Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage 79 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Last summer, I questioned whether global lithium supplies would be adequate to satisfy exponential growth in the Li-ion battery sector. I raised the question because of a 2006 report, “The Trouble with Lithium” written by William Tahil of Meridian International Research, which concluded that world lithium reserves were not sufficient to sustain EV manufacturing using Li-ion batteries and suggested that Zinc-Air and NaNiCl batteries might be better choices. Commenters responded by citing a 2008 report, “Lithium Abundance – World Lithium Reserve” and a follow-on report “An Abundance of Lithium” written by R. Keith Evans, both of which appear to have been commissioned by someone in the Li-ion battery industry in an effort to first question Tahil’s findings and then portray him an ignorant conspiracy theorist who should be ignored. To quote Shakespeare, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
Since this was obviously a hot button issue and I didn’t have enough facts to argue with people who might be better informed, it seemed prudent to back off on the lithium supply question until I knew more. On January 7th, a new Seeking Alpha article, “Jack Lifton: The Technology Metals Age” was brought to my attention by Paul Killinger, a fellow Seeking Alpha author. Since the Lifton interview confirmed one of my worst suspicions about global lithium supplies, I’m going to reopen the lithium supply issue and take a closer look.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has complex rules and disclosure requirements for companies that engage in extractive industries. The purpose of the rules is to keep companies from exaggerating their potential by focusing on resource quantities without analyzing the underlying economics. A lawyer friend from Houston likes to remind me that there’s a metric ton of gold in every cubic mile of seawater; the problem is that nobody’s found an economic way to produce it. I ran into a more typical case in the early ‘80s when a client discovered a big high-grade gold deposit and came to me for help with financing. By the time the engineers were done with their preliminary analysis, it was clear that the gold couldn’t be extracted from the ore without releasing huge quantities of arsenic. That made the deposit and its millions of ounces of known gold resources worthless.
While an in-depth discussion of the SEC’s natural resource regulations would be impossible in a Seeking Alpha article, there are two touchstone regulatory definitions that I think every investor in a battery company needs to understand. The following definitions were taken from revised oil and gas accounting rules that the SEC adopted on December 31, 2008. While the definitions are couched in terms of oil and gas operations, the overriding principles apply to all natural resource extraction activities.
Resources. Resources are quantities of oil and gas estimated to exist in naturally occurring accumulations. A portion of the resources may be estimated to be recoverable, and another portion may be considered to be unrecoverable. Resources include both discovered and undiscovered accumulations.
Reserves. Reserves are estimated remaining quantities of oil and gas and related substances anticipated to be economically producible, as of a given date, by application of development projects to known accumulations. In addition, there must exist, or there must be a reasonable expectation that there will exist, the legal right to produce or a revenue interest in the production, installed means of delivering oil and gas or related substances to market, and all permits and financing required to implement the project.
My initial response when I read the Tahil report was that the author was evaluating global lithium supplies from a reserves perspective. He focused on where the principal sources for the raw materials currently used in Li-ion batteries were and what the future development potential of those sources was. His discussion concentrated on the economics of lithium production and the ability of proven resources to support increased demand. His outlook was not favorable for the widespread use of Li-ion batteries in EVs, but he offered reasonable alternatives that were not resource constrained. Overall the report struck me as balanced.
My initial response when I read the Evans reports was that the author was evaluating global lithium supplies from a resource perspective. In fact, the author said so in his introduction, “we did not feel constrained by the strict definition of reserves favored by the USGS and Bureau of Mines.” I was also troubled by a subsequent paragraph that said:
The technology of producing carbonate from spodumene is well understood and it is this writer’s opinion that should demand grow at anything approaching the demand scenario postulated by Tahil, spodumene sources will be reactivated or developed. It will probably need somewhat higher prices to justify the necessary investments but it should be noted that a significant percentage of Chinese chemical production is currently from spodumene.
I am gravely concerned when Li-ion battery executives use a report that would not pass muster with the SEC as proof that their companies don’t face any supply issues, particularly when the report acknowledges that price increases will be required to justify the resumption of mining and processing of alternative resources.
After reading the two conflicting reports, the nagging question lurking in the back of my mind was simple: “How much will lithium prices need to rise to justify development of the spodumene resources that Evans wrote about?”
Lithium is the lightest metal known to man and No. 3 on the Periodic Table of Elements, which means it reacts with water and combines with other elements the same way hydrogen, sodium and potassium do. The lithium salts currently used in Li-ion batteries only require simple separation and processing before they can be used in a battery. Spodumene, on the other hand is a stable lithium aluminum silicate ore that has to be mined, milled, refined and then converted into an entirely different class of compound before it can be used. While simple logic tells me that using a salt in its native form is far cheaper than a multi-step process that converts a silicate ore to a salt and then uses the salt, I don’t have enough of a mineral processing background to judge whether the cost differential is trivial or major. I’ve spent several months looking for an answer and finally found one in the Jack Lifton interview:
As for Ford (F), I thought it was committed to the lithium battery. I was very, very surprised to find that it’s committed to the nickel metal hydride battery and that the lithium battery is something in the distant future. Now lithium is found as a primary material but it’s found in the mineral spodumene, which is used primarily in the glass industry. It’s very expensive to extract lithium from this mineral for use in batteries. Since 1994, brine mines have been the largest source of lithium for batteries. The largest group of brine mines in the world is in South America. (Emphasis added.)
