 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
The stark and hauntingly beautiful, as well as remote, Salar de Uyuni in the Altiplano of Bolivia. The salt pans occasionally flood, creating a vast, but shallow lake, that quickly evaporates leaving behind the mineral deposits rich in lithium carbonate, the key ingredient in lithium-ion batteries. Image courtesy of Photos of Bolivia. |
The debate on the future availability of lithium appears far from settled.
Open Access Article Originally Published: May 22, 2008
A recent controversy has arisen around the availability of lithium for the apparently irreversible transition to electric propulsion in the global automobile industry.
Beginning January 2007, that is since William Tahil´s white paper “The Trouble with Lithium” was first placed on the web, a growing number of analysts began to conjecture about the real possibility of substituting oil in car transport. Tahil´s main contention was that LiIon batteries – that is, state-of-the-world battery technology at the time - may not be sustainable for Electric Vehicle (EV) applications and that it was crucial to turn instead to ZnAir and Zebra NaNiCl / NaFeCl battery technologies to meet “the urgent need to reduce the consumption of oil immediately at all costs or face the consequences of a meltdown in civilization”.
Notwithstanding Tahil´s persuasive arguments, in the last 15 months or so practically all global vehicle producers as well as start-up smaller firms have continued to incorporate lithium into their plans to developing the best battery technology to power the plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars of the near future, and little has been reported in terms of major advances of the two batteries mentioned by Tahil. According to a recent story on News Trends, published from Russia, Toyota Corporation appears to be, in fact, interested in developing Zinc Air batteries for use in hybrid technology, but implementation of this project may have to wait until 2020.
From a different vein, Keith Evans in his March 2008 article “Lithium in Abundance”, also disseminated through the web, has argued that “concerns regarding lithium availability for hybrid or electric vehicle batteries or other foreseeable applications are unfounded”. This is based on his report that “lists a total of 28.5 million tonnes of lithium equivalent to nearly 150 million of tonnes of lithium carbonate – equal to 1775 years of supply at the current rate of demand (approximately 16,000 tpa Li). Lithium in pegmatites, continental brines, geothermal brines, oilfield brines and hectorites total 7.6 million, 17.7 million, 0.3 million, 0.75 million and 2.0 million tonnes respectively”.
In his comment on Evans´ article, Tahil has argued that “claiming 30M tonnes of lithium is exactly the same as claiming trillions of barrels of oil in shales and tar sands. It is irrelevant”.
Furthermore, these numbers are not consistent with a rather more updated, detailed and documented account of geological reserves of lithium included in a 2004 specialized book (See Donald E. Garrett, “Handbook of Lithium and Natural Calcium Chloride”, Academic Press, 2004 – I am indebted to William Tahil for this reference) which concludes that there are only around 14,7 million tonnes of lithium in brine deposits and around 1,6 million tonnes of the metal in ore deposits, totalling 16,3 million tonnes of lithium in the world. Interestingly enough, both Evans´ and Garrett´s estimates of lithium reserves in the Salar of Atacama (Chile), where most world production comes from nowadays, are considerably larger than the figures that the U.S. Geological Service has been reporting for the last 15 years or so, showing that as production takes off, reserves tend to increase because production operators both become more knowledgeable of the existing reserves and face more incentives to explore new fields. In addition, following the U.S. Geological Service, the current world demand for lithium is not 16,000 tpa, but 25,000 tpa.
This evidence appears to give more support to Tahil than to Evans. However, there are at least two caveats in Tahil´s approach.
First, substitution of the global automotive parc will take some time. For one thing, Clean Air Acts signed in 14 states of the U.S. are not as ambitious. It will take years before the complete fleet of new cars put into the market is replaced by some sort of lithium-powered electric vehicles. For another, high oil prices are an incentive to look for new alternative sources of energy. So lithium will not be alone in this race. Alternative sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, compressed air, etc. energy will also prevent a “once-and-for-all” adoption of lithium batteries. In this connection, a transition to electric propulsion will most likely take place gradually during the next 20 years or so.
Within this time frame, lithium reserves are likely to augment not only because some new (untapped) fields (e.g. Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia) will be put into production, but also due to high lithium prices resulting from an ever-increasing demand for the metal. Efforts made by Project Better Place, for instance, to completely electrify both Israel´s and Denmark´s new automotive parcs by 2011 or 2012 or even Nissan´s announcement to introduce electric cars into the US market in 2010 are only an indication of what lies ahead in the near future but not necessarily a clear signal of an inmmediate interruption of oil demand in favor of lithium. Besides, not all major car producers will be engaged in an all-electric endeavour; indeed, most of them, including General Motors, are pointing to plug-in hybrids whose demand for lithium is most likely to be relatively smaller than that of electric cars. Somewhat surprisingly, according to Nissan Motor Co. Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn, even the EVs to be produced by this global car manufacturer “will always have the possibility of having a range extender”, namely “a gas-powered engine that recharges the battery and keeps the vehicle moving after the initial plug-in charge expires” (See Nissan May Offer 'Range-Extended Electric Car, WSJ, 16 March 2008). So concerns about unavailability of lithium for the transition to electric propulsion at this point seem a little odd.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 12771 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
13 comments so far...
