There's also a big lithium deposit in Nevada, and preparations for mining are underway there.[1] General Motors put in $650 million for guaranteed access to the output of this Thacker Mine.
It's in a caldera in a mountain that I-80 bypassed to go through Winnemuca, Nevada. Nearest town is Mill City, NV, which is listed as a ghost town, despite being next to I-80 and a main line railroad track.
The mine site is about 12km from Mill City on a dirt road not tracked by Google Street View.
Google Earth shows signs of development near Mill City. Looks like a trailer park and a truck stop. The road to the mine looks freshly graded. Nothing at the mine site yet.
It's a good place for a mine. There are no neighbors for at least 10km, but within 15km, there's good road and rail access.
Your description of the location of this mine doesn't match your Wikipedia link.
Searching in Google Maps, Thacker Mine comes up as 40.58448942010599, -117.8912129833345. As you say, that is near I-80 and Mill City, and there is nothing there.
But Wikipedia says it's at 41.70850912415866, -118.05475061324945 in the McDermitt Caldera, nowhere near Mill City or I-80.
I'm thinking probably don't trust Google on this one. :)
Right. The Nevada Appeal, which actually has people on the ground, has far more info.[1] North of Thacker Pass is the area to look. The mine is building their own rail yard west of Winnemuca. The mine will be an open-pit mine like a coal mine. Sawtooth Mining division of North American Coal will do the mining. Dig down 350 feet, take out clay with lithium, process, put back clay without lithium.
The processing plant will be at Thacker Pass. Big plant, maybe 1800 people.
Lithium in clay is a new thing - the usual input is brine. Also a sulfuric acid plant, a power plant, housing, etc. Project assumes a loan of US$2.3 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy.
"Lithium Americas will contract with a bus company to drive workers an hour to the site for 10-hour work shifts, he added. An additional two hours will be added for transportation time.
If you go to work on our project, you will have free room and board and free transportation to the site every day. You would get three free meals a day." If you're an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, that might look good.
Looks like Google got "Thacker Pass Lithium Mine" in the McDermitt Caldera confused with an old gold mine called "Thacker Placer Mine" that was southeast of Mill City: https://westernmininghistory.com/mine-detail/10042614/
Yeah I asked Google Gemini to make a map showing the three principle lithium developments of Nevada and it pinned the historical Thacker Mine, not the new Thacker Pass Mine.
Then I asked chatgpt and it refused to make a map but said that I should just look on the map for Thacker Pass, which is almost right but it also said I should look northeast of Winnemucca, which isn't correct. It's north and west.
From the paper's method section, a bit more about which type of ML algo was used:
An RF machine-learning model was developed to predict lithium concentrations in Smackover Formation brines throughout southern Arkansas. The model was developed by (i) assigning explanatory variables to brine samples collected at wells, (ii) tuning the RF model to make predictions at wells and assess model performance, (iii) mapping spatially continuous predictions of lithium concentrations across the Reynolds oolite unit of the Smackover Formation in southern Arkansas, and (iv) inspecting the model for explanatory variable importance and influence. Initial model tuning used the tidymodels framework (52) in R (53) to test XGBoost, K-nearest neighbors, and RF algorithms; RF models consistently had higher accuracy and lower bias, so they were used to train the final model and predict lithium.
Explanatory variables used to tune the RF model included geologic, geochemical, and temperature information for Jurassic and Cretaceous units. The geologic framework of the model domain is expected to influence brine chemistry both spatially and with depth. Explanatory variables used to train the RF model must be mapped across the model domain to create spatially continuous predictions of lithium. Thus, spatially continuous subsurface geologic information is key, although these digital resources are often difficult to acquire.
Interesting to me that RF performed better the XGBoost, would have expected at least a similar outcome if tuned correctly.
So it turns out that there's no theoretical reason that gradient boosting will always outperform RF (which would violate the "no free lunch" theorem). But it does usually seem to be the case in practice, even with small and noisy data.
I would hazard a guess that with better tuning, XGBoost would still have won. (The paper notes that the authors chose a suboptimal set of hyperparameters out of fear of overfitting - maybe the same logic justifies choosing a suboptimal model type...)
