IBM's Super Battery

[Nobody]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:50:41 -0400, T.Keating wrote:

@5kWh per kg of battery weight. One needs less than 10 kg of lithium
per EV, which can easily be recycled when the vehicle is junked.

Yeah, but 5kWh/kg is ~18MJ/kg, which is an order of magnitude above any
existing battery technology.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Storage type Energy density (MJ/kg)

battery, Lithium-manganese 0.83-1.01
battery, Lithium ion 0.46-0.72
battery, Lithium Sulphur 1.26
battery, Silver-oxide 0.47

coal, Bituminous 24
Methanol 19.7
Hydrazine 19.5
Liquid ammonia 18.6
Peat briquette 17.7
coal, Lignite 14.0

 

In sci.physics T. Keating <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:45:03 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:ns4dg6-45f.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9684b1cd-dbe5-4784-8034-df8d496f5806@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
IBM and MIT announced a battery with a 40% more mechanical energy than
liquid fuel: 5 kW-hr/kg.

Is the spent battery material reprocessed or is the battery simply
recharged?

What is the projected price?


Bret Cahill


Please cite a URL or information source for this.
What does "mechanical energy" mean when talking about a battery or a
fuel?

What they are actually doing is working on a proposal to get funding
from DOE to start research into the possibility of developing a
whiz-bang battery.

http://beta.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Thanks. It looks like a form of this lithium-air battery already exists so
the IBM-MIT effort is not starting at square one. If developed, it may
change everything, but has to be reasonably priced and safe. That's a tall
order but seems promising.

Yeah, well there still is the inconvienient reality that there isn't
that much recoverable lithium on the planet.

That which does exist is mostly in South America and China, so the net
effect of making all cars electric would be to swap foreign oil imports
for foreign lithium imports until it runs out.

There is no such thing as bio-lithium.


http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1434
"Lithium in Abundance"

"Open Access Article Originally Published: April 15, 2008"

"As to the issue of American lithium resources, Evans pointed out that
a single geothermal well in southern California can produce enough
lithium to meet all of the world's current demand for lithium."

":He estimates it at 28.4 million tonnes of lithium, which is
equivalent to 150 million tonnes of lithium carbonate. Current world
demand is 16,000 tonnes."

@5kWh per kg of battery weight. One needs less than 10 kg of lithium
per EV, which can easily be recycled when the vehicle is junked.

1000 / 10 * 2.84e+7 tonns == 2.84 billion EVs.

"The Trouble with Lithium 2"

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:anmdg6-deo.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, well there still is the inconvienient reality that there isn't
that much recoverable lithium on the planet.

That which does exist is mostly in South America and China, so the net
effect of making all cars electric would be to swap foreign oil imports
for foreign lithium imports until it runs out.

There is no such thing as bio-lithium.

Oil is not a renewable fuel, while lithium is a reusable-recyclable
material, it's not a fair comparison (besides the fact that very likely we
have enough lithium to build even billions electric vehicles wortdwide)

"demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the
planned production increases in the next decade"

"realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be sufficient
for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market requirements"

"mass production of lithium carbonate is not environmentally sound, it will
cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected
and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the 'Green Car'"

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

IBM and MIT announced a battery with a 40% more mechanical energy than
liquid fuel: 5 kW-hr/kg.
[snip crap]

Since this is a physical impossiblity, bullshit.

What makes you think this is a physical impossibility ?

He may some conflict of interest.

The 5kWh/kg is real (at least theoretical) for the Lithium-air
electrochemical reaction.

The problem with a large mature company isn't that it'll make wild
claims but that it won't make any claims at all. Even so it was
interesting that they sought out MIT to check their work and bolster
their case.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bob Eld]

"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
newsan.2009.06.14.05.37.21.359000@nowhere.com...

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:08:14 -0700, George Herold wrote:

Nice list, you might add TNT at 9.5,

TNT's energy density of 4.2MJ/kg is less than a tenth of that of petrol,
diesel or kerosene (all around 45MJ/kg).

Yes, TNT's claim to fame is it's rapid explosive reaction not it's energy
density. Chemical explosives are NOT particularly energy dense compared to
common fuels. People confuse energy density with the ability to detonate
into volumes of gas very rapidly; i,e, explode. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Mark Thorson]

Bob Eld wrote:

"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
newsan.2009.06.14.05.37.21.359000@nowhere.com...
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:08:14 -0700, George Herold wrote:

Nice list, you might add TNT at 9.5,

TNT's energy density of 4.2MJ/kg is less than a tenth of that of petrol,
diesel or kerosene (all around 45MJ/kg).

