7 ms·

Are people confusing lithium with cobalt? Where 70% of it comes from the Congo.

marcosdumay 3y ago
Yes. And I guess some people insist on the confusion on purpose. It doesn't matter how many times people point it out, the confusion keeps happening.
- retinaros 3y ago
  just like people against nuclear. we can see that live in germany
  - nl 3y ago
    This is nothing like nuclear. I know the facts about nuclear and are vehemently opposed to it for environmental risk reasons.
    - Maursault 3y ago
      If nuclear power were profitable, no amount of vehement opposition due to environmental risk could stop it. There'd be nuclear power plants everywhere. Fortunately for your vehement opposition, considering all costs. nuclear power has always been the single most expensive way to generate electricity, has never been profitable, and never will be, even if it wasn't regulated. Investors can't be found unless a government subsidizes construction and pays for decommissioning and waste storage and security. The only reason so many nuclear power plants were even constructed in the US in the first place is that someone somewhere, or perhaps a team or committee, vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. Anyway, it really sucks, but opposition and environmental concern can't really stop the destruction of ecosystems or environmental catastrophe if whatever is causing it is profitable. Nuclear is done and didn't need help killing itself, but keep that in mind if you have any other pet environmental concerns, i.e. that to win and protect the environment, one must figure out a way to obliterate the potential for profit in risking or destroying it. Otherwise, you're just shaking a tiny fist at the sky for all the good it'll do.
      - Miraste 3y ago
        >never will be I don't believe this is inherently true. Theoretical designs exist that solve a lot of nuclear power's problems: this issue is that it got caught in a death spiral due to Chernobyl. That ended investment and R&D, so nuclear power plants didn't improve while other sources of energy did, so they got even less investment and R&D.
        Maursault 3y ago
        > this issue is that it got caught in a death spiral due to Chernobyl. Nuclear (fission) power's unprofitability predates Chernobyl to the very first reactors and continuing up to this day. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the first commercial reactor to come online, and it was a small reactor, cost $78M to construct in 1958. Decommissioning and cleanup 30 years later cost about $100M. Considering the plant and the resulting mess were small, I really don't think it broke even, but I can't find any economic analysis that includes all the things. A study in 2019 found that nuclear power has not been profitable anywhere in the world.[1] The study also found nuclear power has never been financially viable, that most plants have been built while heavily subsidised by governments, often motivated by military purposes, and that nuclear power is not a good approach to tackling climate change. It found, after reviewing trends in nuclear power plant construction since 1951, that the average 1,000MW nuclear power plant would incur an average economic loss of about $8B. And R&D in fission is complete. We know pretty much all there is to know regarding it, and reducing cost simply is not viable through more investment in R&D. We've been working on this in earnest since the late 1940's, so it's no surprise we have figured everything out other than how to do it cheaply enough to achieve economic viability. There are some nuclear power applications where economic viability don't matter, such as nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, and I expect we won't stop building those, but commercial nuclear power just can't work because of the money, and nothing else is needed to say "no," and if it was economically viable, no other objections, such as environmental, would stop it. [1] https://www.mr-sustainability.com/stories/2020/nuclear-power-2 https://www.mr-sustainability.com/stories/2020/nuclear-power...
        Miraste 3y ago
    - retinaros 3y ago
      so coal it is? better for the environment.
      - nl 3y ago
        No of course not. It's renewables + long distance transmission across weather zones.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  I agree that it's deliberate, and I extend that to any sort of mining - after all it comes from the stance of misinformed "environmentalists" not being able to tell the difference because any of that type of action is bad
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    There are certainly people reposting comments that mix up lithium and cobalt and keep asserting that all EV batteries use cobalt and how terrible that is. They are not all environmentalists. A lot of them are just using those talking points as a way to oppose the move to EVs. They also like to post a photo of an open pit gold mine in Australia and claim that it is a lithium mine while complaining about the massive environmental impact. they never respond when I post a link with proper attribution showing that it is not a lithium mine.
    - pas 3y ago
      not to mention that there is no fundamental problem with open pit mining with recultivation. the problem is the brine. which is cleanable with a lot of energy.
    - taneq 3y ago
      We do have big open pit lithium mines here too though. Or is it a photo of the Super Pit or something equally silly? :)
snek_case 3y ago
Also worth pointing out that much of EVs and grid storage are shifting to cobalt-free lithium iron phosphate batteries. Many people aren't aware of that.

