lithium battery

conflict mineral?

see exxon knew

see battery r&d

===

whitehouse 9 25 95% new energy sun wind and battery?!

am 9 25

tori Branum, who is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump running for Congress in Georgia, is attracting a significant amount of hate from Trump supporters over a recent controversial move.

The Daily Beast reported Tuesday that Branum took responsibility for telling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about a Hyundai battery plant under construction in the Savannah area employing undocumented immigrants. Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed it conducted a massive raid on the facility, arresting 450 people (Korean media reported that more than 500 people were detained, including 300 Korean nationals).

Branum admitted on social media that her decision to tip off the Trump administration about the hundreds of undocumented workers at the Bryan County, Georgia Hyundai plant made per an unpopular figure among the president's supporters.

“I have gotten hate mail from all over the country with people telling me to die or that I should be in fear,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “I served this country and I’ll go down with the ship before someone silences me.”

IFrame Content

The Beast reported that many of the comments on Branum's post were less than complimentary, with many pointing out that her action stifled the manufacturing economy at a time when Trump is hoping to incentivize growth in the manufacturing sector by imposing steep tariffs on imported goods (Trump promised to lower tariffs on South Korea in exchange for South Korea investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States). One user said Branum "caused a serious geopolitical problem between us and S. Korea with your massively ignorant actions."

"Imagine backing Trump’s ‘bring jobs back’ tariffs then cheering the ICE raid that nuked Georgia’s $4.3B Hyundai plant—475 workers arrested, 40k jobs gone," another user wrote. "That’s not America First, that’s economic suicide. You’re a walking contradiction and a clown."

The Hyundai raid marked one of the largest immigration-related worksite raids of Trump's second term to date. News of the raid apparently angered South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, whose administration stated: "The economic activities of our companies investing in the United States and the interests of our citizens must not be unduly violated during the course of US law enforcement."

---

MOJO 12 24

LONG By Vince Beiser book power metal

A $60 Billion-a-Year Climate Solution Is Sitting in Our Junk Drawers – Mother Jones

...

Only 22 percent of that e-waste is collected and recycled, the UN estimates. The rest is dumped, burned, or forgotten—particularly in rich countries, where most people have no convenient way to get rid of their old Samsung Galaxy phones, Xbox controllers, and myriad other gadgets. Indeed, every year, humanity is wasting more than $60 billion worth of so-called critical metals—the ones we need not only for electronics, but also for the hardware of renewable energy, from electric vehicle (EV) batteries to wind turbines.

Millions of Americans, like me, spend their workdays on pursuits that lack any physical manifestation beyond the occasional hard-copy book or memo or report. It’s easy to forget that all these livelihoods rely on machines. And that those machines rely on metals torn from the Earth.

Consider your smartphone. Depending on the model, it can contain up to two-thirds of the elements in the periodic table, including dozens of metals. Some are familiar, like the gold and tin in its circuitry and the nickel in its microphone. Others less so: Tiny flecks of indium make the screen sensitive to the touch of a finger. Europium enhances the colors. Neodymium, dysprosium, and terbium are used to build the tiny mechanism that makes your phone vibrate.

Stripping a cellphone in Ikeja Computer Village.

Your phone’s battery contains cobalt, lithium, and nickel. Ditto the ones that power your rechargeable drill, Roomba, and electric toothbrush—not to mention our latest modes of transportation, ranging from plug-in scooters and e-bikes to EVs. A Tesla Model S has as much lithium as up to 10,000 smartphones.

...

In all of human history, we have extracted some 700 million tons of copper from the Earth. To meet our clean energy goals, we’ll have to mine as much again in 20-odd years. By 2050, the International Energy Agency estimates, global demand for cobalt for EVs alone will soar to five times what it was in 2022. Demand for nickel will be 10 times higher. Lithium, 15 times. “The prospect of a rapid increase in demand for critical minerals—well above anything seen previously in most cases—raises huge questions about the availability and reliability of supply,” the agency warns.

...

The harm is staggering. Metal mining is America’s leading toxic polluter. It has sullied the watersheds of almost half of the rivers in the American West. Chemical leaks and mining runoff foul air and water. The mines also generate mountains of hazardous waste, stored behind dams that have a terrifying tendency to fail. Torrents of poisonous sludge pouring through collapsed tailings dams have contaminated waterways in Brazil, Canada, and elsewhere and killed hundreds of people—in addition to the hundreds, possibly thousands, of miners who die in workplace accidents each year.