Another fascinating aspect of the Lifton interview is his discussion of resource availability for lanthanum and other key metals used in Ni-MH batteries. Overall, I think the Lifton interview presents a very troubling look at issues that are far to quickly glossed-over by both Li-ion and Ni-MH battery advocates.
In a recent Seeking Alpha article, I discussed long-term trends in global oil prices and suggested that while I was not qualified to venture an opinion on “peak oil,” the trend struck me as compelling evidence that the world passed a “peak cheap oil” inflection point about 10 years ago. After reading the Lifton interview, I wonder whether we haven’t also passed “peak cheap Li-ion” and “peak cheap Ni-MH” inflection points.
If Mr. Lifton’s description of the cost of producing lithium from spodumene is even close to accurate, the happy talk about future “economies of scale” that we hear from Li-ion executives is not entirely honest. They’re talking about unicorns and supporting their position with a report that would not pass muster with the SEC. While I was willing to remain quiet about raw material supply issues in the past, I think I smell smoke. I believe these resource issues need to be studied in depth by independent experts before we follow the yellow brick road over the edge of a cliff.
I’m a believer in the upside potential of companies like Exide (XIDE), Enersys (ENS), C&D Technologies (CHP) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) because they use plentiful domestic raw materials to make inexpensive products. In light of the Lifton interview, I think companies like Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) and Ener1 (HEV) may face raw material supply risks that investors don’t fully understand. I’m not as concerned about China BAK (CBAK), Advanced Battery Technologies (ABAT), Hong Kong Highpower (HPJ) and Valence Technology (VLNC) because China also has significant lithium salt deposits. However, I think pigs will fly before we see China exporting raw materials to the U.S.
Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International, recently bought small long positions in Exide and Enersys and may make other energy storage investments in the future.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 79 comments:
www.reopen911.org/ReOp...
I honestly don't know what the answer is but I sure would like to see a top level report from a global engineering firm that lays out proved and probable reserves along with solid data for exploration, development, mining and refining costs.
It would be good to get actual numbers on the cost of extracting lithium from spodumene other than that just one source claiming "very expensive".
Personally, I'm still looking at velomobiles (human-powered vehicles) for my next daily use vehicle, and keep the Prius (with NiMH battery) for longer trips.
Any thoughts on BYD Company (1211.hk) and their development of lithium batteries and electric cars?
ENS has great batteries and a lithium agreement.
SQM produces lithium.
I am long both.
Regards,
Ethan
The Playground on MIRC
jamestrade, I don't follow BYD because I can't get hard data from the SEC. My understanding is that they're one of the biggest battery producers in China, if not the biggest. I know Buffet just bought 10% of the company and would have a hard time arguing with anyone who wanted to follow his lead, as long as the price premium wasn't too big.
Tony, I don't try to get off into analyzing mining companies, but I have a hard time imagining how the push toward Li-ion technology would be anything but good for them.
Creative, in my experience, if something can be posted on the internet it has been (or at least will be if a guy like me has the temerity to question whether it exists). I have not found anything that closely resembles a professional report that estimates global resources and reserves, not to mention the associated development, mining and refining costs for each class of material. If it exists somebody can produce a copy. But don't go questioning me because I'm naive enough to ask about the emperor's clothes. I've seen far too many cases in 30 years of practice where fundamental assumptions that were not properly investigated on the front end resulted in immense losses. You can never assume that somebody else has investigated the fundamentals. Trust but verify!
If you're looking for reliable and "in-the-know" information, I suggest you go to the "Lithium Supply and Markets 2009" Seminar going on in Santiago, Chile at the end of this month.
Here's a few web links:
www.sqm.com/PDF%5CNews...
www.indmin.com/events/...
Hey, I noticed yer man Keith Evans will be there and he's a head speaker. Will Tahil be there as well?
Seems like this seminar is the "meeting of the minds" given that most lithium deposits (resources and reserves alike) are in South America.
I really like your articles, and would love to see you or a colleague of yours give an in-depth review of the Santiago seminar. We may get some answers to our questions about lithium supply.
-BJD
(long SQM, WLC.v, ALTI, VLNC, ABAT, HEV, MXWL, CBAK, SAFT, GS Yuasa, SANYO.)
If a serious move is going to be made to electric / natural gas vehicles in the near future, its going to have to be done by regulatory mandate. This was how the switch to non-leaded gas occurred, and this was the reason vehicles now have somewhat effective emission control systems. If the government is serious about moving America away from its dependence on foreign oil, government has to make it happen. That means the entire US market has to be changed, US and foreign vehicle imports. The only force that can effect all vehicle sales is the government.
Bob, I think you're more right than most of my readers will care to admit.
If electric transport is to be the future I can't see it happening with any of the current batteries on offer. Problems of raw material supplies seems to be the main topic of your current post with new generation batteries.