That's been my experience. RF tends to do quite well out of the box, and is very fast to fit. It's less of a pain to cross-validate too, with fewer tuning parameters. XGBoost has a huge number of knobs to tune, and its performance varies from god-awful with bad hyperparameters to somewhat better than RF with good ones. Giant PITA with nested cross-validation, etc. though.
I haven't read in detail what their validation strategy is but this seems like the kind of problem where it's not so easy as you'd think -- you need to be very careful about how you stratify your train, dev, and test sets. A random 80/10/10 split would be way too optimistic: your model would just learn to interpolate between geographically proximate locations. You'd probably need to cross-validate across different geographic areas.
This also seems like an application that would benefit from "active learning". given that drilling and testing is expensive, you'd want to choose where to collect new data based on where it would best update your model's accuracty. A similar-ish ML story comes from Flint, MI [1] though the ending is not so happy
Put another way, this is pretty similar to the interpolation approaches that would normally be used for datasets like this in the world of mineral exploration. Kriging/co-kriging (i.e. gaussian processes) is the more commonly used approach in this particular field due to both the long history and the available hyperparameters for things like spatial aniostropy.
However, kriging is really quite difficult to use with non-continuous inputs. RF is a lot more forgiving there. You don't need to develop a covariance model for discrete values (or a covariance model for how the different inputs relate, either).
There wouldn't be any core for this. It would be a holdout of the brine samples used in training. The thing that would be being produced is brine, so lithium concentrations in brine samples are the validation dataset as well. In other words, this is spatial interpolation.
RF is a heavy hitter when it comes to tabular data. XGBoost is good as well, but more often than not needs and autotuner to really unlock it (e.g pycaret).
Well I guess this is a good win for short term energy infrastructure, though I'm always pretty torn when its at the cost of ripping open huge swaths of earth to get at the raw material.
It is interesting to see how much of this data could be modelled based on wastewater brines from other industries in the area, assuming we go on to mine the lithium it will say a lot if the ML predictions prove accurate.
One thing I couldn't tell, and its probably just a limitation of how much time I could spend reading the source paper, is what method would be needed to extract the bulk of the lithium expected to be there. If processing brine water is sufficient that may be easier to control externalities than if they have to strip mine and get all the overburden out of the way first.
You physically can't remove the overburden for this. The Smackover is at a depth of multiple kilometers in most of these areas.
It's mining brine. I.e. the "mines" are basically deep water wells.
The limestone itself doesn't have any lithium. It's the water in the pores in the limestone that is relatively concentrated in lithium.
In most of these cases, you're already producing brines from the smackover formation as a part of existing oil and gas production, but the brine is being re-injecting after oil is separated from it. The idea is that it's better to keep those and evaporate them down for lithium production.
That does require large evaporation ponds, generally speaking, but it's not strip mining.
Extremely helpful, thanks for the extra detail here. I have a background in the oil industry and live in a region strip mined for coal (I actually can't tap a useful ground well because of it), but I don't know much about how lithium is actually extracted.
As far as evap ponds go, are there usually chemicals or elements in the same brine water as lithium that is important when evaporating into the atmosphere?
Do you have the same trepidation about aluminum, iron, dish soap, and table salt? I ask because the amount of "ripping open" involved in lithium production is like a speck in the eye of a whale compared to all the other mining. In terms of scale all existing and proposed lithium mines are teensy tiny by the standards of mines.
Very good work - but typically we don't build prospectivity models this way (or rather we don't validate them this way anymore). Great to see the USGS starting to dip their toe back in this though, they and the GSC were long the leaders in this, but have dropped it on the last 5-7 years.
> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear.
This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either.
> Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.
This is a European phenomena mostly, and is a result of urbanization mostly.
> This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining.
The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy.
> is a result of urbanization mostly
Urbanization, made possible by the economical source of energy that is fossil fuels.
Not really. I live close to Hamburg, Germany. _Very_ eager to be eco-friendly and sustainable.
Currently: 64% coal, lots of nat gas, ~20 renewables.