To get what they’re after, mining companies devour natural resources on an epic scale. They dig up some 250 tons of ore and waste rock to get just 1 ton of nickel. For copper, the ratio is double that. Just to obtain the metals inside your 4.5-ounce iPhone, 75 pounds of ore had to be pulled up, crushed, and smelted, releasing up to 100 pounds of carbon dioxide. Mining firms also suck up massive quantities of water and deploy fleets of drill rigs, trucks, diggers, and other heavy machinery that collectively belch out up to 7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

These operations are not popular with the neighbors. Irate locals and Indigenous communities at this moment are fighting proposed critical-metal mines across the United States, in addition to Brazil, Canada, the Philippines, Serbia, and many other countries. At least 320 anti-mining activists have been killed worldwide since 2012—and they are just the ones we know about.

...

Spent lithium batteries present their own recycling challenge. They are potentially among the world’s best sources for critical metals—one study found that battery recycling theoretically could satisfy nearly half of global demand for certain metals. Yet only about 5 percent of them get recycled because they are uniquely hard to handle—and dangerous.

Nigeria, for example, is awash in lithium-ion batteries, but no place on the continent recycles them. They need to be exported. Shippers don’t want to take them, however, because of their disturbing tendency to burst into flames when punctured, crushed, or overheated. Battery fires can exceed 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. They also emit toxic gases and are very hard to extinguish. American consumers are asked to bring unwanted lithium batteries to a domestic recycler or a hazardous waste site, and for good reason. Every year, batteries from everything from old Priuses to sex toys cause hundreds of fires in US scrapyards, landfills, and even on garbage trucks, causing millions of dollars in damage. Residents of Fredericktown, Missouri, even had to evacuate their homes earlier this month when a local battery recycling facility exploded dramatically into flames.

...

===

Two pro-Trump officials pushed conspiracy theory that Hurricane Helene was done through weather “manipulation”

Georgia GOP official Kandiss Taylor also alleged that Helene was created or manipulated “to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship”

Written by Eric Hananoki

Published 10/08/24 mma

Far-right commentators Kandiss Taylor and Lucretia Hughes, respectively officials for the Georgia Republican Party and pro-Trump group Veterans for America First, pushed fringe conspiracy theories about Hurricane Helene, including claiming that it “could have been done by the government” through weather “manipulation” and as a “land grab” to steal lithium.

On her podcast, Taylor also claimed that the hurricane was created or manipulated “to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship because he understands … the Constitution” and that “terrifies every single establishment politician in this country.”

Numerous conspiracy theories have circulated about Hurricane Helene and have included claims that the government somehow created or manipulated the hurricane through weather modification or weather control. (Media Matters reported yesterday that Clay Clark, a Trump event organizer and close friend of Eric Trump, also pushed the “weather manipulation” conspiracy theory.)

Taylor is the elected District 1 chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, a “key” post in the state. She has met with former President Donald Trump and is helping his election efforts in Georgia.

Taylor has a history of making antisemitic remarks: She complained that Jewish people are “controlling everything” and alleged that “we have some Marxist trash using our R who pander to the Jews.”

Hughes is a national ambassador for Veterans for America First, a right-wing group that’s supporting Trump. The group recently said that Hughes will “speak with President Trump” at an upcoming event. The Trump campaign has touted her endorsement and listed her as part of its Gun Owners for Trump coalition. Turning Point USA, a key Trump campaign ally, also lists Hughes as one of its “activist partners.”

The two appeared on Taylor’s October 5 program, where they promoted conspiracy theories about Hurricane Helene. (Taylor’s show airs on the Stew Peters Network, an outlet led by Hitler-praising Holocaust denier and Taylor’s “best friend” Stew Peters.)

Hughes began by calling the hurricane “a land grab,” saying, “I'm so angry with all of this. This is not the United States that I grew up in. This is the United States that has gotten into bed with the global society, trying to rip us off for our sovereignty and get illegal land grabs at the same dang old time.” Taylor responded by stating: “Yeah, lithium specifically. I'm so disgusted with North Carolina and what's going on there.”

Taylor later said that the hurricane “could have been done by the government if they'd been doing the weather manipulation, which we know there were acts passed. There's been things printed and done in the legislation for weather modification. So how do we know, how do we know that all their manipulation didn't cause this?”

The government has not controlled Hurricane Helene through weather manipulation and has not attempted to steal lithium from North Carolina through this tragedy.

Further into the program, Taylor bizarrely claimed that “the whole thing in North Carolina” was somehow done “to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship.”