Despite improving longevity and power delivery each year, I see no exponential increase to the levels needed to secure their future. We will have to wait and see were that glass ceiling is.
Lead batteries tick a lot of boxes. Ease of raw material supplies, as near to 100% recyclable as possible and easily mass produced. But they weigh a lot, energy is wasted just moving them about . They also appear to have reached their maximum potential.
I view wind and solar as a 21st century folly. That stated I can't see storage of any power from these sources as a global solution to giving 6000 million what us 500 million have.
We won't know for a while if we are asking the right questions either.
jamestrade mentioned BYD and li-ion batteries but BYD is using a proprietary iron ferrous battery and states it holds twice the power of NiMH and cheaper as well. No one is talking about Iron ferrous batteries but they are selling hybrids with them already? I wonder how iron ferrous stacks up to li-ion in a power to weigh to cost senario?
Firefly's new deepcycle Oasis battery also sounds like an interesting development, where can I find your articles you mention.
thx
Kent
KentG, I've seen some interesting claims on BYD's proprietary ferrous chemistry, but nobody seems to know what they're doing. It may well be a patent issue. But it's hard to discuss something that nobody else is doing. At the top of this page under my picture there is a "More Articles" link that will give you access to all 30. You can also go to:
seekingalpha.com/autho...
Thanks for your great articles.
at current prices the amount of lithium carbonate that would be needed for a car like the Chevy Volt (2 kg) would cost around $12. If expanding lithium demand were to raise prices by 1000% to $70/kg the material cost would still be around 2% of the total cost of the car's battery pack. Yet at this price lithium would be economic to extract from a vast number of sources starting with lower grade salt lakes, spodumene, geothermal brines, perhaps even seawater. It would also be economically feasible to recycle it.
Ultimately its energy density (storage capacity) is likely to fall far short of lithium's potential too (though this is dependent on laboratory advances being rolled out commercially).
On Jan 08 07:00 PM Captcoxx wrote:
> I was eagerly wanting to hear more about zinc... especially in the
> Jack Lifton interview, but I was left with nothing. How does he
> feel the future of Zinc-Air Fuel Cells and Batteries? Power Air
> Corporation it seems is poised to be a very big player. What do
> you think about a company like this? From what I have read, Zinc
> is abundant, easy to get to, and has a high power density. It is
> also recyclable and renewable. I would love to hear all of your
> thoughts on this.
Thanks for this article. It addresses a question I posed a couple of weeks ago in another comment. When you look at the abundance of lithium in the earth's crust, it is similar to lead, nickel and other metals. The question then is cost of recovery. I see that is now under discussion. Good job.
Dexter, Tahil talks about 0.3 kg of lithium per kWh of battery, but since the lithium is in the form of lithium carbonate, the chemical weight it more like 1.5 kg per per kWh, or 24 kg of Li-carbonate for the Volt's 16 kWh battery. At current prices of roughly $6.50 for carbonate, the lithium per car is closer to $156. So the 1000% price increase would make a difference in the car price. The bigger problem is that none of the other raw materials are going to get cheaper as time passes and there are no dynamics to drive battery prices down. People talk about "economies of scale" but those economies were realized almost 20 years ago when Sony, Toshiba and others started making millions of cells per year for electronics. Expecting future price declines is not rational and without price declines PHEV and EV transport does not work.
Captcoxx, since none of the companies I track are into zinc-air batteries I've not studied the technology. I took a look at PWAC's reports with the SEC and they don't look very healthy. They were almost out of cash at June 30th and had 81 million shares outstanding. Since Seeking Alpha discourages comment on sub-$1 stocks unless the price is a result of recent events, I probably won't take the time to learn more until its price improves.
John, I'm truly hoping I can collect more hard data on some of these material cost issues. This is a great space with some great opportunity but people have to quit applying IT price and performance expectations or they will continue to make poor investment choices. By the way I've been following your articles and like them, though they are frequently over the head of this poor country lawyer.
> jack
so my conclusion is that there's plenty of lithium to go around if the batteries last that long. oh and yes i believe they will last that long because of the KEMA Report on how they handle the Grid Battery workout they have been put through. it's available on their website.
nasdaq, the cycle life you referred to was inferred from laboratory tests, not proven on a test rack. Likewise, the AES testing is just beginning and will be years before it's finished. I wish ALTI the best of luck, but note that Toshiba is already producing a Li-titanate battery line like the one ALTI proposes and is only claiming 5,000 cycles because that's all they can prove.
Perhaps you missed the comment of Jaycie Chitwood, environmental strategy manager for Toyota's advanced technology group, who said "the future supply of lithium will not be able to sustain both the exponential growth in batteries for consumer electronics and a large automotive battery demand." Source: The Saudi Arabia of Lithium, Forbes December special issue on Energy + Genius.
-- Dave
Have you any comments on this Oct 2008 comment on lithium availability? The author contends that just one Nevada deposit contains enough lithium for several hundred million PHEVs, each with 16 kWh battery packs a la Volt. The author also implies that extraction of lithium from sea-water is also a reasonable option.
gas2.org/2008/10/13/li.../
Your quote from John Lifton, “It’s very expensive to extract lithium from this mineral (spodumene) for use in batteries”, begs the question how much more expensive.
