaching somewhere in the 120-160 wh/kg in production, per CATL. I believe 200 wh/kg is on the industry "roadmap" in 3-5 years.

I believe Sodium Ion is like LFP in its safety with thermal runaway, so it, like LFP, doesn't require as much cooling and equipment overhead so its Cell-to-Module, or even better, Cell-to-Pack is bettery than cobalt/nickel li-ion chemistries.

A sodium ion battery that CATL says it is putting in production is sufficient for low-end consumer EV transport: the 100 mile city car, possibly a 200-mile one with good drivetrain design, if the Cell-to-Pack napkin math works out correctly.

Concurrent with this, LFP batteries are reaching 200-230 wh/kg this year, which thanks to their bettery thermal protection, means the Cell-to-Pack density should be "good to go" for almost all Tesla car ranges today (my napkin math on Cell-to-Pack shows 400 miles for a model 3 for 230 wh/kg LFP).

The extended range Tesla vehicles are overkill for 90% of world drivers, and at least 80% of Americans. The 300 mile range is the perfect range for the "next 10 years".

The napkin math then says you can combine sodium ion and LFP to get to 300 mile pack designs, and no cobalt/nickel, reduced lithium from sodium ion, probably a 50/50 split or similar.

This is for the next 2-4 years of mainstream car / EV production scaling, which is may be the most important for kickstarting true widespread EV and averting climate change that we have left.

Hopefully in 2-4 years we get the following (per roadmaps):

- 260+ wh/kg LFP

- 180-200 wh/kg sodium ion

That will mean all-sodium 300 mile range cars, mixed sodium/LFP for long range, light trucks, possibly long haul shipping + container ships.

If we get 400 wk/kg or better solid state battery or Li-S, then all the better. Mix in those as needed, or maybe short haul aviation becomes possible, but the important thing is that for the majority of ground transport, sodium ion and lfp will serve to scale out huge portions of carbon emissions from transportation.

wh/kg cited are all cell densities, but there is reference to Cell-to-pack being 90% of cell density for LFP and Sodium Ion approaches, which is where are the napkin math begins.

I managed my lifestyle to need <20k per day, almost per week, with occasional 150k runs. So your goal nicely covers my needs. Down here in OZ the discussion is dominated by people who are frankly on the margins, who routinely drive 100+km per day and who tow high loads for a living, or work rural and remote. I totally accept they have problems with this model, but I wish they'd be more overt they realize just how marginal they are to the vast bulk of urban Australia, who live within 50km of their job.

The strongest case they have, is that all of us want the freedom of not being constrained by range, however rarely we use it. Somehow the 45min recharge ruins the experience. I personally think battery swap was a model which got us there but Musk drove the (current) industry to another place, and nobody in the west is seriously offering it, outside of special needs like buses and trucks. It's alive and well in the e-scooter space in much of Asia.

If your life involves driving the birdsville track every day, you are not the target of energy transition to batteries.

The long haul people should be served by the 100 mile PHEV.

the 230 WH/kg should enable the 100 mile PHEV I think, although I haven't done the math on that.

I'm in the midwest, and while superchargers will probably take care of my needs (I don't tow), but PHEVs should serve all those people.

A 400 mile LFP should be doable for the pickup truck when we hit 260 wh/kg, maybe 500 mile. And if Li-Sulfer or SSB hits, then those people will be served all-electric.

The infrastructure will come around. And recharge times are something that when viewed from a total systems level with home charging is actually less than gassing up, and when chargers are available basically in every parking lot.

The fact that the fringe cases are hyped up is just astroturfing, and it is a symptom of a dying campaign. The economics are behind alternative energy and BEVs, there's nothing big oil can do anymore. From here the vehicles fall under price points that ICEs will never compete with, and even the "middle used market" may get chased out by cheaper chinese entrants.

BYD is about to release its ~ $45k AUD car in Australia. 1500 units sold out almost immediately. MG, which is another Chinese manufacturer these days is expected to price-match. Hyundai (the Ioniq) may price match. The BYD has really good range for price (400km NEDC)

https://www.drive.com.au/news/byd-dolphin-electric-city-car-...

If the federal and/or state governments go with some price support, and unit costs to a customer on-road get to $30k, I would think seriously about trading in my Hyundai i30 with 5 years left on its 7 year fixed price maintenance/warranty. I got a powerpoint fitted in the unit "just in case" although with low amps, it would be trickle charge only. The "dolphin" BYD is releasing is comparable size inside to my i30.

Tesla isn't responding to price competition, they see enough demand at their AUD $70k+ pricepoint. They're targetting a different market, one which Volvo, Mercedes, BMW &c occupy with high-end ICE cars (although I am told the build quality on a Tesla is below par, even if the driving experience is good)

I don't think the Made-in-China Tesla's ever suffered the build quality issues the Fremont built cars did. There have been minor issues.

I think the "low price point" EV is a myth in the short term. I don't think there is enough materials to make the volume required at that price point. This seems to be why Tesla put a hold on their $25k model - which they now seem to be making a "dedicated robotaxi" and betting on solving self-driving.

IMO the 25k model is on hold because:

1) they are just scaling existing models (same reason roadster / semi / cybertruck is on hold)

2) the chinese already own that price point worldwide, and Tesla likely can't compete in that segment, well, or the margins aren't worth the effort right now.

As for limits on materials, as I described, Sodium-Ion and LFP are the path for 10-20 million BEVs per year (or... 3x-5x that in PHEVs) over the next four years. Lithium is not the major limiter, additional sources (Salton Sea, many others) will come online, but Cobalt/Nickel for LMC chemistries are.

Long term most of the global production of consumer vehicles (~80 million/year in 2021) should be doable with 180-200 wh/kg sodium ion technologies, while 260 wh/kg LFP, 300-400 wh/kg LMC, and 400-??? densities from Li-S/solid state battery can address long haul shipping, sports cars, trucks with towing, etc.

To emphasize, that's is why these viable densities of Sodium Ion and LFP chemistries are so important.

IF Tesla did achieve usable robotaxi self-driving (and while I find their current achievements amazing, it's still fundamentally short of the mark), much like IBM and Microsoft in the early days, it would be stupid to limit their software to Teslas only. Release the software for licensees and make at 3-5 grand on EVERY car.

Even off raw materials are solved… that’s still a lot of battery factories that need to come online. I know there is rapid growth here… but the timelines feel insanely aggressive… like everyone needs to suddenly do Tesla level growth having never done that kind of growth before

You still have that freedom you just have to wait a little longer. I do however see your point, it's probably the reason in my area pickup trucks are so popular though rarely used. People want the ability to haul drywall, just in case, it makes you feel like you are independent and can contribute even if it's rarely used.

> Hopefully in 2-4 years we get the following

IMO, current LFP batteries are already "good enough" and "cheap enough" for 80% of car sales. Reportly in 2021 China, 5000-cycle LFP at ~$70/khw. Chop off 1000 cycles, add 20% price margins, and it is still good enough.

If you could conjure up x10 manufacturing scale, you would still sell every single cell.

It will be easier to improve charging infra, that to improve NMC or stablize sodium.

/end of rant

totally agree, but lithium supply may still block the REALLY big volumes, so 160 wh/kg sodium ion being as good as LFP from a year or two back means that isn't an issue. At this point, it should be more mundane factory scaling problems.

The world governments really need to get onboard with pushing worldwide manufacturing of these cells and modules. Tesla's Berlin delays were shameful. If you are running coal plants, you as a government can't say anything about environmental damage from a new BEV or battery plant with a straight face.

I'm thankful that at least science and technology have given humanity a path forward that is clearly economically superior, because it is clear that humanity's collective political governance is incompetent.

The fact you can take decades of global warming science, point out the end state and dangers, and the effective intelligence of worldwide leaders over that time is less than the intellectual and logical capacity of a third grader, even one that has missed their nap, is one of the most depressing things in the world.

I'm loathe to credit the Chinese government with anything based on their current leadership's autocratic and genocidal leanings, but their policies subsidizing battery and solar cell production have been the only effective governmental level environmental policy in the global warming era.

>replace all ICE with EV

I'm honestly not convinced this will happen. I think the ratio will get a lot more even but I highly doubt ICE will be replaced. Especially as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the economic viability of reducing it back into hydrocarbons increases. Already it's much easier to grow microalgae than it was during the first government experiments in the 60s. As these technologies improve there will be continued downward pressure on the price of petroleum products despite the state of oil drilling and the regulatory pressure against them will be gone because this makes them carbon neutral.

On top of that there are still applications where electric motors just don't make that much sense. Also transporting and storing energy in a fluid is far easier than transporting it in a battery.

I think you're right. ICE will remain, however niche most consumers think it is. Offroad, towing, agriculture, specialist/collector vehicles.

And thats after a 20+ year transition, based on the average vs maximum realistic lifetime of vehicles either on the road, or soon to be.

But for liquid energy transport, I think LNG with H2 injection, and Ammonia will fit the energy density niche. I don't see deep well petrochemicals as a sustaining model of energy shipment, if we move the economy away from them for transport.

All this is very much "after my lifetime" -Much as my parents lived through the transition of horse power to gas engines, and I was on the cusp of steam trains to diesel and electric, some things happen in timescales beyond my lifetime

Niche ICE run into a refueling logistical issues. It’s possible to get gas cheaply in large part because there is a vast amount of infrastructure devoted to extracting, refining, and distributing it. Gas prices in 1913 where the equivalent of $9.29/gallon without any special taxes and it gets worse the further back you go.

EV’s got to skip that growing pain because they could piggyback on electrical infrastructure.

