Lithium-Ion Batteries for Hybrid Vehicles? 64 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The recent Hitachi (HIT) announcement that beginning next year and by 2015 it will increase its Li-ion battery production by 70 fold for hybrids is quite significant for the Li-ion battery market. Until now, most analysts thought that there was no real potential for use of Li-ion batteries in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs). They erroneously believed that Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries were the best choice for today´s HEVs, whereas Li-ion batteries were reserved for tomorrow´s Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV), Range Extended Electric Vehicles (REEVs) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs).
This argument, of course, never made sense. It rested on the unreasonable two-fold assumption that Li-ion batteries are not ready for prime-time and that plug-ins (and, for that matter, REEVs and BEVs) are a scam. For one thing, Hitachi´s notice tears apart the first half of the above contention. For another, Toyota's (TM) latest decision to begin mass-producing PHEVs by 2012 and Nissan´s (NSANY) conviction that ”now´s time to go electric” completely demolish the second half of it. Indeed one should not be surprised since PHEVs can be really thought of as an extension of HEVs.
So if Li-ion batteries are to be used quite soon in plug-ins and both range-extended and battery EVs, then why not utilize them now for conventional hybrids as well? The new General Motors (GMGMQ.PK) appears to have understood this. It just asked Hitachi to produce Li-ion batteries for its 100,000 hybrids that it plans to sell from next year.
Taken together, this only means that both NiMH and Lead Acid (LA) battery makers have many reasons to worry nowadays. And some of them, perhaps aided by their government, appear to have started to take some actions. In China, for example, they may be behind their government´s decision to impose restrictions to lithium-ion battery vehicles. At first sight, these constraints may seem somewhat astonishing, considering that China holds one of the most advanced lithium-ion battery car makers of the world, namely Build Your Dreams (BYD) (BYDDF.PK). However, they may be indeed part of a rather rational approach to help a number of other car producers that for the last five years or so have been heavily investing in NiMH and LA battery technologies for their different cheap plug-ins and electric vehicles, already running on Chinese roads and/or getting ready for export to other countries.
While I doubt anything like it could happen in Japan or in the U.S., one should be aware that all these recent events will begin to change dramatically the battery car market as a whole. In this connection, Hitachi´s approach is likely to be followed by other battery makers in Japan and elsewhere.
But this may be a short-lived approach. We will not have to wait too long until the major car makers of the world realize that mass-producing REEVs and BEVs (rather than HEVs and PHEVs) is the correct way forward. The new GM and Nissan seem to be quite clear about it, while Toyota also appears to be moving (albeit cautiously) in the right direction.
l have previously explained why I thought it was in Toyota´s (and Honda's (HMC)) interest to behave this way. But, given GM's recent re-launch and Nissan's renewed financial situation after having been granted a $1,6 billion loan to develop advanced Li-ion batteries for its new pure electric car, to retain its largest share in the automobile market of the world, Toyota will probably need to modify significantly its current conservative business strategy.
Disclosure: Author is a lithium economics analyst based in La Paz, Bolivia. In January 2009 he participated as an invited speaker at the Lithium Supply & Markets Conference held in Santiago, Chile. He holds no positions in any stocks.
Related Articles
|
-
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 active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 64 comments:
Shelf life is one of the major issues, due to the inherent increasing internal resistance within the batteries with age. As an example, Li-ion batteries in laptop notebook computers and cell phones lose about 20% of their charge capacity each year, and typically need to be replaced within 2-5 years. Customers typically get a new cell phone or battery, or a fresh notebook battery, every couple of years when the battery becomes unable to hold a charge for sufficient time. This would never work for cars. Auto makers cannot hope to count on high customer satisfaction, or ave a profitable business plan, if the car has noticeably decreasing range as the months of ownership go by, especially if the battery must be replaced every 2-5 years. Yes - it is easy to make a new Lithium-Ion powered electric or hybrid electric car for demonstration and car show purposes. It is well nigh impossible to have it maintain a useful range for a full life of 5 to 10 years - or at least for the purchase payment and warranty period. Replacing a $5000+ battery every 2-5 of years is just not an option for automotive retail customer, nor a manufacturer. That has become a major issue to solve. The NiMH batteries used in Hybrids (Prius etc.) to date have been veryy good for the long term - very rarely have they needed to be repaired or replaced other than perhaps after accidents.
Another issue has been high heat in Li-Ion batteries. You may recall the issue of certain notebook computers melting down or catching fire, due to the Lithium battery overheating while charging up or during use. This is also related to the inherently high internal resistance, and obviously could never be tolerated in automobiles. High heat also dramatically reduces the useful life of a Li-ion battery, and in automobiles, elaborate (and expensive) battery cooling systems must be added. Essentially, to try to maintain the range capability, the battery must have its own air conditioner and heater; or it must draw on the warmth or coolness from the passenger compartment, to keep it in the "comfortable" range, as the weather varies from the coldest winters to the hottest summers. If the driver shuts off the AC cooling system in the summer to try to increase range "for today", the battery suffers and the long term range capability actually drops.
To get Li-Ion batteries "ready for prime time" in Hybrid-Electric (including Plug-Ins) and full Battery Electric automotive applications, massive (and expensive) efforts are underway to try to improve the cell chemistry, battery-cell configuration, charging systems, cooling systems, etc., in an effort to maximize daily range, and the useful life of the vehicle over time without having to replace the batteries. The battery and automotive companies have business plans in place to try to finish up those efforts in the next year or two, but there is still a lot of work to be done. No company wants to risk ending up with an inferior, uncompetitive product after spending billions and betting the farm to try to rush something to market. That is the road to bankruptcy.
Hybrids, Plug-in Hybrids, and Battery Electric vehicles using the next generation Li-ion batteries are coming, but it will be another year or two before the technology and production facilities are truly ready for mass production. The batteries and their support systems (charging, cooling, etc.) have to be developed concurrently with the application (vehicles). It is definitely a race, and the first to the finish line will have some "laurels" because of it. But battery and automotive companies that try to take short cuts just to be able to say they were "the first" may end up with an inferior product that could be obsolete (or require major system overhaul on warranty) after only a year or two, and end up losing their reputation, if not the farm.
GM is full throttle ahead in placing its Volt into the marketplace. Honda at the present time appears to have little or no interest ATPIT. At first glance, the HMC avoidance approach creates concern regarding the company’s future in neglecting a wunderkind quantum leap forward. HMC’s corporate hierarchy, however, traditionally consists of highly, skilled engineers with a strong tradition of amazingly buyer friendly, quality products.
Alas, GM favors bean counters as officers whose focus is anything other than consumer satisfaction (feel free to disagree with this point at your own peril) e.g., Rick Wagoner (the Carly Fiorina of auto executives). Additionally, Toyota under the leadership (or lack thereof) of CEO Watanabe, a non-engineer marketer, who Americanized the company into bottom line profits with exceedingly adverse quality results is firmly on the Li-Ion production schedule. Watanabe is now gone with a Toyoda family member in place but the Li-Ion Prius plans predated this strategic restructuring.