What about alternative battery chemistries? For example, Na-ion.
entropyproduction.blog...
BTW, according to the following link, “Mining the Ocean…”, there is only 1/20 of a metric ton of gold (0.011 ppb) in a ton of sea-water (and 750 tons of lithium at 0.178 ppm).
news.technophobiac.com.../
Northern, I'm not going to question the existence of lithium in mass quantities any more than I'll question the existence of oil and gas in mass quantities. But there is an immense difference between resources, which are entirely contingent on whether the substance is there or not, and reserves, which depend on the quality of the resource and the economics of taking it from a natural form to a useful form. I agree that "very expensive" does not answer the "how much more expensive" question and I hope somebody can come up with a reasonable answer. That's work for mining and chemical engineers, not a lawyer.
P.S. the gold reference was ton per cubic mile.
The conference in Santiago will show there's lots of cheap lithium including new deposits in argentina. The lowered value of the Chilean Peso due to the huge drop in copper prices makes their costs in terms of US$ even cheaper.
For a critique of Tahil´s main arguments see my two EV World articles:
(1) www.evworld.com/articl...; and
(2) www.evworld.com/articl...
In addition, you can also find my latest article on the subject in the January 2009 issue of Industrial Minerals at mineralnet.co.uk under the title "Lithium´s Electric Shock". If you are not a subscriber of Industrial Minerals please write me at jczuleta@gmail.com for a PDF version. This article is a preview of the paper I will be presenting at the upcoming Lithium Supply & Markets conference in Santiago.
Best regards,
Juan Carlos
Juan Carlos, thanks for the links to your articles on lithium availability. The more information investors have to weigh, the happier I am. Unfortunately all the debate over quantities that exist in nature has little to do with production costs, environmental regulation and fundamental economics. Today lithium carbonate is relatively cheap and relatively available - but what about next year and the year after that? These are questions that need to be addressed by people who have far more knowledge than either of us. I've seen oil field brines classified as "naturally occurring radioactive materials" by the State of Louisiana because they contained thorium. I've also seen 5 MMCFD gas wells plugged because they made a few hundred barrels of water that had oil contamination that could only be measure in ppm. If batteries are going to be a core technology for the sixth revolution, then decision makers need to know for certain what future costs are likely to be. I don't know the answer, but apparently nobody else does either. That troubles me.
Sometimes the right answer actually is the simplest...planes flying 400+mph, full of jet fuel, growing fire, + structural degradation of steel under temperature = building collapse.
On Jan 08 11:53 AM JohnK25 wrote:
> While I share your concern for lithium supply, I am not sure Tahil
> is a terribly credible source. This paper which he published on
> the nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11 makes me skeptical in his
> objectivity.
>
> www.reopen911.org/ReOp...;br/>
>
Thermo electricity occurs when a temperature difference creates an electric potential or an electric potential creates a temperature. A commonly used material is Bismuth telluride (Bi2Te3).
With respect to output power to device weight ratios, a 1Kw/2Kg ratio is ideal for vehicles based on ambient temperature difference within a practical range. 12Kw multi-stage thermoelectric generator would weigh 24Kg and occupy space of 4 lead acid batteries, well within design efficiency parameters of small vehicles.
The key advantage with TE is that it produces continuous power without recharging from an ambient heat source.
Experiments show that scavenging heat from hybrid engines could provide continuous power generation. If you have a mix of TE and battery power units, the batteries would never need recharging.
What future does the super capacitor/lead acid battery development in Australia hold for hybrid vehicles?
I remember in the 1990s, making money off of Ballard at the time, after digging up the number of cars produced worldwide, assuming they could obtain 5% market share, and assuming revenue of 1/10 the cost (at the time) of a PEM fuel cell multiplied by the 5% of cars produced. What I mostly remember from this experience is NOT that I sold at a profit after seeing the company yet-again miss cost and revenue milestones, but that a lot of SMART people and so-called EXPERTS kept on believing that by 2010 we'd all be driving PEM fuel cell cars. Had even a tenth of the money put into this fuel cell R&D been spent on improving lead-acid, NiCd, NiMH, and Lithium batteries, I think we'd have much better battery cost/performance today. Thus, although I think a few of the Lithium Phosphate companies will do well (I like the way Valence closes deals despite not having the best product from a technical point of view), I'm NOT writing off the lead acid battery companies, either. Although lead-acid batteries have been around for a long time, little R&D dollars (at least from what I can see) were invested in improving this technology outside of a few years in the late 1970's (oil crisis) and the last few years (again, high oil prices, but also with global warming and energy independence thrown into the mix). Some of the more recent nanotech and materials advancements (such as carbon/silicon nano-tubes, aerogel foams, etc. that are being used for better supercapacitors) also have the potential to provide significant advancements in both lead-acid, and Lithium-based battery technologies. Bio-materials are even newer, with their potential even less understood, but significant. Plus, from a hobbyist point of view, my Enersys Odyssey batteries and recently Kinetics cap-bats (AGM lead) still provide unbelievable short bursts of high current without any BMS, and reasonable amounts of heating!
