IBM's Super Battery

[Rob Dekker]

"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:13ve35tjsh05grnnt1dm4ujgekjah04m6r@4ax.com...

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. "

This statement is borderline ludicrous and a very blunt lie by Evans.

The "reserves base" INCLUDES the "reserves", so you cannot add up the two
numbers at all !!
Evans has 40 years experience in this, and thus would be the first one to
know that.

Tahil also knows that and never mentioned the 21.8 million ton (nor the 15.0
or the 6.8) number anywhere in his original paper.
http://tyler.blogware.com/lithium_shortage.pdf

So what DID Tahil write ?
Tahil gives numbers as estimated by the USGS : reserves (4.2 million ton)
and reserve base (11 million ton).
These numbers appear accurate, since this is what the USGS
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/lithimcs07.pdf
He then adds to that estimates for Argentina (which the USGS did not
include).
That comes to a total of 6.2 million reserves and 13.4 million reserves
base.

He then mentions the difference between reserves and reserve base, and notes
that currently about 4.0 million ton or the reserves would be considered
readily available. That makes sense also considering the the USGS gives the
same number, although via slightly different reasoning.

So Evans is lying in his first sentences. In general, it feels like he wrote
it in one shot in a few hours or so. Like a 'knee-jurk' response if you ask
me.

"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..

So ? I don't care if he is a begger down the street.
If his argument makes sense, and is scientifically sound then we need to
deal with that.

If he does not have a science degree than it should be easy to point out
where Tahil makes mistakes in his reasoning, right ?
Can you please point out where Tahil goes wrong, using the two reports that
he wrote rather than hiding behind personal profile analysis ?

This is the beauty of science : If your reasoning is clear and your numbers
are verifiable, then you can be the biggest looser on the planet, but your
work has to be dealt with at face value.

Rob

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in message
news:jvKZl.46797$Ux.22270@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

"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,

Tahil uses 0.3 kg/kWh for lithium-ion battery technologies.
It's in his first paper I did see that number before for other actual
batteries.

Where did you get the 50 gr/kWh number ?

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

Please read the paper.
In summary, he points out that the lion-share of high purity lithium
carbonate production is already used for the fast expanding portable
electronics market.

He asserts that there is not enough production capacity left over for large
volume of batteries that are 100x larger than portable electronics
batteries. Read the paper, and please let us know what you think.

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...

Recycling of PHEV batteries becomes an lithium 'source' only 10 years after
the first PHEV batteries roll off the production line.

 

[daestrom]

"T. Keating" <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1tkc35p0nulh2d3hs3sm7v0nv6q1h75q1u@4ax.com...

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:05:18 +0200, pom <pom@orange.fr> wrote:

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

What are you concerned about??

Releasing 3 million tonns of CO2 per year separating Lithium metal
from a carbonate?? (150 Million tonns of Li2Co3 mined over 50+
years..).

Verses mankind's oil based 10+ billion tonns/yr CO2 emissions !!!!

That's a no brainier ... I'll take the low road..

Thanks for putting some perspective on this. Sometimes folks get so caught
up in the CO2 hysteria we need to see some *relative risk* comparison.

daestrom

 

[Romeo Gigli]

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:h18vdd$mti$1@news.parasun.com...

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in message
news:jvKZl.46797$Ux.22270@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

"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,

Tahil uses 0.3 kg/kWh for lithium-ion battery technologies.
It's in his first paper I did see that number before for other actual
batteries.

It's irrelevant, even with 13 milions tonns of world reserve (USGS
estimate), of which 0,75 alone in the US, there is enough lithium for 2,5
billions of plugins like GM's Volt worldwide (there are today ~ 800-900
milions vehicles in the whole world). Considering that many transportation
needs are easily electrificable with trains, trams, metros, etc...it's thus
an excellent (at least, integrative) solution, and even the cost of lithium
seems to weigh very little on the total cost of a PHEV

This is, in the end, an only Soviet planner's point of view kind of
discussion....if plugins are clean in the final use, allow enormous energy
savings, the diversification of energy sources, the direct use of clean
sources, clean up biggest cities, and in particular are more economic
*depending* on the future prices of lquid fuels, why don't pursue/develop
it?

