Post #1527778

2026-04-14 16:44 UTC

That’s great and all, but not all batteries need lithium. When another battery technology gets mature enough to surpass lithium based batteries, then we’ll still be stuck on old tech cause the government is subsiding it. This also reduces the incentive for making more lithium efficient batteries. Subsidies can help, but they need to be more generalized so they don’t create issues moving past current tech. Heck, look at how much trouble we’re having getting past oil, that’s a perfect example.

Replies (3)

@AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2026-04-14 17:25

Under modern physics, Lithium is pretty much the best possible chemical to build batteries out of. Anything else that might be better won’t be a chemical battery, and it’s not like there’s any reason to suspect some new magic thing will be created like a pocket-size fusion reactor that will make chemical batteries totally obsolete any time soon. Decades more of lithium batteries being relevant are as close to guaranteed as can be.

Open ##1527777
@porcoesphino@mander.xyz 2026-04-14 17:53

Kickstarting new infrastructure is one place government money tends to work well. You can always phase out the subsidies and there is an argument that battery tech benefited from a feedback loop (used in phones until infra and tech was cheap enough for cars+) and something needs to kickstart that for their recycling, government stepping in to start that loop isn't uncommon or as terrible as you seem to be making it out

Open ##1745978
@porcoesphino@mander.xyz 2026-04-14 17:54

How is that the perfect example? Shouldn't it open up the question "why do these subsidies still exist and can we phase them out" not "subsidies are bad"?

Open ##1745979