CapN, we're just beginning to see the results of the work that's been done in the lead-acid world over the last 5 years. I think most will be astounded when the numbers finally come out.
I've used lead-acid batteries of many types over the years and found them to be good solutions for most applications and very cost effective. They often require some special care to realize the maximum performance, but usually deliver. I agree that there is excellent potential for further development and perhaps much will be attained by more R&D.
It takes about 1.4 kg of Lithium Carbonate (LiCO3) to make 1 kWh of Li-ion battery. The Volt has a 16 kWh battery, the BYD F3DM has a 13.2 kWh battery, and the Tesla has something around a 50 kWh battery. So let’s pick the bigger battery of 50 kWh for our calculations because that will be closer to the plug-in hybrids of the future. Note that this is 3x the size of the Volt battery and 4x the size of the BYD battery.
Lithium Carbonate now costs about $8 per kg now. I read that current technology can extract Lithium Carbonate from the ocean for $22 to $32 per kg. Let’s pick the largest number of $32 which assumes that the technology never improves and current cost estimates are somewhat low. This also assumes that land based deposits are exhausted. Thus we have a bad case scenario with Lithium Carbonate costing $32 per kg (4 times current cost).
Also, for argument, let’s assume there is no improvement in battery energy per kg of Lithium Carbonate. Now that I’ve picked numbers that are “worst” case, let’s calculate.
50 kWh battery needs 70kg of Lithium Carbonate (1.4 * 50). At $32 per kg, that costs $2240 (32 * 70) .
Thus $2240 is the worst possible cost of Lithium Carbonate raw material that I could conceive for a plug-in hybrid with a powerful 50 kWh battery. Still doable. Thus, there can not be a peak Lithium controversy!
seekingalpha.com/artic...
The response to a critical paper and pencil is invariably "but prices are going to plummet when we get economies of scale." The lithium price is just one of many factors that will keep the vaguely promised economies from materializing. Li-ion batteries are a mature technology class. The major Japanese companies that have been making them for 20 years have already squeezed out the economies of scale. The best producers can hope for is a competitive price that will squeeze profit margins to the bare bones.
John, "economies of scale" have not yet kicked in for battery chemistries (LiFePO4, LiMn2O4, …) suitable for large-format battery packs that have yet to be made in volume. It has kicked in for small-format LiCoO2-based battery packs used for laptop and cell phone applications that use about $50 worth of cobalt per kWh yet sell for much less per kWh than LiFePO4-based battery packs from A123 and Valence. Here’s my amateur analysis of material used in li-ion battery cathodes.
Large-format LiFePO4-based batteries sell for over $1,000 per kWh while Tesla’s 53 kWh, LiCoO2-based, replacement battery pack supposedly sells for less than $500 per kWh. If about 1.4 kg of lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) containing 0.26 kg of lithium is required per kWh for the three mentioned battery chemistries, then a LiCoO2-based battery pack would use about $10 worth of lithium (0.26 kg of Li @ $35 per kg) and about $55 worth of cobalt (2.2 kg @ $25 / kg.) per kWh of battery capacity. For LiFePO4- and LiMn2O4-based batteries, the iron and manganese cost, @ 25¢ and $1.30 per kilogram, are about 50¢ and $5.50 per kWh, respectively.
As for “the relative economics of PHEV and EV applications”, EPRI issued a May 2004 technical report “A Technology and Cost-Effectiveness Assessment for Battery Electric Vehicles, Power Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles” that is somewhat more optimistic than yours; perhaps, because EPRI also included maintenance savings or (more sinisterly) EPRI’s sponsors would like the additional revenue that PHEVs and EVs would create with no additional investment in power system infrastructure.
mydocs.epri.com/docs/p...
I've also spent almost 30 years working with companies that forecast amazing economies of scale. That experience has lead me to a fundamental law of new technology finance, "IT TAKES TWICE AS LONG, COSTS TWICE AS MUCH AND WILL GENERATE HALF THE EXPECTED RESULT." I have seen a couple exceptions to that rule, but they have been few and far between.
Bobby Kennedy is often quoted for saying "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."
I prefer to look at things as they are and say "OK, let's deal with it."
Thanks for your informative reply. It clearly explains why the Western Lithium Corp is trading around 50¢ a share, despite each share representing almost 200 kg of lithium carbonate in the ground, according to Chevron's 1983 reserve calculations. A product that sells for $6.50 per kg isn't much use if it cost $20, or whatever, to produce.
Hopefully, this conference in Santiago will put an end to the "peak lithium" debate once and for all.
On Jan 09 10:33 AM John K/drinkme2 wrote:
> The Western Uranium spinoff Western Lithium source is locked up in
> clays. These clays are possibly more economical than spodumene, but
> the US Bureau of Mines in the 1980s evaluated this very deposit and
> found that it was just too costly to develop in comparison to brines;
> especially the very rich and large Chilean deposits. There's even
> larger deposits in geopolitically risky Bolivia that Bolivia is planning
> to develop. Then there's also the Jadarite,commonly referred to as
> Kryptonite, that Rio Tinto wants to develop from their deposit in
> Croatia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>
> The conference in Santiago will show there's lots of cheap lithium
> including new deposits in argentina. The lowered value of the Chilean
> Peso due to the huge drop in copper prices makes their costs in terms
> of US$ even cheaper.