The future plan is to use a lot more industrial waste heat. Burning garbage is done and planned, but nowhere near a major factor. Not to mention that the garbage would also need to come from something: plastics from oil, wood from trees etc.
Uranium is extracted by mining the surface. I don't know ore concentrations though, so maybe not much land area is needed since it is a dense energy source?
Extracting lithium from brine is cleaner than e.g. extraction from spodumene ore. Also direct lithium extraction from brine is faster, cleaner, smaller footprint, lower energy consumption.
A significant reason the real holders of power in the world today are Saudi Arabia and China is because we've refused to gather and use our resources while they have theirs.
It's high time we realize that Pax Americana is our era to lose, (re)start mining and (re)start development.
The counter view is that it's better to save your natural resources for when you really need them and pay others to exhaust their own, rather than to exhaust yours before you have to.
Say Lithium becomes essentially free because we find so much of it…would that drastically lower battery costs? Is our current supply of lithium limiting production?
Is sand essentially free because we have beaches and deserts full of it? It can be used to make concrete, a valuable material? (Don't forget the shipping, storage, and refining costs)
Logistics depends on where you are not the inherent price of the commodity. Plenty of things like air and are freely available but you still need ventilation systems in caves and whatnot. Moving free dirt around when building roads can be extremely expensive due even if it’s just being moved a few miles volume adds up.
So yea desert sand is essentially free, even if you pay for shipping.
I'm skeptical. China is already mass-producing batteries, securing as much lithium as possible. Additionally, US regulations will significantly increase costs for battery manufacturers.
The major limiting factor of lithium is not really availability so much as the cost of extraction. China is the leader in this field, not so much because of abundance or stellar technology, but out of a willingness to completely ignore environmental externalities (including those of the power generation involved in the whole process). As a result the price of Chinese lithium is low enough that it would be essentially impossible to compete with them unless a country had similar... "advantages"... or some new and impressive technology.
In the US environmental regulations, the cost of producing power, labor costs, would all drive up the price of the end product in a way that makes it totally noncompetitive. That's also why the US and some other countries are investing in other ways to find lithium (among other things) on seabeds, where it's hoped that extraction would be less expensive. Of course the threat to the seabed environment is a concern, which in turn might drive up prices by imposing regulation, etc etc etc.
> the price of Chinese lithium is low enough that it would be essentially impossible to compete with them...
In an export model, yes. However, given their negative externalities (including geo-political factors), importing countries may place tariffs on Chinese lithium in order to make use of other sources.
If the total embodied value of lithium in any particular product is small compared to the overall value of the product, the tariff might not represent a significant drag on the indigenous industry.
Keyword there is may. Putting aside whether the sentiment is justified, it is currently extremely unpopular to impose Chinese tariffs.
It's also worth noting that Chinese prices are so low that certain tariffs can reach the stratosphere (eg: American 100% tariff on Chinese EVs), further making them unpopular with the commons.
This goes double if your refining and battery production is still in China as well. If you are using the material domestically then the situation could be made more fair with tariffs, but if you're exporting that obviously won't work.
Lithium is too abundant in the world right now (as expected - we've just gotten better at discovering it).
To be honest, the energy problem is more or less a solved problem with the current technologies we have. We just need to accelerate our pace of adoption to hard-reverse on fossil fuels (except Germany). We already have large reserves of Uranium, of which only a small amount is needed to fuel a power plant. We already have lithium battery tech to store the power. We already have solar panels being mass produced and adopted to fill in the gaps. All we need is connecting the dots and making sure these resources play well with each other in symbiosis.
Great, now ask the AI to engineer a fungal genome that'll help us purify it more easily: Frack in the substrate and spores, harvest fruit bodies on the surface, profit.
I would have guessed better results in the 1am to 2am time slot, but 3am is not totally out of line. I bet the fraction of drivers at 3am that are drunk is much higher than at, say, 3pm.
Towns that make a living by ticketing people passing through.
The worst place in the world for this is Italy. Every time I go there they find some esoteric rule to ticket me for. This time in Padova, apparently I drove in an area where only locals are allowed to drive. Bunch of swindlers.