Video

CitationFrom the October 5, 2024, edition of Jesus. Guns. And Babies

KANDISS TAYLOR (HOST): I really did think about this, Lucretia. Like the whole thing with North Carolina, I know though it’s a grab for the land — land grab and they want the lithium. But I also believe they don't want the voters turning out that are all around Asheville. Those Republican, red voters. They didn't, they are trying their best to keep Mark Robinson from that governorship because he understands — oh, I feel the Holy Spirit — he understands the Constitution. He understands state sovereignty. He understands we are the United States of America. And as a state, we're sovereign. As a state, we should be able to function on our own. As a state, we can push back. We're joined because we choose to be. But a state has sovereignty, and Mark understands that. And it terrifies every single establishment politician in this country.

Toward the end of the show, Hughes added to the weather manipulation subject by stating:

LUCRETIA HUGHES: That's so scary, to know they can manipulate our weather. To know they have the equipment and the satellite images and the satellite stuff to do it. To know that 5G is a real thing. Knowing that HAARP antennas is literally up there in the Arctic right now. I don't understand how people not know when you can type in seeding a cloud, or rain cloud machines, and there are video after video of them turning on a big old machine. And it's huge. And next thing you know, smoke just start coming out this machine and it spits clouds, spits clouds. And they keep it on for about one or two hours and all of it just goes up in the air. He said about, he said, “I give it a day. It’s going to be two states over.” The United States has patents in the patent office for them been doing this for decades now. Decades, y'all. This ain't new.

Taylor replied by saying, “It’s not new, and we're just learning about it because they didn't want us to know about it.”

klare tom d

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/renweable-energy-resources/

Thanks to its very name — renewable energy — we can picture a time in the not-too-distant future when our need for non-renewable fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal will vanish. Indeed, the Biden administration has announced a breakthrough target of 2035 for fully eliminating U.S. reliance on those non-renewable fuels for the generation of electricity. That would be accomplished by "deploying carbon-pollution-free electricity-generating resources," primarily the everlasting power of the wind and sun.

With other nations moving in a similar direction, it's tempting to conclude that the days when competition over finite supplies of energy was a recurring source of conflict will soon draw to a close. Unfortunately, think again: while the sun and wind are indeed infinitely renewable, the materials needed to convert those resources into electricity — minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and the rare-earth elements, or REEs — are anything but. Some of them, in fact, are far scarcer than petroleum, suggesting that global strife over vital resources may not, in fact, disappear in the Age of Renewables.

To appreciate this unexpected paradox, it's necessary to explore how wind and solar power are converted into usable forms of electricity and propulsion. Solar power is largely collected by photovoltaic cells, often deployed in vast arrays, while the wind is harvested by giant turbines, typically deployed in extensive wind farms. To use electricity in transportation, cars and trucks must be equipped with advanced batteries capable of holding a charge over long distances. Each one of these devices uses substantial amounts of copper for electrical transmission, as well as a variety of other non-renewable minerals. Those wind turbines, for instance, require manganese, molybdenum, nickel, zinc, and rare-earth elements for their electrical generators, while electric vehicles (EVs) need cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and rare earths for their engines and batteries.

At present, with wind and solar power accounting for only about 7% of global electricity generation and electric vehicles making up less than 1% of the cars on the road, the production of those minerals is roughly adequate to meet global demand. If, however, the U.S. and other countries really do move toward a green-energy future of the kind envisioned by President Biden, the demand for them will skyrocket and global output will fall far short of anticipated needs.

According to a recent study by the International Energy Agency (IEA), "The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions," the demand for lithium in 2040 could be 50 times greater than today and for cobalt and graphite 30 times greater if the world moves swiftly to replace oil-driven vehicles with EVs. Such rising demand will, of course, incentivize industry to develop new supplies of such minerals, but potential sources of them are limited and the process of bringing them online will be costly and complicated. In other words, the world could face significant shortages of critical materials. ("As clean energy transitions accelerate globally," the IEA report noted ominously, "and solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars are deployed on a growing scale, these rapidly growing markets for key minerals could be subject to price volatility, geopolitical influence, and even disruptions to supply.")

And here's a further complication: for a number of the most critical materials, including lithium, cobalt, and those rare-earth elements, production is highly concentrated in just a few countries, a reality that could lead to the sort of geopolitical struggles that accompanied the world's dependence on a few major sources of oil. According to the IEA, just one country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), currently supplies more than 80% of the world's cobalt, and another — China — 70% of its rare-earth elements. Similarly, lithium production is largely in two countries, Argentina and Chile, which jointly account for nearly 80% of world supply, while four countries — Argentina, Chile, the DRC, and Peru — provide most of our copper. In other words, such future supplies are far more concentrated in far fewer lands than petroleum and natural gas, leading IEA analysts to worry about future struggles over the world's access to them.