Seeking Alpha had an article last month about Tontine and it's potential liquidation of two stocks; Exide and A-Power Energy Systems (APWR). I opened up Yahoo! Finance and looked at both stocks trading volumes since October. Exide's average daily trading volume is 450,241, yet in late October and many days in November the trading volume was heavy, often more than twice the daily volume. In December, there was still several days of twice daily volume occuring. But as the month waned, volume decreased, and so far this year, the volume has subsided to near normal daily trading average.
To me, this means Tontine's Exide liquidation has passed. Same goes for A-Power, even though it lost, or had delayed two big contracts (Ave. Daily Volume- 1.207,650). The exception was of an amazing 4.558 million shares on December 30th! (Lucky, and nice to remember that article and be on stanby late in the day to add to my APWR long position.)
Further, if you draw a line from the bottoms of both these stocks since November 19th or 20th, you will see, from a technical standpoint, that both of these stocks stand for a short term bounce.
Hope this helps!
LiFePO4 (LFP) is brand spanking new technology. It was only invented in 1996. It has only been in mass production for about 2 years. The technology is still evolving at a rapid pace.
Please stop grouping Lithium Cobalt and Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) together as "Li-ion" batteries. They are very different batteries with very different characteristics. The Lithium Cobalt battery is totally unsuitable for autos because of risk of explosion, shorter cycle life, high expense of Cobalt, etc. The Lithium Iron Phosphate is ideally suited for autos, and many other applications. The only weakness it has compared to Lithium Cobalt is it carries about 30% less energy, so it’s use in portable electronic devices is safe.
Besides using different materials, the LiCoO2-based battery manufacturing is a mature, high volume process whereas LiFePO4-based battery manufacturing is not mature as evidenced by the wide variation in A123's battery costs over the 2006 to 2008 time frame and not high volume as evidenced by sales..
Based on data from A123's preliminary Prospectus issued in August, 2008, battery costs per kWh were $1,447, $1,1197, $1,1162 and $1,505 for YE (Dec) '06, YE '07, Q1 (Mar) '07 and Q1 '08, respectively. Such oscillations in costs do indicate a nascent, not a mature, manufacturing process.
LiFePO4 is naturally very stable (thanks to the phosphate, PO4, which holds the oxygen atoms very tightly) so there is no concern with explosion like in other Li-ion batteries. Thus, design concerns, and thus manufacturing techniques, are very different in that aspect. The ultra stable feature of phosphate also makes for a naturally long life. The highly stable LiFePO4 material degrades very slowly compared other Li-ion materials, so there's a difference in design and manufacturing concerns.
On the minus side, LiFePO4 is a poor conductor of electricity unlike the other Li-ion materials. Thus some sort of doping (adding conducting materials into the LiFePO4) is required. This is an area of major research and innovation today for LiFePO4, with the solutions constantly evolving. Different companies attack this problem differently (thus the confusion and controversy with the patents; but that's a whole other story that will find its conclusion in the courts).
A123 uses a “nano” technology which is some sort of extremely fine particles. Nano technology today is a very difficult and error-prone process.
BYD uses an AyMPO4 material. The “Ay” means “alkali metal”. Lithium is an alkali metal. Thus some of the Lithium is replaced with a material of similar chemical characteristics. The “M” stands for Iron (Fe), or Cobalt (Co), or some other similar metal. Thus some of the Iron is replaced with other metals.
Bottom line is that LiFePO4, and its permutations, are so different in characteristics, and in design and manufacturing challenges, that it must be evaluated separately.
Back when it was called Electric Fuels Corporation, I became enamored and lost a little money on it.
They have demonstrated electric buses and delivery vehicles, but the problem is the same as always- recycling plates (they are not rechargeable) and infrastructure.
To convince yourself about the importance of LFP batteries, please take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
I seem to be engaged in a running battle with people who want to believe prices will fall dramatically. In light of the complexity of any battery product I don't see where they think the cost savings will come from.
You don't know the power of the dark side (100% of torque available at 0 rpm, fully available 100% of the time). Once you taste a performance tuned electric drive vehicle, you won't go back to your farting horse of a pure gasser.
Who cares what the energy carrier (or source) is - lithium and a bunch of other choices today, something else later or a different mix. Electric drive is flexible, which is why I'm putting my dough into electrical engineering/electronic... programming in automotive engineering education - it's electric drive that's the end game. Know how to hand wind a stator? - better learn.
There is a fundamental difference between lithium as an energy carrier and oil and natural gas as energy sources. Lithium is never used up as an energy carrier, and can be used over and over again in a power pack, with infrequent replacement to saistify preformance degradation, with other uses of the old power packs possible indefinitely, while liquid fuels, once converted to motion and heat, are unusable again forever. Your 30 years of experience is in the wrong area and cannot be directly applied. That's why I don't trust oil companies that claim to be doing wind turbine installation and lithium power pack research. It's wildly outside their core expertise and mission. Do what you are good at - oil and natural gas extraction analysis - and leave the new toys to the smart, new kids who know how to play with them.