Yes, TNT's claim to fame is it's rapid explosive reaction not it's energy
density. Chemical explosives are NOT particularly energy dense compared to
common fuels. People confuse energy density with the ability to detonate
into volumes of gas very rapidly; i,e, explode. They aren't the same thing.

The latter being known as brisance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

 

[pom]

T. Keating a écrit :

"Lithium in Abundance"

"Open Access Article Originally Published: April 15, 2008"

"As to the issue of American lithium resources, Evans pointed out that
a single geothermal well in southern California can produce enough
lithium to meet all of the world's current demand for lithium."

":He estimates it at 28.4 million tonnes of lithium, which is
equivalent to 150 million tonnes of lithium carbonate. Current world
demand is 16,000 tonnes."

@5kWh per kg of battery weight. One needs less than 10 kg of lithium
per EV, which can easily be recycled when the vehicle is junked.

1000 / 10 * 2.84e+7 tonns == 2.84 billion EVs.

So, what do you do to get the Li from the carbonate (the IBM cell uses Li)?
Anyway, you will set free carbon and if you dont manage this correctly,
you will end up with still more Co2...???
pom

 

[Romeo Gigli]

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9ijfg6-ge3.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:anmdg6-deo.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, well there still is the inconvienient reality that there isn't
that much recoverable lithium on the planet.

That which does exist is mostly in South America and China, so the net
effect of making all cars electric would be to swap foreign oil imports
for foreign lithium imports until it runs out.

There is no such thing as bio-lithium.

Oil is not a renewable fuel, while lithium is a reusable-recyclable
material, it's not a fair comparison (besides the fact that very likely
we
have enough lithium to build even billions electric vehicles wortdwide)

"demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the
planned production increases in the next decade"

"realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be sufficient
for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market
requirements"

The article is very biased, even if we had a few milions of tonns of
economically extractable mineral, we have enough Li to build billions of
plugins like GM' s Volt, the material being easily reusable/recyclable at
the end of the life

"mass production of lithium carbonate is not environmentally sound, it
will
cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected
and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the 'Green
Car'"

Perhaps that' s true, but obviuosly this is easily applicable for any
intensive oil or coal production activity, with the difference that oil and
coal pollutes in EVERY step of their minning, extraction, production,
refinement and in particular combustion

 

[Bret Cahill]

"Lithium in Abundance"

"Open Access Article Originally Published: April 15, 2008"

"As to the issue of American lithium resources, Evans pointed out that
a single geothermal well in southern California can produce enough
lithium to meet all of the world's current demand for lithium."

":He estimates it at 28.4 million tonnes of lithium, which is
equivalent to 150 million tonnes of lithium carbonate. Current world
demand is 16,000 tonnes."

@5kWh per kg of battery weight. One needs less than 10 kg of lithium
per EV, which can easily be recycled when the vehicle is junked. ďż˝

�1000 / 10 * 2.84e+7 tonns == 2.84 billion EVs.

So, what do you do to get the Li from the carbonate (the IBM cell uses Li)?
Anyway, you will set free carbon and if you dont manage this correctly,
you will end up with still more Co2...???

The Li is reprocessed over and over using some CO2 neutral energy
source. Since it can be stored indefinitely intermittent energy like
wind and solar can be used.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message news:0sr935lia632n11takn2qlgbhrqjmmkh8a@4ax.com...

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:45:03 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:ns4dg6-45f.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9684b1cd-dbe5-4784-8034-df8d496f5806@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
IBM and MIT announced a battery with a 40% more mechanical energy than
liquid fuel: 5 kW-hr/kg.

Is the spent battery material reprocessed or is the battery simply
recharged?

What is the projected price?


Bret Cahill


Please cite a URL or information source for this.
What does "mechanical energy" mean when talking about a battery or a
fuel?

What they are actually doing is working on a proposal to get funding
from DOE to start research into the possibility of developing a
whiz-bang battery.

http://beta.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Thanks. It looks like a form of this lithium-air battery already exists so
the IBM-MIT effort is not starting at square one. If developed, it may
change everything, but has to be reasonably priced and safe. That's a tall
order but seems promising.

Yeah, well there still is the inconvienient reality that there isn't
that much recoverable lithium on the planet.

That which does exist is mostly in South America and China, so the net
effect of making all cars electric would be to swap foreign oil imports
for foreign lithium imports until it runs out.

