I think it's notable that Russia is having difficulty with their naval fleet due to the very few long-range missiles Ukraine has.

It's a waste of time having a discussion with a delusional person.

> If the cost of materials crushes everyone, the EV revolution isn't going to happen.

It simply gives an incentive to develop alternatives e.g. Sodium batteries.

Either way I don't think you need to worry about things that are above your pay grade.

Look, you are obviously an uninformed dinosaur lol.

Service guarantees citizenship.

> mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that’s what the team will do next

Exactly, so I have no idea why you are wasting my time.

This study does not address batteries, making your comment off-topic.

Is this based on any information, or do you suck this stuff from your "source"?

Actually, the Congo does not exist.

You missed the short period where we all have AR glasses connected to an AI telling us exactly what to say and do.

Surely, you need 2 extra hands, for balance, unless the 3rd is attached to your butt, like a scorpion tail...

You know, it always reminds me of Tasty Wheat.

> Because lithium is necessary for many basic biological processes in most sea flora and fauna, and the mass redistribution of it in seawater will have large and unknown effects.

This sounds like hocus-pocus. Lets be serious lol.

> And known reserves that are suitable for use in high quality batteries have not even close to doubled. Some high quality lithium currently being used for other applications such as lubricants could be shifted to the large reserves of crap lithium we've found, but it isn't nearly enough.

After its mined and purified, lithium is lithium. There is no such thing as "high-quality lithium" It's not the drugs you are currently smoking.

> And you know how lithium is primarily mined right? Strip leech mining, which has a huge negative environmental impact.

This is not even close to true. The majority of lithium is from South America, where evaporative separation is used.

> All in service of a battery technology that's an order of magnitude less efficient than it needs to be to actually supplant internal combustion in most use cases.

The biggest WTF from a long list. EVs are at least twice as efficient as gas cars.

Lithium is a pretty good example. Known reserves have doubled over the last 10 years, and known reserves can already meet all anticipated EV demand, up to 2 billion cars.

However, with the sky-high lithium price stimulating mining and exploration, that will only increase.

Lithium is often extracted from useless salt flats, but you mention sea water. Interestingly there are some thoughts of extracting lithium from waste brine from desalination, which already has to deal with disposing of concentrated salt water.

> Will the effects of those continuances be worse than just keeping on using hydrocarbon energy sources?

This is a very bizarre idea. Would local pollution from mining be worse than a worldwide climate disaster? I will have to think about that long and hard.

It's called precision fermentation and it tastes like chicken, though we can't really be sure of that.

The world has enough rare earth minerals and other critical raw materials to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy to produce electricity and limit global warming, according to a new study that counters concerns about the supply of such minerals.

With a push to get more electricity from solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, some people have worried that there won’t be enough key minerals to make the decarbonization switch.

A team of scientists looked at the materials — many not often mined heavily in the past — and 20 different power sources. They calculated supplies and pollution from mining if green power surged to meet global goals to cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from fossil fuel.

Much more mining is needed, but there are enough minerals to go around and drilling for them will not significantly worsen warming, the study in Friday’s scientific journal Joule concluded.

“Decarbonization is going to be big and messy, but at the same time we can do it,” said study co-author Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the tech company Stripe and Berkeley Earth. “I’m not worried we’re going to run out of these materials.”

There will be short supplies. For example, dysprosium is a mineral used for magnets in wind turbines and a big push for cleaner electricity would require three times as much dysprosium as currently produced, the paper said. But there’s more than 12 times as much dysprosium in reserves than would be needed in that clean energy push.

Another close call is tellurium, which is used in industrial solar farms and where there may be only slightly more estimated resources than what would be required in a big green push. But Hausfather said there are substitutions available in all these materials’ cases.

“There are enough materials in reserves. The analysis is robust and this study debunks those (running out of minerals) concerns,” said Daniel Ibarra, an environment professor at Brown University, who wasn’t part of the study but looks at lithium shortages. But he said production capacity has to grow for some “key metals” and one issue is how fast can it grow.

Another concern is whether the mining will add more heat-trapping carbon emissions to the atmosphere. It will, maybe as much as 10 billion metric tons, which is one-quarter of the annual global carbon emissions, Hausfather said. Renewables require more materials per energy output than fossil fuels because they are more decentralized, he said.

But the increase in carbon pollution from more mining will be more than offset by a huge reduction in pollution from heavy carbon emitting fossil fuels, Hausfeather said.

Rare earth minerals, also called rare earth elements, actually aren’t that rare. The U.S. Geological Survey describes them as a “relatively abundant.” They’re essential for the strong magnets necessary for wind turbines; they also show up in smartphones, computer displays and LED light bulbs. This new study looks at not only those elements but 17 different raw materials required to make electricity that include some downright common resources such as steel, cement and glass.

While much of the global concern about raw materials for decarbonization has to do with batteries and transportation, especially electric cars that rely on lithium for batteries, this study doesn’t look at that.

Looking at mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that’s what the team will do next, Hausfather said. The power sector is still about one-third to half of the resource issue, he said.

The full study can be read here and here is a very accessible twitter thread by one of the authors.

https://twitter.com/wang_seaver/status/1619043659927937024

Human-level play in the game of Diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning

ChatGPT bot passes law school exam

> In YOUR theory the singularity would like a tsunami washing away everything human,

It's kind of in the name. The idea is that things change so rapidly people are no longer able to predict the future on an increasingly shorter and shorter time scale.

It's like you wake up one morning and they announce you can now get your age reversed next week, and then 2 days later everyone gets uploaded to the hive mind.

You really need to read Iain M. Bank's Culture series for the best version of what a post-singularity universe could look like.

In theory the singularity would like a tsunami washing away everything human, but in the best version humans will be protected by powerful AI and a human-scale world will be created from them.

> However, United Airlines-backed Heart Aerospace says swapping batteries will add unnecessary complexity and that charging times will be about 40 minutes for an 'average mission'.

I believe their solid electrode battery has a much lower risk of fire.

So apparently Heart Aerospace is partnered with Northvolt's Cuberg whose solid electrode Lithium-ion cell energy density has been validated at 380 Wh/kg.

https://northvolt.com/articles/cuberg-july2022

> But he is confident improvements in battery density will happen, and quickly. For example, cell manufacturer Cuberg is already working on next-generation battery technology that promises better energy density at lower cost. Cuberg has several links with Heart: it is a supplier to Electroflight, and in March was acquired by Northvolt, a Swedish battery specialist whose chief executive Peter Carlsson is also an advisor to the aircraft manufacturer.

> Forslund points out that the requirement to change battery packs after they have been through a certain number of cycles means that operators will, in effect, “get a better aircraft on a yearly basis”.

> That energy density improvement will also enable Heart to develop a larger future aircraft of “approaching 50 seats”, although Forslund is keeping mum on the timeline.

There are only 14,950 unique combinations of 4 letter words lol. That would make for a small dictionary.

Why are you able to find contrary articles, but not the answers to your basic questions?

Or are you just concern trolling?

I thought flow batteries were already a lot cheaper than lithium. if they are only competitive with lithium over 30 years they sound pretty doomed.