MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
EU involved in talks with Argentina and Chile to ensure supplies of lithium
The European Union is working on agreements with Argentina and Chile with the purpose of increasing access to critical minerals such as lithium, essential for the batteries of electric automobiles and to comply with the EU's less carbon-intensive economy guidelines. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNo additional clauses will be added to this agreement, if agreed it will be signed off.
May 19th, 2023 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The EU plan to have all electric/battery powered cars (using current technology) requires more Lithium than is currently available on the world market.
Only now do they realise that.
S. America has a strong hand in these negotiations, which should not be wasted, nor should they try and overplay their hand.
Remember the Saudis got rich selling crude oil and used that money to build the infrastructure they wanted from there.
And just as oil becomes obsolete, the Saudis probably won’t sell all the oil they have in the ground, the same can happen to lithium.
If/when some bright spark invents a better than Lithium, Sodium/or other, battery (which they are working on), well every costal state can produce Sodium and in quantity, the Lithium becomes almost worthless.
To produce sodium in salt water doesn't really require much investment, just build small dams and wait for the sun to do its job.
May 21st, 2023 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0But to turn salt into energy, ten times more electricity is needed than the salt itself can give back.
Currently, we consider green hydrogen as the cheapest (yet still expensive) way to transform our planet's energy matrix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uFL0u2xPmw
If you just dry it out you have solid Sodium Chloride (common salt), not Sodium.
May 21st, 2023 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The point is once someone invents an efficient battery using Sodium compounds rather than Lithium compounds (which they are working on now), where Sodium is no more difficult to extract than Lithium but vastly more abundant, the Lithium loses its value.
Like oil in a Carbon free world.
I have not found evidence. Can you help me?
May 21st, 2023 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://sciworthy.com/could-sodium-replace-lithium-in-batteries/#:~:text=Scientists%20have%20studied%20sodium%20as,larger%20than%20a%20lithium%20ion.
May 22nd, 2023 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1‘Scientists have studied sodium as a possible replacement for lithium in rechargeable batteries. Sodium is an attractive candidate because it is found everywhere on earth’.
If not sodium, then something else, either way get what you can for the Lithium while it’s in demand, it may not last forever.
Also, in the past nobody bothered to look for Lithium because there was not much demand for it, now everybody is looking everywhere for it and they will find it.
New discoveries elsewhere will increase the world supply of Lithium and decrease the price of S. American Lithium.
‘Get what you can for the Lithium while it’s in demand, it may not last forever.
“Barack Obama’s Justice Department called this the “New York Times problem,” because if WikiLeaks and Assange were criminals for publishing classified information, the New York Times would be just as guilty.“
May 23rd, 2023 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that the Nixon administration could not prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War which came to be known as the Pentagon Papers.
In that case Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who helped develop the history, leaked it to reporters for the newspapers — that is, secret papers were stolen from the government to be made public.
The court found that the news media should not be prevented from publishing the stolen Vietnam history despite protests from government lawyers it could cause the nation great harm.
As Justice Hugo Black wrote in one of several concurring opinions: “The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791/q-could-u-s-prosecute-reporters-for-classified-scoops-a-maybe
https ://www.itv.com/watch/ithaka-the-fight-to-free-assange/10a4619
Thanks for the answer, Pugol-H.
May 24th, 2023 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.mercopress.com/2023/05/17/brazilian-court-rules-congressman-must-leave-his-seat-because-he-was-not-eligible/comments#comment526042
May 27th, 2023 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0“None of these supposed legal arguments have had any effect on events, so far”
‘That’s because they are not germane to extradition, or the British legal system.’
But they are germane, if valid, which they seem not to be, to the US legal system that issued the extradition warrant!
I repeat, again, ‘we will just have to wait until the trial (in the US) to see if the “free speech/fruit of the poison tree/ exclusionary rule/ parallel construction” defence has any effect there, they have had none so far.'
What do you suppose the odds are of Clever Julian being acquitted, when that happens???
Either way he has been in hiding/banged up since 2012 and he is not even on trial yet!
Ask him was it worth it?
“But they are germane, if valid, which they seem not to be, to the US legal system that issued the extradition warrant! ”
May 27th, 2023 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Give your head a shake, there has been no determination within US jurisdiction, since he is held in British custody.
The US jurisdiction has determined there is a case to answer and has issued an extradition warrant accordingly.
May 27th, 2023 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And in that determination, obviously, none of the supposed ‘legal arguments’ put forward here were deemed to be germane, or they wouldn’t have issued an extradition warrant, would they?
“US jurisdiction has determined.” It absolutely has not.
May 27th, 2023 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”jurisdiction
the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.
the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgements.”
”It is merely the Trump USDOJ plaintiff. That for the first time in history, is attempting apply extrajudicial charge, outside of its territorial jurisdiction.
Oh no, no a US court issued the extradition warrant, after a hearing where Clever Julian’s Lawyer was present and presenting his case.
May 28th, 2023 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where the overwhelming ‘legal arguments’ you claim, proved not to be overwhelming at all and they issued the extradition warrant anyway.
‘The US jurisdiction has determined there is a case to answer and has issued an extradition warrant accordingly.’
“ US court issued the extradition warrant, after a hearing where Julian’s Lawyer was present”
May 28th, 2023 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Arrest warrants issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
May 28th, 2023 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/assange-indictment.html
‘Barry J. Pollack, a lawyer for Mr. Assange, said his client was being charged with a crime “for encouraging sources to provide him truthful information and for publishing that information.” That dramatic step, he said, removed the “fig leaf” that the case about his client was only about hacking.’
“Arrest warrants issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. ”
May 28th, 2023 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After an ex parte hearing where Julian’s Lawyer WERE NOT present. In a court whose jurisdiction is limited to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Hence, application made by a Trump US DOJ. Which tells you everything you need to know about “fruit of the poisoned tree.”
Whereas,
“Barack Obama’s Justice Department called this the “New York Times problem,” because if Wikileaks and Assange were criminals for publishing classified information, the New York Times would be just as guilty.“
”In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that the Nixon administration could not prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War which came to be known as the Pentagon Papers.
In that case Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who helped develop the history, leaked it to reporters for the newspapers — that is, secret papers were stolen from the government to be made public.
The court found that the news media should not be prevented from publishing the stolen Vietnam history despite protests from government lawyers it could cause the nation great harm.
As Justice Hugo Black wrote in one of several concurring opinions: “The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521009791/q-could-u-s-prosecute-reporters-for-classified-scoops-a-maybe
https://thedissenter.org/an-interview-with-barry-pollack-julian/
May 28th, 2023 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘The following is a transcript of the interview with Barry Pollack, who is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's lawyer in the United States.’
‘GOSZTOLA: And you've, to some degree, represented him before the extradition request?
POLLACK: Yes, I've been part of his legal team for a number of years. He was already in the [Ecuador] embassy when I first started representing him. But I represented him for a number of years prior to the criminal charges or the extradition request having been made.’
Most interestingly he also said, ‘if they're not a U.S. citizen, not only can the U.S. pursue charges against them but that person has no defense under the First Amendment. It remains to be seen whether a U.S. court would accept that position,’
Like I said, ‘we will just have to wait until the trial (in the US) to see if the “free speech/fruit of the poison tree/ exclusionary rule/ parallel construction” defence has any effect there, they have had none so far.'
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!