'We don’t have enough' lithium globally to meet EV targets, mining CEO says
finance.yahoo.com
finance.yahoo.com
Over half of the worlds known lithium reserves (ie roughly measured) are undeveloped in places like Bolivia (with 21 million tonnes out of the known 89 million tonnes) and other not-USofA locations.
I stress known as that is distinct from "all" as it is restricted to those deposits that have been sufficiently exploration drilled to form an estimate.
> Projects get permitted [in Australia] in under a year,” Phillips explained. “Here, it's two, four, six, seven, eight years, which is a problem, especially in a business that's booming so fast.”
is, in my opinion, the crux of this article and interview. Phillips wants to mine more and faster within the US.
People with an interest might like to get a demo | account with:
Metals & Mining | S&P Global Market Intelligence
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...
If you contrast that with fossil fuels where we've had decades of very well funded research to identify new deposits of oil and gas, there are probably loads of unknown deposits of lithium.
Not one that Piedmont Lithium can benefit from, but those are the breaks sometimes.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/27/worlds-d...
The US is competing with China in lithium extraction in the region. Despite the US having better tech at lithium extraction, China is doing everything it can to gobble it all up by throwing money around.
140 wh/kg is comparable to the LFP batteries used in SR model 3s in Tesla, so that implies a 300 mile EV car with no lithium.
Yes it missed the 2022 date, but "planned production" is far better than "hey check out this research paper".
140 wh/kg should enable nearly all modes of day-to-day city and suburban driving. IMO that is a HUGE deal since that is a very large percentage of daily miles driven. I believe it is quite safe, having reduced safety/cooling like LFP which helps close the gap at pack level density with cobalt/nickel chemistries.
But ... we'll see. But 200 wh/kg LFP (which should be 300-400 mile range cars and SUVs) combined with sodium ion for the "lesser" packs should enable a true BEV revolution at least in consumer cars.
That would leave solid state / cobalt-nickel / sulfur for long distance trucking and other applications. Even if solid state makes it to market in the next couple years, I predict it will not be price competitive with Sodium Ion/LFP techs for quite a while after that. There will be plenty of buyers for practically all battery chemistries I would imagine.
Like all those batteries that Tesla and other companies installed for grid stabilization and load shifting?
Yeah, that's where it's going to be used.
Still perfectly suitable for grid storage and even certain vehicles.
Hope we get Sodium Sulphur batteries soon. They'll be like 10x cheaper per kwh than current tech.
Minor nitpick: they are still present in EVs as well.
Recycling is also not clear cut for many of the metals and minerals needed. It’s a big gap to meet and few want to mine.
I wonder what would be the unintended consequences of exposing the environment with higher concentration of lithium. (the thicker layer)
The intake from the environment would be micrograms/day, if not even less, above natural background. There are water sources with far higher natural concentrations.
Lithium presence in drinking water (from natural sources) has been linked to lower crimes rate, suicides rate, and is acting as a mood stabilizer.
But this is why anyone taking it has to have their lithium levels checked from time to time.
In more recent times, analysis of the water confirmed it was laced with lithium.
Don't know much about materials science but is demand for lead expected to equal demand for lithium?
This I never knew!
Is there really only 3Kgs of lithium in a Tesla battery pack?
I didn't think so - the full lead-acid battery itself weighs less than 10kg, and it appeared to me that about half of that weight was the solution (water).
Even if true, though, still very surprised that a ~550kg EV battery has less than 10kg of lithium.
> a single EV has roughly 10 kilograms—or 22 pounds—of lithium in it
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1391?op...
> The average battery contains between 16 to 21 pounds of lead
FWIW this might be particularly useful:
https://www.quora.com/Does-Teslas-70-kWh-battery-have-63-kg-...
> The original 70kWh Model S battery had 63kg of Lithium Carbonate Li2CO3. Often this was stated as the amount of lithium, which isn’t correct. Especially when people tried to compare it to the amount of known lithium available. While it’s typically sold as Lithium Carbonate, that’s not equivalent to the amount of Lithium available.
