US Awards $3 Billion To Boost Domestic Battery Production (msn.com) 38
American Battery Technology and lithium-producer Albemarle are among 25 companies getting more than $3 billion in funding from the Biden administration to boost domestic production of advanced batteries and components. From a report: The funding -- part of a broader White House goal of creating an American battery supply chain -- is going to projects that are building, expanding or retrofitting facilities to process critical minerals, build components and batteries and recycle materials, the Energy Department said Friday.
American Battery Technology received $150 million to build a commercial-scale lithium-ion battery recycling facility in South Carolina. Albemarle is getting $67 million to retrofit a facility to manufacture commercial anode material for next-generation lithium-ion batteries around Charlotte, North Carolina. Other projects included $50 million for Cabot and $225 million for SWA Lithium, a joint venture of Standard Lithium and Equinor. Batteries -- which are used for electric vehicles as well as storing renewable energy for use on the electric grid -- are considered critical to reaching the administration's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and for boosting electric vehicles to half of all new light-duty vehicle sales by 2030.
American Battery Technology received $150 million to build a commercial-scale lithium-ion battery recycling facility in South Carolina. Albemarle is getting $67 million to retrofit a facility to manufacture commercial anode material for next-generation lithium-ion batteries around Charlotte, North Carolina. Other projects included $50 million for Cabot and $225 million for SWA Lithium, a joint venture of Standard Lithium and Equinor. Batteries -- which are used for electric vehicles as well as storing renewable energy for use on the electric grid -- are considered critical to reaching the administration's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and for boosting electric vehicles to half of all new light-duty vehicle sales by 2030.
Lithium not needed for the grid (Score:2)
" SWA Lithium, a joint venture of Standard Lithium and Equinor. Batteries -- which are used for electric vehicles as well as storing renewable energy for use on the electric grid"
You don't need Lithium batteries for grid storage. Weight is not an issue, use something cheaper. Even Lead acid batteries would work. You could recycle the lead from old (ICE) car batteries.
Re:Lithium not needed for the grid (Score:5, Informative)
Lead acid batteries are not cheaper. For four times the money, lithium batteries last twice as long and store twice as much power — they literally have the same lifetime cost or less because lithium batteries keep getting cheaper and lead acid batteries don't, they've been optimized about as far as they are going to go. Fewer batteries means smaller enclosures and fewer interconnections, which makes the installation cost less overall.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lead acid batteries are not cheaper."
Depends on what you consider costs and what the demand is. When you maximize demand for lithium, you maximize its cost. You haven't considered that.
"Fewer batteries means smaller enclosures and fewer interconnections, which makes the installation cost less overall."
It also increases energy density and safety concerns caused by the density. You can't claim less overall cost when you are not considering all the comparable installation costs.
Re:Lithium not needed for the grid (Score:5, Informative)
Lead mining and production are filthy processes, so there are also environmental costs.
Lead isn't used for starting cars because it's cheap but because it can provide a very large current. Lead is not a good choice for applications requiring deep discharge.
But lead and lithium aren't the only options. Sodium is a good choice for stationary storage.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Lead acid batteries are not cheaper. For four times the money, lithium batteries last twice as long and store twice as much power"
Until the demand for lithium outstrips supply and the prices start to climb. And lithium has inherent environmental and safety issues, for sure. I am not arguing for using lead-acid for "grid storage". When space and weight are not an issue, there are lots of other options that are much safer, much easier to scale, and simpler. Thermal options, pumped gas/liquid, far les
Re: (Score:3)
While you're right about lead acid not being remotely a suitable solution, lithium shouldn't be the end goal here for the grid. Lithium are the energy density king so we should use them in places where energy density is critical. Ideally you want something like vanadium redox flow batteries. They have their own technical challenges and development to be done, but their ideal situation for a grid in that the electrolytes are liquid and battery capacity depends only on the size of the tank while power output
Re: (Score:1)
If it costs 4 times less than use two. It won't cost half as much because you have the extra connection and space but it still costs less for grid applications.
Re: (Score:2)
If it costs 4 times less than use two. It won't cost half as much because you have the extra connection and space but it still costs less for grid applications.
Your proposal is to spend extra money for no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other choices. For example, sodium-ion batteries. There's a good comparison of costs, materials, mass-energy density, volume-energy density, at the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery.
Basically, replace expensive, difficult-to-mine and separate lithium with very common sodium, which sits right under lithium in the periodic table. You have to rejigger some of the rest of the chemistry, but generally in the direction of using safer, more-abundant materials (sodium in
Re: (Score:2)
>"You don't need Lithium batteries for grid storage."
What you are saying is absolutely true. Grid storage has LOTS of options, few of which (if any) should include lithium.
>"You could recycle the lead from old (ICE) car batteries."
