Enjoy

(TL/DR: They're *generalizers*. They learn to *generalize* problems.)

No. AI tools are not collagers. That is not how they work.

Yes, they do "learn to think". (albeit in rather alien manners sometimes)

Nonsense. There are a specific set of *mature* Li-ion chemistries - namely, iron phosphate and NCA/NMC. There are no mature Na-ion chemistries. We do not know what kinds, if any, of Na-ion chemistries will mature to be competitive. Current low-volume production is not competitive. There is no non-subsidized Na-ion production that is at all price competitive with li-ion. Manufacturers readily admit this in interviews and quarterly reports. The hope is that with scale and chemistry advancements they will be. The collapse in lithium prices has sapped a lot of the optimism from the market about this.

I'll accept the coined word "talenteds". But you are not more "creative" just because you have a talent.

And for the record, most professional musicians today buy riffs or entire backing tracks from others and also outsource the mixing and mastering to third parties, so they can honestly lay off people for outsourcing part of their work to AI.

By "the results", you mean an entirely different, unprotected work?

Doesn't work. Your mislabeled data will stand out like a sore thumb on loss graphs. They'll automated ditch the bad labels, and potentially automated-regenerate new labels.

And Prussian Blue, of all things, speaking of dirt cheap

Yeah, great, if you don't care about interstitial water reducing stability and capacity (with a tendency to reabsorb more water after manufacturing); problems with cation vacancies and structural defects; voltage instability due to multi-step redox reactions; difficulty achieving sufficient purity at scale for battery applications; and moderate gravimetric / poor volumetric density compared to alternatives.

People need to stop talking about na-ion like it's just "take li-ion and swap out the cation". It's very different chemistry to master. There are absolutely no guarantees that it will ever beat li-ion on cost. People are certainly trying. They might succeed. But we cannot realistically speculate as to what the ultimate tradeoffs will be, when we don't even know the general category of chemistry that's even going to win out.

The main reason sodium ion batteries are promising as a technology is because it's cheap

No. They "are" [present tense] not cheap. Their is speculation that with sufficient development and sufficient production scales, they could be cheaper than li-ion. This has cooled a lot since the lithium price spike collapsed.

. The only downside is well, Na is a bigger atom with more protons and neutrons and thus is heavier

Borderline irrelevant and not a driving factor. Lithium is only 2-3% of the mass of a li-ion cell, and even less of a complete pack. Also, counterintuitively, despite the larger atomic radius, they actually tend to have higher ionic conductivites.

Sodium ions being cheap chemistry is also easier to recycle

Once again for the people in the back: SODIUM ION IS NOT A SINGLE CHEMISTRY. What cathodes are you talking about? P2-type layered oxides? O3-type layered oxides? Which ones? NASICON? Fluorophosphates? Prussian Blue analogues? PBAs? What anodes are you talking about? Hard carbon? Tin-based? Antimony-based? Phosphorus-based? Bismuth-based? Titanium-based? What sort of electrolytes are you talking about? Organic? Which mixtures? Ionic liquids? Aqueous? Solid (NASICON? Beta-alumina)?

They are NOT a single chemistry, and do NOT have a single list of advantages / disadvantages.

Once again: No. "the" batteries are not in production. A type of sodium-ion battery linked is in production. There are many types of sodium ion batteries in various stages of development, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

And no, it is not a simple swap of sodium ions for intercalation rather than lithium ions. The chemistry involved is quite different. One of the biggest challenges is that sodium ions don't form very stable SEIs with traditional li-ion electrolytes.

The source is nontoxic clay.
The output is nontoxic clay.
The solution to the tailings is "put them back in the hole".

Anyone who makes some simple claim about "sodium-ion batteries are X" doesn't even know the start of what they're talking about.

Sodium-ion batteries are not a single chemistry. Each chemistry has its own advantages and disadvantages; they don't share a single set of properties. Heck, if there's any single most common advantages and disadvantages, it's ones almost nobody talks about: high diffusion rates and poor SEI formation.

The investment over the past several years on Na-ion was in large part a bet that lithium prices were going to stay super-high ('22-23 price spike), which should have been obvious to anyone that they wouldn't.

The simple fact is that you simply just don't need that much. A typical li-ion battery, despite the name, is only 2-3% lithium by mass. And lithium deposits are on the order of 1% lithium, give or take depending on the type and quality of deposit (salar and clay less, spodumene more).

He didn't just make geographically-ignorant comments, but also also didn't bother to read the paper, which had this picture as its cover.

It's a lithium clay in an enclosed hydrologic basin. Barren scrubland in the middle of nowhere. The extraction process involves digging up clay, running it through an extraction process (if an acid extraction, then followed by neutralization), and then put back from whence it came.

A typical EV only contains 5-10kg of lithium, and the clay at the adjacent Thacker Pass is ~0,3% lithium. It's really not much at all. And lithium is recycleable. Once again, for the people in the back: a clean energy economy involves way LESS mining than today's dirty-energy economy. And the mining involved tends to be much cleaner. The average ICE vehicle burns its entire mass in fuel every single year for ~20 years, 0% recycling on that oil. That oil is typically produced from sensitive or politically problematic locations around the world, and comes out of the ground carcinogenic, neurotoxic, hepatotoxic, renal toxic, etc etc, as an easily-spilled, highly-flammable liquid. But oh, no no, THAT's okay because we're used to polluting the hell out of our planet with THAT.

And for the record: lithium is neither rare nor expensive. Today, lithium carbonate (the primary traded form) is about $9/kg. We're talking less than the price of most cheese, nuts, meat, etc.

May 6th, 1812: "Another month, yet another Luddite-leadership controversy?" writes The Manchester Observer's Thomas Paine, reporting that three key organizers of the 1812 Nottingham Assembly resigned after backlash over the discovery of machine-woven garments in their wardrobes. From the report:

In a letter co-signed by Assembly chairman Ned Ludd, deputy chairman George Mellor, and Yorkshire division head James Towle, the trio announced they were resigning from their roles ahead of the Nottingham gathering, which takes place in June. "We want to reaffirm that no mechanized looms or automated spinning jennies have been employed in our personal workshops at any stage," the statement read in part, which might turn the heads of anyone who is a) interested in the Luddite movement, but b) not up on the latest controversy.

However, plenty of people in the community are well aware of what's been going on. A quick journey to the pamphlet "The Framework-Knitter's Voice" will bring you up to speed, as will a visit to the Nottingham Assembly's own broadsheet, which on April 30 shared a notice clarifying exactly what role machine-made textiles played in the upcoming event. [...] However, as "The Framework-Knitter's Voice" pointed out, the damage has apparently already been done: the discovery of machine-woven waistcoats in any capacity in connection to the Assembly created a furor in public houses across the region. It also inspired at least one prominent craftsman to withdraw his participation: Joseph Heathcoat, whose hand-sewn brocade was named a finalist for the Golden Shuttle commendation, which honors exceptional handicraft. In a May 1 letter nailed to the Assembly door, the artisan referenced the April 30 Assembly broadsheet noted above, and stated he was withdrawing his creation from consideration.

Then, in a letter delivered today responding to "The Framework-Knitter's Voice" latest edition announcing the resignations, the craftsman wrote "All respect and I'm grateful to them for their work, sorry matters came to this pass." The Nottingham Assembly 1812 takes place June 13-17; the Golden Shuttle Awards will be presented June 16.