Yes, it does appear reasonable to follow the author’s lead supported by the HMC approach and pass on Li-Ion supported vehicles until/if the inherent problems are corrected/eliminated. As the noted British poets, The Who, crooned, “Won’t Get Fooled AGAIN!”
On Jul 12 09:30 AM Tdot wrote:
> There have been many technical challenges to deploying Lithium Ion
> batteries in automobiles that the author seems unaware of.
>
> Shelf life is one of the major issues, due to the inherent increasing
> internal resistance within the batteries with age. As an example,
> Li-ion batteries in laptop notebook computers and cell phones lose
> about 20% of their charge capacity each year, and typically need
> to be replaced within 2-5 years. Customers typically get a new cell
> phone or battery, or a fresh notebook battery, every couple of years
> when the battery becomes unable to hold a charge for sufficient time.
> This would never work for cars. Auto makers cannot hope to count
> on high customer satisfaction, or ave a profitable business plan,
> if the car has noticeably decreasing range as the months of ownership
> go by, especially if the battery must be replaced every 2-5 years.
> Yes - it is easy to make a new Lithium-Ion powered electric or hybrid
> electric car for demonstration and car show purposes. It is well
> nigh impossible to have it maintain a useful range for a full life
> of 5 to 10 years - or at least for the purchase payment and warranty
> period. Replacing a $5000+ battery every 2-5 of years is just not
> an option for automotive retail customer, nor a manufacturer. That
> has become a major issue to solve. The NiMH batteries used in Hybrids
> (Prius etc.) to date have been veryy good for the long term - very
> rarely have they needed to be repaired or replaced other than perhaps
> after accidents.
>
> Another issue has been high heat in Li-Ion batteries. You may recall
> the issue of certain notebook computers melting down or catching
> fire, due to the Lithium battery overheating while charging up or
> during use. This is also related to the inherently high internal
> resistance, and obviously could never be tolerated in automobiles.
> High heat also dramatically reduces the useful life of a Li-ion battery,
> and in automobiles, elaborate (and expensive) battery cooling systems
> must be added. Essentially, to try to maintain the range capability,
> the battery must have its own air conditioner and heater; or it must
> draw on the warmth or coolness from the passenger compartment, to
> keep it in the "comfortable" range, as the weather varies from the
> coldest winters to the hottest summers. If the driver shuts off the
> AC cooling system in the summer to try to increase range "for today",
> the battery suffers and the long term range capability actually drops.
>
>
> To get Li-Ion batteries "ready for prime time" in Hybrid-Electric
> (including Plug-Ins) and full Battery Electric automotive applications,
> massive (and expensive) efforts are underway to try to improve the
> cell chemistry, battery-cell configuration, charging systems, cooling
> systems, etc., in an effort to maximize daily range, and the useful
> life of the vehicle over time without having to replace the batteries.
> The battery and automotive companies have business plans in place
> to try to finish up those efforts in the next year or two, but there
> is still a lot of work to be done. No company wants to risk ending
> up with an inferior, uncompetitive product after spending billions
> and betting the farm to try to rush something to market. That is
> the road to bankruptcy.
>
> Hybrids, Plug-in Hybrids, and Battery Electric vehicles using the
> next generation Li-ion batteries are coming, but it will be another
> year or two before the technology and production facilities are truly
> ready for mass production. The batteries and their support systems
> (charging, cooling, etc.) have to be developed concurrently with
> the application (vehicles). It is definitely a race, and the first
> to the finish line will have some "laurels" because of it. But battery
> and automotive companies that try to take short cuts just to be able
> to say they were "the first" may end up with an inferior product
> that could be obsolete (or require major system overhaul on warranty)
> after only a year or two, and end up losing their reputation, if
> not the farm.
Comment on Tdot who is a little behind the times in Lithium development.
There are Li batteries that don't have the problems above like A-123 and Kokam especially LiFePo4 among others. The early, cheap Lithium batteries did have problems but they have been solved. It really wasn't the battery so much as not good enough battery management systems that made them go bad so fast.
While Li are likely to need replacing it will be more like 7-10 yrs and replacement cost much lower than $5k.
As for power several EV drag racers are in the 7-8 sec , up to 168mph 1/4 mile on A123's with a under 200lb pack putting out 400hp. Soon those records will be broken again. So Hybrid power is not a problem.
NiMH can't be built in EV, PHEV sizes as Chevron, the patent holder won't let them, only 10amphr or under cells vs the 50-200amp needed. But they require expensive materials and will probably go up in price vs Li which can now be bought for under sealed lead batteries, $.30wthr, and still dropping in costs.
Other than BYD and maybe A123 I don't see any good investments in Li as they good companies like Hitachi, Panasonic, etc are very large and the batteries a small part. Plus it will be yrs before enough EV, PHEV are made to support many manufacturers. There was many good batteries ready 10 yrs ago when Cal was forcing auto companies to build EV's before CARB was bought off and canceled the EV requirement and GM crushed the EV-1 as others except Toyota's RAV4EV which now sells at $75k, double it's new price.
But PHEV's and EV's will be here as next yr gas will be back to $4/gal will focus the mind. I got tired of waiting and built my own as they are dead simple to do. Yahoo EV clubs and EV racing for info and one near you. My EV's get 250 and 600mpg fuel cost equivalent for my 2 seat sportwagon and 3 wheel MC EV's. I don't miss those gas station stops at all.
If any of the storage issues ideas come to fruition, and converage with solar collection efficiencies, that will be a game-changer.
It's all about the economics of the solutions now, to compete with the high energy density of carbon-based products.
On Jul 12 01:24 PM I need more cowbell wrote:
> One thing to keep an eye on, but is difficult to do because of companies
> involved being very tight-lipped, is ultra-capacitors. If they are
> ever successfully developed/invented, they will completely blow batteries,
> lithium or otherwise, away.
Get ready for the 6 p.m. brownout as everybody gets home and plugs in their PHEV.
.........................
Yes - and one of the "big jokes" that accompanies the development and sale of Plug-in BEV and P-HEV vehicles is the assumption that the batteries of these automobiles can serve as a "backup power source" for the national grid, much like so many uninterrupted power supplies used to back up your computer power.
So - daily commuters come home from work in the evening, plug in their car to recharge, but then a local brownout reverses the current and sucks up all the remaining "juice" in the already nearly-depleted battery. Cancel tonight's dinner or entertainment plans dear - the car is dead again. Imagine the outrage the next morning when the battery is still dead as the power company continued to draw power through the night. Right now the best recharging cycle rates for a full battery electric car with a 100 mile range capability is well into the 10-hours and more, at typical household power limitations. There is no provision for feeding whatever is available in the car's battery back to the national grid, and still have a viable commuter car.
.................
