Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion

Investors Beware of “Nothing but sophistry and illusion” with regard to Lithium in Bolivia and in the electrification of cars.

My article below is analysis, and is intended as a cautionary tale for those who would rush into lithium investments for the long term! As I have written before, and will do so again, investing in lithium mining, refining, and battery development (for personal passenger carrying vehicles) is basically just a timing game based on “announcements” made to advertise government and industry moves, so as to get public approval for speculating with some people’s or everyone else’s money.

Buy low, either after the announcement of a setback in development or delivery time, and sell high, after the announcement of an “investment” by someone, (eg, famously mostly right Warren Buffett), or after an announcement that the US government will subsidize a technology or a factory. I recognize, of course, that some announcements target specific battery developers and some are more general. I call these “tips” and “trends,” so that they fit into the categories of advice we get daily on television and in the newsletters and mainstream press.

If you’re still with me I urge you to read this article first and then to read the short succinct and superb, hyperlinked, article by John L. Petersen entitled “The Time is Right for Gas-guzzler to Dual-mode EV Conversions,” in which John tells you why, economically, you should support the conversion of gasoline powered vehicles, such as pickup trucks, to dual mode hybrids using (drum roll) the new lead-carbon based batteries made by , Axion Power International (AXPW.OB). John L. Petersen, who, in the interests of full disclosure here, is a former director of Axion, for which he was a securities counsel. I mention this, because, John is overwhelmingly more knowledgeable about alternate energy than Warren Buffett. Don’t ever say that I didn’t tell you this.

I do not own any shares in Axion, or in any other battery developer or manufacturer, or in any lithium producer or end user.

Why am I beginning an article about a highly publicized aspect of the global market fundamentals of lithium, the size of Bolivian lithium containing brine deposits, with a phrase made famous not by a geologist but by perhaps the most influential philosopher ever to write in the English language, the Scottish genius, David Hume? Bear with me for a second, and stay alert, while I ask you to read the entire quotation from Hume’s iconic An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding from which the quoted phrase in the above title is taken:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Let’s now talk about, not a volume of divinity or school [scholastic] metaphysics but the enormous volume of puffery of junior mining promotion.

It has recently become a hot topic of discussion among investors in speculative junior mining that there may not be enough lithium resources and reserves to meet the speculated demand in the (near?) future for lithium from which to make the rechargeable storage batteries, which are being touted (literally - look up the meaning of the word) as the solution for the supposed need to reduce, perhaps, even to eliminate the carbon dioxide emissions caused by the operation of privately owned vehicles intended for the carriage of a limited number of passengers [typically 4 passenger “cars”] and a limited amount of freight [pickup trucks and SUVs]. There are more than 700 million such sized vehicles in operation globally today, and more than 2/3 of them are in North America, Western Europe, and Japan. This source of manmade carbon dioxide emissions is collectively called the “transportation” problem in the debate on so-called global warming.

The proposed solution to transportation emissions problem is to replace the internal combustion engines, ICEs, burning hydrocarbon fuels, which account for 99% of the aforementioned vehicles today, with, first, hybrid power trains consisting of a rechargeable storage battery, RSB, to power an electric motor and an ICE both of which are capable of driving the vehicle directly, such as a Toyota (TM) Prius, then with a plug-in hybrid, which only uses an electric motor powered by a RSB, but may have an onboard ICE to maintain the battery’s charge until the vehicle can be brought to a charging point, such as the proposed Chevrolet Volt, and finally to replace both of these power trains with a battery powered vehicle with a RSB of sufficient storage capacity and power output so as to give the vehicle a range equivalent to an ICE powered vehicle of the same size and passenger or cargo carrying capacity.

It has now been decided by the mainstream media, MSM, politicians, and investment promoters that there is certain to be developed a lithium-ion technology based RSB of sufficient power and capacity to make the above solution to the transportation emissions problem a certainty. I would like to make the observation at this point that there is little or no evidence concerning quantity or number nor any reproducible experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence to support the MSM’s endless recitations of this conclusion.

Olivia Newton-John’s hit song in my youth was “Let’s Get Physical.” My lyrics are going to be “Let’s Get Numerical” in the sense that David Hume prescribed in order for us to understand the problem and the likelihood of the proposed solution.

In August 2007 I attended a meeting at General Motors (GM) between the GM battery development operations group and SQM, the Chilean producer of lithium from brine. SQM was then as now the world’s largest producer of lithium. GM was then and is not now the world’s largest car maker.

At that meeting the technical managers of both companies agreed that a figure of 1 kilogram of lithium, calculated, as I recall, as metallic weight equivalent of lithium, per kilowatt hour of battery storage capacity was correct, in general and on average, for the production of RSBs for the electrification of vehicles. Therefore it is obvious that the battery pack for the Chevrolet Volt, extended range, plug-in hybrid, which has been announced to utilize a 16 kWh lithium-ion technology RSB will require 16 kg of lithium to build.

The United States Geological Survey, USGS, most recent edition of its Mineral Commodity Summary for Lithium, (.pdf) dated January 31, 2009, states that in 2008 27,400 metric tons of lithium, calculated as lithium metal, was produced globally. Of that total the USGS says 25% was demanded by battery producers.

