Every article I see on modern transport problems reminds me that I can't understand why we don't have more public infrastructure invested for cyclists?<p>It really seems like the lowest hanging fruit, but there is not enough profit-motive or politcal incentive to really push it forward?<p>I would love to bike to work and take a shower on arrival--daily exercise that I need anyways, avoids stress & danger of driving, feels great to do. It's also a lot better for the environment than electric cars, and saves me a lot of time.<p>It could help with congestion, pollution, obesity, healthcare costs, and possibly improve social morale.<p>I really think it is an issue where no business or politician has enough incentive/ability to capture profit, so it doesn't ever get much traction, but the public benefit is quite large.<p>From what I understand Holland's bike infrastructure is seen as a gold-standard among transportation economists on how to reduce congestion and pollution--no?
> while demand for nickel keeps increasing, half the world’s nickel supply is too low in quality to use for car batteries.<p>Well that article sure disproved its own thesis quickly. If we can't even be bothered to purify cheap nickel, then we are <i>definitely</i> not facing a shortage.
Cobalt is probably not a problem. See the annual USGS report for cobalt.[1] The main problem with cobalt mining is that it's usually obtained as a by-product of nickel. So nickel demand drives cobalt supply. Direct mining for cobalt is possible but not done much yet. Right now, there's a mild cobalt oversupply, because nickel refining produces more cobalt than is really needed. This is expected to change soon.<p>Potential supplies in the US, Canada, and Australia are substantial.
Not a fundamental problem for the next century. Also, much cobalt is already recycled.<p>[1] <a href="https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/mcs-2017-cobal.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/mcs...</a>
The current demand for high quality nickel used in batteries is very small in comparison to overall world nickel production. This will continue for the foreseeable future.<p>Nickel is trading at very low prices historically and most producers are losing money at current prices.<p>This would imply that the current supply of nickel is more than sufficient for the worlds needs and that some producers need to shut down. (Why they don’t is fascinating on its own)<p>Most of the worlds nickel production is low quality ferro nickel used in the production of stainless steel.<p>Despite this we are not seeing larger premiums for high quality nickel products which would indicate that there is more demand for high quality nickel.<p>High quality/ high cost nickel producers know that their only chance to survive the over supply of cheap nickel in the world is if we see the same over exuberance as which we have seen with cobalt trading in recent months.<p>The only problem is that nickel is a much larger market than cobalt and as such is not as susceptible to small market changes, and as the article points out nickel does not face the same geopolitical supply risk as cobalt does in the Congo.<p>We are unlikely to see a shortage of Nickel.
Why isn't a electric road or a overhead third rail a viable alternative to batteries? Batteries - become depleted, are expensive, heavy. With a grid - unlimited range, that can be supplemented by smaller batteries. Are there technical limitations more than cost.
Difficult to believe. Cars are being churned day and night for decades, all of them use a lot of minerals. At least (in my understanding) the rare minerals that go into electric cars and their batteries are recyclable. Once the fleet is built, just recycle.<p>Of course, I'd prefer a future with electric trams in every street and fewer cars, all electric, all small and light to save in materials and energy.
Cobalt and nickel are not the only materials that can fulfill the functions they cover. There are a couple of things worth noting here:<p>1. "Lithium Ion" describes a family of batteries, with varying chemical compositions. As an example, the battery in the Nissan Leaf uses no cobalt in its cathode:<p><a href="https://qnovo.com/inside-the-battery-of-a-nissan-leaf/" rel="nofollow">https://qnovo.com/inside-the-battery-of-a-nissan-leaf/</a><p>"It uses a different material for the cathode called lithium-manganese-oxide with nickel oxide (LiMn2O4 with LiNiO2) that is inherently safer than the lithium-cobalt-oxide cathode material"<p>2. There are other battery chemistries outside of the Lithium Ion family, in varying states of maturity, that could (in time) become competitive with Lithium Ion in the electric car market. To give one example:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery</a>
Sounds kind of like how we're running out of oil -- we're definitely using up the easy to find deposits, but as oil prices rise, the less easily available oil becomes marketable, so the oil keeps coming.<p>Eventually we'll run out, but making it harder to find just makes it more expensive. (well, that and the political problems caused by wealthy middle eastern nations running out of their liquid gold)
I dont understand this phrase. It's completely incorrect usage. If demand can't be met, then the price will raise naturally until demand <i>is</i> met. I can guarentee that for a raw material, this is bound to happen.<p>I suppose they could fix it just by saying "at the current price" at the end.
This brings to mind two horrifying futures, thankfully neither of which will ever happen:<p>1) we use those big lines full of electricity hanging adjacent to the road to power vehicles,<p>2) we stop using cars