From Oil to Lithium: the Geopolitical Implications of the Electric-Car Revolution

The role of petroleum in shaping global geopolitics is well understood. Ever since oil became essential to world transportation — and so to the effective functioning of the world's economy — it has been viewed for obvious reasons as a "strategic" resource. Because the largest concentrations of petroleum were located in the Middle East, an area historically far removed from the principal centers of industrial activity in Europe and North America and regularly subject to political convulsions, the major importing nations long sought to exercise some control over that region's oil production and export. This, of course, led to resource imperialism of a high order, beginning after World War I when Britain and the other European powers contended for colonial control of the oil-producing parts of the Persian Gulf region. It continued after World War II, when the United States entered that competition in a big way.

For the United States, ensuring access to Middle Eastern oil became a strategic priority after the "oil shocks" of 1973 and 1979 — the first caused by an Arab oil embargo that was a reprisal for Washington's support of Israel in that year's October War; the second by a disruption of supplies caused by the Islamic Revolution in Iran. In response to endless lines at American gas stations and the subsequent recessions, successive presidents pledged to protect oil imports by "any means necessary," including the use of armed force. And that very stance led President George H.W. Bush to wage the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1991 and his son to invade that same country in 2003.

In 2021, the United States is no longer as dependent on Middle Eastern oil, given how extensively domestic deposits of petroleum-laden shale and other sedimentary rocks are being exploited by fracking technology. Still, the connection between oil use and geopolitical conflict has hardly disappeared. Most analysts believe that petroleum will continue to supply a major share of global energy for decades to come, and that's certain to generate political and military struggles over the remaining supplies. Already, for instance, conflict has brok en out over disputed offshore supplies in the South and East China Seas, and some analysts predict a struggle for the control of untapped oil and mineral deposits in the Arctic region as well.

Here, then, is the question of the hour: Will an explosion in electric-car ownership change all this? EV market share is already growing rapidly and projected to reach 15% of worldwide sales by 2030. The major automakers are investing heavily in such vehicles, anticipating a surge in demand. There were around 370 EV models available for sale worldwide in 2020 — a 40% increase from 2019 — and major automakers have revealed plans to make an additional 450 models available by 2022. In addition, General Motors has announced its intention to completely phase out conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2035, while Volvo's CEO has indicated that the company would only sell EVs by 2030.

It's reasonable to assume that this shift will only gain momentum, with profound consequences for the global trade in resources. According to the IEA, a typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional oil-powered vehicle. These include the copper for electrical wiring plus the cobalt, graphite, lithium, and nickel needed to ensure battery performance, longevity, and energy density (the energy output per unit of weight). In addition, rare-earth elements will be essential for the permanent magnets installed in EV motors.

Lithium, a primary component of lithium-ion batteries used in most EVs, is the lightest known metal. Although present both in clay deposits and ore composites, it's rarely found in easily mineable concentrations, though it can also be extracted from brine in areas like Bolivia's Salar de Uyuni, the world's largest salt flat. At present, approximately 58% of the world's lithium comes from Australia, another 20% from Chile, 11% from China, 6% from Argentina, and smaller percentages from elsewhere. A U.S. firm, Lithium Americas, is about to undertake the extraction of significant amounts of lithium from a clay deposit in northern Nevada, but is meeting resistance from local ranchers and Native Americans, who fear the contamination of their water supplies.

Cobalt is another key component of lithium-ion batteries. It's rarely found in unique deposits and most often acquired as a byproduct of copper and nickel mining. Today, it's almost entirely produced thanks to copper mining in the violent, chaotic Democratic Republic of the Congo, mostly in what's known as the copper belt of Katanga Province, a region which once sought to break away from the rest of the country and still harbors secessionist impulses.

Rare-earth elements encompass a group of 17 metallic substances scattered across the Earth's surface but rarely found in mineable concentrations. Among them, several are essential for future green-energy solutions, including dysprosium, lanthanum, neodymium, and terbium. When used as alloys with other minerals, they help perpetuate the magnetization of electrical motors under high-temperature conditions, a key requirement for electric vehicles and wind turbines. At present, approximately 70% of REEs come from China, perhaps 12% from Australia, and 8% from the U.S.

A mere glance at the location of such concentrations suggests that the green-energy transition envisioned by President Biden and other world leaders may encounter severe geopolitical problems, not unlike those generated in the past by reliance on oil. As a start, the most militarily powerful nation on the planet, the United States, can supply itself with only tiny percentages of REEs, as well as other critical minerals like nickel and zinc needed for advanced green technologies. While Australia, a close ally, will undoubtedly be an important supplier of some of them, China, already increasingly viewed as an adversary, is crucial when it comes to REEs, and the Congo, one of the most conflict-plagued nations on the planet, is the leading producer of cobalt. So don't for a second imagine that the transition to a renewable-energy future will either be easy or conflict-free.

