As most people must be aware, the element lithium plays a major role in battery technology, powering many of our technology devices and electric vehicles. But it also plays a key role in medical devices and Lydia DePillis writes that the US has been losing the global competition for lithium-ion battery manufacture to China, and that is part of the reason that it has not been able to adequately meet the demands due to the pandemic.
But the effort to establish a lithium battery manufacturing base in the U.S. largely failed, even after the Obama administration made it a keystone of its 2009 stimulus program, aiming to produce 40% of the world’s lithium ion batteries for advanced vehicles by 2015.
Today, that number stands at about 10%, largely because of Tesla’s battery plant in Nevada. Most of the batteries used in a plethora of U.S. products are shipped in from China or other foreign suppliers. Despite its economic nationalist rhetoric, the Trump administration has done little to revive battery-making, proposing deep cuts to alternative energy research and favoring fossil fuels at every turn.
She describes what happened to a company called A123 Systems that built a lithium-ion battery plant in Detroit a decade ago aided by generous funding from the Obama administration.
A123’s Romulus plant now sits quiet. Its giant floor has been for lease for more than a year, while expensive machines wait to be sold at auction, likely for pennies on the dollar. A sister plant and the company’s former headquarters, in nearby Livonia, is being repurposed as medical office space. A123, which did not respond to requests for comment, has only white-collar workers left in America; all its manufacturing is done in China and the Czech Republic.
…When A123 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2012, it had used $132 million of its $249 million federal grant, and its Michigan hiring peaked at 1,000 employees.
Deepening the wounds, a Chinese industrial conglomerate called Wanxiang paid only $256.6 million for A123’s assets in 2013.
…So far, the trajectory isn’t good. By 2024, Benchmark expects America to have 8.2% of the world’s lithium ion battery-making capacity, while China has 72.8% and Europe has 14.2%.
So why is the Trump administration so slow in responding to this need? Because it is beholden to the fossil fuel industry that views battery technology as a threat to their industry because batteries are a key component in the energy storage mechanisms that renewable energy sources need. Hence investing in battery technology is seen as part of the agenda for fighting climate change and thus not only not a high priority but something to be actively against.
So in yet another key area, the US is looking backward towards supporting a dying industry and not forward. It is not just the production of these batteries that is important. The nation that produces more of them is likely to also be the leader in making new discoveries and developing new technologies around them.
This is in no way new or unsurprising. There have been many things that were invented in the US that we either no longer make, or never made much of to begin with. Flat panel TV screens come to mind immediately. I remember a lot of talk about this when I was in college 40+ years ago. And what happened then is what happens now: the MBAs starve research and development funds in order to make next quarter’s earnings look good, and to hell about a few years from now because the Wall Street beast needs feeding TODAY. I specifically remember reading an article in one of the EE trade journals wherein the US companies were saying “Why bother? These aren’t going to have significant market share for another 20 years” while the people at SONY, et al. were saying “In another 20 years, everyone will be using these, and we’re going to make sure that we’re in a position to make and sell these when that time comes”.
The so-called “investor class” has help ruin this country with short-sighted thinking.
There in a nutshell the difference between US and far East corporate thinking.
I am disappointed in Mr Singham, supposedly a scientist.
But then, scientist does not imply engineering or economist.
.
.
First, batteries cannot supply the storage needs of utility-scale energy production. The best alternative is CAES (compressed air energy storage): all is needed is air, water, steel (all much, much cheaper than lithium). Another alternative (already in use in certain locations): Hydrological; all is needed is water, concrete, steel. Once the utility-scale storage systems are built (and it is not going to be any type of chemical battery), several months-to-years are needed to build up, say, 2 weeks energy reserve.
.
.
Second, overzealous and myopic environmentalists drove out USA manufacturing (and a lot of mining) out of the country. Scientists (especially theoretical ones like Singham) do not care about costs; engineers do and businesses do.
.
.
Third, Big Oil is not against Green Energy. For a number of years, BP was the largest investor -- worldwide -- of renewables. BP got out of the Green Energy game after suffering continual losses. Exxon decided not to get into the Green Energy game NOT because it is against Green Energy but because Exxon decided to stick with what it does best: Oil and Gas exploration. Big Oil has not campaigned against Green Energy. Green activists are totally free to develop utility-scale Green Energy; however, Green activists are agitators, not engineers, not business people.
.
.
Fourth: Green activists are a stupid lot. They say:”China is leading in Green Technology!!!”. What the silly Green activists are not telling you is that China leads -- worldwide -- in COAL PLANTS being installed for the next 10 years or so. What the silly Green activists are not telling you is that most of China windmill farms are not connected to the grid.
.
.