Yes. And I guess some people insist on the confusion on purpose. It doesn't matter how many times people point it out, the confusion keeps happening.

retinaros 3y ago
just like people against nuclear. we can see that live in germany
- nl 3y ago
  This is nothing like nuclear. I know the facts about nuclear and are vehemently opposed to it for environmental risk reasons.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    If nuclear power were profitable, no amount of vehement opposition due to environmental risk could stop it. There'd be nuclear power plants everywhere. Fortunately for your vehement opposition, considering all costs. nuclear power has always been the single most expensive way to generate electricity, has never been profitable, and never will be, even if it wasn't regulated. Investors can't be found unless a government subsidizes construction and pays for decommissioning and waste storage and security. The only reason so many nuclear power plants were even constructed in the US in the first place is that someone somewhere, or perhaps a team or committee, vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. Anyway, it really sucks, but opposition and environmental concern can't really stop the destruction of ecosystems or environmental catastrophe if whatever is causing it is profitable. Nuclear is done and didn't need help killing itself, but keep that in mind if you have any other pet environmental concerns, i.e. that to win and protect the environment, one must figure out a way to obliterate the potential for profit in risking or destroying it. Otherwise, you're just shaking a tiny fist at the sky for all the good it'll do.
    - Miraste 3y ago
      >never will be I don't believe this is inherently true. Theoretical designs exist that solve a lot of nuclear power's problems: this issue is that it got caught in a death spiral due to Chernobyl. That ended investment and R&D, so nuclear power plants didn't improve while other sources of energy did, so they got even less investment and R&D.
      - Maursault 3y ago
        > this issue is that it got caught in a death spiral due to Chernobyl. Nuclear (fission) power's unprofitability predates Chernobyl to the very first reactors and continuing up to this day. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the first commercial reactor to come online, and it was a small reactor, cost $78M to construct in 1958. Decommissioning and cleanup 30 years later cost about $100M. Considering the plant and the resulting mess were small, I really don't think it broke even, but I can't find any economic analysis that includes all the things. A study in 2019 found that nuclear power has not been profitable anywhere in the world.[1] The study also found nuclear power has never been financially viable, that most plants have been built while heavily subsidised by governments, often motivated by military purposes, and that nuclear power is not a good approach to tackling climate change. It found, after reviewing trends in nuclear power plant construction since 1951, that the average 1,000MW nuclear power plant would incur an average economic loss of about $8B. And R&D in fission is complete. We know pretty much all there is to know regarding it, and reducing cost simply is not viable through more investment in R&D. We've been working on this in earnest since the late 1940's, so it's no surprise we have figured everything out other than how to do it cheaply enough to achieve economic viability. There are some nuclear power applications where economic viability don't matter, such as nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, and I expect we won't stop building those, but commercial nuclear power just can't work because of the money, and nothing else is needed to say "no," and if it was economically viable, no other objections, such as environmental, would stop it. [1] https://www.mr-sustainability.com/stories/2020/nuclear-power-2 https://www.mr-sustainability.com/stories/2020/nuclear-power...
        Miraste 3y ago
  - retinaros 3y ago
    so coal it is? better for the environment.
    - nl 3y ago
      No of course not. It's renewables + long distance transmission across weather zones.
latency-guy2 3y ago
I agree that it's deliberate, and I extend that to any sort of mining - after all it comes from the stance of misinformed "environmentalists" not being able to tell the difference because any of that type of action is bad
- Tagbert 3y ago
  There are certainly people reposting comments that mix up lithium and cobalt and keep asserting that all EV batteries use cobalt and how terrible that is. They are not all environmentalists. A lot of them are just using those talking points as a way to oppose the move to EVs. They also like to post a photo of an open pit gold mine in Australia and claim that it is a lithium mine while complaining about the massive environmental impact. they never respond when I post a link with proper attribution showing that it is not a lithium mine.
  - pas 3y ago
    not to mention that there is no fundamental problem with open pit mining with recultivation. the problem is the brine. which is cleanable with a lot of energy.
  - taneq 3y ago
    We do have big open pit lithium mines here too though. Or is it a photo of the Super Pit or something equally silly? :)

snek_case 3y ago

Also worth pointing out that much of EVs and grid storage are shifting to cobalt-free lithium iron phosphate batteries. Many people aren't aware of that.