The Crunch to Come

Faced with the prospect of inadequate or hard-to-access supplies of such critical materials, energy strategists are already calling for major efforts to develop new sources in as many locations as possible. "Today's supply and investment plans for many critical minerals fall well short of what is needed to support an accelerated deployment of solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles," said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency. "These hazards are real, but they are surmountable. The response from policymakers and companies will determine whether critical minerals remain a vital enabler for clean energy transitions or become a bottleneck in the process."

As Birol and his associates at the IEA have made all too clear, however, surmounting the obstacles to increased mineral production will be anything but easy. To begin with, launching new mining ventures can be extraordinarily expensive and entail numerous risks. Mining firms may be willing to invest billions of dollars in a country like Australia, where the legal framework is welcoming and where they can expect protection against future expropriation or war, but many promising ore sources lie in countries like the DRC, Myanmar, Peru, and Russia where such conditions hardly apply. For example, the current turmoil in Myanmar, a major producer of certain rare-earth elements, has already led to worries about their future availability and sparked a rise in prices.

Declining ore quality is also a concern. When it comes to mineral sites, this planet has been thoroughly scavenged for them, sometimes since the early Bronze Age, and many of the best deposits have long since been discovered and exploited. "In recent years, ore quality has continued to fall across a range of commodities," the IEA noted in its report on critical minerals and green technology. "For example, the average copper ore grade in Chile declined by 30% over the past 15 years. Extracting metal content from lower-grade ores requires more energy, exerting upward pressure on production costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste volumes."

In addition, extracting minerals from underground rock formations often entails the use of acids and other toxic substances and typically requires vast amounts of water, which are contaminated after use. This has become ever more of a problem since the enactment of environmental-protection legislation and the mobilization of local communities. In many parts of the world, as in Nevada when it comes to lithium, new mining and ore-processing efforts are going to encounter increasingly fierce local opposition. When, for example, the Lynas Corporation, an Australian firm, sought to evade Australia's environmental laws by shipping ores from its Mount Weld rare-earths mine to Malaysia for processing, local activists there mounted a protracted campaign to prevent it from doing so.

For Washington, perhaps no problem is more challenging, when it comes to the availability of critical materials for a green revolution, than this country's deteriorating relationship with Beijing. After all, China currently provides 70% of the world's rare-earth supplies and harbors significant deposits of other key minerals as well. No less significant, that country is responsible for the refining and processing of many key materials mined elsewhere. In fact, when it comes to mineral processing, the figures are astonishing. China may not produce significant amounts of cobalt or nickel, but it does account for approximately 65% of the world's processed cobalt and 35% of its processed nickel. And while China produces 11% of the world's lithium, it's responsible for nearly 60% of processed lithium. When it comes to rare-earth elements, however, China is dominant in a staggering way. Not only does it provide 60% of the world's raw materials, but nearly 90% of processed REEs.

To put the matter simply, there is no way the United States or other countries can undertake a massive transition from fossil fuels to a renewables-based economy without engaging economically with China. Undoubtedly, efforts will be made to reduce the degree of that reliance, but there's no realistic prospect of eliminating dependence on China for rare earths, lithium, and other key materials in the foreseeable future. If, in other words, the U.S. were to move from a modestly Cold-War-like stance toward Beijing to an even more hostile one, and if it were to engage in further Trumpian-style attempts to "decouple" its economy from that of the People's Republic, as advocated by many "China hawks" in Congress, there's no question about it: the Biden administration would have to abandon its plans for a green-energy future.

It's possible, of course, to imagine a future in which nations begin fighting over the world's supplies of critical minerals, just as they once fought over oil. At the same time, it's perfectly possible to conceive of a world in which countries like ours simply abandoned their plans for a green-energy future for lack of adequate raw materials and reverted to the oil wars of the past. On an already overheating planet, however, that would lead to a civilizational fate worse than death.