1. that separating a few pound of value from a ton of rock is not an easy chore
3. guys in white lab coats always produce better results than factories do;
4. the only way to know that a battery will have a 20 year life is to build it and then try to use it for 20 years. Anything based on lab estimates is biased by the researcher - see item 3.
5. you will be truly fortunate if you have a chance to work with others who are as bright or creative as the towering intellects I've represented.
6. you will be truly fortunate if you have a chance to develop a detailed understanding of more than one or two industries - much less the dozen or so that I know intimately
7. I wish you luck because the challenges that face your generation are in many ways far more daunting than the challenges mine faced
8. If you're good at what you do, you can hire somebody else to get his hands dirty wiring a stator.
2. Not wiring, I said winding. Some one who doesn't know the difference between wiring and stator winding in electrics is obviously completely unqualified to have any opinion in anything electrical. Stick with nonrenewable resource extraction, your obvious forte, and leave the renewables to those who are qualified to discuss them intelligently.
3. You can talk up lithium constraints all you want. All it will get you is a rap for market manipulation from the SEC and maybe some jail time.
According to the simplest source I could locate, Encyclopedia Britannica, so I don't go over the head of towering intellects:
a stator winding is explained below:
"The maximum value of flux density in the air gap is limited by magnetic saturation in the stator and rotor iron, and is typically about one tesla (weber per square metre). The effective, or root-mean-square (rms), voltage induced in one turn of a stator coil in a 2-pole, 60-hertz generator is about 170 volts for each metre squared of area encompassed by the turn."
Yeah, like anyone is using iron in their rotors in high speed applications... They're probably thinking of brushed DC motors, too. Oh, the out of date information on the internet, starting with Mr. Peterson's article here.
Or am I mistaken? Do you own a litium powered electric vehicle, too? If so, I bow to your equal standing with me.
I understand enough of your article for the fundamental logical flaws and lack of understanding of basic renewable resource concepts in it to irk me. In this case, couching in oil and natural gas and general extractive industry terms is worse than useless. It is actively misleading.
Please, please back up, take a much broader, interconnected and time sensitive and market changing (product substitution) view of lithium and try again with another article. If you can explain it so I can understand it from my consumer perspective, maybe that's progress for both of us?
Finally, if there truly are huge, instant supply constraints on lithium, invest away. The price will only go up. If not, the picture is much murkier for investors, especially in the case of multiple energy carriers, which allows for product substitution and greater competition. Also keep in mind that market penetration for gasser cars to the inflection point took at least 100 years. Why do think that the change to electric will be instantaneous? That fact that you are hesitant to invest in lithium extraction tells me that there are not huge supply constraints and that I can expect you to pass me in your luxury, high performance lithium powered vehicle any year now. If so, please feel free to splash me with a puddle. That'll keep things as unsimple as they are.
My lithium powered, commercial, made in the US, available on the internet, deliverable by UPS, street legal (kitted), registered vehicle is my daily driver for my 26 mile commute (and cost less than $8,000). I can (and do) change the portable power pack in seconds (much faster than filling a as tank) and it recharges in less than than 2 hours, at home, at 3 am on a timer while I sleep sometimes, while at work, inside, outside, anywhere at one the hundreds of millions of electrical outlets around the US. Oh, it's 100% wind powered, thanks to a subscription plan from my regional power utility company that my workplace also uses, though I can (and have) easily use other energy sources, such as solar. My vehicle is not a car, but a registered motorcycle, an ideal application for electric transportation. It's light and very, very high performance (I can go head to head with a Lamborghini Diablo from a complete stop). My electric vehicle exceeds all of my expectationsas well as the manufacturer's claims.
I agree than hard information on electric vehicle use is sparse. There is huge resistance from the status quo and power companies so far refuse to document the V2G peak shaving and net savings they are already receiving from more and more consumers like me. There's a burgeoning groundswell in electrics (using lithium for the next twenty years as the primary carrier at least likely), but hard data is VERY hard to come by. I feel your pain, which is part of why I got in at the ground floor, so I would have some personal knowledge of what's what. There is a HUGE amount of misinformation, wild conjecture, false premises and wacky forecasting around the projected penetration of electric drive. The truth is no one really knows, The are huge risks in the details of specific projects, but the end game of widespread adoption is clear, anyway. Sorry I'm not more help.
Auto companies keep the results of fleet testing very close to the chest. The reality is that commercial users are usually used to beater pick up trucks and are highly resistant of new things and likely to sabotage the equipment through passive agressive behavior, especially when the boss says you WILL NOT use what you are comfortable with and WILL use some new thing you don't know and aren't properly trained on. The reality is that these things work better than expected which scares the pants off of manufacturers because they ARE a true game changer. No one wants to be the leader, with all the risk. So far the winners appear to be Toyota, which will milk the parallel Prius tech white for as long as possible, and Honda, the low price scavengers who use weaker, cheaper tech. Plug in with lithium, not so clear. GM has an opportunity to leapfrog with the Chevy Volt, but its probably a 15-20 year iron commitment before true market dominance mainstream penetration payback gamble and GM (and investors in general) has a terrible record for long term follow through.