On the Lithium Ion technology discussion notes - I thought I made it very clear that it was the "old school" Li-Ion batteries in common use today that are totally impractical for long automotive use. Absolutely the "next generation" Li-Ion batteries that are coming will have improvements in charging and range-capacity. It is a problem of chemistry - and there are several formulas and strategies that are being worked out to find the optimum.
Any Li-Ion battery will do, if you only have to run the car around for a few demonstration tests or races. The challenge is getting one to last for 5 or 10 years in a car, and keeping the vehicle range in line with the customer's expectations. Otherwise it will be a customer satisfaction disaster. Even with the new Lithium-XXX formulations, there are still major issues to be solved, such as proper charging protocols, waste heat management, and battery-cell cooling, to preserve the battery's life span. It will be a year or two before these issues are fully addressed.
Automakers like Honda, Toyota, Ford, and GM are not deliberately holding up delivering Li-XXX battery electric and hybrid cars to the market, other than for technical reasons. They will not start selling lines of BEV and P-HEV cars with Li-ion batteries, until the batteries and their support equipment are 100% ready for "prime time". The vehicles must be capable of meeting customer expectations for at least 5 years, or the duration of the lease or purchace financing, and maybe up to 10 years for resale potential, with no significant warranty or other customer satisfaction issues.
Sure - it is relatively easy to put together a one-off electric or plug-in hybrid car, for your own driving purposes and tastes. But building them by the thousands, tens, or hundreds of thousands (and doing it profitably), while satisfying all the buyers' expectations, and keeping the vehicle trouble-free for several years of ownership is a huge challenge.
Either way - they will start showing up in relatively vast numbers, in a year or two.
Think of it another way, when you plug in at 6:00 PM all you do is extend the evening usage towards the morning rates.
Please be more worried about the costs of all those new transformers outside your home ($600 per EV) vs new powerplants.
John R. Bryan, PMP
Smart Grid Program Manager
Phone: 303-997-2824
Email: jrb1165@gmail.com
www.johnrbryan.com/Joh...
On Jul 12 12:00 PM Longinvestor wrote:
> Get ready for the 6 p.m. brownout as everybody gets home and plugs
> in their PHEV.
> (Brownout Issues) Come on folks, do the math. Even at 25% of all
> vehicles on the road being plug-ins, peak power only increases 2%,
> while peak usage has been growing 0.8% per year. Don't focus on the
> kWhr but the kW that a EV might draw. A 110v EV will be able the
> same as your hairdryer. (Math above is for 220v 30a system.)
.........................
To be fair, the national grid is already strained to the limit on some days, particularly during summer afternoons and evenings, as home air conditioners are operating at "full blast", beating down the heat from the stove, home theater, computer, etc., never mind the heat from the sun and humidity. Add a few more kW to charge your car, along with thousands of your "neighbors", and an urban region like Detroit or Chicago could really "go brown" fast during a peak. It already happens now - brownouts and rolling blackouts - before plug-in electric cars. It can only get worse after, unless more Gigawatt-class power plants are built and networked-in at the same time.
> I would think the NiMH is a better choice (if made in a large format)
> because it is much more rugged and lasts longer. It's only about
> half the energy density as the lithium, but so what. the ingredients
> for NiMH could never be in short supply... Or could they, I'm not
> sure?
This is primarily why the NiMH has been the battery of choice for HEVs for about the last 10 years, with millions sold, and with relatively few problems. To maintain a battery life span of 5 to 10 years, the battery must remain in the 40-60% charged range. Overcharging or depleting the battery far from the "sweet spot" destroys the battery's useful life.
But that charging strategy - maintaining around 50% at all times, is simply not practical for BEVs and P-HEVs. They are intentionally charged up to nearly 100% overnight, and are then "run down" during the drive to some minimum, at which time the BEVs "limp home" (if they can) and PHEVs kick on the gas engine to recharge and continue driving. That is where the Lithiums work better - sort of like the old "deep cycle" lead acid batteries used in golf carts, forklifts, UPS units, etc.
If Lithium batteries were "easy" to manage and maintain in an automotive application - they would have already been the dominant battery long ago. But the problems are being solved, and they are coming. Just need some time to validate the solutions.
As for the NiMH, I use 3 sets of 3 (for 3.6 and 6.9Ah) for a 5.5 volt 600Ma solar panel with Cree led. It charges to about 4.1 volts and discharges to about 3.3 every day for almost a year now. It seems (from this unscientific experiment) that they could be made not to deplete past 1.1 volts per cell. I also purposely drain em (other smaller solar leds) down just to see and they do still charge.
The author may wish to address the following obstacles I have heard about) to lithium use in vehicle batteries:
1- The total world's known resources of lithium are insufficient for wide spread use in making the numerous quantitiy of electric/hybrid vehicles worldwide. Most vehicle manufacturers will opt for alternatives to lithium that are cheaper and more plentiful.
2- I understand that there is currently no viable method to separate Bolivia's lithium from the presence of other materials in the lithium (brine, etc.).
3- Most importantly, in negotiating with foreign investors and developers, Bolivia's socialist government is making unreasonable demands (that cars and batteries must be manufactured in Bolivia). In general, Bolivia has a really horrible historical track record in such negotiations. It appears that Bolivia is attempting to make current foreign investors pay now for 150 years of multinationals taking advantage of the country in resource deals.
Currently, Bolivia's attitude is an "our way or the highway" attitude and that they will leave Bolivian resources in the ground for 100 years before they yield a bit in negotiations. This attitude sends foreign investors packing. The world needs Bolivian resources including lithium less than Bolivia needs the world. I predict for this reason alone that Bolivia's lithium will never be mined in any significant amount and have virtually no benefit for their nation. Sad but true.
Tdot youare information continues to be less than accurate. The "next generation" li-ion batteries DO (as you say) have much more favorable charging characteristics but they DO NOT have improved "range capacity" more correctly called energy density. In fact the next gen li-ions have much WORSE energy density, 100Wh/kg is optimistic where as lithium cobalt easily makes 150Wh/kg. The advantage is that the next gen batteries have ~10x the cycle life ~10x the POWER density and 10x the ability to recharge quickly (which is generally very closely related to power density as both are directly influenced by internal resistance).
To the author, very well written article I think you have an accurate view of the current state of the technology.
_Nate
> Reports of Honda`s Insight, one begins to think that this company
> needs some restructuring. But be aware that even Honda is working
> with Yuasa right now to equip its future hybrids with Li-ion batteries.
The question becomes, does the consumer hop on the Bolivian Li-Ion express as per GM and Toyota, or wait until Honda, an unquestioned quality fanatic gives the all clear. I appreciate that as a Bolivian national and a citizen of the earth’s almost exclusive Lithium producer your answer may be diametrically different than the long suffering average American consumer. To say it will be different this time and consumers can count on Bolivian Lithium production for the foreseeable future appears in context so detrimentally trite!