01-Oct-2008
64117
| |
Recycling of End of Life batteries is an excellent way to reduce depletion of natural resources. Li-ion batteries can easily be recycled. Also Li can be extracted from used batteries, giving Li a second life.
Posted by: Jan Tytgat
|
|
22-May-2008
61813
| |
I suspect special interests are behind the shortage of lithium argument. There is one mining company in Nevada with anywhere between 25 billion to 45 billion pounds of lithium carbonate alone. They figure it can be commercially mined. Chile, China and Argentina also have vast lithium reserves. Not to mention lithium salts are recoverable from some geothermal operations. The idea being to remove the lithium from some of the geothermal brines. Geothermal huh? An endless supply of lithium is potentially available. Methinks the big oil crowd and the SUV makers were intensely focused on preventing the emergence of alternate energy automobiles.
Posted by: k swib
|
|
23-May-2008
61816
| |
My, what a straw man we have here (not this article's author, who I respect, but the original paper's logical fallacy and rhetoric).
Both articles referenced in the article as well as the author completely miss the point. There is no controversy or debate. While oil is an energy source, lithium is an energy carrier. No substitution occurs at all. The carrier is source independent, so that you could use crude oil to make electricity if you wanted in order to have a completely oil fueled all electric car, if you wanted.
When ground oil (or one of its products) is burned to power a car however, that oil goes away forever as unused CO2, heat and other undesirable, and the replenishment time is in geologic time (millions of years, as opposed to almost immediate for non-crop biofuels). When a rechargeable battery changes its stored energy to motive power, however, the battery is not lost forever. It can be recharged (thus, a carrier, not a source). At worst, it loses a little of its carrying capacity until after many, many, many years it can be used as a low storage level power smoother for utility companies or can be recycled.
I'm worried about the opposite issue, that we won't be using enough lithium fast enough to encourage the most massive exploration and development efforts possible for supply to meet expected future demand growth, exploration and development that will drive prices down further as supply continues to exceed demand, my preference as a skinflint consumer.
Instead of substitution, it may be more helpful to think of lithium as one of many potential ingredients in many possible carrier/source mix configurations. It provides everyone with more choices. As production and use of lithium expands and prices change and to meet different market preferences (we do currently have more than one automobile configuration (i.e. model), right?), manufacturers can produce different configurations that use more or less lithium.
As in most topics, this isn't a giant on/off switch. Details matter. The detail that matters here is that more options is always a good thing for eveyone. Lithium use in batteries for automobiles expands the options' Lithium will set its own prices, supply and demand, greater than zero and less than infinity.
You can still buy a buggy whip, you know. And they aren't that expensive. That doesn't mean they are always the best tool to accomplish acceleration, though sometimes they are.
Posted by: another economist
|
|
28-May-2008
61917
| |
Interesting how the doomsayers have a negative vision for each and every potential solution to our energy future - methane hydrates won't work, there's not enough lithium, heavy oil is economically unfeasible, ethanol from algae is a fantasy. Their insatiable lust for a return to a pre-industrial, agrarian society (ruled in comfort, of course, by those elitists who "saw it coming") forbids even the intellectual consideration of new technologies or energy sources.
Posted by: Tom E
|
|
30-May-2008
61963
| |
Can anyone explain how invasive the extraction of lithium is? I'm not too familiar with the process, but would venture to guess that it will cause permanent harm to one of the most spectacular places on the planet. The Salar de Uyuni should be preserved, like any other truly amazing natural wonder.
Exploiting lithium reserves is just going to upset the balance of the ecosystem and create new problems that the next generation is going to have to solve. Why can't we just do it right this time and use renewable resources? The whole point of switching over to EVs in the first place is to save the environment and free ourselves from dependence on foreign resources.
And sadly, I think the Bolivian government is probably not well prepared for this undertaking and I don't see the future profits from this venture going to bettering the lives of Bolivians - some of the poorest people in the world.
Posted by: concerned consumer
|
|
23-May-2008
61824
| |
First, I would encourage “another economist” to identify himself or herself. Second, of course there is a controversy or debate. It pertains to whether there is (or will be) enough lithium in the world to facilitate the transition to electric propulsion in the global automotive industry. Third, while I am grateful for the distinction betwen energy source and energy carrier, I don´t really see how this adds anything to the analysis. Fourth, unless “another economist” is not aware of the news, as time goes by, not only more and more global car manufacturers are planning to use lithium as an alternative source of energy to power electric vehicles but also they are investing billions of dollars to do so. So if this process is carried out further –which I certainly believe it will- it appears like lithium will eventually substitute oil to power an important part of the new automotive parc in the world. This will encourage lithium producers (both current and future), to expand their exploration, development and production plans, which could drive lithium prices down to the benefit of consumers. Finally, of course I agree that we should expect different configurations that use more or less lithium; I did precisely suggest this in my analysis.