> There’s about 12kg of Lithium in 63kg of Lithium Carbonate, so that original 70kWh Model S battery had 12kg of Lithium. I don’t know how much it has today, but they’ve been improving the chemistry to use less materials like Cobalt and Lithium.
LRTs with overhead catenaries are electric vehicles without batteries. Let's build more of those.
People talk about electric cars versus trains but subsidized ebikes are something we can do now and would make a huge difference! Just the idea that I can ebike to the BART station, hop on the train and end up all over the bay, ebike where I need to go and get back all for a few dollars is exciting.
But I guess what I am saying is they are much more energy efficient than electric cars, and the infrastructure requirements are way simpler than trains.
By the way I just found the mode on Google Maps that highlights bike friendly roads and it is cool to explore.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8149208,-122.2338056,13.13z/...
You can read more about the long term plans to better support bike paths in the Bay Area on the Plan Bay Area 2050.
For example they are going to expand the bike path on the Bay Bridge that currently goes from Oakland to Treasure Island so that it connects all the way to San Francisco:
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/bicycle-pedestria...
I just thought all that was neat. Anyway you are totally right. I just think this stuff is simpler than trains to implement so it is important to consider, though I fully support trains too! A good plan should include both.
Also I am not saying we should leave this up to individuals. But for example we have seen huge subsidies for electric cars while subsidies for ebikes have been lacking, with some movement finally towards that direction. I'm in favor of government plans that emphasize the green value of ebikes in addition to trains and electric cars.
The so called free market needs to make it happen. If there's a lithium shortage, then mine more.
Planning to 'just mine more' of whatever and completely replace all of private transportation infrastructure sure sounds like another path to environmental disaster.
That's not to say we should drop EVs or anything like that. But we should at least think twice, especially when there are perfectly good alternatives.
Toll-free highways and roads. Mandated parking minimums. Free on-street parking. Zoning laws banning anything but single family houses cite increased traffic and parking demand "caused" by denser construction (but this exclusionary zoning itself increases demand for driving). If you hit someone with your car, stay at the scene, and are not drunk criminal liability will not attach. Driver's license and insurance requirements are kept low. The US Government finances moving to suburbs with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve buys mortgage backed securities. In many cities the majority of downtown land is roads and parking!
When you have lived your whole life in cities that are designed automobile first and automobile only, and public transit is either non-existent or still underfunded compared with cars, then you will ask for a car based solution. An individual can only choose between choices they know exist, based on the information they have access to.
Have you lived in areas without mandated minimum parking? I have and it is a nightmare I don't care to ever repeat. There are good reasons for such rules.
In a perfect idealized world with excellent public transit, there's no need for mandated minimum parking, I agree! But that perfect world mostly doesn't exist (maybe Manhattan, only some areas).
When there is no parking, but people absolutely must have their car to get to work to be able to survive, it is mayhem. Violent fights over parking with human and property damage, people circling for hours and hours all night trying to park, you can't leave your house to go to important things because you lose your spot, and so on.
The positive way to do it is to solve for public transit first, so that most people are happy to not have to have a car. Then parking becomes a moot point, no rules needed.
If you force people to have a car to exist in society and simultaneously force them to have no place to park, it is a disaster.
Should the market set the supply of parking, or should local government officials do it based on dogma? Right now most cities choose option two. Planning officials usually copy and paste traditional rules such as 1.4 parking spots per residential unit, or 1 parking spot per x square feet of store sales floor. These figures are set with the goal that parking is only maxed out a few days per year. This means there's lot of idle blacktop most days. Developers usually build the legal minimum amount of parking because the minimum number of spots is so high. Land used for low productivity use like parking comes at the opportunity cost of more affordable rent. When the price of something is set to $0, demand is without bound. People leave their cars parked on prime real estate instead of moving them to a garage a block away, store second and third vehicles, etc. Local authorities usually only charge for parking as a last resort. Time based limits are usually first implemented. Because 97% of parking is free people will drive around and around, or get there really early in hopes of finding a free spot. A significant proportion of downtown traffic is parking spot cruising.
Parking minimums can first be relaxed on streets well served by transit. When a new building is literally down the block from a station and a 1.4 parking spots per resident is mandated that's not a good use of scarce land. Developers won't build zero spots. Banks financing the project will have their own parking requirements.