I do not wish to be last in line to embrace “wondrous” technology improvements but I will permit others to be first!
Good article. Thanks.
You don't seem to feel, as has been argued in this forum many times (& by Chancer above), that Li battery production capacity or lithium supply will be a major issue. If this were a problem, I suspect the Chinese would be responding to it, or maybe they are with their restrictions.
I couldn't agree with you more:
" We will not have to wait too long until the major car makers of the world realize that mass-producing REEVs and BEVs (rather than HEVs and PHEVs) is the correct way forward."
The complexity and cost of a parallel hybrid drive train, especially a Prius, is dazzling. My concern is long term reliability. If it was anyone but Toyota or Honda, I wouldn't even consider it. A basic BEV is simple and cheap.
As it is, the hybrids are overhyped for highway mileage. They rely on regenerative braking (which is a perfect application for the ultracaps mentioned above) and putting the ICE in the operational sweet spot (BSFC) as much as possible. Any ICE can be turned off when the vehicle is stopped. A series hybrid like a Chevy Volt is a lot simpler drive train, but still has all the disadvantages of both batteries AND ICE.
From what I can find, utilities can't wait for electric vehicle to load level at night. Even a 10 hour cycle (hard to believe at 220V) would work well for them from 9pm to 7am.
Many people don't realize the operational cost of gas versus electric using typical numbers is 7:1.
The major obstacles to BEV's are the boat haulers and road-trippers that basically need range and / or load capacity. As a second car, an 80 mile / 80 mph BEV would fit my needs perfectly for a commuter car, which is where all my mileage is.
Here are my reactions to the points you raised regarding the obstacles to lithium use in vehicle batteries:
1. This is simply nonsense. For a recent report on the supply of lithium, see Keith Evans` piece (seekingalpha.com/artic...). As I mentioned before, most vehicle manufacturers have already opted for lithium. But, of course, if for some reason they confront a supply crunch, then they will look for substitutes. I am perfectly aware that the market will be implacable on this.
2. This is an out-dated presumption that really has no bearing at all. See my Seeking Alpha April article (seekingalpha.com/artic...) for a different perspective on this.
3. I have long advocated a slight different approach than that of the current government of Bolivia to develop my country´s lithium resources. The main thrust of my argument has been included in an interview I gave to the Inter-American Dialogue´s Latin America Advisor which has since been published in its June 23, 2009 issue. Since this publication is only available to subscribers, here is a synthesis: To begin with, we need to implement a real scientific-technological revolution in Bolivia, but this is a long-run and costly effort. I don´t think it is a good idea to spend our scarce money and time on “reinventing the wheel“ trying to develop our own lithium carbonate technology without the appropriate knowledge and human resources. So my suggestion is to engage first in some sort of joint venture with a specialized mining company aimed at specifically producing lithium carbonate. Why? Not only because this compund will have a great demand in the next two or three years but also because this would be a very important signal for the battery and electric vehicle markets with tremendous implications for their growth in the coming years. This will have the virtue of precluding any effort at finding a substitute for lithium and will eventually guarantee the production of more affordable lithium batteries and electric cars. Once Bolivia enters the lithium market, I would suggest to use most of the income generated by the lithium carbonate business to industrialize all the other resources existing in the highest salt lake of the world. Finally, once we produce lithium carbonate and other interesting chemical compounds derived from potassium, boron, magnesium, sodium, etc., the country will have plenty of resources to engage in other joint ventures with foreign companies along the lithium supply chain to produce different kinds of lithium batteries and electric cars.
Just how "limited" is the different kinds of battery techs? I assume NiMH has no production problems in an all electric world. Can Bolivia (and other countries) supply to that amount?
www.gwmg.ca/pdf/2009-j...
It's such a shame GM stood up such production (of NiMH) possibilities for Americans in Troy Michigan!
Thanks for compiling all the recent links & references in your comments. There were a few that I missed. I like your strategy of partnering to move Bolivian carbonate ASAP. This good for both Bolivia and the Li industry.
Do you have any knowledge of rechargeable Li-Air battery developments? My understanding is they should have an order of magnitude higher energy density.
Hydrogen fuel technology.
GCHK is bringing business to China and many European countries.
Why not the USA ?
I appreciate that you have responded diligently to questions raised. Additionally, I sincerely hope the Bolivian citizen’s benefit from Li-Ion’s LIMITED durational era.
> Ford & GM need to team up with Greenchek Technology Co (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> for its
> Hydrogen fuel technology.
> GCHK is bringing business to China and many European countries.<br/>Why
> not the USA ?
Honda has leased hydrogen based fuel cell powered vehicles in Southern California for the past year. Additionally, Honda has in place a home fuel cell heating/cooling system reportedly at or near the production stage.
Yes, many national delivery infrastructure problems exist especially with Big Oil and their empowered political hacks maximally impeding progress!
On Jul 12 12:00 PM Longinvestor wrote:
> Get ready for the 6 p.m. brownout as everybody gets home and plugs
> in their PHEV.
About 2 years ago, while reading Tahil´s "The Trouble with Lithium", I thought that if one can think of Zinc-Air batteries as an alternative to Li-ion batteries, then it should also be possible to develop some sort of Lithium-Air batteries. IBM and others appear to have had the same kind of reasoning. They are beginning to build this kind of batteries. To be honest, I know very little about them, except that they will be Li-metal based. If that is the case, then they may pose the same kind of hurdles as Bollore´s, namely they will tend to use more lithium than Li-ion batteries and will therefore be more costly.
On Jul 13 02:33 AM TinyTim wrote:
> Juan-
> Thanks for compiling all the recent links & references in your
> comments. There were a few that I missed. I like your strategy
> of partnering to move Bolivian carbonate ASAP. This good for both
> Bolivia and the Li industry.
>
> Do you have any knowledge of rechargeable Li-Air battery developments?
> My understanding is they should have an order of magnitude higher
> energy density.
Since I've purchased my highway capable electric motorcycle, my monthly electric usage has gone down, not up, as I now spend more time after work playing with my vehicle than I did at home blasting the air conditioner/heating, using the computer, plasma TV, etc., etc.
Tdot appears deeply uninformed about how plug ins are now playing out in the real world has done a wonderful job spreading FUD, old and misinformation and setting up straw men.
Try the 2007 NRCD/EPRI study that shows that the 2007 grid could handle an instant switch over to more than 75% electric vehicles. There are more recent studies with similar results. Do the basic research, please.
On Jul 12 03:07 PM Tdot wrote:
To be fair, the national grid is already strained to the limit on some days, particularly during summer afternoons and evenings, as home air conditioners are operating at "full blast", beating down the heat from the stove, home theater, computer, etc., never mind the heat from the sun and humidity. Add a few more kW to charge your car, along with thousands of your "neighbors", and an urban region like Detroit or Chicago could really "go brown" fast during a peak. It already happens now - brownouts and rolling blackouts - before plug-in electric cars. It can only get worse after, unless more Gigawatt-class power plants are built and networked-in at the same time.