In truth, there's little choice but for Washington and Beijing to collaborate with each other and so many other countries in accelerating the green energy transition by establishing new mines and processing facilities for critical minerals, developing substitutes for materials in short supply, improving mining techniques to reduce environmental hazards, and dramatically increasing the recycling of vital minerals from discarded batteries and other products. Any alternative is guaranteed to prove a disaster of the first order — or beyond.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel Frostlands (the second in the Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

Michael T. Klare, a *TomDispatch* regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change. He is a founder of the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Education and career:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Whittingham was born in Nottingham, England, on 22 December 1941.^[4][5] He was educated at Stamford School in Lincolnshire from 1951–1960, before going to New College, Oxford to read Chemistry. At the University of Oxford, he took his BA (1964), MA (1967), and DPhil (1968).^[6] After completing his graduate studies, Whittingham was a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University.^[7] He then worked for Exxon Research & Engineering Company for 16 years.^[7] He then spent four years working for Schlumberger prior to becoming a professor at Binghamton University.^[6]

From 1994 to 2000, he served as the University's vice provost for research.^[4] He also served as Vice-Chair of the Research Foundation of the State University of New York for six years. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science and Engineering at Binghamton University.^[7] Whittingham was named Chief Scientific Officer of NAATBatt International in 2017.^[4]

Whittingham co-chaired the DOE study of Chemical Energy Storage in 2007,^[8] and is now Director of the Northeastern Center for Chemical Energy Storage (NECCES), a U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC) at Binghamton. In 2014, NECCES was awarded $12.8 million, from the U.S. Department of Energy to help accelerate scientific breakthroughs needed to build a new 21st-century economy. In 2018, NECCES was given another $3 million by the Department of Energy to continue its important research on batteries. The NECCES team is using the funding to make energy-storage materials work better and to develop new materials that are "cheaper, environmentally friendly, and able to store more energy than current materials can".^[9]

Research:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

Whittingham is a key figure in the history of the development of lithium-ion batteries, discovering the concept of intercalation electrodes. Exxon manufactured Whittingham's lithium-ion battery in the 1970s, which was based on a titanium disulfide cathode and a lithium-aluminum anode.^[10] The battery had high energy density and the diffusion of lithium ions into the titanium disulphide cathode was reversible, making the battery rechargeable. In addition, titanium disulphide has a particularly fast rate of lithium ion diffusion into the crystal lattice. Exxon threw its resources behind the commercialization of a Li/LiClO₄/ TiS_2 battery. Safety concerns left Exxon to end the project. Whittingham and his team continued to publish their work in academic journals of electrochemistry and solid-state physics. He eventually left Exxon in 1984 and spent four years at Schlumberger as a Manager. In 1988, he accepted the position of Professor at the Chemistry Department, Binghamton University, U.S. to pursue his academic interests.

"All these batteries are called intercalation batteries. It’s like putting jam in a sandwich. In the chemical terms, it means you have a crystal structure, and we can put lithium ions in, take them out, and the structure’s exactly the same afterwards," Whittingham said "We retain the crystal structure. That’s what makes these lithium batteries so good, allows them to cycle for so long."^[10]

Today's lithium batteries are limited in capacity because less than one lithium-ion/electron is reversibly intercalated per transition metal redox center. To achieve higher energy densities, one approach is to go beyond the one electron redox intercalation reactions of the above systems. Currently, Whittingham's research has advanced to multi-electron intercalation reactions, which can increase the storage capacity by intercalating multiple lithium ions....

at exxon 16 yrs?

Whittingham

Whittingham, now 78, invented the first rechargeable lithium-ion battery in 1977 at Exxon Research and Engineering Co. Although he worked alongside Nobel winners there, he didn’t consider the possibility he’d one day join their ranks.

“When you’re 30 years old,” he says, “you don’t really think about Nobel prizes.”...

Whittingham was one of three laureates chosen to speak via satellite with astronauts on the International Space Station. Lithium-ion batteries had been installed on the station within the past month, so they had a lot to talk about, he says.

===

https://qz.com/1724449/nobel-prize-in-chemistry-winners-developed-lithium-ion-batteries/

ou’re likely reading this news story on a device powered by the invention that won this year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry: lithium-ion batteries. The award went to John Goodenough, professor at the University of Texas at Austin; Stanley Whittingham, professor at the Binghamton University; and Akira Yoshino, professor at Meijo University, each of whom made significant contributions to the development of the world’s most powerful battery.

The lithium-ion battery story started during the oil crises of the 1970s, when companies like Exxon began investing in oil alternatives and new energy sources. Whittingham, a materials scientist, was hired to develop batteries.

Every battery, from the first one invented in 1799, is made of two electrodes—an anode and a cathode—dipped in a conductive solution (called an electrolyte) with a separator that controls the flow of the electric charge. At Exxon, Whittingham realized that lithium metal could be used as an anode, as long as the highly reactive metal was encased and not brought in contact with air or water. And his earlier work had showed titanium disulphide could be used as a cathode to store charged lithium atoms, called lithium ions.