Letting parking float at market price has the benefit of parking being easy. A city can set prices with the target of one open spot per block. If demand is low, let the price fall to $0. No more cruising around and around, risking a parking ticket, or trying to understand complex day and hour limits.
There is an good book on this (dry) subject. The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.
> Toll-free highways and roads.
> Free on-street parking.
Since when is this a subsidy? The only reason we pay taxes is so the government can provide us with useful infrastructure like this.
I'm not american by the way. Much of what you said simply doesn't apply to me. For example, I'm not sure we have mandated parking minimums. I wish we did.
> When you have lived your whole life in cities that are designed automobile first and automobile only, and public transit is either non-existent or still underfunded compared with cars
My city has plenty of collective transport options. There are so many nice air conditioned buses that they're a nuisance in traffic. We have a train station, an airport.
I still prefer cars. Not because of environmental efficiency but because they're convenient and they allow me to be independent. I don't have to depend on some other transport service's schedule. I don't have to sit around waiting for the bus to arrive. I don't have to be around other people. I don't have to wait until the vehicle makes countless stops in places that have nothing to do with me. I just get in my car and go wherever I need to go.
> An individual can only choose between choices they know exist, based on the information they have access to.
I have the information and I'm perfectly capable of choosing. Even if we had amazing japanese style trains crossing every city in my country I'd still prefer a car for local transportation.
"Mine more" has a definite end-point as eventually you can't just mine more. While it's good to be using solar and getting off of oil/gas powered grids, these also have fairly significant drawbacks (those panels need to be replaced and something needs to be done with the waste, recycling is currently far more expensive than just dumping them, there are chemicals in solar panels you need to consider, and removing them in a way to keep them usable for recycling requires someone not a lay-person).
The reason people are pushing for a change in how we approach transportation and living centers is because the changes aren't mutually exclusive with having a vehicle dedicated to yourself, but it does mean changes to how living centers are designed currently. If self-driving can take off, very likely most people could do without having their own car and would be served very well by a "call on demand" vehicle that is frequently serviced and cleaned in between rides. If a dirty one or one in disrepair shows up, mark it as such and another is there in a few minutes (heck, probably the service could see this before it ever gets to you and route such vehicles for service). This would work for a large number of persons in living centers, and for the few who really need a vehicle for "other" reasons, they can still get a car.
Further, make incentives for more walkable/convenient living centers. Better stocked markets on all corners (sorry bodegas in their current form don't cut it in their current form, but they're the right idea), grocery and health item deliveries, better public transit routes, it can work while accommodating those with a need for their own transportation.
For most healthy persons, not owning a car could easily be a possibility. When I lived in Russia of all places, I didn't own a car for 6 years and as an able bodied person, it was quite doable. Taxi when I needed to get somewhere fast and on-time with some stuff to carry, public transit if it's just me as the transit was there within a few minutes, grocery delivery handled most of my needs, and that which I couldn't order on groceries there were well-stocked markets within a minute or two.
For those who need additional assistance for day to day activities, yes they must be accommodated for and car ownership makes sense there; it's not persons who need additional assistance that are targeted, it's everyone else that really could live very comfortably without having to maintain a car that should be.
If the free market needs to be invoked, then so be it, let the market figure out how to build businesses that deliver groceries/food/household goods, let them figure out public transport services, bike rentals, and so on...though as I see it we already have the systems for this.
The technology and infrastructure is there for most of this vision, now it's about adaptation and adjustment. It's quite doable.
Point is if you want to get hyper asperger’s about it, you can, but it’s not necessary to have done so because there is implicit information here, and besides, your final claim (density is what matters) ended up being incorrect, because holding you to the same standard that you hold others, you didn’t state all the implicit information.
Knowing that Singapore has a large enough population as we do know because it is well known as a large city-state, we can infer the density from that information combined with the small size. But density is not all that matters.
Good thing we can't just decide things like that, right?
France has buses that quick charge at every second stop with batteries size of Tesla (70 kwh IIRC).
always this ignorant in every thread like that. most people dont live in huge city centers where public transportation is abundant.
