The main benefits are that Sodium is abundant, cheap and stores 30x the energy of Lithium per unit mass. The draw back is that when exposed to water it explodes with 30x the energy of Lithium. The other drawback is that it bursts into flame when exposed to air.
Think of it this way, Sodium metal is abundant and cheap with 30x the energy storage (and energy transfer) of other solutions yet nobody has used it in almost any product ever (including as a coolant). The volatility of Sodium is why. Unless they have a solution to this, then I would be shorting whoever is insuring these batteries.
Sodium ion batteries use sodium ions, like in table salt. They correctly are not named metallic sodium batteries. They are less fire prone than lithium batteries, even in locations containing air.
You should also consider shorting Morton [0]. They sell sodium, combined with chlorine, one of the nastiest elements around! And for products that go in people's homes! On food!
This isn't correct. This is only true when the battery is first manufactured just like with Li-ion. Once the battery starts functioning, it is ionized metallic Sodium. All the volatility of Na but with corrosion too. There is no Chlorine nor any other halogen in there to engage in an ionic bond. In short, once the battery is functioning, the trick used to keep the Na in an ionic bond stops working (by design). After all, the ionic bond would prevent the battery from functioning.
It should be noted that most manufactures aren't doing pure Na-ion. They are mixing in a little Na with the Li to stretch Li supplies and gather data on the impact of the increased volatility on safety. I wouldn't expect their first use to be in cars. I would expect them to be in grid stabilizing batteries.
I was sure you were wrong so I went and did some reading and, you're right. I'm wrong.
I was thinking of the aqueous sodium ion batteries, which do not have the issues described. I thought those were the ones that are commercially available, but that's not the case.
In ancient times, salt developed an extraordinary reputation. Not only was it prized as a preservative, but it was a nutritious seasoning as well. Salt had great value, and much of that nutritional value could be ascribed to the trace minerals which it carried as it was mined or otherwise harvested.
Nowadays, the manufacturers of refined table salt present you with a digusting proposition: sprinkle this worthless elemental sodium-chloride onto your food, because it is "salt" and they are 100% trading on its ancient reputation. Perhaps it is better to simply trample it underfoot?
Unfortunately, all the trace minerals are missing from refined salt. That pure white, homogeneous, translucent quality gives it away. The refining of salt is done purposefully, because the trace minerals are more valuable to supplement vendors.
All those trace minerals are separated out and sold out to companies who will assemble them into expensive dietary supplements. Your magnesium, and selenium, and zinc that you pay $30 a bottle for.
And that is also why sodium has such a nasty reputation in 2026. If you get CVD then you avoid sodium. If you get hypertension then you avoid sodium. Sodium is avoided like the plague. No physician will recommend sodium or table salt for a diet! Why should they? Adding sodium no longer introduces trace minerals or nutrition, it only introduces saltiness.
It is still possible to find unrefined salt. It may be sold as "sea salt" or "kosher salt" but you'll need to find it in transparent packaging. If it contains impurities that look like pepper or dirt, then it is unrefined. If it is imprinted with the obligatory fake warning about iodide, then it may be unrefined. (The mandatory FDA "iodide" warning is not only fake, it's misleading and downright malicious.)
Good luck with your salt! With love from your eponysterical HN noob!
However, the information is false. The amount of nutrients in unrefined salt is negligible. Yes it contains trace minerals but not in any significant quantity.
I have never seen or visited that website ever in my life. Why would I? I wrote my comment completely originally, and your accusation of bad faith is, in itself, bad faith.
In fact, none of the content which I typed into my comment is found in that blog article. How and why did you even find it? Anyone else here can read and confirm that I copied nothing. I quoted nothing. I owe nothing to anyone. My comment is original and copyrighted by myself (c) 2026, all rights reserved.
With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Site or share with other users or recipients (collectively, “User Content”), you represent and warrant that you own all right, title and interest in and to such User Content, including, without limitation, all copyrights and rights of publicity contained therein. By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
CATL has been producing Sodium-ion batteries since 2022. As CATL has continued to produce and introduce new Sodium-ion batteries, it appears they might have a solved the issue with volatility.
If they have not solved the problem, I still wouldn't recommend shorting any companies. Shorting a stock and waiting for years for it to drop is not a great strategy.