Fifth: China is not stupid and Western Leftists are stupid. Western environmentalists are driving out Nuclear Energy and China is welcoming Nuclear Energy. Bill Gates (Microsoft) decided to build a new Nuclear Plant prototype in China and not in the USA because of over-restictive regulations in the USA.
.
.
Sixth: Green Energy is not ready for Prime Time. President Trump is not against Green Energy. President Trump is not against Oil and Gas either. President Trump is not beholden to Oil and Gas. President Trump is for Energy. Period. And that includes Nuclear.
@ Mano
You seem to have picked up a very unsophisticated bot, friedfish2718 . It is not even competend at pasting!
Ooo, a friedfish bot. Might need some tetracycline to get rid of that. Certainly, no intelligent life associated with that handle.
A123 has always had financial and mass production problems. An excessive focus on performance played a role in limiting production output -- consumer products don’t need 70A continuous output from a tiny 3.2V/2.3Ah 26mm-D x 65mm-L cylindrical cell.
LiFePO4/LiFeMnPO4 (Lithium-Metal-Phosphate) chemistry is great at surviving abuse (mechanical and electrical), but has lower energy density than other Li-Ion/Li-Poly chemistries which caused resistance to its wider adoption. It is much safer than most Li-Ion/Li-Poly chemistries in being nearly impossible to ignite (even if you drive a spike completely through the cell) and it has a much longer lifetime (>1000 cycles and >8 years versus <500 cycles and 1 year between charges, but still holds charge well. Also have a 12V/20Ah pack from another manufacturer that I bought ~2013 for a robot, but now use it in a UPS for my netbook and occasionally toss it in a backpack to use for power tools (string trimmer, reciprocating saw). Whereas my netbook and cellphone(s) batteries have all died in under 3 years each.
I’m actually more interested in Nickel-Iron batteries and flywheels for distributed storage over any Lithium chemistries. While Nickel is more dangerous (carcinogenic) than Lithium, Nickel is much more abundant than Lithium, much easier to recycle, and the Ni-Fe chemistry has a nearly unlimited lifetime (can find 80+ year old Edison cells that still work at >80% of their initial rated capacity). The lower energy density and potassium/lithium hydroxide electrolyte in wet-cells make them ill-suited for many mobile applications, but pose no problem for large storage installations. I was actually thinking of building my own a few weeks ago at the start of local lockdown -- surprisingly easy and not very expensive (nickel oxide from ceramic supply shop; HCl from big box shop; NaOH, KOH, and ferrous sulfate from chem/soap shop…). Effective electrode design is the big issue since both active materials in the Ni-Fe cell are 1) poorly conducting and 2) experience large volume changes between charged/discharged states.
Doh. Somehow created a tag that ate part of that… maybe now?
LiFePO4/LiFeMnPO4 (Lithium-Metal-Phosphate) chemistry is great at surviving abuse (mechanical and electrical), but has lower energy density than other Li-Ion/Li-Poly chemistries which caused resistance to its wider adoption. It is much safer than most Li-Ion/Li-Poly chemistries in being nearly impossible to ignite (even if you drive a spike completely through the cell) and it has a much longer lifetime (>1000 cycles and >8 years versus <500 cycles and <3 years), but the lower production volumes continue to result in a higher initial cost (even if the lifetime cost is lower). That longer lifetime also plays against it being accepted for many consumer devices where a short battery lifetime helps encourage consumers to buy a new device every couple years. LiFePO4 continues to be used in large electric transit vehicles and some home-built EVs and solar storage, but it is still bulkier than other Lithium chemistries.
I’ve got an original A123 26650 cell from pre-2010 that continues to power my hair clippers; had gone >1 year between charges, but still holds charge well. Also have a 12V/20Ah pack from another manufacturer that I bought ~2013 for a robot, but now use it in a UPS for my netbook and occasionally toss it in a backpack to use for power tools (string trimmer, reciprocating saw). Whereas my netbook and cellphone(s) batteries have all died in under 3 years each.
I’m quite certain that where there is a market for multiple GWh of batteries, plants will follow. Example:
https://electrek.co/2020/04/28/sk-innovation-to-spend-1-5b-on-georgia-plants-as-center-of-world-ev-battery-industry/
As for the pathetic trumpist at #3, you do know that real scientists cite the sources for their claims, right?
Don’t expect to ever get a serious response out of friedfish. He’s already Gish galloping into the far yonder.
Make 1 point, any make it strongly, anything else and your strat is too obvious to be effective.
Friedfish, would you like to take your weakest claim and even attempt to defend it? We can discuss, but there have to be rules, we take one of your claims, and I wreck it. Agreed? No, Coward.
I actually have some qualified agreement with him regarding nuclear. but he didn’t only make that argument, made a bunch of asinine comments in addition.