Lithium: The False Profit of Electrification || Peter Zeihan
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 พ.ย. 2023
- Lithium has played an important role in the green transition and remains a crucial resource for the future of electricity; however, it's not going to be all sunshine and rainbows for lithium...
Donate to MedShare HERE: www.medshare.org/zukraine/
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zeihan/lithium-the...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the TH-cam Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#lithium #energy #greenenergy
Hi Peter, exploration geologists here, you're spot on, but you've mixed up the two types of sources. Spodumene (Spod-u-mean) is mined via traditional open pit methods then roasted(surprisingly the easier extraction method), while lithium brines are extracted via evaporation. Everything else you've said is pretty spot on!
Lithium is a nasty business. But if one believes in climate change or just cleaner air, shouldn't reducing fossil fuels be the first goal then work on later problems? Follow up, is there anything better than lithium for battery power at the moment? Cheers.
He’s just piggy backing off of what Elon said in interview.
He’s just piggy backing off of what Elon said in interview.
He’s just piggy backing off of what Elon said in interview.
He’s just piggy backing off of what Elon said in interview.
Given I am heading to a remote Australian lithium mine site the day after tomorrow to commission a new crushing circuit - I do find this one very encouraging. He's certainly right on how long it takes to bring new plant online, everyone underestimates the sheer amount of planning, funding and engineering involved.
Doesn’t help that a lot of the lithium mines up here were put together with ‘smaller than optimal’ budgets. Meaning a lot of output is taking longer than is being projected. For instance; if it’s Weir equipment being used, you maybe commissioning that circuit more than once.
@@mitchp7226 Yes - you are spot on about the 'underpowered' commercial arrangements. Without naming names, this site is a classic study - although I'm fortunate the piece I'm leading is in good shape.
When children get a say in expert's business...
And average of ten years. Good thing Tesla has been planning ahead for twenty.
What’s going on Toyotas solid state? 2025?
I remember 10 years ago when everyone was saying "Tesla can't make an EV that a lot of people will buy". Now its "There is not enough Lithium for all the EV's people will be buying".
Lithium will soon be replaced and there will be plenty of of it. Government stimulus always produces a misallocation of capital and it will be overproduced. Peter is wrong on this one.
They are completely different issues.
EVs before Tesla were only focused on being "economical" transport for the masses, not cool or fast or interesting.
Tesla made an exclusive "luxury" car for the wealthy to show off to their other wealthy friends which also happens to be just as fast as a V8 muscle car (but not economical despite being an EV, and does not scale as economical transport for average users globally). Tesla still remains a luxury car that is inaccessible to most Americans, let alone most people in the world, and >99% of cars on the road (in America) are not Teslas or EVs.
As PZ said, this is not a scalable solution to replace ICE transport, but just a toy for the wealthy to show off in.
I recommend basic hybrid cars with NiMH batteries as Toyota has been making for decades, as well as strict limits on vehicle weight to limit all passenger cars to
Peter is completely wrong about this. He just can't admit it.@@gepal7914
How is it not a scalable solution? This comment will age like milk.
Electrification is always far more scalable than combustion. You only need to look at the. Electronic goods all around you. As soon as we can electrify something we do, because it's much more scalable.
@@hazb8026 only when it is easily portable. It's why electric cars failed way back in the day. Electrification of autos needs more electricity than we could even imagine to produce. And it needs massive infrastructure to provide immediate charging capability way beyond that needed for ICE vehicles. Which is why fuel cells have the better opportunity to replace ICE, because the charging problem disappears.
Hi Peter, could you do a video speaking on Argentina and their economy please. Just interested in understanding how a country like them moves away from such terrible economic conditions. Thank you.
They also have big lithium reserves.
Peter did a video prior to the elections, worth a watch. New direction for them, but a bumpy road.
Who cares about Argentineans?, not even Chileans care about them.... (our neighbors)
They don't move out from their economic condition. They are based on borrow and default economy, on a 10 year cycle.
@@ebrim5013 Doesn't matter, the government will steal everything once a mine is up and running.
I feel like Lithium tech has been kind of "The Next Big Thing' for a while. It has its advantages and its disadvantages, and I don't doubt that it will continue to be A Thing, but not the only thing. We Humans excel at finding new ways of doing the same basic job.
you might say, we are good at reinventing the wheel
My mower works off a lithium ion battery... yeah, it's just ok.
EXACTLY....that's what this VIDEO IS SAYING !!