Think of it this way, Sodium metal is abundant and cheap with 30x the energy storage (and energy transfer) of other solutions yet nobody has used it in almost any product ever (including as a coolant).
I thought the price differential was not going to happen as there was a serious drop in the price of Lithium over the past year; but I looked it up and the lithium price drop is more a 5 year trend, with the last few months having a sudden surge in the price.
Increased production of Lithium is why. However, that only drains the (very limited) reserves of Lithium more quickly. Currently we have about 75 years left of it at previous extraction rates. More could be found, that is unlikely.
Draining lithium reserves isn't that important - batteries don't use up the lithium, once the battery dies you can just suck out all the lithium and re-use it (and battery electrolytes are ~100% lithium, compared to lithium ore/brine being anywhere from 0.1% to 15% lithium - an order of magnitude difference). And since modern batteries are more efficient than old batteries with the same amount of lithium, we effectively increase the circulating lithium capacity over time.
In 75 years we won't need to extract more lithium - except the fraction needed to replace permanently-lost batteries.
Incidentally, you should be very careful when talking about "<resource> reserves", because the definition of a reserve is usually "<resource> that is profitable to extract" - and when we "run out", prices will go up and thus currently-unprofitable sources will become profitable, and POOF! Our <resource> reserves have increased, purely through the power of semantics.
Also, over the decades resource extraction becomes cheaper and thus more sources become profitable.
Personally though, I don't think any of that will matter -IMO the future is proton batteries, AKA Hydrogen batteries (which use an electrolyte of "ionic hydrogen", H+, which has 1 proton and 0 electrons - people claim lithium is the lightest metal, but it has 3x the protons of hydrogen). I think that the recent TABQ batteries, or something like it, will become commercially viable within 75 years (although who even knows what batteries will look like in the year 2101).
Nobody has ever recycled Lithium, just reused the cells that lasted longer than average. We have no idea how to actually recycle Li. We don't even understand the physical mechanism that causes it to exhaust. We think if we just let it sit around for a few decades, it might just come back on it own. We don't know though.
As for reserves, while you understand the economics you are missing the physics. For example, there is Li (and U) in the ocean. We don't extract Uranium from the ocean not only because it isn't economical, it isn't even energy efficient. This is because moving a billion tonnes of water takes more energy than the 3 tonnes of Uranium you would harvest from doing that. For Li, its takes just as much energy (and money) as its just as rare. In other words, there is a floor on that economic extraction argument specified by a positive EROEI (energy returned on energy invested).
Yes, we have. This is a well understood and fairy simple chemical process, you grind up non-working Lithium battery and split up the FOD from the metals then it's just basic chemical metal refining from here on out? When lithium is mined and extracted it goes through the exact same processes.
If you have any other sources or information on why we can't recycle lithium please let me know. As far is battery failure goes it's a mechanical failure on a chemical level
The Li that comes out of the process you describe wouldn't be recycled. It would still be mostly exhausted. Specifically, something we don't understand about the structure of their electrons causes the batteries made with such material to have a far lower capacity than if you used freshly mined Lithium. My source is a Material Engineering class at MIT.
We understand the structure of electrons very clearly in a lithium battery. That is the core operating principle of how a lithium ion battery works.
The lithium ions are the chemical process that actually store the charge, They move from the anode to cathode in charge and discharge. The loss of these ions is what causes the degradation of the battery which is a function of entropy here. It is simply that the concise arrangement that we required for this electro-chemical to take place falls out of balance.
Entropy problem is easily solved by mashing a battery up and reconstituting it
into a new battery.
To put this all simply this is all fairly basic chemistry, even if there was some kind of structure being created that has a high bond enthrall we can still undo that with enough energy.
If you could maybe share some research or other information to back up your claims other than you went to a class at MIT i would really appreciate it also the company i was saying is called Li Cycle
what about the polymetallic nodules on the ocean floor, don't they contain Li? -- setting aside the environmental question, isn't that a vast untapped source?
I thought there were a few massive lithium sources found in the past few years like the one in Thailand which have significantly increased our estimates?
Sure, but by like 2 years. Lithium is rare. It sits between Cobalt and Scandium on the list of abundance in Earth's crust. And the vast majority comes from one place in South America.
They are always revising estimates up and down a bit. But Li demand just keeps rising and rising. And a single grid scale battery takes 10 years of current Li-ion battery production worldwide to build.