We have the world's biggest "defense" budget by some margin, but we can't improve our infrastructure?
>> So it is basically like minting money right now. There’s like software margins in lithium processing right now. So I would really like to encourage, once again, entrepreneurs to enter the lithium refining business. You can’t lose. It’s a license to print money.
https://electrek.co/2022/09/09/tesla-license-to-print-money-...
"The Biden administration, for instance, aims to cut sales of ICE vehicles to 50% of all new purchases by 2030, to which the source says “Yes, we’ll [eventually] have enough, but not by that time,”"
This article is all over the place. It immediately undermines the title for a few paragraphs and ends with the buried real story, where it seems like the real complaint is that US lithium project permitting takes too long and that Australia is faster. Journalism can go take a long walk off a short pier.
The issue, for now, with lithium from seawater is the cost of the extraction techniques at scale - the economic feasibility isn't there for now.
> Although multiple groups of researchers have devised ways to harvest lithium from the ocean, none of the methods are currently practical. “It’s technically possible to extract lithium from seawater,”
although:
> Still, the biggest challenge in devising a practical system for extracting lithium from the ocean is the metal’s ultralow concentration in seawater. There are many sources of salt-enriched water with high lithium concentrations, including salty lakes, brine used in geothermal power plants, and brackish water generated from oil and gas production. Some researchers have started to look at those sources as a more practical starting point than ocean water. “If the lithium concentration starts out 10–100 times higher, then electrochemical systems could be economically feasible,” Cui says.
[0] https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/Can-seawat...
The number of compounding innovations likely to take place between now and then is certainly a lot based on historical precedent, and I think it's bonkers to not factor that in.
If scarcity is really that much of an issue, even a less efficient chemistry could supplant lithium. But a more likely outcome is we'll use something novel that we can't foresee from this moment in time. And the future science journalists will write about how we don't have enough of that either.
That didn't exist anywhere near to that degree in 1980. You're also talking about a tech that was very early in its growth/learning curve. We have had many irons in this fire for a very long time, we have seen continuous incremental improvements, and I expect that to continue. Obviously lithium based chemistries are very well known and studied, and I expect them to hang around a very long time.
But 28 years is an eternity in these circles, and if lithium scarcity becomes a big issue, yes I do expect that we'll invest a lot of research and money into finding workable alternatives.
Aluminum is cheaper than copper today. Don't you think, if it would be viable solution to use aluminum instead of copper, it would have already happened?
Even if we'd need it, batteries are the single worst way to do it with current tech :D
Hydrogen-powered vehicles are much, much lighter than battery-driven, so consume less energy in operation. Balanced against that, electrolysing hydrogen has some losses, and braking doesn't regenerate hydrogen you used.
«In 2016, studies found that the cost of a typical EV battery replacement could reach $10,000 or more» (from Autoweek).
Probably future decreases will come from better power density, requiring less physical material for a given capacity, as demand for materials soars. It is remarkable how little lithium there is in a typical Tesla.
A decade later, replacement pack for that car still runs you ~$20k, which makes model S cars disposable when they roll off the subsidized warranty.
What Tesla charges to replace batteries is a whole other matter. They charge what they think they can get.
Storing it as a comnpressed gas just plain sucks. (Ask NASA and Boeing about that.)
It's not even slightly viable unless you get the sweet Toyota $15k credit for hydrogen.
In my country there are exactly 0 hydrogen refuelling stations, I'd need to grab my passport to go refuel =) There are 4 L3 quick chargers 5 minutes away. 4 more 10 minutes away. And I can charge where I park.
Nowadays it mostly seems to be people who, for some reason, hate battery electric vehicles and are pointing at the "coming soon" hydrogen vehicles as a reason why they still use an ICE.
Even though a hydrogen powered vehicle IS an EV except that ~80% of the battery is replaced with hydrogen tanks and a fuel cell...
(Yes, Toyota has a prototype car that can run on straight-up hydrogen for like 10 miles at a time)
From about 1917 in Arabia in the classic movie Lawrence of Arabia, a newsman talking to the prince:
"You want your story told, and I desperately want a story to tell."
Gee, there may not be enough plastic for everyone to have their own Hula Hoop.