Indeed in Italy there are area (mostly historical centres) where cities limit the influx of cars to keep it liveable and walkable, therefore only residents are allowed to bring their car in.
People downvoted you to the point that your comment is grayed out and about to be hidden but there is hardly metric by which Arkansas is not in the bottom ten on a list of states.
Infant mortality rate? 3rd most deadly for babies.
Poverty rate? 7th poorest.
Homicide rate? 7th most dangerous.
Obesity rate? 3rd fattest.
Practically any map of any measurable statistic where states are colored red for "bad" and green for "good" Arkansas will be a deep, blood, red.
You are citing the US News "best states" ranking. In that ranking, California is ranked #37 overall and Arkansas is ranked #47 overall. Even your own hand picked data source supports the OP...
37th/50 isn't good. But people never clamor on about how awful California is every time it's mentioned(well, rarely). This same ranking puts states like South Dakota and Indiana ahead, which I'm sure many would object to all the same.
This is the second day in a row I've watched threads about Arkansas of all places devolve into these nasty generalities(yesterday's was about WalMart and Bentonville). I don't live in Arkansas or anything, but I think we as a community can do better than devolve into it over and over, unless the topic at hand was the problems of a state.
I'm not saying that 37 out of 50 is good. I'm saying that 47 out of 50 is bad. Your data source doesn't refute the OPs argument that Arkansas is not a great place to live -- it actually supports the OP.
A large portion of the USA sees California as a place to avoid- so those sweeping generalities and those particular metrics might be accurate. California is only a nice place to live if you're rich, and most people are not.
People vote in good faith, I presume. Sometimes a comment’s factual basis matters less than its overall contribution to a productive and open discussion. Downvotes in this case are an example of HN’s surprisingly effective system for self-moderation working as it should. It isn’t vile enough to censor, but it also isn’t what a lot of readers come here for. It didn’t personally offend me (I didn’t vote either way), but I take occasional downvoting that I don’t fully agree with in stride, as the overall system seems to work better than most.
My guess is that the presence of lithium in the groundwater is in trace amounts if at all, while the dosing of lithium is in the domain of ~300mg. A casual search for the quantity of lithium in brine from a mine shows a max of 1400ppm for a rich mine in Chile[1] so drinking straight brine wouldn't get you anywhere near the therapeutic dose. Good question!
I am not a health researcher or anyting, but a quick googling seems to suggest its possible that it lowers risks of suicide[0] and other affective disorders, which by extension it would lower the rates of issues that can contribute to these issues I'd think.
That said, I honestly am unsure. It also is a requisite that it must be in the water in sufficient but low amounts
The formation is 7000 feet below the surface, if I understand correctly, so I don't think there would be any communication of its brine with potable groundwater.
I would like to think that if there were any interaction between theses putative deposits to the groundwater that we wouldn't have needed an ML model to find these deposits in the first place!
It may surprise you to learn that lithium is actually a toxic substance. No human being has ever suffered from a lithium deficiency. Lithium is not a natural or healthy component of anyone's diet.
So, the so-called therapeutic dose of lithium is merely a sub-toxic level, and must be monitored by frequent blood tests.
There are horrific side effects from using lithium in the long term, including convulsions, hair loss, diarrhea, suicidal and homicidal ideations, and extreme thirst (polydipsia).
So personally, I would rather not be tapping into lithium reserves for my health.
When the tide goes out on the AI hype there’s going to be a lot of companies currently using expensive API calls for simple classification tasks that will be quietly revamped to use a simple CNN.
ML is a toolbox of methods. Not every problem needs a transformer.
The USGS predictive model provides the first estimate of total lithium present in Smackover Formation brines in southern Arkansas, using machine learning, which is a type of artificial intelligence.
I was disappointed in that line. They could’ve mentioned it used a random forest, which is much more informative. “ML is a type of AI” isn’t even a cocktail party understanding of the topic.
Are we getting to the critical point where we declassify a bunch of stuff as AI? Used to be expert systems were considered AI. Now anything-not-an-LLM is going to stop being AI?
Yep, back when programming language syntax started trending toward more natural language, compiler development was considered AI research. Which makes sense, because in an era of assembly on punch cards, computers that could translate higher-level instructions that read more like English into machine code you used to have to write (or punch) by hand probably felt pretty intelligent.
Isn’t it a critical component of everything currently sporting anything remotely close to a legit “AI” label? I wouldn’t call cows “one part of a broader beef ecosystem” for example. They’re fundamental to it.
I think there will be markets for many different chemistries and there's unlikely to be some total winner in the near future. Each chemistry has its own tradeoffs and use cases. Some will fade and die over time like Ni-Cad, but even that takes longer than you would expect.
It would be amazing for some low weight, low volume, high energy density, high discharge rate, high charge rate, cheaply manufactured from abundant materials, low thermal sensitivity, high thermal tolerance, low passive loss, non-explosive, high cycle count, low memory, shelf stable battery chemistry to appear, but thus far every one fails in several of the categories.
I read the article carefully, twice. Doesn't have a link to any original paper, of course. And I can't find the answer to my question... did they, you know, validate the model? Did they actually take some samples at new locations and compare it to what the model says?
Or are they literally just announcing that "Hey, we told the computer to tell us something, so it told us something"? Yes, that is how it works. The computer will always tell you something if you make it tell you something. That isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting it to tell you things that correspond to reality.
In the absence of validation, this means very little, especially in an environment where the USGS is fairly incentivized to loudly announce to the world that we've totes got plenty of lithium, my fellow countries, any effort to keep lithium away from us is just a waste of time, look at us just rolling in lithium over here.
Or, maybe they did do the validation, and it's just the reporting that doesn't consider that an important aspect of the story. Somewhere between funding and press release someone's lost the trail but I don't know who exactly.
Interesting, & not necessarily in a good way. This method could well presage unprecedented numbers of attempts at eminent domain takings or other means of forcing people out of their properties.
Which government agency would use eminent domain to take land and start mining? We have historical precedence with the oil industry using various scanning methods in a similar manner, but it was the oil companies who went to the landowners to acquire the rights to extract. Then the government would buy the (usable) product from them.
Local government condemned a bunch of perfectly fine homes in Wisconsin, by declaring them blighted, to make room for a Foxconn plant which never really panned out. Where there is greed there is a way.
National security (by identifying and processing rare earth metals and materials domestically) is vastly more important to society than a few dozen homes somewhere.
Globally price-competitive domestic electric car production is a national security concern only if we are willing to accept a rather short time horizon and a rather narrow definition of security in our analysis.
This kind of article can perhaps be understood as an attempt to turn a federal organization's sails into the prevailing political winds, so to speak, at a time when funding seems insecure. I say this as someone who strongly supports most of the survey's mission. It would be ideal if national power brokers recognized the value of water science, geology, ecology, etc, on their own terms.
> Mineral rights are automatically included as a part of the land in a property conveyance, unless and until the ownership gets separated at some point by an owner/seller.
> Since sellers of land can convey only property that they own, each sale of the land after the minerals are separated automatically includes only the land. Deeds to the land made after the first separation of the minerals will not refer to the fact that the mineral rights are not included.
> in most cases, you cannot determine whether you own the rights to the minerals under your land just by looking at your deed. Owners are sometimes surprised to find out someone else owns the rights to the minerals under their land
> U.S. laws regulating mining and mineral rights typically prohibit mineral owners from damaging or interfering with the use of any homes or other improvements on the land when extracting minerals. As a result, mineral owners do not typically attempt mineral extraction in highly populated areas. This means that if you live in a city, or an area with many houses on small plots of land, you probably won't need to worry about whether or not you own any minerals that might be under you
And of course you would not mind owners of extraction company leaving all the profits to people who got kicked out of their home. After all they should be happy just fulfilling your "national security" goal.
It's in a caldera in a mountain that I-80 bypassed to go through Winnemuca, Nevada. Nearest town is Mill City, NV, which is listed as a ghost town, despite being next to I-80 and a main line railroad track. The mine site is about 12km from Mill City on a dirt road not tracked by Google Street View.