Not really. We havent discovered a new energy source since the 1930s.
Oh yeah? What about finding a substitute or replacement for copper? I don't see that happening and it is at least as important to electrification of all sorts as lithium,if not more. There is no prospect for much higher copper production in the foreseeable future
Never underestimate clever engineers and researchers!
That's the problem with Peter, he doesn't think his way out of the problem, he's limited by what he knows. I remember him saying last year that Apple couldn't launch the next iPhone as china has shut it down. Well Apple figured out both China and India. Peter Z is what we should call a 'hindsight forecaster', but he makes himself sound really smart...
@@sunnyinsanya2 He's an analyst, and he's reacting to what experts are saying.
If you say solid state batteries are imminent, he'll ask you "When will they build these factories to produce them commercially?"
And if you don't have a date, they become "long range"
Equally, don't factor them into your basic projections. If they overperform, great, it's a bonus, we can recalculate then.
I don't think he's underestimating engineers. As he points out, even if there was a new technology tomorrow, it's ten years before that translate to a product you can build in mass.
He literally says that our money would be better spent researching other tech than building infrastructure. He's putting his faith in the researchers
Peter may not have all the facts exactly. But in general he is on point with the fact that Li is not the end all/be all of the alternate energy theme.
Hahaha....what more FACTS YOU NEED !!
@@keithfernandez8965He is not an expert on battery technology or its production, but does a good job of putting in layman's terms and condenses his videos into just a few minutes. The concise nature of his videos is probably one of his strengths.
For example, Toyota has invested $15B in solid-state technology which promise higher energy density and they claim production ready by 2029. We will see. Solid-state was in defense applications a decade ago but they were no where near ready for consumer-production.
It will be interesting how this plays out, the materials like Cobalt and of course Lithium will limit how fast or if Lithium batteries replace both fossil fuels and lead-acid. Nothing is the magic bullet to solve all the problems, each battery chemistry has its pros and cons. Understanding the best use case for each (probably from a TCO perspective) will allow us to allocate each type to where it is applied.
it's clear lithium was a great breakthrough, but it's not the answer for cars or for storage of non-baseline electricity sources (wind and solar).
The 22 million tonnes of identified lithium reserves is enough to replace every ICE vehicle on Earth twice over with an EV powered by lithium. Get back to us in 2050 when this goal is achieved. Then we can work at capturing the other 66 million tonnes of identified reserves that are not as easy to use economically yet, or whatever new supplies show up by then.
@@cloudpoint0 EV private vehicles won't be the majority user of Li battery storage.
There is also no great way to recycle them, they do wear out, and rather than having a scrap value are a liability to dispose. Basically use the Lithium mined once and then it is not economically viable to recycle it unless you can get other elements more valuable like Cobalt in the process.
Excellent and Outstanding !!!!!
Also, when EVs with lithium batteries do burn, they burn at 5,000°F and even CO² won't extinguish the fire. (Internal combustion engines only burn at 1500°F.) They have to be left to just burn. Shipping EVs have been a real problem for shipping. Recently, the super cargo ship Fremantle Highway was left to burn basically down to the water line when EVs started burning in transit. Nothing can be done.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Fremantle_Highway
Investigations
There has been much speculation that the battery pack from an electric car caused the fire, but this proved to be wrong when offloading the ship.[18] Abouth 1000 cars were recovered in essentially good condition - among them all the 498 electrical cars which were on board the ship.[19] Therefore, earlier speculations proved to be wrong.[20] However, the cause of the fire is unknown.[21] Investigations started when the ship was moored in Eemshaven.[15][22]
There are lithium batteries made now that simply do not catch fire. You can literally drill through them and nothing happens because the energy density isn't high enough to perpetuate. They are also cheap because they don't contain Nickel or Cobalt (expensive inputs). These are suitable for lower end less performant vehicles which is the *vast* majority of the global market.
Peter's skepticism here is overblown. Lithium is everywhere on the planet. The switch to predominately electric will take decades owing to sheer scale of capital involved but that's fine. And over those decades the tech will all consistently improve. I think Peter is selectively skeptical for reasons other than logic.
fact check false... right now many evs are being shipped from china to europe... including the very popular tesla model 3 and dacia spring
If those who support this madness had to pay for it, instead of the public, it would have been over yesterday..🤬💀
@@MrSxtn Thank you. I was unaware of this subsequent investigation and these recent findings.