After tweaking and testing, in 1976, Whittingham and his colleagues showed that combining lithium metal and titanium disulphide could not just make a battery, but one that was rechargeable. It brought lighter lithium-based batteries in competition with the bulky rechargeable lead-acid batteries that were used in cars to power electrical needs.

The trouble was, Whittingham’s battery didn’t last very long. During its cycles of charging and discharging, lithium metal had a tendency to form dendrites—long string-like structures—that could cause a short circuit and blow up the battery.

At about the same time, the oil crises ended and a glut of cheap fuel was back. Exxon shut down its battery research. But Whittingham’s working prototype and other work on battery materials ignited wider interest in the field.

One of the researchers inspired by the work was John Goodenough, then at the University of Oxford, who found that instead of titanium disulfide as a cathode, it was better to use cobalt oxide. The cobalt-based battery was able to store more energy and do so more safely.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Yoshino was working in Japan for the chemicals company Asahi Kasei. He found that, instead of using lithium metal, it was better to use graphite as an anode. The material stored fewer lithium atoms, but it also substantially reduced fire risks. (While the use of lithium metal was dropped, the battery still shuttled lithium ions between the electrodes—thus the name lithium-ion battery.)

Yoshio Nishi and Keizaburo Tozawa, both working at Sony, put in the hard work to convert the scientific ideas of Whittingham, Goodenough, and Yoshino into the world’s first commercial lithium-ion battery in 1992. It proved an instant success: Sony sold 3 million units in 1993 and 15 million in 1994.

Since then, engineering and materials developments have made lithium-ion batteries both cheaper and more versatile. They are now in use in everything from tiny devices like wireless earphones to giant ones like electric ships—and, of course, smartphones and electric cars. They can also be used to store renewable energy for later use and to power electric planes.

Crucially, lithium-ion batteries are helping lower greenhouse-gas emissions and tackle humanity’s greatest challenge in climate change. Ironically, that which began its life in an oil company has now become a threat for the entire oil industry.

You can read an in-depth analysis of the lithium-ion battery revolution in Quartz’s field guide published in April. big oil's big challenge" You can read all of Quartz’s coverage of the 2019 Nobel Prizes here.

===

Battery Breakthrough Could End Lithium-Ion’s Reign

Potassium batteries are coming for the throne

Yasmin Tayag in OneZero

well, it's official libtard fuckwit [boy kings? // GoT?]

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/we-will-coup-whoever-we-want-elon-musk-and-the-overthrow-of-democracy-in-bolivia/

On July 24, 2020, Tesla’s Elon Musk wrote on Twitter that a second U.S. “government stimulus package is not in the best interests of the people.” Someone responded to Musk soon after, “You know what wasn’t in the best interest of people? The U.S. government organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there.” Musk then wrote: “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”

Musk refers here to the coup against President Evo Morales Ayma, who was removed illegally from his office in November 2019. Morales had just won an election for a term that was to have begun in January 2020. Even if there was a challenge against that election, Morales’ term should rightfully have continued through November and December of 2019. Instead, the Bolivian military, at the behest of Bolivia’s far right and the United States government, threatened Morales; Morales went into exile in Mexico and is now in Argentina.

At that time, the “evidence” of fraud was offered by the far right and by a “preliminary report” by the Organization of American States; only after Morales was removed from office was there grudging acknowledgment by the liberal media that there was in fact no evidence of fraud. It was too late for Bolivia, which has been condemned to a dangerous government that has suspended democracy in the country.

Lithium Coup

Over his 14 years in office, Morales fought to use the wealth of Bolivia for the Bolivian people, who saw—after centuries of oppression—remarkable advances in their basic needs. Literacy rates rose and hunger rates dropped. The use of Bolivia’s wealth to advance the interests of the people rather than North American multinational corporations was an abomination to the U.S. embassy in La Paz, which had egged on the worst elements of the military and the far right to overthrow the government. This is just what happened in November 2019.

Musk’s admission, however intemperate, is at least honest. His company Tesla has long wanted access at a low price to the large lithium deposits in Bolivia; lithium is a key ingredient for batteries. Earlier this year, Musk and his company revealed that they wanted to build a Tesla factory in Brazil, which would be supplied by lithium from Bolivia; when we wrote about that we called our report “Elon Musk Is Acting Like a Neo-Conquistador for South America’s Lithium.” Everything we wrote there is condensed in his new tweet: the arrogance toward the political life of other countries, and the greed toward resources that people like Musk think are their entitlement.

Musk went on to delete his tweet. He then said, “we get our lithium from Australia”; this will not settle the issue, since eyebrows are being raised in Australia regarding the environmental damage from lithium mining.