Lithium production numbers are typically reported not as metallic lithium but as lithium carbonate, Li ₂CO ₃, which is only 1/6 lithium. For example, SQM reported that by 2008 it would have a capacity of 42,000 metric tons a year of lithium carbonate; this means that SQM’s capacity would be 7,000 metric tons a year calculated as metallic lithium. Thus it is reasonable to assume that in 2008 SQM produced more than 25% of the total world production of lithium.

The USGS 2007 Minerals Yearbook for Lithium, (.pdf) released in August 2008 has a detailed discussion of the companies now producing lithium and their future plans and present and future capacities. Yet there is no mention of any Bolivian mining developments in either of the two USGS publications cited (and linked). There is mention of Bolivian reserves, which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” by believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types.

Notwithstanding the fact that Bolivian lithium production was so low or nonexistent that it was not noted or even discussed by the USGS 9 months ago, promoters of investments have sown enough of their own “information” to have gotten Thompson Reuters, on April 14, 2009, to publish an “analysis” called “Bolivia holds key to lithium, the battery car metal” If you go to Google news, and enter “Bolivia and lithium” you will get this story and a whole group of similar and derivative stories. Alas, they all omit a salient fact, which I am now going to tell you and explain why this fact obviates all of the stories.

A friend of mine who has been a geologist working in South America for nearly fifty years pointed out to me yesterday that he was astounded by the lack of mention in any of the recent analytical articles, such as the one by Reuters, that Bolivian deposits are, to use his precise term, “lousy.”

He told me that I could find this out, as could anyone else, by looking, carefully and analytically, at a study jointly carried out by the USGS and the Bolivian Geological Service. The data below for Bolivia’s Uyuni Desert were published by Pergamon Press in 1978! The other data come from industry consultants and can be located from the web site, the USGS’s, linked above. He constructed for me the following table:

Deposit	% Li	Mg/Li ratio
Atacama	0.150	6.4
Hombre Muerto	0.062	1.37
Uyuni	0.028	19.9

The deposits above, all inhospitable alkaline-it go without saying-deserts are in Chile (Atacama), Argentina (Hombre Muerto), and Bolivia (Uyuni). All are lithium containing brines, which present as immense salt “flats’ under the surface of which are highly concentrated liquids, brines. The manner in which such brines are processed is to create vast ponds which are allowed to evaporate naturally using solar irradiation (i.e., sunlight) as the drying agent. SQM told me that for their Atacama works this step takes 18 months! It is simply not, and never will be, practical to move mountains of slush through drying kilns which would need to be powered by immense fossil fuel burning or nuclear plants. The cost of building such facilities in the remote desert or even of solar thermal facilities to concentrate the sun’s heat would be so expensive as to destroy the economics of any battery project.

Note that since the 1978 studies the successful development of lithium producing industries has gone ahead in both Chile and Argentina but not in Bolivia!

Everyone needs also to understand that all of the South American brine deposits being worked, or looked at, for lithium are primarily potash deposits with lithium as a by-product of low overall value. SQM’s potash deposits (Atacama), which have the highest lithium content, show that 11% of revenues are from lithium. This is today a blessing, and even if lithium value should decline, SQM will and can produce potash. The question for Bolivia is: Could Uyuni deposits be stand alone producers of lithium, or does Bolivia first have to develop a major potash industry? Stock tipsters and analysts aren’t interested in these details, but as we all know, therein lays the devil!

In summary I conclude that the production of lithium from brines has been the majority source of lithium production only since 1994, and that in South America it is the chemistry of the brines that is critical to their economics being practical.

As my South American geologist colleague also pointed out to me:

Magnesium is anathema, or poison to the recovery process. The reason Atacama works is its high Li content. The reason Hombre Muerto works is its low Mg/Li ratio. The problems with Uyuni become self-evident!

He also said that

Notwithstanding the socialist government in Bolivia, I doubt (from personal experience and that of colleagues) that you could marshall all the small miners there or get them to give up their meagre holdings for the good of one common socialist salt pond.

It is economics dear readers that determines whether or not a “deposit” is mineable, and the economics are calculated (There’s that quantitative term again) by summing all the costs and dividing into them the total production tonnage. For Bolivia’s high magnesium brines there is no practical process known at this time to remove enough magnesium, even on a large scale basis, so that it would not “poison” the lithium produced in the sense that the lithium would contain so much magnesium that it would be ineffective as a battery electrode. Thus for use in making batteries this material could be infinitely expensive to process to “battery grade” and thus useless. Bolivia thus has reserves at present of no useful lithium producible from its brines.

I admit that the Reuters reporter understood part of the problem, because on April 15, 2009, he wrote a follow up story, Bolivian politics could stymie future of global lithium supply, which appeared on the IBT (International Business Times) web site.

Back to the numbers: Let’s assume that the amount of lithium, 1 kg, calculated as metallic lithium, that I stated above for each kWh of battery capacity is correct:

This means that for a Chevrolet Volt, extended range plug-in hybrid, it will take 16 kg of lithium metal to make the battery. General Motors famous curmudgeon, Bob Lutz, has said that the battery will have a life of 150,000 miles or 10 years. This means that even if the lithium were recycled, it would be 10 years before it could be returned to the supply pool, so that any meaningful augmentation of the lithium supply from recycling will not occur until 10 years after large scale production of the batteries for cars has begun. This is fortunate since as SQM told GM in August of 2007 they had no way to recycle the lithium from the batteries economically and at that time declined to be involved in such a venture as they had no facility for such processing and they had calculated that in any case new production would be much cheaper than recycling as a source of lithium.