On Jul 13 09:19 AM jse17 wrote:
> On Jul 13 04:58 AM Ellito wrote:
The total world's known resources of oil in the first generation of automobile use was insufficient for wide spread use in making the numerous quantity of gasoline vehicles worldwide today and oil is nonrenewable with overall long term production declining. Most vehicle manufacturers will opt for energy carrier alternatives to gasoline that are cheaper and more plentiful, such as lithium and many, many other battery chemistries under development, biodiesel, non-food crop ethanol, lpg (propane), compressed natural gas, etc. etc. Electric drive is the end game. Deal with it.
Also, supply and demand interact and unlike oil, an energy source, lithium, an energy carrier, is not consumed forever when used. nor turned into unuasable pollution. Think through the interactions to realize that the end result is increased production and lower prices.
On Jul 12 04:39 PM Chancer wrote:
> With all due respect to the author, it is reasonable to consider
> that he may have a vested interest in promoting the use of Bolivia's
> lithium resources. I can imagine Bolivians in and out of govenment
> right now are collecting funds (or fees) from speculators (suckers)
> wanting to be first for Bolivia's new riches: lithium. In La Paz
> in 1980, the DEA head told me that the Bolivian national pastime
> was separating the gringo from his money.
>
> The author may wish to address the following obstacles I have heard
> about) to lithium use in vehicle batteries:
>
> 1- The total world's known resources of lithium are insufficient
> for wide spread use in making the numerous quantitiy of electric/hybrid
> vehicles worldwide. Most vehicle manufacturers will opt for alternatives
> to lithium that are cheaper and more plentiful.
Petroleum Highway Energy use: 13,709,000 barrels/day
1 barrel=42 gallons
Use is 575,778,000 gallons/day.
gasoline energy=124,000 BTU/gallon
Energy use is=(575,778,000 gallons/day)*(124,000 BTU/gallon)/(1KWH/3,41... KWH/day.
That's 20,925,109 megawatt-hours/day energy use.
By the physical laws of conservation of energy, this much extra electricity must be generated to supply the highway transportation needs every day of the year.
On Jul 12 02:37 PM JRB1165 wrote:
> ( Brownout</span> Issues) Come on folks, do the math. Even at 25%
> of all vehicles on the road being plug-ins, peak power only increases
> 2%, while peak usage has been growing 0.8% per year. Don't focus
> on the kWhr but the kW that a EV might draw. A 110v EV will be able
> the same as your hairdryer. (Math above is for 220v 30a system.)
>
>
> Think of it another way, when you plug in at 6:00 PM all you do is
> extend the evening usage towards the morning rates.
>
> Please be more worried about the costs of all those new transformers
> outside your home ($600 per EV) vs new powerplants.
>
> John R. Bryan, PMP
> Smart Grid Program Manager
> Phone: 303-997-2824
> Email: jrb1165@gmail.com
> www.johnrbryan.com/Joh...
>
Therefore: 20,925,109 megawatt-hours/day * 90/30 = 6,975,036MWhr/day
furthermore only ~40% ( www.teslamotors.com/le... this graph doesn't break down different types of transportation but aviation is ~3% and semi-trucks are ~20%)
of americas oil goes to PERSONAL transportation so:
6,975,036 * .4 = 2,790,014MWhr/day
On Jul 13 01:09 PM Longinvestor wrote:
> Are my figures in error? I did the math using year 2007 DOE.gov figures:
>
> Petroleum Highway Energy use: 13,709,000 barrels/day
> 1 barrel=42 gallons
> Use is 575,778,000 gallons/day.
> gasoline energy=124,000 BTU/gallon
> Energy use is=(575,778,000 gallons/day)*(124,000 BTU/gallon)/(1KWH/3,41...
> KWH/day.
> That's 20,925,109 megawatt-hours/day energy use.
> By the physical laws of conservation of energy, this much extra electricity
> must be generated to supply the highway transportation needs every
> day of the year.
>
>
>
I would like to add to my comment by addressing the issue of Bolivia becoming a (more or less) reliable "just in time" exporter. I sincerely doubt that any knowledgeable multinational company would take that gamble and risk their business in a bet on Bolivia's historical track record.
In Bolivia, the political weapon of choice is to shut down the nation with national transportation strikes that stop all highway traffic, and in some case also air transport. These road blockades are not just local, but are often nationwide for many weeks. I believe that Bolivia still lacks a railroad to the coast and coastal seaport. Bolivia is highly dependent on truck transport, and that is often shutdown by several weeks at a time during every year. Current and previous governments are reluctant to use military force to keep transportation flowing; therefore, it cannot be guaranteed.
A mining company with other worldwide resources which can wait a month to get production to market might tolerate this. Multinational companies which require product for worldwide sales cannot tolerate this.
In addition, I saw a TV interview where a Bolivian minister (Minister of Interior, I believe) stated in his own words (not a journalist report) that foreign companies wanting access to Bolivian lithium would be required by Bolivia to manufacture both batteries and cars in Bolivia. Can you imagine multinational car companies having their cars awaiting shipment for an extra 2 to 4 weeks due to a nationwide transportation strike? Not going to happen. I do not even believe that battery manufacturers in the USA, Europe, or China will tolerate this for delayed shipments of lithium for production in their own countries. They do not want their production line shut down and therefore shipments and sales delayed by Bolivian political protests.
In addition, there are other specific concerns about Bolivia's stability. There is an active separatist movement wanting succession in the resource rich areas. The Bolivian government has an active program to confiscate large ranches and farms in these areas; in some cases, they are using "thugs" similar to African dictatorships to run these ranchers out. Morales has also failed to satisfy many of the demands of impatient indigenous groups.
In response to your comment (since you brought it up) about Bolivia's drug (cocaine) culture, my opinion comes from my own experience of living in Bolivia and continued contacts over a period of 30 years. Much of that time, the hard currency that the Bolivian economy depends upon comes mostly from external foreign aid and the illegal export of cocaine, which is why many Bolivian governments have either been directly involved at the highest levels or just looked the other way.
President Evo Morales is a former coca grower and the leader of the coca grower's union in his neighborhood, where virtually all of the coca grown was to supply cocaine producers, cartels, smuggglers. It is not unreasonable to consider that these connections made Morales the presidential candidate of choice for those in the drug business. He may or may not be taking money from them; but I would guess they financed his presidential campaign. At the very least, the obvious bargain might be that Morales keeps the population preoccupied with national affairs, while he guarantees unobstructed flow of drugs. All Bolivians I know tell me that in Bolivia, everything is always overshadowed by the drug business. Morales has openly opposed any limits on coca growing in the "name of Bolivia culture." In reality, much of the coca grown in some areas (like the region where Morales came from) is not suitable for (culural) chewing, but only good for making cocaine.