Suspension of Democracy

After Morales was removed, an insignificant far-right politician named Jeanine Áñez set aside the constitutional process and seized power. She showed the character of her politics when shesigned a presidential decree on November 15, 2019, that gave the military the right to do whatever it wanted; even her allies found this to be too far and repealed it on November 28.

Arrests and intimidation of activists from the Movement for Socialism (MAS)—the party of Morales—began in November 2019 and still continue. On July 7, 2020, seven U.S. senators published a statement that said, “We are increasingly concerned by the growing number of human rights violations and curtailments of civil liberties by the interim government of Bolivia.” “Without a change in course by the interim government,” the senators wrote, “we fear that basic civil rights in Bolivia will be further eroded and the legitimacy of the crucial upcoming elections will be put at risk.”

There’s no need to worry about that, since the government of Áñez seems unwilling to hold an election. By all polls, Áñez looks likely to be defeated in the general elections. A recent poll by El Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica (CELAG) says that Áñez will get a mere 13.3 percent, far behind the Movement for Socialism’s Luis Arce (41.9 percent) and the center right’s Carlos Mesa (26.8 percent). The election was supposed to have taken place in May, but it was rescheduled for September 6; it has now been postponed once more, this time to October 18. Bolivia would not have had an elected government for an entire year.

Luis Arce of MAS recently told Oliver Vargas, “We face persecution, we face surveillance… we are facing a very difficult campaign.” But, he said, “we are sure that we will win these elections.” If elections are permitted.

The CELAG study shows that 9 out of 10 Bolivians have seen their incomes decline due to the coronavirus recession. Because of this—and of the attack by this government on the MAS—65.2 percent of Bolivians have a negative appraisal of Áñez. It is important to note that due to the positive policies of Morales’ MAS, there is widespread support for a socialist orientation; 64.1 percent of Bolivians support taxes against the rich, and Bolivians in general support the resource socialism of the MAS and Morales.

CoronaShock and Bolivia

The government of Áñez has been utterly incompetent regarding the coronavirus. The number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in this country of 11 million people is 66,456; since is low, the number is likely much higher.

Musk returns to our story. Earlier this year, on March 31, Bolivia’s Foreign Minister Karen Longaric wrote an obsequious letter to Musk asking him about the “offer of cooperation posted by you regarding ventilators ready to be dispatched to countries where they are needed the most.” Longaric said, “If it is not possible to send it to Bolivia, we can arrange its receipt in Miami, FL. and transport them from there as quickly as possible.” No such ventilators came.

Instead, the government bought ventilators from a Spanish supplier for $27,000 for each of the 170 devices; Bolivian producers had said they could supply ventilators for $1,000 per unit. The health minister in the Áñez government—Marcelo Navajas—was arrested for this scandal.

Morales

Evo Morales read Musk’s tweet about the coup in Bolivia and responded: “Elon Musk, the owner of the largest electric car company, says about the coup in Bolivia: ‘We will coup whoever we want.’ Another proof that the coup was about Bolivian lithium; at the cost of two massacres. We will always defend our resources!”

The reference to the massacres is important. In November, from Mexico City, Morales watched as the government of Áñez let loose the dogs of war against the people of Bolivia from Cochabamba to El Alto. “They are killing my brothers and sisters,” Morales said at a press conference. “This is the kind of thing the old military dictatorships used to do.” It is the toxic character of the government of Áñez, backed fully by the U.S. government and Elon Musk.

Protests across Bolivia began on July 27 for the restoration of democracy.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest book is Washington Bullets, with an introduction by Evo Morales Ayma.

Alejandro Bejarano is a Bolivian musician, documentarian, and social media manager. In 2016, he received the Medal of Honor for Cultural Merit of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia.

This article was produced by :{Globetrotter:(style="box-sizing:border-box;outline:none;margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

corp BS ggl#1

https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/energy-innovation/rd/the-history-of-batteries-lithium-ion-batteries-energy-factor/

Important Additional Information Regarding Proxy Solicitation

This website contains information on a variety of different topics that may be of interest to shareholders, some of which may be related to the Company's solicitation materials.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

M. Stanley Whittingham - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › M._Stanley_Whittingh...

And he invented the first rechargeable lithium-ion battery, patented in 1977, and assigned to Exxon. His work on lithium-ion batteries laid the foundations for others ...

Education and career · ‎Research · ‎Recognition · ‎Books

Nobel Prize in Chemistry Honors 3 Who Enabled a 'Fossil ...

https://insideclimatenews.org › News

Oct 10, 2019 — The winners developed lithium-ion batteries that made electric vehicles ... Here's an account by Whittingham about his work at Exxon from our ...