So do we have enough Li at current rates, sure. We don't have anywhere near enough to do anything like replacing even a fraction of FFs with renewables. I guess that's the real headline here. That's why people are experimenting with Na-ion. Putting it in a production car today, that seems...what's the word...homicidal. Making a grid stabilization battery (not for backup) with large amounts of space between cabinets to see what happens, that seems more wise.
We have many grid stabilization batteries. There are 0 grid scale backup systems. 1 year of worldwide Li-ion battery production could backup just California for about 90 minutes.
That's why I pay Apple extra money to develop the next big thing. If I only pay the sticker price of the iPhone, there won't be any more innovative products. But if we all get together and pay double the sticker price, we'll get some true innovation!
Nobody is suggesting paying Novo up front, they footed that bill, we are talking about paying a premium after product lunch, which people certainly did for the iPhone.
In a free-market approach to drug development, if the expected loss of attempting to develop as drug is negative, and the cost isn't too high, then there is an incentive to develop that.
The best public policy outcome in such an approach would be for losses to be only slightly negative. Positive or zero expected losses mean no drug development, and highly negative expected losses mean the drug is more expensive than necessary and reduces the accessibility of the drug.
However, current patent law allows companies to minimise their expected loss, with no controls to prevent highly negative expected losses.
There are alternative models - such as state funding of drug development. This model has benefit that it is possible to optimise more directly for measures like QALY Saved (Quality Adjusted Life Years Saved) - which drug sale revenue is an imperfect proxy for due to some diseases being more prevalent amongst affluent people, and because one-time cures can be high QALY Saved but lower revenue.
The complexity of state funding is it still has the free-rider problem at a international level (some states invest less per capita in funding). This is a problem which can be solved to an extent with treaties, and which doesn't need to be solved perfectly to do a lot of good.
Excessive profits from patented drugs are controlled by development of competing drugs. These competitors arise until profits are driven down to the point further development of competitors is inhibited.
The US has zero credibility w.r.t making international treaties these days. And generally is completely set up for a few peoples maximum “expected negative loss”. Sure things could theoretically be structured differently, but for the foreseeable future they aren’t.
What percentage of global rich, obese people live in the US? This is the main market and the product would not exist if it could not command a high profit here. Besides that, I think the US prices are so high due to the insane medical insurance structure, not because the drug companies really make much more than in other countries.
The breakdown in cost pr. Transaction really drives home what a ludicrous system it is. Bitcoin is a fantastic example of a great invention put to horrible use.
The lightning network can handle transactions sure. Because it is not a distributed POW system. You can also just sell some BTC, transact via VISA or paypal etc., and buy BTC when you are done. Im not saying you can’t use BTC as a store of value. Just that transaction costs are way to high to use for payments/transactions i.e. as a currency.
The reason it doesn’t work as a currency is that the transaction costs are way way to high for that. A single transaction it is literally the price of 1-2 million visa transactions. This is by design, bitcoin will never be a competitive system for payment processing, without adding centralized “2nd layer” systems, and at that point why not just use a centralized system to begin with. It makes sense, a distributed system that does the same work millions of times cannot compete with a centralized system that does it once.
You use outdated information. Modern Lightning, a layer 2 solution based on Bitcoin, does Bitcoin transactions in less than a second for less than any Visa fee. More to it, you can send transfers of less than 10satoshis (less than a cent) for fees in the millisatoshi range on an economical scale. Visa/Mastercard won't ever offer transfer fees of less than fixed 10cent per transaction, making micropayments impossible, and 1$ payments super expensive (more like 20cent fees on the dollar). That is one of the reasons why W3C web payments API was cancelled.
As i understand it, all the lightning transactions happen off chain and the results are then published afterwards. So you are back to trusting a payment processor to avoid double spend. And, if you can do that, you don’t need BTC to begin with. Its just integrating bitcoin with another system that is actually able to do transactions. BTC alone remains horrible at that.
No, your understanding is incorrect - please do your homework and learn about lightning - you will be amazed. Lightning is zero-trust just as bitcoin is, there is no central instance. There is no "publishing" either. You can chose to not run your own lightning node (custodial vs. self-custodial wallets), then this becomes true. But that is the same as not running your own bitcoin wallet but using Exchanges, Banks etc. to hold your Bitcoin for you.