On Jul 12 08:20 PM Juan Carlos Zuleta wrote:
> Chancer, with all due respect to you as well, if I have a vested
> interest in promoting the use of Bolivia´s lithium resources, so
> do you have an obscure interest in trying to convince everybody that
> Bolivia has been run since 1980 or so by a bunch of delinquents connected
> to drug traficking. Nevertheless, I am not going to lose my time
> arguing with you on such subjective issues. >
2,790,014MWhr/day/2,08...
On Jul 13 02:49 PM Nate dP wrote:
> Yes your figures are massively in error. gas engines are ~30% efficient
> and electric engines are ~90% efficient.
>
> Therefore: 20,925,109 megawatt-hours/day * 90/30 = 6,975,036MWhr/day
>
>
> furthermore only ~40% ( www.teslamotors.com/le...
> this graph doesn't break down different types of transportation but
> aviation is ~3% and semi-trucks are ~20%)
> of americas oil goes to PERSONAL transportation so:
>
> 6,975,036 * .4 = 2,790,014MWhr/day
On Jul 13 04:37 PM speculawyer wrote:
> On Jul 13 04:19 PM Longinvestor wrote:
www.evworld.com/articl...
Still interested in a Li-Ion based hybrid?
evworld.com/article.cf...)
On Jul 13 04:14 PM Chancer wrote:
> Juan Carlos, thanks for your reply.
>
> I would like to add to my comment by addressing the issue of Bolivia
> becoming a (more or less) reliable "just in time" exporter. I sincerely
> doubt that any knowledgeable multinational company would take that
> gamble and risk their business in a bet on Bolivia's historical track
> record.
>
> In Bolivia, the political weapon of choice is to shut down the nation
> with national transportation strikes that stop all highway traffic,
> and in some case also air transport. These road blockades are not
> just local, but are often nationwide for many weeks. I believe that
> Bolivia still lacks a railroad to the coast and coastal seaport.
> Bolivia is highly dependent on truck transport, and that is often
> shutdown by several weeks at a time during every year. Current and
> previous governments are reluctant to use military force to keep
> transportation flowing; therefore, it cannot be guaranteed.
>
> A mining company with other worldwide resources which can wait a
> month to get production to market might tolerate this. Multinational
> companies which require product for worldwide sales cannot tolerate
> this.
>
> In addition, I saw a TV interview where a Bolivian minister (Minister
> of Interior, I believe) stated in his own words (not a journalist
> report) that foreign companies wanting access to Bolivian lithium
> would be required by Bolivia to manufacture both batteries and cars
> in Bolivia. Can you imagine multinational car companies having their
> cars awaiting shipment for an extra 2 to 4 weeks due to a nationwide
> transportation strike? Not going to happen. I do not even believe
> that battery manufacturers in the USA, Europe, or China will tolerate
> this for delayed shipments of lithium for production in their own
> countries. They do not want their production line shut down and therefore
> shipments and sales delayed by Bolivian political protests.
>
> In addition, there are other specific concerns about Bolivia's stability.
> There is an active separatist movement wanting succession in the
> resource rich areas. The Bolivian government has an active program
> to confiscate large ranches and farms in these areas; in some cases,
> they are using "thugs" similar to African dictatorships to run these
> ranchers out. Morales has also failed to satisfy many of the demands
> of impatient indigenous groups.
>
> In response to your comment (since you brought it up) about Bolivia's
> drug (cocaine) culture, my opinion comes from my own experience of
> living in Bolivia and continued contacts over a period of 30 years.
> Much of that time, the hard currency that the Bolivian economy depends
> upon comes mostly from external foreign aid and the illegal export
> of cocaine, which is why many Bolivian governments have either been
> directly involved at the highest levels or just looked the other
> way.
>
> President Evo Morales is a former coca grower and the leader of the
> coca grower's union in his neighborhood, where virtually all of the
> coca grown was to supply cocaine producers, cartels, smuggglers.
> It is not unreasonable to consider that these connections made Morales
> the presidential candidate of choice for those in the drug business.
> He may or may not be taking money from them; but I would guess they
> financed his presidential campaign. At the very least, the obvious
> bargain might be that Morales keeps the population preoccupied with
> national affairs, while he guarantees unobstructed flow of drugs.
> All Bolivians I know tell me that in Bolivia, everything is always
> overshadowed by the drug business. Morales has openly opposed any
> limits on coca growing in the "name of Bolivia culture." In reality,
> much of the coca grown in some areas (like the region where Morales
> came from) is not suitable for (culural) chewing, but only good for
> making cocaine.
>
>
jse-17, Please
> see my 2008 critique of William Tahil´s "The Trouble with Lithium"
> (evworld.com/article.cf...; and
> evworld.com/article.cf...)
Juan Carlos,
I have sincerely enjoyed and found stimulating your Li-Ion expertise. You are now firmly embedded in my Alpha “follow list!”
None of us are clairvoyant and all consumers are justifiably skeptical of technology advances historically controlled by potentially unreliable sources e.g., Middle Eastern Potentates and Mr. Chavez. Perhaps if we focus on an alternative vs. substitute for total oil based transportation the current conundrum on Li-Ion availability etc. becomes a significantly reduced if not eliminated issue.
ANY reduction in oil dependence is more than welcome and opens “unconventional” energy pathways for a far brighter future. Li-Ion technology is but one of hopefully many oil alternatives making dependence on any single entity a non-starter. Paraphrasing and in basic terms, competition between energy sources is a wonderful thing.
Again, Juan Carlos’ work is appreciated and highly informative!
The Bolivian source is large and probably larger than generally acknowledged but quality is what determines production costs and hence ones ability to successfully market the product.
The brines in the Salar de Uyuni contain a significantly lower concentration of lithium than currant South American producers and have a higher magnesium content than competitive brines. Both these factors together with much lower solar evaporation rates will push up costs.
As stated earlier, in situ reserves and resources outside of Bolivia approximate to 25.0 million tonnes Li and each million tonnes of recovered lithium (133 million tonnes of lithium carbonate) is sufficient for 560 million vehicles requiring a 10KW/h battery.
When you do the maths and assume that 50% of the non-Bolivian resource tonnage is recoverable it can be seen that the world then can, if necessary, manage without Bolivia.
Rather than continuously preaching about potential exploitation the Government should be laying out a red carpet for potential partners if they can help accelerate evaluation and possible development. When large scale recycling of lithium batteries kicks in ten years or so after initial large scale usage, primary lithium production could fall significantly.
R. Keith Evans
Industrial Minerals Consultant
One has to now wonder whether SB LiMotive will now resume manufacturing the NiMH EV-95 battery that powered the Toyota RAV4-EV to a range upwards of 140 miles.
Ken Grubb
Puyallup, WA, USA
Hi Juan, good info here mostly. A few points.
There is plenty of power to charge any possible amount of EV's built in the next 10 yrs. EV's can be used for peak power needs, V2G which has been available for 10+ yrs by Aerovironment among others and few will be charged at 6pm but at 1-6 am instead.