Google Earth shows signs of development near Mill City. Looks like a trailer park and a truck stop. The road to the mine looks freshly graded. Nothing at the mine site yet.
It's a good place for a mine. There are no neighbors for at least 10km, but within 15km, there's good road and rail access.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thacker_Pass_lithium_mine
Searching in Google Maps, Thacker Mine comes up as 40.58448942010599, -117.8912129833345. As you say, that is near I-80 and Mill City, and there is nothing there.
But Wikipedia says it's at 41.70850912415866, -118.05475061324945 in the McDermitt Caldera, nowhere near Mill City or I-80.
I'm thinking probably don't trust Google on this one. :)
"Lithium Americas will contract with a bus company to drive workers an hour to the site for 10-hour work shifts, he added. An additional two hours will be added for transportation time. If you go to work on our project, you will have free room and board and free transportation to the site every day. You would get three free meals a day." If you're an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, that might look good.
[1] https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2024/oct/12/nevada-operati...
Then I asked chatgpt and it refused to make a map but said that I should just look on the map for Thacker Pass, which is almost right but it also said I should look northeast of Winnemucca, which isn't correct. It's north and west.
Zero for two, for robots.
An RF machine-learning model was developed to predict lithium concentrations in Smackover Formation brines throughout southern Arkansas. The model was developed by (i) assigning explanatory variables to brine samples collected at wells, (ii) tuning the RF model to make predictions at wells and assess model performance, (iii) mapping spatially continuous predictions of lithium concentrations across the Reynolds oolite unit of the Smackover Formation in southern Arkansas, and (iv) inspecting the model for explanatory variable importance and influence. Initial model tuning used the tidymodels framework (52) in R (53) to test XGBoost, K-nearest neighbors, and RF algorithms; RF models consistently had higher accuracy and lower bias, so they were used to train the final model and predict lithium.
Explanatory variables used to tune the RF model included geologic, geochemical, and temperature information for Jurassic and Cretaceous units. The geologic framework of the model domain is expected to influence brine chemistry both spatially and with depth. Explanatory variables used to train the RF model must be mapped across the model domain to create spatially continuous predictions of lithium. Thus, spatially continuous subsurface geologic information is key, although these digital resources are often difficult to acquire.
Interesting to me that RF performed better the XGBoost, would have expected at least a similar outcome if tuned correctly.
I would hazard a guess that with better tuning, XGBoost would still have won. (The paper notes that the authors chose a suboptimal set of hyperparameters out of fear of overfitting - maybe the same logic justifies choosing a suboptimal model type...)
I haven't read in detail what their validation strategy is but this seems like the kind of problem where it's not so easy as you'd think -- you need to be very careful about how you stratify your train, dev, and test sets. A random 80/10/10 split would be way too optimistic: your model would just learn to interpolate between geographically proximate locations. You'd probably need to cross-validate across different geographic areas.
This also seems like an application that would benefit from "active learning". given that drilling and testing is expensive, you'd want to choose where to collect new data based on where it would best update your model's accuracty. A similar-ish ML story comes from Flint, MI [1] though the ending is not so happy
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/how-m...
However, kriging is really quite difficult to use with non-continuous inputs. RF is a lot more forgiving there. You don't need to develop a covariance model for discrete values (or a covariance model for how the different inputs relate, either).
It is interesting to see how much of this data could be modelled based on wastewater brines from other industries in the area, assuming we go on to mine the lithium it will say a lot if the ML predictions prove accurate.
One thing I couldn't tell, and its probably just a limitation of how much time I could spend reading the source paper, is what method would be needed to extract the bulk of the lithium expected to be there. If processing brine water is sufficient that may be easier to control externalities than if they have to strip mine and get all the overburden out of the way first.
It's mining brine. I.e. the "mines" are basically deep water wells.
The limestone itself doesn't have any lithium. It's the water in the pores in the limestone that is relatively concentrated in lithium.