There is no such thing as bio-lithium.


http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1434
"Lithium in Abundance"

"Open Access Article Originally Published: April 15, 2008"

"As to the issue of American lithium resources, Evans pointed out that
a single geothermal well in southern California can produce enough
lithium to meet all of the world's current demand for lithium."

":He estimates it at 28.4 million tonnes of lithium, which is
equivalent to 150 million tonnes of lithium carbonate. Current world
demand is 16,000 tonnes."

This information is in stark contrast to the paper by the Meridian Institute (which Jim also just posted) :
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf

That paper actually caused a shock through the PHEV world, since until then it was assumed that Lithium was abundant and cheap for
the forseeable future.
It's a great read, full of detailed analysis and realistic estimates of production and market demand projections.
I have not seen a rebuttal with valid data on the Meridian publication, other than some Bolivian industry publications and
traditional number throwing.

Apparently now there is one : This paper "An Abundance of Lithium" written my Leith Evans.
It was actually not easy to find Keith Evans paper itself.
But here is at least a HTML version of it :
http://www.worldlithium.com/AN_ABUNDANCE_OF_LITHIUM_-_Part_2.html

Here we have two different papers, both written by experts in the field of Lithium reserves.

They both have a very different point of view, and I recommend reading both of them in detail.

Which one is right will be probably remain unknown until PHEVs become at least available in volumes with 10kWh batteries.
Keep a close eye on Lithium Carbonate prices when that starts to happen..)

Rob
]

Rob

@5kWh per kg of battery weight. One needs less than 10 kg of lithium
per EV, which can easily be recycled when the vehicle is junked.

1000 / 10 * 2.84e+7 tonns == 2.84 billion EVs.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jun 15, 8:27 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in messagenews:AUnZl.45633$Ux.11330@tornado.fastwebnet.it...







j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9ijfg6-ge3.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:anmdg6-deo.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bob Eld <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, well there still is the inconvienient reality that there isn't
that much recoverable lithium on the planet.

That which does exist is mostly in South America and China, so the net
effect of making all cars electric would be to swap foreign oil imports
for foreign lithium imports until it runs out.

There is no such thing as bio-lithium.

Oil is not a renewable fuel, while lithium is a reusable-recyclable
material, it's not a fair comparison (besides the fact that very likely
we
have enough lithium to build even billions electric vehicles wortdwide)

"demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the
planned production increases in the next decade"

"realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be sufficient
for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market
requirements"

The article is very biased, even if we had a few milions of tonns of economically extractable mineral, we have enough Li to build
billions of plugins like GM' s Volt, the material being easily reusable/recyclable at the end of the life

Remember that the author focused on currently proven reserves and realistic assumptions about production rates.
So I did not see that it is 'biased'.

An extra "few million ton" of high-grade Lithium from current mining is simply not so easy to come by (if possible at all).
It may not be possible without extraction of Lithium from the oceans, which is a very expensive process at this time.

Here is another quote :

"If all future Li2CO3 production increases are purified into battery grade material, it will still only be sufficient in the most
optimum scenario for at most 4 to 8 million GM Volt class vehicles worldwide per annum by 2015 - 2020"

That's still a lot of vehicles, but no more than 10% world wide vehicle demand.
And remember that a major part of the problem is Lithium rate of production.

"Existing demand for Li2CO3 for portable electronic batteries is streching the ability of the Lithium producers to keep pace even
before the first automotive batteries 100 times as large as a laptop computer battery reach the market".

Well, but laptops may even become a thing of the past soon, except
for the
most imfallible airborme nerds.

Since they're mostly used by the press and entertainment people
as a ersatz substite for optical computers. So the ground people
who mostly know how
they work have shifted their work over to Blue Ray, HDTV, USB, GPS,
SGML, XML,
Holographics, Pv Cell Energy, On-Line Banking, and On-Line
Publishing.

"mass production of lithium carbonate is not environmentally sound, it
will
cause irreparable ecological damage to ecosystems that should be protected
and that LiIon propulsion is incompatible with the notion of the 'Green
Car'"

Perhaps that' s true, but obviuosly this is easily applicable for any intensive oil or coal production activity, with the
difference that oil and coal pollutes in EVERY step of their minning, extraction, production, refinement and in particular
combustion- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Nobody]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:00:27 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

This information is in stark contrast to the paper by the Meridian
Institute (which Jim also just posted) :
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf

That paper actually caused a shock through the PHEV world, since until
then it was assumed that Lithium was abundant and cheap for the
forseeable future.
It's a great read, full of detailed analysis and realistic estimates of
production and market demand projections. I have not seen a rebuttal
with valid data on the Meridian publication, other than some Bolivian
industry publications and traditional number throwing.