Posted by: Juan Carlos Zuleta Calderón
|
|
23-May-2008
61831
| |
Potential Lithium shortfall is yet another reason to favor plug-in hybrids instead of pure electrics; they use three times less of it. Plug-in vehicles like the Volt, the Volvo C30 or the Plug-in Prius simply make better use of the various available resources.
Posted by: Patrick Leonard
|
|
23-May-2008
61833
| |
The value in the extremely plentiful lithium is that it is actually used to supply electrical energy for travel. Fuel stingy vehicles like the Prius offer small encouragement for people to plugin. Those who can afford a $40,000 Volt can afford to not bother plugging in, especially at 60 mpg. The Volt is a waste of good battery power, sufficient for 3 Series HEV's with triple the fuel economy of the ICEV.
The Aptera gets 120 miles range, triple the Volt's , with a much smaller 10 kwh battery pack. The future is very clear, series HEV's for highway travel and cargo. Ultralight BEV's for cities. Vehicles that provide inexpensive travel to the population that needs them most, who can't afford a $40,000 vehicle and can't afford to travel with $6 per gallon gas in a 15 mpg land yacht.
Patrick, we’re rapidly approaching a crisis, the PHEV is too little, too late. A crash program to put simple, cheap, lightweight BEV’s on the road could help a lot, otherwise vehicle and air travel will become a luxury that only the fairly wealthy can afford. See:
There may not be enough Oil says the IEA
'...A leading global energy monitor fears there may not be enough oil out there to slake the world's thirst -- and is preparing a landmark forecast that could reverberate through the global economy even as major companies announce fuel-related cutbacks. …’’
‘’…The International Energy Agency is studying depletion rates at about 400 oil fields in a first-of-its-kind study of world oil supply, chief economist Fatih Birol said. …’’
‘’…'We are entering a new world energy order, ' Birol told The Associated Press…’’
Posted by: Warren Heath
|
|
23-May-2008
61835
| |
Lithium doesn't cost that much. You can always get it from sea water. Even if its price doubled or tripled it would only increase the cost of the battery by a small amount. Next issue please!
Posted by: david burgdorff
|
|
23-May-2008
61837
| |
The article is good news. If we all buy vehicles that contain lithium, they might increase in value over time. When lithium matches the price of gold we can sell them, buy hummers instead, and retire on the difference.
Posted by: Tom King
|
|
23-May-2008
61846
| |
I have been an electrical engineer for the better part of the past 35 years. The issue of lithium reserves is a moot point. The fellow who claimed batteries are carriers is spot on. In fact, it is really more of a black box.
A battery provides a charge that is connected to the vehicle's drive control circuitry presumably via something as simple as an ordinary plug. What is inside that black box is irrelevant save for the charge it delivers through its interface (or plug.)
For now, what is inside that black box might consist of some variation of lithium chemistry. In the future, perhaps zinc-based chemistry or something yet to be discovered. Maybe even some sort of implementation of that popular holy grail - the hydrogen fuel cell.
As long as the battery fits the form factor and the interface remains consistent, why are we even having this discussion?
Posted by: Bob S
|
|
24-May-2008
61859
| |
Bob S., I agree with your comments – ‘black box’ et al. As for ‘zinc-based chemistry or something yet to be discovered’, here is a pertinent example.
A Sept 9, 2007 article in Nature, ‘A multifunctional 3.5 V Iron-based Phosphate Cathode for Rechargeable Batteries’, reports on the potential of sodium/lithium iron phosphate, A2FePO4F (A=Na, Li) to increase energy storage and life cycle capability compared to LiFePO4, one of two candidate chemistries for GM’s Volt.
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n10/abs/nmat2007.html
For those who do not subscribe to Nature, here is blog that discusses this article.
http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007/10/sodium-ion-batteries.html
Posted by: Northern Piker
|
|
25-May-2008
61866
| |
The amount of available lithium depends somewhat on the price of lithium carbonate. At current prices world lithium demand-supply is pretty much in balance. Some of even the well known proposed developments are not economic now. But these and many of the spodumene and other mineral resources do become economic at higher prices.
TRU has undertaken long range 2020 lithium supply-demand market forecasts. The project was a major assessment employing our team of lithium supply side and demand side experts. The supply analysis was in detail for both brine and minerals [mainly spodumene]. The demand side analysis included lithium consumption in batteries, lubricants, glass / glazing / ceramics, air conditioning, pharmaceuticals, polymers, metal alloy, and other applications. The outlook included demand in electric vehicles [including a detailed examination of EV and HEV, PHEV, PEV battery technology innovation and the readiness of lithium cell technology for this application]. To our knowledge the study is the only authoritative long range lithium supply-demand analysis available. You can find more information on the website –
http://trugroup.com/Lithium-Battery.html
The Salar de Uyuni lithium brine resource appears large but it is tricky and challenging to harvest. The lithium brine is likely to be processed into lithium carbonate. TRU cautions that a well orchestrated development program is required or the resource could be damaged - perhaps seriously. More information is at our website-
http://trugroup.com/Uyuni-lithium.html
TRU Group Inc
Posted by: Edward Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
