this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
863 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] voracread@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I believe it is still better due to raw material availability?

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It is definitely that. That's kind of the point, actually. Sodium is easier to come by than lithium and does not require mining it from unstable parts of the world, nor relying on China.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

nor relying on China

The appeal of China is largely in the size of the labor force. Whether this tech is more or less feasible than cobalt and lithium, businesses will still want to exploit the large volume of cheap Chinese labor in order to build them.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I'm sure they'll want to, but that'll be a little better than need to, i.e. relying on them for the raw materials as well.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

If you consider Australia unstable, sure, maybe for humans, the animals are fine unless you’re Steve Irwin, just dont go diving with stingrays