In most of these cases, you're already producing brines from the smackover formation as a part of existing oil and gas production, but the brine is being re-injecting after oil is separated from it. The idea is that it's better to keep those and evaporate them down for lithium production.
That does require large evaporation ponds, generally speaking, but it's not strip mining.
As far as evap ponds go, are there usually chemicals or elements in the same brine water as lithium that is important when evaporating into the atmosphere?
Do you have the same trepidation about aluminum, iron, dish soap, and table salt? I ask because the amount of "ripping open" involved in lithium production is like a speck in the eye of a whale compared to all the other mining. In terms of scale all existing and proposed lithium mines are teensy tiny by the standards of mines.
Very good work - but typically we don't build prospectivity models this way (or rather we don't validate them this way anymore). Great to see the USGS starting to dip their toe back in this though, they and the GSC were long the leaders in this, but have dropped it on the last 5-7 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/business/energy-environme...
Lithium supply is not an issue. Here in oz we have plenty, there is surplus in market (see current lithium prices).
Conversion however is an issue, majority of plants are in China. Build some refiners that turn it into lithium carbonate and oz will fill them.
All those minerals. All that sunshine. Terrific combo.
h/t Saul Griffith.
Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.
This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either.
> Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.
This is a European phenomena mostly, and is a result of urbanization mostly.
The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy.
> is a result of urbanization mostly
Urbanization, made possible by the economical source of energy that is fossil fuels.
Can you expand on this? How does the density of fossil fuel make them a better source of energy than say wind?
Currently: 64% coal, lots of nat gas, ~20 renewables.
The future plan is to use a lot more industrial waste heat. Burning garbage is done and planned, but nowhere near a major factor. Not to mention that the garbage would also need to come from something: plastics from oil, wood from trees etc.
It's high time we realize that Pax Americana is our era to lose, (re)start mining and (re)start development.
we don't need it happening upstream.
and watch as the nations destroy themselves (ecosystems)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41910918
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41907144
So yea desert sand is essentially free, even if you pay for shipping.
I'm skeptical. China is already mass-producing batteries, securing as much lithium as possible. Additionally, US regulations will significantly increase costs for battery manufacturers.
In the US environmental regulations, the cost of producing power, labor costs, would all drive up the price of the end product in a way that makes it totally noncompetitive. That's also why the US and some other countries are investing in other ways to find lithium (among other things) on seabeds, where it's hoped that extraction would be less expensive. Of course the threat to the seabed environment is a concern, which in turn might drive up prices by imposing regulation, etc etc etc.
In an export model, yes. However, given their negative externalities (including geo-political factors), importing countries may place tariffs on Chinese lithium in order to make use of other sources.
If the total embodied value of lithium in any particular product is small compared to the overall value of the product, the tariff might not represent a significant drag on the indigenous industry.
It's also worth noting that Chinese prices are so low that certain tariffs can reach the stratosphere (eg: American 100% tariff on Chinese EVs), further making them unpopular with the commons.
To be honest, the energy problem is more or less a solved problem with the current technologies we have. We just need to accelerate our pace of adoption to hard-reverse on fossil fuels (except Germany). We already have large reserves of Uranium, of which only a small amount is needed to fuel a power plant. We already have lithium battery tech to store the power. We already have solar panels being mass produced and adopted to fill in the gaps. All we need is connecting the dots and making sure these resources play well with each other in symbiosis.
If not that’s funny timing given that was a few weeks ago
People in the U.S. would rather be slaves to China than be self sufficient as we once were...
Given the mood alerting properties of lithium, are people living here chiller than would be expected (controlling for instance for poverty / SES) ?
[1] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/lithium-in-drinking-water-linked-...
But if it’s anything like Oklahoma…
you were sleeping and driving? lol
The worst place in the world for this is Italy. Every time I go there they find some esoteric rule to ticket me for. This time in Padova, apparently I drove in an area where only locals are allowed to drive. Bunch of swindlers.
Infant mortality rate? 3rd most deadly for babies.
Poverty rate? 7th poorest.
Homicide rate? 7th most dangerous.
Obesity rate? 3rd fattest.