I hope Bolivia start doing Lithium soon or they will be left behind as almost every oil well in the world is in the middle of a salt dome and over a brine pool many of which will have usable lithium brines.
Lithium is common, we just never needed it before so only now looking for it.
There are multiple EV batteries including Sodium, Alum or Zinc air, Nicad that are ready to go, they just need orders. MiMH, NiCad materials are too costly so will rarely be practical unless 50 yr life is needed. I use 40 yr old flooded nicads that still put out rated power in a small EV.
Alum/Zinc air recharges by changing the plates but give 400-600 mile ranges if wanted.
Most batteries can be recharged as fast as they can be discharged. We have charged in 15 minutes to 80% Lead, A123 Lithium's, Nicads without problems.
From the comment there seems some oilies here who are scared of EV's as they should be. It's hard to beat EV's with $4/gal oil.
While EV's won't start fast that's only because big auto won't supply them at a reasonable price. Watch out for BYD as they are ready if others are not.
On Jul 16 12:20 PM Ken Grubb wrote:
> Just this week it was announced that SB LiMotive, a joint venture
> between Samsung SDI and Robert Bosch, will acquire Cobasys.
>
> One has to now wonder whether SB LiMotive will now resume manufacturing
> the NiMH EV-95 battery that powered the Toyota RAV4-EV to a range
> upwards of 140 miles.
>
> Ken Grubb
> Puyallup, WA, USA
any possible EVs to be built and introduced into the market. I also agree that Bolivia has to enter the lithium market ASAP if it is not to be left behind. Beware though that Bolivia´s lithium potential goes far beyond the Salar of Uyuni (See: www.newworldresource.c...). For a recent comparison among different battery technologies see: reviews.cnet.com/8301-...; www.madkatz.com/ev/bat.... Lastly, as I have argued in my presentation at the LS&M conference in January 2009, not only the oil price but also its volatility constitute one of the factors for the adoption of Li-ion batteries (See: www.lithiumsite.com/up...). In addition, we have to keep an eye on the fact that most oil companies are nowadays state-owned oil companies and some of them may be concerned with mitigating the world´s environmental problems. But, of course, there may also be some state-owned oil companies with a different agenda.
On Jul 16 12:27 PM jerrydd wrote:
>
> Hi Juan, good info here mostly. A few points.
>
> There is plenty of power to charge any possible amount of EV's built
> in the next 10 yrs. EV's can be used for peak power needs, V2G which
> has been available for 10+ yrs by Aerovironment among others and
> few will be charged at 6pm but at 1-6 am instead.
>
> I hope Bolivia start doing Lithium soon or they will be left behind
> as almost every oil well in the world is in the middle of a salt
> dome and over a brine pool many of which will have usable lithium
> brines.
> Lithium is common, we just never needed it before so only now looking
> for it.
>
> There are multiple EV batteries including Sodium, Alum or Zinc air,
> Nicad that are ready to go, they just need orders. MiMH, NiCad materials
> are too costly so will rarely be practical unless 50 yr life is needed.
> I use 40 yr old flooded nicads that still put out rated power in
> a small EV.
>
> Alum/Zinc air recharges by changing the plates but give 400-600 mile
> ranges if wanted.
>
> Most batteries can be recharged as fast as they can be discharged.
> We have charged in 15 minutes to 80% Lead, A123 Lithium's, Nicads
> without problems.
>
> From the comment there seems some oilies here who are scared of EV's
> as they should be. It's hard to beat EV's with $4/gal oil.
>
> While EV's won't start fast that's only because big auto won't supply
> them at a reasonable price. Watch out for BYD as they are ready if
> others are not.
Keith Evans’ math, 560 million EVs per million MT (tonne, or metric ton) of lithium, is not that far off if you accept his assumption of 10 kWh per EV.
As you stated, “1 million MT Li metal = 5,32 million MT Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (LCE)” = 5.32 billion kg LCE. So, using your suggested “better assumption” of 1kg of LCE per kWh, I get 532 million EVs per million MT of lithium. Using Keith Evans’ 0.6 kg LCE per kWh and 10 kWh of usable energy for every 16 kWh of nominal energy (like in the Volt), or 9.6 kWh of usable storage per EV, I get his 560 million number.
On Jul 18 09:58 AM NorthernPiker wrote:
> Juan,
>
> Keith Evans’ math, 560 million EVs per million MT (tonne, or metric
> ton) of lithium, is not that far off if you accept his assumption
> of 10 kWh per EV.
>
> As you stated, “1 million MT Li metal = 5,32 million MT Lithium Carbonate
> Equivalent (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)” = 5.32 billion kg
> LCE. So, using your suggested “better assumption” of 1kg of LCE per
> kWh, I get 532 million EVs per million MT of lithium. Using Keith
> Evans’ 0.6 kg LCE per kWh and 10 kWh of usable energy for every 16
> kWh of nominal energy (like in the Volt), or 9.6 kWh of usable storage
> per EV, I get his 560 million number.
On Jul 18 09:58 AM NorthernPiker wrote:
> Juan,
>
> Keith Evans’ math, 560 million EVs per million MT (tonne, or metric
> ton) of lithium, is not that far off if you accept his assumption
> of 10 kWh per EV.
>
> As you stated, “1 million MT Li metal = 5,32 million MT Lithium Carbonate
> Equivalent (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)” = 5.32 billion kg
> LCE. So, using your suggested “better assumption” of 1kg of LCE per
> kWh, I get 532 million EVs per million MT of lithium. Using Keith
> Evans’ 0.6 kg LCE per kWh and 10 kWh of usable energy for every 16
> kWh of nominal energy (like in the Volt), or 9.6 kWh of usable storage
> per EV, I get his 560 million number.
"Keith, To begin with, I am afraid there is something wrong with your numbers, under your assumptions (0,6 kg per 1KWh; each vehicle requires 10 KWh), 1 million MT Li metal = 5,32 million MT Lithium Carbonate Equivalent), there is no way to come up with with 560 million vehicles per 1 million MT of Li metal. "
Specifically, I disagree with " there is no way to come up with with 560 million vehicles per 1 million MT of Li metal." Using your numbers (10 kg lithium carbonate equivalent per 10 kWh), I get 532 million (electric) vehicles per million MT of lithium, which is within 4% of 560 million vehicles. Do you disagree with the number of 532 million?
Whether the number is 560 million or 532 million vehicles, 1 million metric tons of lithium would suffice for roughly:
4 billion HEVs (1.3 kWh),
300 million Volts (16 kWh), or
100 million Tesla Roadsters (53 kWh).
Sorry for any confusion that resulted from my introduction of the concept of usable storage. It was introduced in an obviously unsuccessful attempt to explain the likely reason for the different numbers that Keith Evans and you (seemingly) had arrived at. I'll leave you to address this trivial 4% difference.