Apparently now there is one : This paper "An Abundance of Lithium"
written my Leith Evans. It was actually not easy to find Keith Evans
paper itself. But here is at least a HTML version of it :
http://www.worldlithium.com/AN_ABUNDANCE_OF_LITHIUM_-_Part_2.html

Here we have two different papers, both written by experts in the field
of Lithium reserves.

They both have a very different point of view, and I recommend reading
both of them in detail.

I only had a quick glance at the latter, but one point stood out. The
author of the former, William Tahil, appears to also be the author of:

"Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre -
Incontrovertible Proof that the World Trade Centre was destroyed by
Underground Nuclear Explosions "

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf

I suspect that knowing that might make some people a bit more sceptical
about Tahil's work.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Greegor" <Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:209ea79c-78d6-49f8-af53-9f397da40289@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Wasn't it IBM that came up with carbon nanorods
that are supposed to revolutionize battery capacity?
As anodes they were supposed to multiply the
capacity of batteries by 10x.

I think you refer to the Stanford nanowire anode development by Yi Cui,
professor at Stanford.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

That development applies (and refers) to traditional technology (lithium ion
and such), not the Lithium-air battery proposed here.
still stands and as far as I know they are exploring commercialization.

One recurring issue with these nano technology is upscaling (and keeping
production cost low).
From another report :
"The downside is that the nanowire growth process that Cui uses, which feeds
gaseous silicon to a liquid gold catalyst to make the solid electrode, is a
high-temperature (600 to 900 °C) process that could be costly to scale up.
Cui believes that scale-up of the vapor-liquid-solid process is nevertheless
feasible, but he acknowledges that he is also "exploring another approach."
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&id=20000

What was the enhancement that already
multiplied the capacity of NIMH batteries by 10x?

Don't know this one.
In general, there are many research and development projects ongoing to find
a low-cost, high-capacity battery suitable for the expected PHEV market. You
will see all kind of new developments, one claiming even bolder improvements
that the next.
Which one of these alternatives will make it to commercialization is unclear
at this point.
Just let research and development and production engineering do it's thing.
But one thing is sure : there will be improvements in both energy capacity,
power density and cost reduction.

Rob

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
newsan.2009.06.16.06.21.08.344000@nowhere.com...

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:00:27 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

This information is in stark contrast to the paper by the Meridian
Institute (which Jim also just posted) :
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf

That paper actually caused a shock through the PHEV world, since until
then it was assumed that Lithium was abundant and cheap for the
forseeable future.
It's a great read, full of detailed analysis and realistic estimates of
production and market demand projections. I have not seen a rebuttal
with valid data on the Meridian publication, other than some Bolivian
industry publications and traditional number throwing.

Apparently now there is one : This paper "An Abundance of Lithium"
written my Leith Evans. It was actually not easy to find Keith Evans
paper itself. But here is at least a HTML version of it :
http://www.worldlithium.com/AN_ABUNDANCE_OF_LITHIUM_-_Part_2.html

Here we have two different papers, both written by experts in the field
of Lithium reserves.

They both have a very different point of view, and I recommend reading
both of them in detail.

I only had a quick glance at the latter, but one point stood out. The
author of the former, William Tahil, appears to also be the author of:

"Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre -
Incontrovertible Proof that the World Trade Centre was destroyed by
Underground Nuclear Explosions "

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf

I suspect that knowing that might make some people a bit more sceptical
about Tahil's work.

In my opinion, it does not look good on Evans that he brings up this paper.
It kind of shows that he has run out of on-subject objections to Tahil, so
he resorts to off-subject arguments. Pretty lame if you ask me.

Evans should stick to the argument of Lithium reserves. His estimate is
29.79 million ton world wide.
This is in stark contrast to the 11 million ton that the USDS estimates.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/lithimcs07.pdf

So I'm not sure what Evans' agenda is, but he has some explaining to do.

Rob

 

[Romeo Gigli]

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:a2CZl.32017$yr3.24038@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

"demand from the portable electronics sector will absorb much of the
planned production increases in the next decade"

"realistically achievable lithium carbonate production will be
sufficient
for only a small fraction of future PHEV and EV global market
requirements"


The article is very biased, even if we had a few milions of tonns of
economically extractable mineral, we have enough Li to build billions of
plugins like GM' s Volt, the material being easily reusable/recyclable at
the end of the life


Remember that the author focused on currently proven reserves and
realistic assumptions about production rates.
So I did not see that it is 'biased'.