Lightning uses so called hashed time locked contract (HTLC) between nodes backed by bitcoin 2-of-2 wallets, with punishment options baked into the transaction script if people try to unilateraly reallocate funds from the channel. The channels between nodes form a payment network, where each node forwards funds (in return for a small fee).
To use a metaphor: bitcoin is the gold, lightning are green dollar notes with a guarantee to exchange those notes for gold anytime - just as our monetary system was before 1971 when Nixon broke that promise. Lightning is built in a way that it is decentralized and that promise can never be broken. And you can send those notes via the internet in sub-seconds.
Thanks, I accept that it requires less trust than using a central ledger, still it cannot provide the level of trustlessness bitcon can, if it could why use btc? I totally agree with your analogy, but in my view that just underlines that BTC is not useable as a currency, just as gold is not.
You still don't grasp lightning fully, and I totally understand because it a complex concept. It is not its own crypto, it is not a token, and lightning does not even use a blockchain. It is a layer 2 network, meaning it builds upon BTC and requires BTC node to run (to monitor the new blocks and publish transactions). So lightning cannot replace bitcoin, it augments it.
Thank you. It's a good point, but what I am trying to say is that lightning cannot provide the level of security BTC does, hence the need to constantly return to the safety of the block-chain. There is no free lunch: Security in the lightning network must break down/i.e. require more trust as the number of node-jumps in a transaction increases, and perhaps as the number of transactions in the channel increases as well. If not, then lightning solves the distributed double spend problem in its own (efficient) way, that we should just use instead of BTC.
Would you agree with me that lightning 'stretches' each BTC transaction by using clever tricks ala. aggregation, checksums, hashing, etc.? I buy that this scales the number of transactions dramatically, especially between a limited number of parties. It might be that this is stretches far enough be make BTC useful as a currency, but I remain very doubtful of that. If that is indeed the case, it seems that BTC has managed to fail as a currency for other reasons.
You obviously haven't looked into the tranasaction economics of the Lightning Network. And things will only be mentally priced in USD until we switch to something else - quite possibly Bitcoin.
I have, and as I have said to others the lightning network is not some magic that makes distributed PoW efficient, it just lets you conduct a bunch if transactions off chain and then record the end result. You could do that with fiat currency as well. BTC does one thing: lets users transact without possibility of double spending, without trusting any other users. Lightning network removes that last part, so you are just back to VISA/PayPal/Banks etc etc.
I dont think LLMs really took away much thinking, for me they replaced searching stackexchange to find incantations. Now I can get them instantly and customized to my situation. I miss thinking hard too, but I dont blame that on AI, its more that as a dev you are paid to think the absolute minimal amount needed to solve an issue or implement a feature. I dont regret leaving academia, but being paid to think I will always miss.
You can have a functional democracy and still do long term planning, the problem is the current US government. Its not a fundamental flaw in democracy.
>You can have a functional democracy and still do long term planning
Sure, but that's contingent on
1) the voters being well educated and not easily brainwashed by various types of propaganda pushing them to vote against their own interests (see the Germans being anti-nuclear and pro-Russian gas since the 80s) and >
2) the voters being trusted and having an actual ownership in the country so that their votes affect them directly and also having a say in how their country is run, because if whoever gets voted into power just does the opposite of what the voters want "for their own good", then you're not a democracy anymore, you're just a well functioning state (if that).
Other than Switzerland, and maybe Denmark, I don't know any democracies that constantly function well and aren't plagued with issues.
Populism is always a danger, but the current US administration is all about spite, no matter the cost. It is uniquely, outstandingly bad. Lots of places have working democracies that have managed to do long term planning.
Which is exactly why Orsted will now focus on European wind projects instead. American projects will have to be that more profitable/expensive in the future to compensate for the political risk. But I guess this is exactly the desired outcome for big oil, no outside competition.
Subsidies where needed 10 years ago, today the US and EU have to put massive tariffs on mass produced, cheap, superior EVs to keep their own ICE auto industry alive.
Just a nitpick - to make anything CO2 neutral, including planes, we need to remove the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as had been emitted during construction and usage of that thing (a plane or anything else). This is not happening any time soon.
The better name would be "Green" or "Eco-friendly" flight, because "CO2 zero" or "CO2 neutral" is impossible for us yet.
reply