I pointed out that there might be a social need for a closed loop recycling stem for lithium-ion batteries and that the added costs would be borne by society through taxes and subsidies. I also mentioned at that meeting that my understanding of GM and US rules was that a cradle to grave system for managing waste from scrap operations was mandated by both the company and the government, so someone would have to devise a verifiable recycling system for lithium-ion batteries even if their destination was land fill. I was ignored both by GM and by SQM on this point.

Note here that SQM, the world’s largest producer of lithium from brine has just completed a five year expansion program bringing its output to 42,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate a year.

The move to producing lithium from brine since 1994 has been due to the fact that it is cheaper than producing lithium carbonate from the mineral spodumene, which process was the only one used prior. Spodumene, a natural mineral, containing 3%% of lithium, when it is pure lithium aluminum silicate, has been used as an additive for making lightweight glasses and ceramics for some time. The miner of the largest deposit of spodumene in the world is Australia’s Talison and Talison’s largest customer has been China, which has both Spodumene and lithium brines, but not enough production domestically to supply its domestic needs for either.

Note well that the total world reserves identified by the USGs are a combination of both brine deposits and spodumene deposits, and that if you withdraw the Bolivian “reserves’ from the USGS figures the world’s resources drop by nearly half!

Now let’s look at possible limitations on the production of lithium-ion battery packs for cars: Assuming that lithium production for 2009 is going to be the same as for 2008, or some 27,000 metric tons, and that, as the USGS says, 25% of that went to battery production, and that all of the lithium that went into battery production was for personal electronics, laptop computers, and power tools, which uses are increasing ,and increasing, in the case of power tools, dramatically, again according to the USGS, then we must also note that since the other 75% of the lithium produced went to existing uses such as the production of glass, ceramics, plastics and pharmaceuticals, and that since these areas of lithium demand are also increasing, then batteries for cars will require new production of lithium.

For the sake of debate let’s assume that the global production of lithium can be quadrupled in the next 10 years. There is no evidence that this is underway or planned, but let’s assume anyway that it is going to happen. Let’s now assume further that every bit of the increase will go to produce lithium-ion batteries for cars. This will give us 75,000 metric tons of lithium, calculated as lithium metal, to be used annually to make car batteries by 2020. 75,000 metric tons is 75,000,000 kg.

This means that in 2020 the global car industry will have the resources of lithium to build 75,000,000/15 = 5,000,000 extended range plug-in hybrids of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid type with a range of 40 miles on a charge and a top speed certainly of less than 70 miles per hour-Note well that this means the car can run at speed for a round trip before recharging of 36 minutes!

A larger car with a higher speed and longer range will require a proportionately larger battery and thus the construction of such vehicles will decrease sharply the total number of lithium-ion battery using electrified cars of all types, hybrids, extended range plug-in hybrids, and true battery powered cars, which can be constructed in 2020. By the time that the battery is recycled, in 10 years, the recycled lithium will be able to add only another 5,000,000 vehicles a year to the global build.

One can draw graphs and do calculations, but the bottom line is that to the assumptions above we must add that the consensus of forecasters of personal vehicle production is that the global production of such vehicles will reach 100 million per year by 2015 and could reach 150 million per year by 2020 with China and India accounting for between 20 and 30 million per year, 20% of that total.

The numbers show that the production of lithium-ion battery packs for vehicle propulsion is and will always be limited by the rate of production for lithium, because even if all of the mineable lithium deposits were exhausted only enough lithium would be produced to build 450,000,000 vehicles per year at equilibrium between mining and recycling at a 100% recovery rate. Today’s fleet of cars is already at 750,000,000 globally with nearly half in North America and 90% or more in North America, Europe, and Japan.

I have written elsewhere about the fact that the maximum production of rare earths required to get lanthanum and neodymium to build nickel metal hydride batteries and electric motors and permanent magnet generators is limited, and at this time, is confined almost entirely within China.

It cannot be overlooked that the electric motors in many electrified vehicles intended to utilize permanent magnet type electric drive motors depend for their maximum efficiency on neodymium-iron-boron magnets, so that even electrified vehicles using lithium-ion batteries will have their total production limited by the availability of rare earths.

The numbers show that for the next generation, at least twenty five years, the total annual possible production of electrified personal vehicles will be limited by the rate of natural resource production, particularly of the rare earths and lithium. The peak possible production will probably be well under 10 million Chevrolet Volt equivalent powered vehicles per year well into the 2030s.After that it may well turn out that we finally exhaust our accessible minable resources of critical metals for the electrification of cars so that recycling or limited availability both become mandatory.

I have not taken into account the effect of the potential increase in price of the rare earths and lithium over the next generation as relatively high grade deposits are worked out and costs increase due to the cost of working lower grades. This is important, because as sales figures for the Toyota Prius and Honda (HMC) Insight hybrids have just shown, in times of economic stress price is the most important factor not novelty or green-ness.