 

[Romeo Gigli]

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cktkg6-64f.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

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.

So, what? The link claims clearly it' s possible to recycle lithium cells
(unlike petrol and fossil fuel...), it' s manily a matter of costs to make
it - the higher the cost of lithium is, the more valuable it is. Bear in
mind, the need of lithium in a plugin vehicle is very low, thus the cost of
lithium is quite
negligible in the cost of the vehicle (and maybe in the cost of cells, too).

This kind of discussion is totally a non starter, in my humble opinion

 

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

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cktkg6-64f.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
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.

So, what? The link claims clearly it' s possible to recycle lithium cells
(unlike petrol and fossil fuel...), it' s manily a matter of costs to make
it - the higher the cost of lithium is, the more valuable it is. Bear in
mind, the need of lithium in a plugin vehicle is very low, thus the cost of
lithium is quite
negligible in the cost of the vehicle (and maybe in the cost of cells, too).

If a material costs $ X/lb and it costs more than about $ .9X/lb to get
recyled material, no one is going to recyle it.

Recyling is not a magical saviour.

We can, and have been able to, synthesize "petrol and fossil fuel" for
a very long time now.

It is just not economically practical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:h18vdd$mti$1@news.parasun.com...

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in message
news:jvKZl.46797$Ux.22270@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

"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,

Tahil uses 0.3 kg/kWh for lithium-ion battery technologies.
It's in his first paper I did see that number before for other actual
batteries.

It's irrelevant, even with 13 milions tonns of world reserve (USGS
estimate), of which 0,75 alone in the US, there is enough lithium for 2,5
billions of plugins like GM's Volt worldwide (there are today ~ 800-900
milions vehicles in the whole world). Considering that many transportation
needs are easily electrificable with trains, trams, metros, etc...it's thus
an excellent (at least, integrative) solution, and even the cost of lithium
seems to weigh very little on the total cost of a PHEV

This is, in the end, an only Soviet planner's point of view kind of
discussion....if plugins are clean in the final use, allow enormous energy
savings, the diversification of energy sources, the direct use of clean
sources, clean up biggest cities, and in particular are more economic
*depending* on the future prices of lquid fuels, why don't pursue/develop
it?

It will be, whether it makes any long term sense or not.

Just don't be surprised when battery prices skyrocket as lithium starts
becoming scarce.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jun 16, 3:07 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Greegor" <Greego...@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).

Well, since that's also why the people who actually understand
engineering, rather than
internal ibm gibberish work on C++, Distributed Processing Software,
Pv Cell Energy,
All-In-One Printers, Digital Fiber Optics Signalling, Multiplexing,
Corner Turning, USB,
Mini Hard Disks, Electronic Books, Cell Phones, GPS, Digital Terrain
Mapping,
Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Holographics, Holograms, Post GM Sockets,
Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, UAVs, AAVs,
Drones, Cruise Missles,
Phalanx, Blue Ray, Flat Screen Debuggers, HDTV, XML, On-line
Banking, On-Line Shopping,
On-Line Publishing, Compact Flourescent Lighting, Light Sticks,
Solar Energy, Biodiesel,
Gas Turbine Engines, and Hybrid Electric Trucks and Cars, it's also
an issue that only
Quantum Mechanics and Ford idiots worry about anyway.

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&....

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

 

[Romeo Gigli]

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:k4cng6-hgm.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:
If a material costs $ X/lb and it costs more than about $ .9X/lb to get
recyled material, no one is going to recyle it.

That's not exactly my point, indeed, I envisage battery recycling when it
becomes cost competitive, besides the fact still today it's mandatory in
many countries to
recycle some kind of battery (lead based cells, typically, not lithium)

Recyling is not a magical saviour.

