As an inorganic chemist by academic training, I am personally pleased by this. As a radio amateur and professional, it is great to see this work acknowledged for its broad impact, including spurring telecom to, by, and for all. From Chemical & Engineering News: https://cen.acs.org/people/nobel-pr...oN5ni0sd-qeNrMhSek8jGWZaXgd5f4Kfvtic6YtoqNcB8
The lithium ion battery has literally brought a county in Nevada, Esmeralda, back from the dead. Around 1905 gold was discovered 25 miles south of the silver lode at Tonopah. The site would become Goldfield, which was briefly a city of 30,000 people, with an ornate movie theater and a fine hotel. The gold ran out a few years later, and Goldfield and its satellite camps were largely abandoned and, after the enactment of Prohibition, taken over by moonshiners. A moonshine still blew up in Goldfield in 1923, during a windstorm. The result was that there would be no second act for Goldfield as there was for Virginia City. Lithium was discovered decades ago up in the hills in the center of the county, but was little more than a geologic curiosity-until Tesla selected Fernley for its battery Gigafactory due to the "Nivloc Deposit" as it's known. Now the county is full of miners again.
Note the OP reference to 'chemical --and-- engineering...' This is important work. But is it SCIENCE? This year's Nobel in chemistry seems to blur the line between technology and basic science. As someone who works in battery innovation, my feeling is that this should have been a KAVLI prize (actually has a higher payout) but not a Nobel-- BECAUSE the Nobel is intended for basic science. Your opinion may differ--and that's ok, so no haters please
No hate here, Chip. It's a valid point. This is an interesting pick for several reasons--the earliest work is as old as I am. I suspect most of the pure science was done well before the first 1991 commercialization, and was focused on the task of taming lithium and lithium compounds for the purpose. The lapse of time has allowed for a great deal of subsequent engineering activity. which has proved the value of the underlying work.
Since the inception of the Nobel Prize, this has been an eternal cause for argument. One may just recall the turmoil that was caused by awarding the 1909 physics Prize to Braun and Marconi, or the awarding of the 1912 Prize to Gustaf Dalén... 73/ Karl-Arne SM0AOM
At some point soon it will be cheaper to extract lithium from sea water than to mine it. The good news is we won't run out of lithium
Back in the Bush I presidency, I heard a speech by a fellow who'd been an Undersectary of Commerce under Reagan and Bush I. He talked about existence of some amazing technology that was being held back by fears surrounding patents. While American firms had developed these basic technologies, Japanese firms were poised to pounce on them and file patents for all imaginable uses of the technology as soon as the basic patent was applied for. One of the technologies he mentioned was a rechargeable battery that could store enough energy to power a car. I've long since speculated that he was talking about Lithium batteries. Apparently, the patent issues were assuaged in this case. I don't recall the third miracle tech he mentioned, but #2 was room temperature superconductors.