I’d like to end this article on a positive note. The USGS Commodity Mineral Survey for Lead for 2008 (.pdf) shows that the US, Canada, and Australia together have 50% of the world’s known reserve base of lead and that more than 90% of American lead use today comes already from recycling automotive and traction batteries! Even if, therefore, we include the (useless) Bolivian lithium reserves in the calculation the US, Canada, and Australia alone have 6 times as much lead as the world has lithium. This means that the electrification of personal vehicles can proceed much faster if we use lead-carbon batteries such as those devised by Axion, Ltd. to make electrified cars of all types. By giving up some high performance characteristic and some range while still getting far more of each than a Chevrolet Volt and by utilizing our existing recycling and battery manufacturing facilities and enlarging them as needed we can be building an electrified American fleet immediately. The fact that we will need to replace and recycle the batteries every 3-4 year rather than the mythical 10 attributed to lithium-ion batteries that have never achieved anything remotely close to that number is surely an easy trade to make for much cheaper, much more reliable, and safer lead-carbon batteries that have also no critical material shortages.

The ideal future for the electrified car is one of lead-carbon batteries for short range city cars, nickel metal hydride batteries for long range moderate performance, and lithium-ion batteries for high performance long range. Price will both differentiate this cars and determine their market segments, but best of all, we probably have enough accessible, mineable resources to do this.

Comments

[John Petersen:]

I appreciate the kind words Jack. More importantly I appreciate the judgment of a mineral development expert that global lithium supplies are not as cheap and plentiful as advocates would have us believe. I also appreciate confirmation that Li-ion batteries cannot be recycled to a point where the material in the old batteries can be used in new batteries.

Apr 19 09:42 AM

[Mad Hedge F...:]

So what are the alternatives? If we do move from a carbon to a lithium based economy, what are the implications? Will we all become mellow? Politicians, industrialists, and environmentalists who see battery powered vehicles as the wave of the future are overlooking the fact that 50% of the world reserves of lithium are found in impoverished, landlocked Bolivia. This is a country that until now was best known for killing off famous foreigners (Che Guevara, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), and being the source of a new form a venereal disease. Lithium ion batteries are four times more efficient than the current generation of nickel cadmium batteries, and are essential for electric cars to finally become economically viable. But now that the country finally has something the world wants, nationalism is rearing its ugly head. Local politicians see their country as the Saudi Arabia of the highly corrosive, toxic, reactive metal, and are already discussing ways to restrict access. Will La Paz become the headquarters of OLEC, the Organization of Lithium Exporting Countries? The only other supplies are to be found in Chile, Argentina, Australia, China, and Nevada. Will American oil company executives be programming their cell phones with the 591 country code? Should the US invade to insure supplies? Iraq worked didn’t it? The best way for opportunistic investors to play this is to buy Sociedad Quimica Y Minera (SQM), Chile’s largest producer of lithium.

Apr 19 11:14 AM

[John D:]

Your fingers must be real sore !

Apr 19 11:16 AM

[stop the press:]

discussed here:

www.theeestory.com/top...

Apr 19 11:44 AM

[FDNY RET:]

BOY: Sure takes this guy forever to say "lithium supplies in doubt!--wait to commit!"

That's the thinking GM used to give Toyota Prius dominance in the market.

There are those that, talk it to death---And those who simply--DO!.

Apr 19 11:53 AM

[Dave Marsh:]

Wonderful article, as was John's related article on conversions. The "other" electric car starts to sound more reasonable in the long term. The "other" is the hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric car. Yes, I know, the production and distribution infrastructure needed is immense, but in the long run sounds more feasible in light of Mr. Lifton's arguments. My personal "grand energy plan" has always been and still is based on nuclear energy. Nuclear plants would be designed and built as three-way machines. A three-unit plant would have one reactor for electricity, one for reverse osmosis clean water production, and one for electrolytic hydrogen production. Crossover capability would allow all three reactors to produce power for peak time of day, but would divert increasing power to the hydrogen and water trains as night fell. At that point, the vast available clean baseload of two reactors produces clean water and hydrogen gas all night with (of course) zero CO2 production. In the battery scenario, as discussed in previous SA articles, the nightime charging of all those extra batteries would have to come from more baseload coal plants, which makes your battery car dirtier, despite the efficiency gained from the inherent electric motor high energy conversion efficiency. What battery EVs there are would also retain their "CO2 cleanliness" if the nightime charging were from new nuclear baseload units, which run at 100% all night anyway (no one really does nuclear "load following" and they aren't designed for that). Building nuclear plants that can cleanly fill in the nighttime demand valley with fresh water and hydrogen production, while at the same time giving a clean charge to the battery EVs, is an alternative whose time will have to come.

Apr 19 12:11 PM

[Ticker_Shuffle:]

Pretty clear Hydrogen is the answer, but no WAY Big Oil and Chemical Companies will let that happen.

Apr 19 12:30 PM

[Ticker_Shuffle:]

By the way Honda is completely on board for H2, saying that "Fuel Cells are much better in the long run than hybrid or plug in."

Apr 19 12:31 PM

[Ticker_Shuffle:]

85% of battery cost is raw materials, and the cost reduction on lithium batteries has flat-lined over the 5 years even with all the "advances." Any increase in demand for the resource will only make costs go higher...why get in bed with a another limited resource?


On Apr 19 11:44 AM stop the press wrote:

> discussed here:
>
> www.theeestory.com/top...
>

Apr 19 12:33 PM

[Beanbag:]

The US relying on another country for it's resources again? Lets keep it state side and be the supplier insted of the buyer and regain some payback for all the security we seem to give out. Clean Coal or Nuclear that is already in being used.

Apr 19 01:19 PM

[jimp:]

Jack, thanks for the very enlightening article. Concerning rare earth elements/metals, would you invest in Lynas Corp?

From an investment perspective do you have a favorite rare earth element miner?

Thank you

Apr 19 03:04 PM

[Don Harmon:]

For a complete dubunking of this article from another point of view see my comments to John Petersen @ this sa link:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

Also you can read a more cogent article here:

gas2.org/2008/10/13/li.../

Don Harmon

Apr 19 04:41 PM

[dexterbland:]

To reach higher levels of lithium production requires investment - that is all. There is no shortage of sources of lithium, just that as yet the demand has failed to materialize (in fact there is currently excess capacity). Should that demand occur in sufficient volume as to lead to price rises then there a multitude of new sources that can be brought on-line. AS you say the Salar de Uyuni is (at current prices) unlikely to be viable, at higher prices it would be. As would lower grade spodumenes and hectorite clays from Canada and Australia, low grade brines (including from the US), geothermal brines, even potentially seawater. Not only that but the existing (and vast) known reserves of the Salars can be pumped at a much higher rate - and yes mechanical evaporation is feasible - at the right price. Currently we are exploiting only the highest grade tip of the iceberg because that's all that we need to do to meet present demand.

The key is price and lets not forget that lithium was once produced exclusively from spodumene at much higher price. There is plenty of room to raise prices without effecting the economics of batteries . Raw lithium carbonate currently accounts for 1% of the cost of the battery. So, should they get the right price signal - all the junior explorers warming up on the sidelines will be ready to jump. They are waiting for the moment that they can convince investors that their projects are feasible.

Apr 19 06:10 PM

[disdaniel:]

What a wonderfully one-sided piece.

Static analysis at its best...luckily the one thing you can be sure of is that events will not unfold as this author supposes.

Apr 19 06:13 PM

[Don Harmon:]

desterbland....send me an email offlist to [e-mail]

Don Harmon


On Apr 19 06:10 PM dexterbland wrote:

> To reach higher levels of lithium production requires investment
> - that is all. There is no shortage of sources of lithium, just that
> as yet the demand has failed to materialize (in fact there is currently
> excess capacity). Should that demand occur in sufficient volume as
> to lead to price rises then there a multitude of new sources that
> can be brought on-line. AS you say the Salar de Uyuni is (at current
> prices) unlikely to be viable, at higher prices it would be. As would
> lower grade spodumenes and hectorite clays from Canada and Australia,
> low grade brines (including from the US), geothermal brines, even
> potentially seawater. Not only that but the existing (and vast) known
> reserves of the Salars can be pumped at a much higher rate - and
> yes mechanical evaporation is feasible - at the right price. Currently
> we are exploiting only the highest grade tip of the iceberg because
> that's all that we need to do to meet present demand.
>
> The key is price and lets not forget that lithium was once produced
> exclusively from spodumene at much higher price. There is plenty
> of room to raise prices without effecting the economics of batteries
> . Raw lithium carbonate currently accounts for 1% of the cost of
> the battery. So, should they get the right price signal - all the
> junior explorers warming up on the sidelines will be ready to jump.
> They are waiting for the moment that they can convince investors
> that their projects are feasible.
>

Apr 19 06:26 PM

[Alan Young:]

Okay, I won't go out to buy Bolivian Li mines; it's too early for that. That's a straw-man argument, because I don't see anyone touting Bolivian investment, anyway. But to say that there is no market because the supply is too limited is absurd. Limited supply is a price driver, and is the reason SQM is doing so well.

There's no reason to think that lead will squeeze Li out of the market. Even aside from cars, there's no limit to how many applications for rechargeable batteries there can be.

I'm really getting tired of John Peterson talking his book again and again. At least this is a new author with a different angle.

Apr 20 03:15 AM

[Mircea:]

<ba <ba <ba but not concret inaf .

Apr 20 03:55 AM

[Douglas Kor...:]

Very important article and true as far as it goes.

FYI, the 1999 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead-acid batteries had a range of over 100 miles on a charge, and would work for the VOLT (the volt Lithium battery is 400 lbs., if that were PSB 1260 it would have 8 kWh, enouigh to go 40 miles in all-electric range).

Nickel metal hydride batteries developed by Toyota-Panasonic's unit PEVE proved to actually last more than 10 years and more than 100,000 miles, and are still running on the roads of California.

Why is no one talking about lead or NIMH? Because GM is still lying, or painfully ignorant, about batteries.

Lutz himself knows nothing about batteries; recall that he was CEO of EXIDE battery corp. when it filed for bankruptcy due to excessive debt and over-enthusiastic bombast about "Li Ion" batteries.

Petersen is correct about lead-acid.

General Motors bought up control of the NiMH patent rights in 1994, trying to suppress its use, claiming that it would not work in cars because of the heat problem. When Toyota improved NiMH so that it solved that problem, GM sold control of the patent rights to Texaco on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it was bringing the patents to Chevron (Standard Oil of California). The year after the merger was consummated, Chevron funded a lawsuit by its COBASYS unit against Toytota.

In Dec., 2002, Toyota agreed to stop selling the Toyota RAV4-EV, which we are still driving to this day, and Toyota stopped making the EV-95 improved NiMH battery that GM had claimed could not be done. Toyota had to pay Chevron et al $30,000,000, and to this day, you are unable to buy the EV-95 NiMH battery.

That's why we are all driving on pre-2002 battery packs, which are still running fine.

NiMH or lead-acid are the solution; Lithium is a bogus distraction, a con-job (at least so far), and a source of many investoer losses.

Apr 20 06:47 AM

[Douglas Kor...:]

Chevron's use of IP to suppress use of NiMH batteries and their use in plug-in cars violates laws against unfair trade practices IMO.

In addition, use of oil money to buy up EV battery patents goes against the very idea of patent rights, which are intended to promote the improvement of technology.

In this case, Toyota was penalized for improving the NiMH batteries, and their use was in practice suppressed until Chevron's rights are either stripped away by the Courts or until they expire.


On Apr 20 06:47 AM Douglas Korthof wrote:

> Very important article and true as far as it goes.
>
> FYI, the 1999 EV1 with PSB 1260 lead-acid batteries had a range of
> over 100 miles on a charge, and would work for the VOLT (the volt
> Lithium battery is 400 lbs., if that were PSB 1260 it would have
> 8 kWh, enouigh to go 40 miles in all-electric range).
>
> Nickel metal hydride batteries developed by Toyota-Panasonic's unit
> PEVE proved to actually last more than 10 years and more than 100,000
> miles, and are still running on the roads of California.
>
> Why is no one talking about lead or NIMH? Because GM is still lying,
> or painfully ignorant, about batteries.
>
> Lutz himself knows nothing about batteries; recall that he was CEO
> of EXIDE battery corp. when it filed for bankruptcy due to excessive
> debt and over-enthusiastic bombast about "Li Ion" batteries.
>
> Petersen is correct about lead-acid.
>
> General Motors bought up control of the NiMH patent rights in 1994,
> trying to suppress its use, claiming that it would not work in cars
> because of the heat problem. When Toyota improved NiMH so that it
> solved that problem, GM sold control of the patent rights to Texaco
> on Oct. 10, 2000. Six days later, Texaco announced it was bringing
> the patents to Chevron (Standard Oil of California). The year after
> the merger was consummated, Chevron funded a lawsuit by its COBASYS
> unit against Toytota.
>
> In Dec., 2002, Toyota agreed to stop selling the Toyota RAV4-EV,
> which we are still driving to this day, and Toyota stopped making
> the EV-95 improved NiMH battery that GM had claimed could not be
> done. Toyota had to pay Chevron et al $30,000,000, and to this day,
> you are unable to buy the EV-95 NiMH battery.
>
> That's why we are all driving on pre-2002 battery packs, which are
> still running fine.
>
> NiMH or lead-acid are the solution; Lithium is a bogus distraction,
> a con-job (at least so far), and a source of many investoer losses.

Apr 20 06:51 AM

[Douglas Kor...:]

One correction:

'...There is mention of Bolivian reserves, which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” by believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types...'

s.b.

'...There is mention of Bolivian <b><i>reso... which is mining geology’s term for estimated quantities “unverified” <b><i>but&... believed to be present due to professional surveys and comparisons with other known deposits of similar types..."

"resources" are unproven so far as economically viable for extraction; "reserves" are bankable. For example, gold "resources" can be 10 million pounds, but if it's less than 1 gm per ton, it's not viable to mine it with current technology and at current prices, and can't be considered "reserves".

Apr 20 07:11 AM

[Road Runner:]

If you didn't ramble so much, I would have time to read your article now and respond to it. I have about 2 minutes before I have to get back to my real job. But, now I have to wait until later.

Please people. Write your articles like the Wall Street Journal - short and to the point. Follow standard writing skills and "eliminate needless words". In this case, "eliminate needless paragraphs".

Apr 20 08:25 AM

[Jack Lifton:]

Road Runner I am not a Wall Street Journal reporter; I am not constrained by deadlines or editorial restrictions. I am not trying to win a Pulitzer or a MacArthur Grant. The problem as I see it with everyone's understanding of these issues is intellectual laziness based on education by soundbite and clever phrase. If standard writing skill useage (as defined by you, of course) is your criterion then read Victor Davis Hanson he is a marvelous writer and teacher. I'm writing about my observations of the interactions, during my lifetime, between the "two cultures," and, of course, my observations are based on my experiences.

Apr 20 08:48 AM

[1poordog:]

Having worked for Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Division for nine years, manufacturing zirconium fuel tubing and hafnium control rods, I too am a proponent of more nuclear power. How do we get the Democratic Administration to get on board?


On Apr 19 12:11 PM Dave Marsh wrote:

> Wonderful article, as was John's related article on conversions.
> The "other" electric car starts to sound more reasonable in the long
> term. The "other" is the hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric car.
> Yes, I know, the production and distribution infrastructure needed
> is immense, but in the long run sounds more feasible in light of
> Mr. Lifton's arguments. My personal "grand energy plan" has always
> been and still is based on nuclear energy. Nuclear plants would be
> designed and built as three-way machines. A three-unit plant would
> have one reactor for electricity, one for reverse osmosis clean water
> production, and one for electrolytic hydrogen production. Crossover
> capability would allow all three reactors to produce power for peak
> time of day, but would divert increasing power to the hydrogen and
> water trains as night fell. At that point, the vast available clean
> baseload of two reactors produces clean water and hydrogen gas all
> night with (of course) zero CO2 production. In the battery scenario,
> as discussed in previous SA articles, the nightime charging of all
> those extra batteries would have to come from more baseload coal
> plants, which makes your battery car dirtier, despite the efficiency
> gained from the inherent electric motor high energy conversion efficiency.
> What battery EVs there are would also retain their "CO2 cleanliness"
> if the nightime charging were from new nuclear baseload units, which
> run at 100% all night anyway (no one really does nuclear "load following"
> and they aren't designed for that). Building nuclear plants that
> can cleanly fill in the nighttime demand valley with fresh water
> and hydrogen production, while at the same time giving a clean charge
> to the battery EVs, is an alternative whose time will have to come.
>
>

Apr 20 10:31 AM

[Road Runner:]

Jack, There is another principle at work here. Have you ever heard the rule the chance of getting your memo read is inversely proportional to its length.

This is not a book for my reading enjoyment. This is a business report. The people who read this stuff are very impatient people - like me. There is way too much information in the world for me to absorb to read things that are written like novels.

Apr 20 10:53 AM

[FDNY RET:]

Jack: The "intellectually lazy" are watching Sponge-Bob.
And beating your point into our heads el stattico will just turn us off.
Condense your "varied" experience, there are only so many hours in the day.

Apr 20 11:01 AM

[Road Runner:]

Now that I've wasted my time reading and writing, I can only ask a simple question without expanding it with numbers.

What about extracting Lithium from seawater? I understand that it is feasible today, and only costs about 2 to 3 times the cost of current mining. Even at 3 times the cost for Lithium, it would not add that much to the price of a 50KWh car battery (assuming a larger battery for the future HEV). I gave calculations for this in a previous post.

Do you think that extracting Lithium from seawater is an actuality, and, if so, what price do you see for it?

Apr 20 11:07 AM

[raytayzmd:]

...I think your critic's simply trying to encourage you to get to the friggin' point and cut the crap...e.g. did you really need to quote Hume...also, you need to provide some references -- e.g. this comment:

"The numbers show that for the next generation, at least twenty five years, the total annual possible production of electrified personal vehicles will be limited by the rate of natural resource production, particularly of the rare earths and lithium"

...where can those numbers be found, exactly?...and some things need clarification:

"It is economics dear readers that determines whether or not a “deposit” is mineable, and the economics are calculated (There’s that quantitative term again) by summing all the costs and dividing into them the total production tonnage."

...hmmm -- well, no...that's cost per ton..."economics" depends then on the cost per ton of competing fuels...if competing fuels are more expensive then you pay what you have to...unless, of course, you want to start bicycling to work every day.




On Apr 20 08:48 AM Jack Lifton wrote:

> Road Runner I am not a Wall Street Journal reporter; I am not constrained
> by deadlines or editorial restrictions. I am not trying to win a
> Pulitzer or a MacArthur Grant. The problem as I see it with everyone's
> understanding of these issues is intellectual laziness based on education
> by soundbite and clever phrase. If standard writing skill useage
> (as defined by you, of course) is your criterion then read Victor
> Davis Hanson he is a marvelous writer and teacher. I'm writing about
> my observations of the interactions, during my lifetime, between
> the "two cultures," and, of course, my observations are based on
> my experiences.

Apr 20 11:21 AM

[notsosmart:]

maybe natural gas is an answer. we have that here.is that too simple? not enough money to be made? folks -the bottom line is the key to all. patriotism,nationalism dont mean anything.its all just turned into lining ones pocket.the middle class will continue to lose out as they cant get their share.big business does only whats good for big business.thats how they got big.its the only game in town.the founding fathers never could imagine big business.out of the 100 largest entities in the world 52 are countries & 48 are corps. that tell you anything? yes be sure to vote.

Apr 20 11:49 AM

[geranz:]

Jack, Thanks for the analysis & your perspective. Have you sent this to the policymakers in the Obama administration? I think they believe in science(unlike the previous administration). Even though John P. was a former officer for Axion, I appreciate his analysis as well. We do not need to go through another death of an electric car(EV-1) at the hands of corporate buffoons do we? Where is Sec. Chui? He understands the science and now that we, taxpayers, own part of GM we need to ensure the proper direction for development of EVs! I also appreciated D. Korthof's analysis of the litigated non-use of a most viable NiMH technology(ala EV-1)! What is next?

Apr 20 12:03 PM

[Wisdom vs. ...:]

Fact: after 9 years and billions of dollars, Li storage at $1000/kWh is still a failure for transportation (well, except for Toyota's marketing, but that is another subject). Why do you idealists expect improvement when no evidence exists?

Apr 20 12:04 PM

[greyhack:]

In the last two paragraphs, the neodymium-iron-boron magnet appears to be ignored as the truely rate limiting step in the production of electric transportation. That point was well presented earlier in the article

Apr 20 12:20 PM

[Chancer:]

I lived in Bolivia from 1979-1982. The political situation then, now, and always results in the same conclusion that Bolivia is an unreliable supplier. Will electric vehicle manufacturers from any nation allow them selves to be held hostage by Bolivian political leaders? I think not. Already Bolivian leaders are insisting that to use their lithim, the vehicles must also be built in Bolivia. Bolivia has never been a reliable exporter because national export transportation is shutdown when there are political problems. Internal transportation shutdowns are the standard tool for frequent political protest- several times per year. You cannot run an international export business with that instability.

Typically, in international agreements the Bolivians are their own worst enemy. They will over reach in their "demands" and foreign business interests will make a hasty retreat for the border. The Bolivians will sit on their pride and their lithium proclaiming that it will stay in the ground for 1,000 years until their demands are met. And that will be the end of it.

Apr 20 01:18 PM

[frflyer:]

David Marsh

I believe you have a few errors in your comment.
Your idea of three way nuclear plants is interesting but don't repeat the falacy that it is CO2 free. It is far from that, when you look at everything leading up to actually placing the fuel rods in the reactor.
Also, the idea that only base load coal or nuclear can charge batteries at night is wrong for at least three reasons.
1. Wind energy does well at night.
2. Solar thermal with storage can provide dispatchable power that actually will be more useful in balancing the grid than base load power from coal or nuclear. Not to mention that it can be built 3 times faster than nuclear.
3. Many gas plants are idle at night while demand is low.
And nuclear is not the only power source that can be used to create hydrogen or desalinize water.

Relevant articles

www.altenergystocks.co...

www.salon.com/news/fea...

climateprogress.org/20.../

www.energyscience.org....

climateprogress.org/20.../

Beanbag

Lithium isn't the only thing we import. How about 90% of our uranium.


chistletoe

The 400 year supply of coal is now estimated at 60-80 years. And if we burn it all without carbon capture, we won't have to worry about any of these other issues. Add carbon capture (once it's proven to actually work) and it will be more expensive than renewable energy.
And it would still be the dirtiest form of electric power generation, because of all the other toxins in coal. I'm not including oil because it is only 1.6% of grid power in the U.S.

Apr 20 02:21 PM

[a. palmer jr.:]

How about a nuclear powered car? I can see that as a real opportunity for the do-it-yourself mechanic!

Apr 20 06:10 PM

[Dusty:]

Noise and distraction. Electric cars will eventually join a list that started with steam-powered cars. CO2? Cannot hold a candle as a greenhouse gas to water vapor. Global warming? More noise and distraction. Very real, the big glaciers all melted- but mostly before there were enough humans to know humanity even existed. That will change and then there will be another ice age in geologic time. 4th or 5th (?) time in recent geologic history (The glaciers have come 4 times lately. Where do you want to put the markers?) Mankind's numbers are peaking. Give that a hundred or two hundred years and the ultimate demise of humans will be the topic of the times. A lot of resources, space, left-behind technology. Few people. What is happening now? Just a changing of the guard. Like Chinese history, a new dynasty is using the chaos of events to take over the principal cultures and socio-economic systems. No big thing. Just a periodic event. More noise.

Apr 21 01:52 AM

[frominside:]

why do you divide by 15, when there is no more than 2kg of lithium ion in a Volt battery pack?

also - don't see any mention of the 100+ million tons of li ion in the ground reserves in not only China, but Nevada, and Canada.

Apr 21 12:44 PM

[frflyer:]

Dusty

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, and as every climate scientist in the world knows, it is a feedback mechanism, NOT a cause of global warming. In fact, it amplifies the effects from CO2. The warmer it gets, the more water evaporates.

Your comments about global warming, which I'm sure you think are brilliant, are those of someone who doesn't even have a Cliff Notes Lite passing knowledge of the issue.

What man is doing to the short term carbon cycle is unprecedented, probably in the history of the planet and certainly in the past 50 million years or more. It is far from being any kind of natural cycle. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I would suggest a little reading. "The Carbon Age" by Eric Roston is a fascinating book about carbon and it's unique properties that make it fundamental to life, among other subjects.

It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth, by precipitating out of the short term carbon cycle, and being locked away in coal deposits and into the long term carbon cycle. Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation of carbon back into the atmosphere and thus, back into the short term carbon cycle, in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond.
That is not a natural cycle. In fact, as far as we know, it has never happened before.

From the book:

"Humans have sped up the global carbon cycle at least one hundred times faster than usual, transforming the world into one that we eventually might not recognize as our own.
Manmade global warming is a geological aberration, nearly meteoric in speed. Human speed has crunched the geologic timescale in to half a century. Events that typically unfold over many thousands or millions of years have begun to occur within a human life span."

"Life has always been driven by geology. The flow of carbon through living things entwines evolution with the inanimate forces of nature. But there is no evidence before now to suggest that biology has ever accelerated the long term carbon cycle onto a short term path. Nothing other than meteorites have changed geology as quickly as humanity. Industry is a powerful new path of interaction between life and geology."

You might want to brush up on your arguments at these links.

environment.newscienti...

scholarsandrogues.word.../

gristmill.grist.org/sk...

scienceblogs.com/illco...

Apr 21 12:56 PM

[Juan Carlos...:]

Jack,

In the following link you will find a comprehensive critique of your paper: seekingalpha.com/insta....

Apr 22 07:50 AM

[chistletoe:]

a very complex treatment of a very simple problem.

the issues around electric cars are all nascent -- lots of raw ideas, lots of new startup companies and emerging technologies, lots of uncertainty. One thing is certain -- the era of having 6,000 tiny explosions per minute under the hood is drawing to a close. Another thing is near certain - the single most abundant, and cheapest, form of potential energy on earth is coal ... the US alone has at least 400 years of reserves ... Electric cars will require electricity. there's nothing on the horizon with the faintest potential to replace current coal-generated electricity or supply new needs. Coal companies are staid, well-established, and priced as if they were banks with bad debts. An opportunity of a lifetime!

Apr 20 09:00 AM