Just because you state your opinion confidently, does not mean you are correct. For example, as of 2024, there are 30 billion kilograms of proven reserves of lithium, more than enough to replace every single one of the 1.5 billion ICE cars in the world with an electric car. Please focus more on getting the facts right, and less on speculating about the character of other commenters in an overemotional manner.

> Na is 30x the volatility of Li.

Elemental sodium is reactive. Ionic sodium is not, lest you blow up your dinner. Furthermore, the lithium part of a Li-ion battery isn't the flammable part, the electrolyte is.

> If you want to replace FF there is exactly one solution, that's nuclear.

You're proposing to... replace vehicular internal combustion engines with nuclear reactors?

> Stop acting like you care about this issue. You have never cared enough to learn about it, so until you do, stop spreading misinformation about how physics works.

It's wild for you, in particular, to take such a weirdly aggressive stance here. Zero basis in reality, just virtue signaling.

> Just like you (at the moment) are acting like you don't care if people die in fires.

There is nothing in my comment that could possibly be interpreted as meaning I don't care about people dying in fires.

> If you want to replace FF there is exactly one solution, that's nuclear.

We're talking about batteries, so I'm not sure how this is relevant unless you want reactors in cars?

> Stop acting like you care about this issue. You have never cared enough to learn about it, so until you do, stop spreading misinformation about how physics works.

I made a single, sourced, claim in my comment and didn't mention physics once?

> Too bad there isn't enough Li for everyone to have one.

Could this be why companies are looking at alternatives? Either way, this claim really should be provided with a source.

Sodium ion batteries seem roughly as fire prone as LFP - which is to say, no particularly?

What are you going on about?