An extra "few million ton" of high-grade Lithium from current mining is
simply not so easy to come by (if possible at all).
It may not be possible without extraction of Lithium from the oceans,
which is a very expensive process at this time.

Here is another quote :

"If all future Li2CO3 production increases are purified into battery grade
material, it will still only be sufficient in the most optimum scenario
for at most 4 to 8 million GM Volt class vehicles worldwide per annum by
2015 - 2020"

Where does this figure come from? For my knowledge, Volt has a 16 kWh cell,
with a lithium need of only ~ 50 gr per kWh, thus even with a few milions of
tons of reserves/resources , we have (in the whole planet, certainly) enough
lithium for more than two billions of plugin like Volt (even USG assumes
more than 13 milions of tonns of reserves), assuming it
will ever sold and I seriously doubt it

That's still a lot of vehicles, but no more than 10% world wide vehicle
demand.
And remember that a major part of the problem is Lithium rate of
production.

I could agree here, but it's another kind of problem, even if I suspect that
with an efficient reusing/recycling can be easily solved, the comparison of
oli and lithium is quite unfair here...

 

[T. Keating]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:21:12 +0100, Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:00:27 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

This information is in stark contrast to the paper by the Meridian
Institute (which Jim also just posted) :
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Lithium_Microscope.pdf

That paper actually caused a shock through the PHEV world, since until
then it was assumed that Lithium was abundant and cheap for the
forseeable future.
It's a great read, full of detailed analysis and realistic estimates of
production and market demand projections. I have not seen a rebuttal
with valid data on the Meridian publication, other than some Bolivian
industry publications and traditional number throwing.

Apparently now there is one : This paper "An Abundance of Lithium"
written my Leith Evans. It was actually not easy to find Keith Evans
paper itself. But here is at least a HTML version of it :
http://www.worldlithium.com/AN_ABUNDANCE_OF_LITHIUM_-_Part_2.html

Here we have two different papers, both written by experts in the field
of Lithium reserves.

They both have a very different point of view, and I recommend reading
both of them in detail.

I only had a quick glance at the latter, but one point stood out. The
author of the former, William Tahil, appears to also be the author of:

Misleading... The author of that abstract "An Abundance of Lithium
-- Part 2" (Keith Evans) mentions ...

"When Tahil’s first report “The Trouble With Lithium” appeared in
2007 he estimated a resource total of 21.8 million tonnes of lithium
of which he classified 6.8 million as reserves with 15.0 million in a
reserve base. "

"Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre -
Incontrovertible Proof that the World Trade Centre was destroyed by
Underground Nuclear Explosions "

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf

That William Tahil identifies himself as having only a B.A.
... a non-science degree..


----------

Meanwhile this "William Tahil"
Research Director
Meridian International Research
http://tyler.blogware.com/lithium_shortage.pdf

Appears to have no formal education titles.. per this interview..
http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=F242408EE36A4B18AABCEB1289960A07&tier=4&id=861FC402045D457E951350BC58882385

"report by William Tahil, the founder of the French consultancy
Meridian International Research."

Instead of being hired based on professional qualifications, he gave
himself the title of "Research Director"...

----


http://www.meridian-int-res.com/
A brief scan of his web site fails to mention any of the staff or
author qualifications. Most of his research appears to be
regurgitations and or summations of other peoples work.

I suspect that knowing that might make some people a bit more sceptical
about Tahil's work.

Agreed.. something fishy about "Meridian International Research" and
Mr. Tahil's work..

 

[George Herold]

On Jun 14, 1:37 am, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:08:14 -0700, George Herold wrote:
Nice list,  you might add TNT at 9.5,

TNT's energy density of 4.2MJ/kg is less than a tenth of that of petrol,
diesel or kerosene (all around 45MJ/kg).

Thanks for the correction, no wonder gas is so good at getting us
around.

George H.

 

In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

I could agree here, but it's another kind of problem, even if I suspect that
with an efficient reusing/recycling can be easily solved, the comparison of
oli and lithium is quite unfair here...

You suspect wrong.

There is only one company on the planet that claims to have the ability
to recycle lithium batteries.