Almost 100% of lead acid batteries are already recycled :) This is mostly due to core charges when buying new car batteries. Annoying, but effective.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is mostly due to core charges when buying new car batteries. Annoying, but effective."
Ah, the essence of MAGA. Simply cannot think straight.
Re: (Score:1)
"Just don't be poor!"
Ah, the essence of progressive elitism. Simply zero self-awareness.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that lithium batteries are not necessary, but you're wrong about the cost. Lead acid is more expensive in the long run because they generally don't last as long (lithium generally having a cycle life more than ten times that of lead), and also generally require maintenance that most other chemistries do not. Combine that with the Lithium-Iron Phosphate cells now hitting the market at under $60/kwh and the total cost of ownership for lithium storage systems is a fraction of lead-acid.
Then there is ec
Re: (Score:2)
The downsides of lead acid other than energy density are likely not fundamental. A truly modern lead acid battery might be able to have much better cycle life without requiring electrolyte replacement, ArcActive thinks so.
Re: (Score:2)
The chemistry is only part of the cost, everything else is better optimized for lithium ion and they can earn back non recurring costs on higher volume. It's not easy to compete unless you take a lot of risk, go big or go home.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, sodium ion is better for large storage installations.
Autarky for the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
These new mass subsidies for industry are fundamentally different from the Obama era ones, they are matched by tariffs ... as much as necessary. Autarky in essential industries will happen, come hell or high water.
Autarky for essential industries, mercantilism for everything else, that's how you run a major nation in an adversarial world. The mirage Davos tried to trap the west in (China was never fooled) is well and truly gone, globalism is dead ... and Trump killed it. It would have been very hard for the Democrats to unilaterally destroy all Davos build with EU screaming bloody murder, but after Trump destroyed the essentials they gladly ran with it.
Is that you Peter Zeihan? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately not, had to look him up ... I'm just a random old man slightly aligned it seems, should have made a career out of grousing too :/
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Autarky for essential industries, mercantilism for everything else, that's how you run a major nation in an adversarial world. "
Not a new idea, not even an interesting insight. And it's always been an "adversarial world".
"globalism is dead..."
Globalism, by your absurdly infantile definition, never existed.
"...and Trump killed it."
Trump is a moron who cannot even begin to understand any of these things. His only policy is personal benefit. Any perceived benefit he caused, based on your reductionist view o
Re: (Score:2)
Davos still believes in globalist peace, with powerless nations shackled by ISDS/WTO/etc for them to rule by capital for their greater good. It never really worked, but it did shackle the US. It especially didn't work with China, but weakening the west's ability to affect them was their priority and China would somehow work out.
The Davos crowd has little allegiance to any country or ethnicity. A not literal but metaphorical lizard people.
Re: (Score:2)
That movement has shifted into reverse now, and the entire planet is going to be poorer as a result.
I understand why people hate the Davos crowd. A bunch of f
Re: (Score:2)
It pulled Chinese people out of poverty, into the most sophisticated totalitarianism in history. A dictatorship with territorial conflicts with most of its neighbors.
Globalism's economic development is meaningless if it can't deliver on globalist peace. The Davos crowd are so desperate for a world where capital rules the world, where they can be neofeudal rulers, that they simply close their eyes to security concerns. As long as the current greatest sovereign powers grow more impotent they are satisfied, th
Re: (Score:2)
None of that refutes the argument that without Trump globalism would still be a defining historic trend. The point was that the turn to protectionism is a politically driven change, not an intellectual one, and Trump was its political driver. Who cares what his motive were, not much happens in the world for the right motives anyway.
I think you can make the argument that Trump was not its driver, he was just riding the wave. The drivers were Brazil, Russia, India and China and their growing challenge to ou
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what his motive were[?]
People who are going to re-elect him or choose another option should care. Trump's very mixed motivations behind anything good he did is kind of crucial in predicting whether he will continue those things. For example, there are military things that happened under his guard which were more effective than some of the things that Biden has done. Was that because he understood these things and made good choices? Was that because he was clueless and just let experts get on with things without being able to inte
Right after high speed net and EV chargers (Score:1, Insightful)
I've lost track of how much money we've given to Telco giants to provide high speed internet to rural areas.
Billions went into EV charges. Did we get any? Are they even planned out? Land bought/rented? Any progress at all?
$650 million into someone's buddy's solar company that went under shortly after.
Is anyone building those chip plants? Where? That was how many billions?
And how many more times and how many billions went in to other boondoggle bullshit pocket stuffing plans that never took the first
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
battery technologies (Score:3)
Ah, capitalism. (Score:3)
I think we'd better off taxing the negatives of civilization instead of "gambling" on what sound like good ideas to non-engineers.
Re: (Score:1)
wrong (Score:2)
Everyone else is slowing battery production buildup due to low EV sales, but Biden knows best.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)