We can, and have been able to, synthesize "petrol and fossil fuel" for
a very long time now.

Sure, I suppose you mean from coal, but this doesn' t mean is a renewable or
infinite resource, nor is minimally ecologically sustenible. Instead, the
stretegy electric trains + electric/plugin vehicles (and electric heat pumps
for heating/cooling) is perfectly sustenible and almost infinite on a human
basis, if the electricity
is produced from a mix of renewables and nuclear (including thorium and
breeders)

 

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

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:k4cng6-hgm.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Romeo Gigli <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote:
If a material costs $ X/lb and it costs more than about $ .9X/lb to get
recyled material, no one is going to recyle it.

That's not exactly my point, indeed, I envisage battery recycling when it
becomes cost competitive, besides the fact still today it's mandatory in
many countries to
recycle some kind of battery (lead based cells, typically, not lithium)

True, but "recycling" does not necessarily mean all, or even any, of
the constituants are recovered.

Recyling is not a magical saviour.

We can, and have been able to, synthesize "petrol and fossil fuel" for
a very long time now.

Sure, I suppose you mean from coal,

No, I meant from just about anything containing carbon.

The key words are "possible" and "practical".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

On Jun 13, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

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





"Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@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/

While IBM did not progress that much on Li-air battery,
some other people did. Here is an interesting review:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm

Regards,
Yevgen

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.


--
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.

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/

While IBM did not progress that much on Li-air battery,
some other people did. Here is an interesting review:http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Yevgen Barsukov" <evgenijb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70eee00b-0339-432b-9142-25aea6f65bbc@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

.....

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/


While IBM did not progress that much on Li-air battery,
some other people did. Here is an interesting review:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm

Regards,
Yevgen

Just to be on the same page : Lithium-air batteries so far are 'primary'
batteries, right ?
Is the IBM (proposed) version different in that respect (rechargeable) ?

Rob

 

[Bret Cahill]

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in message
news:zo3_l.47605$Ux.22797@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:h18vdd$mti$1@news.parasun.com...

"Romeo Gigli" <rgigli @ (no-spam) libero.it> wrote in message
news:jvKZl.46797$Ux.22270@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

"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,

Tahil uses 0.3 kg/kWh for lithium-ion battery technologies.
It's in his first paper I did see that number before for other actual
batteries.

It's irrelevant, even with 13 milions tonns of world reserve (USGS
estimate), of which 0,75 alone in the US, there is enough lithium for 2,5
billions of plugins like GM's Volt worldwide (there are today ~ 800-900
milions vehicles in the whole world). Considering that many transportation
needs are easily electrificable with trains, trams, metros, etc...it's
thus an excellent (at least, integrative) solution, and even the cost of
lithium seems to weigh very little on the total cost of a PHEV

I think that you will be right in the end. There is probably enough Lithium
to go around.
Also, if Lithium gets too expensive, then there are various lower-cost
alternatives (NaNiCl etc).

But please consider that you are doing a very rough back-of-the-envelope
calculation
here.

For example, you assume that all lithium reserves will be used for
electrical vehicles,
which is of course not true. In fact, all current Lithium use if for other
markets. Markets that
are also growing.

Second, the 13 million ton Lithium is a "reserve base". That means 'proven'
reserves, but
not necessarily economical to extract. So the price would have to go UP
(unspecified how much)
for us to actually recover it. The USGS estimates 4 million ton as
'reserves', which means that
these can be recovered for current pricing. That 4 million ton is heavily
harvested already
for a wide range of non PHEV applications, in a growing market.

Third, Tahil makes a reasonable argument that the best Lithium resource
locations (lowest cost)
are already close to 50% depletion. After this, harvesting Lithium will be
increasingly expensive.

Finally : The largest Lithium resources in the world are controlled by
Bolivia.
Not particularly a easy country to deal with....

So, you won't see this until PHEVs become popular, but Lithium prices will
definitely go up in the future.
Maybe go up a lot more than we would assume at first hand. Lithium may be
physically abundant,
but it is certainly NOT economically abundant.

This is, in the end, an only Soviet planner's point of view kind of
discussion....if plugins are clean in the final use, allow enormous energy
savings, the diversification of energy sources, the direct use of clean
sources, clean up biggest cities, and in particular are more economic
*depending* on the future prices of lquid fuels, why don't pursue/develop
it?

Agreed. Still, Tahil makes a reasonable argument that the best Lithium
resource locations (lowest cost)
are already close to 50% depletion. After this, harvesting Lithium will be
increasingly expensive
and definitely will be more environmentally damaging.

Overall, I think it would be good if we would at least develop some
non-Lithium batteries for PHEV applications.
Just in case...

Rob

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Are you on drugs?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

On Jun 19, 2:23 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Yevgen Barsukov" <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:70eee00b-0339-432b-9142-25aea6f65bbc@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

....



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/

While IBM did not progress that much on Li-air battery,
some other people did. Here is an interesting review:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/lithium_air.htm

Regards,
Yevgen

Just to be on the same page : Lithium-air batteries so far are 'primary'
batteries, right ?
Is the IBM (proposed) version different in that respect (rechargeable) ?

Rob

This particular review were about primary, but there is some
work on rechargeable version as well, for example here:
http://www.eco-trees.org/rechargeable-lithium-air-battery-offer-10x-storage-capacity/

There is a lot of research on this now, it is the hottest thing
in university research on batteries, but did not quite catch up
with industry (most interest in in batteries with much higher
power capability).


There are significant challenges both for rechargeable and primary
Li/O2:
common problems:
- low rate capability of carbon/catalyst/O2 cathode. Probably will
improve with new catalysts, new carbon electrodes etc

- need to use organic electrolyte between electrodes, but at the same
time it should not penetrate the electrode/air surface to avoid
contact with humidity and avoid evaporation of electrolyte.

Use of gel compositions helps but does not solve the problem. All
solid electrolytes would address the issue, but make power capability
problem even worse.

At the moment it looks like this would be a great solution for
applications that require very low power but large energy.

Biggest issue is that such applications typically require longevity
of 5-10 years, which is very unlikely due to exposure to air resulting
in Li-corrosion and high self-discharge.

So the biggest strengh (high capacity) can not be taken advantage
of unless power capability will improve, as "stand-by" applications
are out of question. That probably explains the reluctance in the
industry.

If however break-through in power capability can be achieved,
watch out for this chemistry. This is really an area where nano-
technology can make a big difference. So far preliminary research is
focusing on "what is the best metal to use" in organic electrolyte
cell O2 cathode. In water based cell Pt, silver etc were popular, but
in it turns out that in organic electrolytes Mn is a king, followed by
Co, etc. See for example
http://www.electrochem.org/dl/ma/206/pdfs/0496.pdf

But next step is to try fancy nano-structured catalyst particles,
deposited on large surface carbon, it we might get to decent power
rates enough for example to power a watch or a TV remote.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Poutnik]

Yevgen Barsukov's previous post was like this :

http://www.eco-trees.org/rechargeable-lithium-air-battery-offer-10x-storage-capacity/

There is a lot of research on this now, it is the hottest thing
in university research on batteries, but did not quite catch up
with industry (most interest in in batteries with much higher
power capability).

Web shield of my Avast AV warned me there is an infection on the page.

It could be false positive, but anyway.....

--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

"Slot car" freeways won't work with existing cars and existing freeways
and you know it.

That's a pretty good reason to slot car the freeways _now_ and then
wait for the super battery.

The fact that it won't work is a "pretty good reason" to do something
that won't work?

Only one thing is 100% certain:

You'll never accomplish anything if you don't try it.

Following your splendid advice, I tried to make a solid lead ball float
in water.

When that didn't work, I tried flapping my arms so I could fly.

Gee, no matter how much I wanted those things to work or how hard I tried,
they wouldn't.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.