As for how good they are at it:

"A contract to recycle the lithium (and any other strategic metals) was
awarded to a company called Toxco. It was a four year contract to recycle
a million kgs of military storage batteries. Two years into the contract
only 25% of the batteries had been recycled according to a USGS mineral
report on Lithium published for 1998. I have not been able to find any
additional information on the contract, so I conclude that an economically
viable way to do the recycling has not yet been developed."

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2006/9/Pages/Reflections-on-Investing-in-the-Future-of-Lithium.aspx


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[T. Keating]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:30:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

I could agree here, but it's another kind of problem, even if I suspect that
with an efficient reusing/recycling can be easily solved, the comparison of
oli and lithium is quite unfair here...

You suspect wrong.

There is only one company on the planet that claims to have the ability
to recycle lithium batteries.

As for how good they are at it:

"A contract to recycle the lithium (and any other strategic metals) was
awarded to a company called Toxco. It was a four year contract to recycle
a million kgs of military storage batteries. Two years into the contract
only 25% of the batteries had been recycled according to a USGS mineral
report on Lithium published for 1998. I have not been able to find any
additional information on the contract, so I conclude that an economically
viable way to do the recycling has not yet been developed."

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2006/9/Pages/Reflections-on-Investing-in-the-Future-of-Lithium.aspx

Hmm.. that's a somewhat dated link..

http://www.toxco.com/processes.html

"Approximately 90% of Our Lithium Recycling Process is Remote
Controlled - Keeping Personnel at Safe Distances"

"Lithium Battery Recycling Process:
Toxco’s lithium battery recycling facility is located on 11 acres
adjacent to the Columbia River near picturesque Trail in southern
British Columbia. With over 70,000 manufacturing square feet, Toxco
Trail was the company’s first recycling facility. The facility
inventories incoming lithium battery waste. The waste is then stored
in earth covered concrete storage bunkers. Residual electrical energy
is removed from larger, more reactive batteries. If necessary the
batteries then begin Toxco’s patented cryogenic process and are cooled
to -325°F. Lithium, although normally explosively reactive at room
temperature, is rendered relatively inert at this temperature. The
batteries are then safely sheared/shredded and the materials are
separated. Metals from the batteries are collected and sold. The
lithium components are separated and converted to lithium carbonate
for resale. Hazardous electrolytes are neutralized to form stable
compounds and residual plastic casings and miscellaneous components
are recovered for appropriate recycling or scrapping. If the batteries
contain cobalt this is also recovered for reuse."

 

In sci.physics T. Keating <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:30:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:

I could agree here, but it's another kind of problem, even if I suspect that
with an efficient reusing/recycling can be easily solved, the comparison of
oli and lithium is quite unfair here...

You suspect wrong.

There is only one company on the planet that claims to have the ability
to recycle lithium batteries.

As for how good they are at it:

"A contract to recycle the lithium (and any other strategic metals) was
awarded to a company called Toxco. It was a four year contract to recycle
a million kgs of military storage batteries. Two years into the contract
only 25% of the batteries had been recycled according to a USGS mineral
report on Lithium published for 1998. I have not been able to find any
additional information on the contract, so I conclude that an economically
viable way to do the recycling has not yet been developed."

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2006/9/Pages/Reflections-on-Investing-in-the-Future-of-Lithium.aspx

Hmm.. that's a somewhat dated link..

http://www.toxco.com/processes.html

"Approximately 90% of Our Lithium Recycling Process is Remote
Controlled - Keeping Personnel at Safe Distances"

"Lithium Battery Recycling Process:
Toxco?s lithium battery recycling facility is located on 11 acres
adjacent to the Columbia River near picturesque Trail in southern
British Columbia. With over 70,000 manufacturing square feet, Toxco
Trail was the company?s first recycling facility. The facility
inventories incoming lithium battery waste. The waste is then stored
in earth covered concrete storage bunkers. Residual electrical energy
is removed from larger, more reactive batteries. If necessary the
batteries then begin Toxco?s patented cryogenic process and are cooled
to -325°F. Lithium, although normally explosively reactive at room
temperature, is rendered relatively inert at this temperature. The
batteries are then safely sheared/shredded and the materials are
separated. Metals from the batteries are collected and sold. The
lithium components are separated and converted to lithium carbonate
for resale. Hazardous electrolytes are neutralized to form stable
compounds and residual plastic casings and miscellaneous components
are recovered for appropriate recycling or scrapping. If the batteries
contain cobalt this is also recovered for reuse."

Like I said, there is only one company on the planet that claims to have
the ability to recycle lithium batteries.

Given the price of lithium, just how economically viable does this
cryogenic process sound to you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.