I was not proposing a bundle of vehicles - 4 billion HEVs plus 300 million Volts plus 100 million Tesla Roadsters. Such a bundle would require about 2.9 (actually 2.87594) million MT of lithium metal.
I was suggesting 4 billion HEVs, 300 million Volts or 100 million Tesla Roadsters would each require approximately 1 million MT of lithium metal. This helps me in understanding the magnitude of 1 million MT of lithium. For example, in the case of a 25 kWh BEV, a million MT of lithium metal equates to about 200 million vehicles.
(BTW 2.87594 is the inverse of 0.3477125, which it should be. Agreed?)
On Jul 19 06:33 PM NorthernPiker wrote:
> Juan,
>
> I was not proposing a bundle of vehicles - 4 billion HEVs plus 300
> million Volts plus 100 million Tesla Roadsters. Such a bundle would
> require about 2.9 (actually 2.87594) million MT of lithium metal.
>
>
> I was suggesting 4 billion HEVs, 300 million Volts or 100 million
> Tesla Roadsters would each require approximately 1 million MT of
> lithium metal. This helps me in understanding the magnitude of 1
> million MT of lithium. For example, in the case of a 25 kWh BEV,
> a million MT of lithium metal equates to about 200 million vehicles.
>
>
> (BTW 2.87594 is the inverse of 0.3477125, which it should be. Agreed?)
1- I am fully aware of Bolivia's history of mineral exports. But that has been generally to companies who could easily tolerate (put up with) delays due to Bolivia's unstable political environment. But companies did not have "just-in-time" supply procurement in 1825. It is different when your production line for batteries and vehicles depends upon reliable flow of materials. Bolivia cannot, because it lacks the political will, insure unencumbered transportation of materials nor manufactured goods. My comment about not using military force was only a quite obvious extreme example. I doubt the Bolivia government (current or future) is even capable of polite talk to stop road blockades, let only more forceful action. Foreign companies signing deals for Bolivian lithium will change their attitude the first time the nation's roads and transportation system is shut down.
2- You also miss the point about my comment on the ranch "nationalizations." I never said they were located any where near lithium resources. That was a recent example of how the Bolivian government fails to respect "the rule of law", which should be a warning to foreign companies considering investment in Bolivia. The same treatment could some day happen to them. There are many such examples in the history of Bolivia with the ranches only being the most recent.
3- I would not expect you to honestly comment about the Bolivian president, as you are in Bolivia, and I would like to see you in jail nor lose you income. I will maintain my anonymous ID, as I know people in Bolivia, and would not wish harm to come to them for my free speech expression.
4- Regardless of all that has been said here, I still doubt that lithium mining and export from Bolivia will ever be much more that a lot of talk. The Bolivian government lacks the good sense to make economics trump politics.
On Jul 14 03:29 AM Juan Carlos Zuleta wrote:
> Chancer, First, your doubts about the willingness of multinational
> corporations to invest in Bolivia are absolutely unfounded. Indeed,
> as time passes, more and more foreign companies (e.g. Mitsubishi,
> Sumitomo, Bollore, and LG, to name just a few) are trying to close
> a deal with the Bolivian government to develop the country´s lithium
> resources. I invite you to do a simple google search to verify this.
> What you don´t seem to realize - and most foreign companies interested
> in the Bolivian lithium do - is that there is simply too much at
> stake here for them, for Bolivia and for the world. Second, I don´t
> think Bolivia is the only country in the world where you can confront
> road blockades from time to time. Of course that can be very detrimental
> to any business, but I wonder whether you can name one perfect country
> in the planet. That previous and current governments have not been
> willing to use military forces to solve the blockades seems fine
> to me. Would you have preferred to see some bloodshed down here and
> perhaps a civil war? Certainly, we don´t have a seagate and as I
> told Simon Moores, Assistant editor of Industrial Minerals, in an
> interview the other day, that could be a problem not only for the
> multinational companies that could eventually work here but for Bolivia
> itself; this logistical problem may reduce the revenue to be obtained
> from exporting lithium carbonate to the world. Third, You talk as
> if Bolivia couldn´t handle any international business at all. For
> your information, we have been exporting different minerals to the
> world since 1825 and even earlier when we were part of Spain during
> colonial times, and have been selling natural gas to Argentina and
> Brazil for quite some time and to my recollection nothing catastrophic
> has yet happened. I have always thought that at the end of the day
> economics wins over politics. Maybe you should ask former President
> Bush and President Chavez about it. Fourth, Regarding Bolivia´s stability,
> you are completely confused as to where the lithium resources are
> in Bolivia. When you speak about confiscation of large ranches and
> farms – which indeed happens not to be the case at all – you give
> the impression that those lands are near the Salar de Uyuni and that
> only confirms that you really don´t know what you are talking about.
> Fifth, That the Bolivian economy has depended on external foreign
> aid and the illegal export of coca especially during the 80s is also
> probably true but that doesn´t mean that we were and are happy about
> that. In this connection, lithium could help us change our future.
> But it is up to us to decide how to go about it. Sixth, I am not
> going to comment on your remarks about the President of Bolivia;
> not until you leave aside your anonymity.
Excuse me.
I meant to say that: I would NOT like to see you in jail...
On Jul 30 03:33 PM Chancer wrote:
> Here is just a brief response:
>
> 1- I am fully aware of Bolivia's history of mineral exports. But
> that has been generally to companies who could easily tolerate (put
> up with) delays due to Bolivia's unstable political environment.
> But companies did not have "just-in-time" supply procurement in 1825.
> It is different when your production line for batteries and vehicles
> depends upon reliable flow of materials. Bolivia cannot, because
> it lacks the political will, insure unencumbered transportation of
> materials nor manufactured goods. My comment about not using military
> force was only a quite obvious extreme example. I doubt the Bolivia
> government (current or future) is even capable of polite talk to
> stop road blockades, let only more forceful action. Foreign companies
> signing deals for Bolivian lithium will change their attitude the
> first time the nation's roads and transportation system is shut down.
>
>
> 2- You also miss the point about my comment on the ranch "nationalizations."
> I never said they were located any where near lithium resources.
> That was a recent example of how the Bolivian government fails to
> respect "the rule of law", which should be a warning to foreign companies
> considering investment in Bolivia. The same treatment could some
> day happen to them. There are many such examples in the history of
> Bolivia with the ranches only being the most recent.
>
> 3- I would not expect you to honestly comment about the Bolivian
> president, as you are in Bolivia, and I would like to see you in
> jail nor lose you income. I will maintain my anonymous ID, as I know
> people in Bolivia, and would not wish harm to come to them for my
> free speech expression.
>
> 4- Regardless of all that has been said here, I still doubt that
> lithium mining and export from Bolivia will ever be much more that
> a lot of talk. The Bolivian government lacks the good sense to make
> economics trump politics.
>
> On Jul 14 03:29 AM Juan Carlos Zuleta wrote: