Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdewerd | Hacker News Reader

Why did you spend 200 words arguing for the premise of my second point? Usually one spends time arguing against your opponent but ok, sure, I'm glad we both prefer refining and manufacturing in friendly countries.

> [the commencement of mass production of Na batteries in the USA] refutes the core premise of your statement

How so? This plant is one tiny step on a very, very long road. I'm glad to see it happen, but extrapolating the outcome of a race from the first few steps would be incredibly foolish. China can build Na-ion too, so the question becomes whether the difference in chemistry creates an advantage for one party or another.

> unlike Li batteries, the materials are trivially sourced domestically

So China can cut out the only part of the supply chain that leans towards the US sphere of influence, while the US gets a discount on shipping? This isn't the own you think it is.

View on HN

Could have done without the first paragraph. :) I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia (supply locked up by China) or Chile (read anything re: politics last 5 years) as my sources. the general thrust that youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading instead of illuminating is correct. (requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??) and specifically only lithium, and Chile and Australia)

>Australia (supply locked up by China)

What's that based on? Australia exporting most of it to China doesn't prove anything except that China is a major trading partner for Australia. If the problem is securing lithium for the US, then 1) the US could buy more (Lithium is sold for cash, not given away), or 2) it could set up more mines in Nevada (which has a ton of lithium, and would have lower transport costs to boot).

> Could have done without the first paragraph. :)

Sure, let's turn down the temperature.

> youre being flippantly dismissive to the point of shading instead of illuminating

Let's turn down the temperature.

> I wouldn't be excited to have either Australia ... or Chile ... as my sources

China is even less excited than you are to have Australia and Chile as their sources. Eliminating a small pain from the USA and a big pain from China gives a net benefit to China, so it's weird to see it advertised as a net benefit for the USA.

That said, raw material availability isn't the limiting factor here. We probably shouldn't even be discussing it.

> requires discussion about new battery chemistry supply chains to only discuss lithium-ion (??)

That's the alternative Na-ion has to beat. We could build lithium refining and manufacturing capacity in the US sphere of influence. Evaluations of any new technology should compare it to the best available alternatives, yes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com