The existing infrastructure of electricity, excluding building charging stations and the possibility of transmission upgrades, is why I believe in EVs instead of Hydrogen.

Wouldn't the cost of building a new Hydrogen setup equivalent to gasoline be insane? You can't retrofit gas stations that easily since the tanks weren't meant to hold a gas. I suppose they could add Hydrogen storage to existing gas stations but you still need central distributions and another set of trucks to bring it out.

Pure H2 is a nightmare. Hydrogen up converted to Ammonia is much easier to handle, comparable to LNG for the cost of management.

For volume shipment between economies, Ammonia is the way to go.

Can cars burn ammonia in the same way as hydrogen? Or are you saying that you convert to ammonia for shipping, then reconvert back to hydrogen just before it gets into the car?

You can run combustion engines on ammonia but I believe the most likely scenario is catalytic conversion back to H2 at high efficiency and use as hydrogen, supplementary to LNG or directly. It doesn't target cars very well at present.

Ammonia produces NOx when burned. You think CO2 is bad that stuff is absolutely nasty. I don't know why that would be an improvement.

You get NOx from burning most things including hydrogen. It’s can form from atmospheric Nitrogen and Oxygen combining at high temperatures such as found in flames. You do produce more or less with various types of fuel but production isn’t the issue it’s failing to get rid of them afterwards that’s the problem.

They are unstable breaking down either in the fire making complete combustion important, but a catalytic converter or at worse just the atmosphere works. They last just long enough to be a problem locally. But that also means people have local incentives to fix the issue unlike CO2 which has a much larger tragedy of the commons issue.

> highly doubt ICE will be replaced

I think it will. For cars and trucks, at least.

There is a massive recurring cost to maintaining the refining and distribution infrastructure for gasoline, to say nothing of developing, building and selling a new vehicle. All of these systems have been built for scale. When demand dips below the level to maintain them, they become obsolete. At that point, one must build new infrastructure at the smaller scale, which, why?

There will still be ICE cars for enthusiasts. But you’ll have to special order the fuel at expense, have replacement parts custom built, all of which makes it infeasible for general use. (I’m expecting within ten years to see gas stations closures stranding isolated communities, with the phenomenon becoming commonplace by 2040.)

> I’m expecting within ten years to see gas stations closures stranding isolated communities, with the phenomenon becoming commonplace by 2040.

Gas stations make most of their money as convenience stores, often selling gas at very narrow margins.

Additionally, the average age of the cars on the road is >10 years. The sales today are not supportive for your thesis unless the price of gas continues higher.

> Gas stations make most of their money as convenience stores, often selling gas at very narrow margins.

Right, which they increasingly won’t be able to do as demand for gas drops. The timeline might be longer than above, and it’ll be stretched out by the fact that so much infrastructure has already been built, but I think it will happen eventually.

The gas stations are not going away. As you say, gas was only part of what they sell. But they will offer charging and the other mobility services required, as coffee and food for the travelers. Look to Norway, where the first gas stations were already converted. At some point, maintenance costs don't justify selling gas any more.

If they don't sell gas, are they still "gas stations"?

Keep in mind there are already states like Washington, which has mandated no new licenses for non-EV personal vehicles after 2030. This isn't to say that EV will completely replace ICE in that timeline (or even on a multi-decade timeline), especially for commercial and specialized industrial vehicles, but for Jane and John Q. Taxpayer, it certainly feels like the end of ICE vehicles as daily transportation is drawing to a foreseeable conclusion.

I'm willing to bet that 2030 is too soon and they'll kick out the deadline as it approaches and turns out to be impossible to meet. It's one thing to mandate a thing to happen, it's another when it collides with reality.

I suspect you are correct, but at the same time I think about 7 years ago what EV options were available. There could be a lot more options for car buyers 7 years from now. Realistically, the mandate is a starting point - it's just saying that new license plates go to EVs and the clock starts running on ICE. It's still a multi-decade switch over.

> Especially as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the economic viability of reducing it back into hydrocarbons increases

Even if the concentration were to hit 5,000ppm - not only beyond dangerous climate levels but directly dangerous to human breathing - that's still only 0.5%, which makes very little difference to the feasibility of extracting it from the air. There is also no natural market for doing so. It'll pretty much have to be mandated and subsidized if that's ever to happen outside of pilot plants and the US navy.

Oil drilling cannot be carbon neutral, you're inherently bringing carbon up into the atmosphere. Oil drilling plus CCS? Maaaybe.

I think it needs some external political shock like the invasion of Ukraine to trigger a big push against energy imports and towards local energy production.

I'm currently running a small scale project that's extracting and reducing CO2 from the air with the current concentration. You can do it now it's just a matter of doing it for less than the current price of gasoline which I haven't managed to do (yet.)

Interesting - what's the technology? Is that vs the wholesale price of gasoline or the retail post-tax price "at the pump"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com