I suggest Ryan Sistad of Better in Our Back Yard re-read my column. Sistad’s “ Mining opponents refuse to accept we need more mining ,” on Feb. 8, was in response to my Jan. 25 “Local View,” “ Minnesota-mined nickel is not the future of electric-vehicle batteries .”

Sistad seemed to forget that since Talon Metals could not possibly produce nickel until the 2030s, the so-called “Tesla agreement” is null and void. There is no point discussing it.

Further, USGS survey data indicate that only 0.6% of the global supply of nickel comes from the U.S., while U.S. reserves are only 0.375% of worldwide reserves. Even at 2022 demand, more than 90% of nickel for electric-vehicle batteries must be imported. Sistad’s column seemed to advocate for more Chinese imports.

Non-nickel materials used in new battery chemistries — such as sulfur, iron, and sodium (for new sodium batteries) — have a fully U.S. supply chain and cost 300 times less than nickel.

Since Chinese patent rights for non-nickel LFP (lithium iron and phosphate) batteries expired in 2022, we see many major announcements for new U.S. LFP gigafactories in the news. American Battery Factory announced in December it would build its first LFP gigafactory in Tucson, Arizona. In October, the manufacturing company ICL received a $200 million U.S. Department of Energy grant to build an LFP cathode material factory at its St. Louis site. And Gotion's new Michigan factory is expected to produce LFP batteries as well.

Sistad’s column was both misinformed and without consideration of all facts. Nickel will not be needed for electric vehicles in the 2030s when Talon might be mining. And indeed, we also know that no high-sulfide nickel mine exists in a wet area that has not been shown to pollute the environment.

Lynn Anderson

Round Lake and Tamarack, Minnesota

The writer is a volunteer for the Tamarack Water Alliance.