this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
383 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

4684 readers
417 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

While lithium extraction technologies generally focus on ways to get the essential metal out of the ground, there's another source to mine: existing batteries that no longer work. A new technique could now make that process economically viable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Note when the article made the comparison, it seemingly sourced the comparative figure independently, not the scientists. So the scientists may be in good faith describing 'incremental cost to take presumed existing battery material and recover lithium from it' and article trying it's best but not thinking things through presents "number that would implicitly include processing, but also cost of acquiring the raw material as well'. So no one may be trying to 'hide' something, but still the comparison is somewhat flawed.

Just seeing how even if everything is being honestly presented, we may still be in a position where mined lithium is still cheaper than recycled even as all the figures suggest that shouldn't be the case at face value.