Last thought for this one - after market installers of lithium plug in modules just won a HUGE victory with CARB this week, to have separate rules that allow for them to survive, despite wrongheaded and ill informed analysis from CARBs own staff engineers (who know nothing about electric drive) and a huge lobbying effort by large automakers who claimed that all gasoline powered vehicles (what I call full gassers) emit "no emissions".
Right now my objection is that everybody is rushing headlong toward EV and PHEV solutions that will never be within the purchasing power of regular guys who work for a wage and live with monthly budgets. You are willing to sacrifice the comfort of a sedan for the economy of a light EV and I applaud you for it. I wish there were more out there like you.
Based on the pricing I've seen for plug-in modules, I'm not convinced that the savings justify the cost unless the module is relatively small and the driver fully utilizes the battery pack every day. But there are a lot of people who believe their principles are more important than cost savings. I applaud them to.
The point is we need to get up in the morning, go to work with the tools we have, solve our problems to the best of our abilities and be ready to embrace new developments when they become cost effective. I'm far from a luddite, but I do think that a journey of 1,000 miles requires you to take one step at a time.
No sacrifice from me at all. I said that my electric vehicle is my daily commuter, the thing I use when I get up in the morning to go to work with the tool (electric motorcycle) I have which I use for the PERFORMANCE and FUN, not for savings (although it does save me a lot, accidentally). As I also said, I can go head to head with a Lamborghini Diablo from a dead stop. My lithium powered electric vehicle is a full, registered very high performance motorcycle, not some weak bicycle or scooter. My electric vehicle solution is well within the means of working stiffs and many 17 year old hoons, so I don't know what you are jabbering about. My electric vehicle already has more than 7,000 miles on it, so the 1,000 mile journey you describe is already in the dust. Please get up to speed. Reality has passed you by.
You are apparently willing to sacrifice the high performance, fun and long term cost savings of an electric drive vehicle for some low performance, more expensive full gasser sedan, for what reason I have no idea.
On savings, remind me again when the payback starts on leather seats, sunroofs and power windows? If consumers want an extra lithium power pack as an after market add-on and are willing to pay the price, it's economical. That's just basic, free market economics at work. Or are you a commie?
But your choices are your choices. I'm thrilled that you're happy with them.
End users avalaible and spreading over the world. Take a glance...
at bereco.es
Lithium batts are the first serious step for a ball...Let's dance!!! BTW as beginners...Don't stop the ball just started
Best regards from Madrid-Spain-Europe
There is an authoritative long range lithium supply-demand forecast 2020 in a slide show posted on the TRU website. The demand projection is by end-use and the supply by state of development of various lithium projects including Bolivia’s Uyuni and lesser known Taijnar China (CITIC and QingHai). There is also a forecast for electric vehicles sub-segmented by type and lithium use in li-ion batteries. The paper was presented at the major IM Santiago Lithium conference in January 2009.
TRU Group Inc – Lithium Consultants
On Jan 08 12:11 PM John Petersen wrote:
> JohnK, I'm not satisfied that Tahil is the most reliable source on
> the planet, but I'm not satisfied that Evans is all that credible
> either. His first report was clearly a response to Tahil and the
> second was a real hatchet job that was chock full of nastiness. Lifton,
> on the other hand, was talking about why investments in Technology
> Metals are attractive. So of the three choices, I think his perspective
> may prove to be the most objective and reliable.
>
> I honestly don't know what the answer is but I sure would like to
> see a top level report from a global engineering firm that lays out
> proved and probable reserves along with solid data for exploration,
> development, mining and refining costs.
Yes, currently Zinc Air batteries are not rechargeable, but Power Air mentioned a rechargeable prototype in one of their reports...things may change soon if they can hold on. And, why is rechargeablity the holy grail when the power is going to be generated by carbon based energy anyway? While "plug in" cars sound great, do you think our energy transmission systems could possibly handle the load of charging everyones cars? I don't. If you live in CA, as I do, "brown-outs" during the summer are common when everyone is running their A/Cs. Imagine that every day. Or just imagine the cost to consumers (whether through high rates or taxes) to upgrade our electric grid....
I don't think exchanging the electrolyte is that big of a deal. You are already accustomed to filling your car with gas, right? In either case, there will have to be significant infastructure changes to whatever energy system prevails. It may come down to which is easier: beef up the power lines or switch over gas stations to hold the zinc electrolye?
While Li-ion works right now, Toyota is already looking past it for its hybrids. That simple fact says a lot about what the future for Li-ion is. If the #1 car company thinks Zinc-Air is where it's at, maybe we should defer to their scientists and engineers. They certainly know more than all of us combined.
As for energy density, Energizer has already developed and is marketing its Zinc Air Prismatic Battery. Per the literature available from ENR, the Zinc Air battery puts out THREE TIMES the energy as comparable alkaline or Li-ion batteries. If that's true then Zinc-Air wins...
From what I've read, Zinc is more plentiful than Lithium and it can be recycled. Sounds good to me....