Practically any map of any measurable statistic where states are colored red for "bad" and green for "good" Arkansas will be a deep, blood, red.
But it is rude to point that out.
Highest poverty rate?
Lowest literacy rate?
Last in opportunity?
8th worst in public safety?
If you guessed California, you'd be right.
Sweeping generalities and handpicked metrics do not tell an entire story.
This is the second day in a row I've watched threads about Arkansas of all places devolve into these nasty generalities(yesterday's was about WalMart and Bentonville). I don't live in Arkansas or anything, but I think we as a community can do better than devolve into it over and over, unless the topic at hand was the problems of a state.
No, that is not rude at all. Making a flippant derogatory remark gets downvotes, people like to see numbers. Like the ones you just gave...
I think I heard that long term usage of lithium has nasty side effects like damaging kidneys, but perhaps not at these very low concentrations.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01691...
I agree it's not likely you'd get a measurable effect from the local groundwater.
[1]: I'm working on a DB of water quality, https://www.cleartap.com/water-systems/AR0000550
That said, I honestly am unsure. It also is a requisite that it must be in the water in sufficient but low amounts
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32716281/
Source: am bipolar and take 600mg daily.
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/08/02/a-chemical-hunger-p...
So, the so-called therapeutic dose of lithium is merely a sub-toxic level, and must be monitored by frequent blood tests.
There are horrific side effects from using lithium in the long term, including convulsions, hair loss, diarrhea, suicidal and homicidal ideations, and extreme thirst (polydipsia).
So personally, I would rather not be tapping into lithium reserves for my health.
ML is a toolbox of methods. Not every problem needs a transformer.
They do if they want to get the intention of a Venture Capitalist!
For the HN audience, of course this is 'technically incorrect'.
The article was written for the (larger) general public.
I am also glad they didn't squeeze in a word salad of LLMs and quantum technology and instead stuck to 'it's just standard ML'.
This is what it was called back in the day. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02478259
It would be amazing for some low weight, low volume, high energy density, high discharge rate, high charge rate, cheaply manufactured from abundant materials, low thermal sensitivity, high thermal tolerance, low passive loss, non-explosive, high cycle count, low memory, shelf stable battery chemistry to appear, but thus far every one fails in several of the categories.
Or are they literally just announcing that "Hey, we told the computer to tell us something, so it told us something"? Yes, that is how it works. The computer will always tell you something if you make it tell you something. That isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting it to tell you things that correspond to reality.
In the absence of validation, this means very little, especially in an environment where the USGS is fairly incentivized to loudly announce to the world that we've totes got plenty of lithium, my fellow countries, any effort to keep lithium away from us is just a waste of time, look at us just rolling in lithium over here.
Or, maybe they did do the validation, and it's just the reporting that doesn't consider that an important aspect of the story. Somewhere between funding and press release someone's lost the trail but I don't know who exactly.
> The study, which was published in Science Advances, can be found at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp8149 .
This kind of article can perhaps be understood as an attempt to turn a federal organization's sails into the prevailing political winds, so to speak, at a time when funding seems insecure. I say this as someone who strongly supports most of the survey's mission. It would be ideal if national power brokers recognized the value of water science, geology, ecology, etc, on their own terms.
https://www.rangerminerals.com/what-does-fee-simple-estate-o...
> Mineral rights are automatically included as a part of the land in a property conveyance, unless and until the ownership gets separated at some point by an owner/seller.
> Since sellers of land can convey only property that they own, each sale of the land after the minerals are separated automatically includes only the land. Deeds to the land made after the first separation of the minerals will not refer to the fact that the mineral rights are not included.
> in most cases, you cannot determine whether you own the rights to the minerals under your land just by looking at your deed. Owners are sometimes surprised to find out someone else owns the rights to the minerals under their land
> U.S. laws regulating mining and mineral rights typically prohibit mineral owners from damaging or interfering with the use of any homes or other improvements on the land when extracting minerals. As a result, mineral owners do not typically attempt mineral extraction in highly populated areas. This means that if you live in a city, or an area with many houses on small plots of land, you probably won't need to worry about whether or not you own any minerals that might be under you