Hey Peter: Another process (location specific) is being developed to extract lithium from the Caldera clay in Winnemucca NV (the world's largest Li deposit). Very promising. Could you do video essays on the other strategic minerals we're going to need for the Green Revoloution?
No but Peter might tell you why it can't work.
Nice one. Nevada in general has a huge amount of lithium clay. That McDermitt Caldera is crazy. Lower grades then Australian hard rock, but a much bigger deposit size and in some ways a simpler process. In some ways not though. Trade offs.
He has mentioned that reserve in a past video so he is aware of it.
Peter seems remarkably dissonant on renewable technology. He’s bullish on a growing American domestic manufacturing sector, which of course goes hand-in-hand with a lot of green energy progress, but at the same time, appears to take every opportunity to undermine anything except an oil-based economy and oil-based world in spite of its many obvious short-comings.
If they build it they will mine it . If their is a market and profits to be made it will get built and fairly fast . Oil is a prime example . It looked like we were running out and then came fracking and the shale revolution .
Actually it's amazing how technology was able to use lithium in batteries . They are not nearly as problematic as their past versions
A lot of non-lithium research has been done for a while. CATL has a sodium battery entering production as we speak. If it also uses bismuth, that would cause a supply bottleneck similar to the lithium bottleneck.
@leanja6926 Thanks yes, I see the hype from April 2023 but no news since then.
@leanja6926 There are already installations of sodium batteries in Australia, China etc. Energy density is not good enough for cars yet, but is already used for energy storage. It's definitely not vaporware. NMC battery can also react and explode but still everyone has it in his phone.
Sodium batteries will replace lithium, but they are heavier at the moment.
Lithium batteries are now the legacy technology where costs have to be amortized over an additional 6-10 year period. So that's the time horizon for any new battery technology.
@leanja6926ahhh you can already order them as a regular consumer. Some folks on DIYSolarforum already acquired some to experiment with. Their voltage curves are different than lithium of any flavor.
*Peter is such a good lad! I wish him the best vibes and energy!*
Colorado is Gona be snowed in soon, he’s Gona need a lot more knight armor if he’s Gona be making videos there
One of the world's biggest deposit is being developed in Oregon currently, so much lithium that the US will be among the top producers in the world. Electrification needs can be met, it is not linear. Also because the batteries are also evolving in parallel. The lithium market has a lot of variables, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the industry and scientists to deliver.
If you can't move your army with it it's not even close to electrification needs.
Peter is one of those rare individuals who is lucky enough to have reached self-actualization. He’s living his best life, financially secure, and doing exactly what he wants to do.
He is still hiking in a "National Forrest" with no trees, LOL.
@@jager6863 He's at 13.000 ft. In Colorado, the tree line is about 11,500 feet. So no trees up as high as he is.
Don't project, he is a human like the rest of us
He may be successful but he has made himself a commodity. He has to sway his product “ analysis “in a way his consumers are motivated to pay.
You can do that when you’ve been purchased by the petrol industry, his pillow is stacked with stacks of hundies.
I love the locations * the content is alway informative!!!
Thank you Peter! Super helpful.
As some one who is now in their 60s, I find the advancement in electronics and battery design (as slow as it seems) mind blogging. Especially when I stop and think about it. The younger generations think nothing about seeing electric bicycles, cell phones, cordless tools, electric cars, etc.... When I turned 25 in 1987 there was none of that around or it was just starting. And this is the way of all technology. The curve starts off fairly flat for a long, long, long time. But as it moves forward it starts to get much steeper, to the point that the advances almost seem like magic. Fossil fuels "tech" did the same thing. Battery tech will be no different.
Batteries are different. Think in terms of energy density and the risks associated if all that energy gets released at once.
@@r123ingelderland6 Technology is technology and this is where we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, batteries are different, but it is still "technology" and like all technology it will develop in a similar fashion as all technology that has come before. What most of us don't see is that you have to make things a little controversial in order to make the "story", otherwise no one cares and no clicks on your link. Lol
@@r123ingelderland6 that's exactly what gasoline is. energy designed to be released through literal combustion, lol
@@pa_2600 battery densities are consistently rising and costs are dropping. The reason why EVs don't get better is probably because EV manufactures found a sweet spot that works for most people and now they are optimizing for cost, not for range. And if prices aren't dropping, it's because their profits are rising or they're spending that budget somewhere else.
It's similar with phones. manufacturer's just don't bother putting in any more than 1 day battery life, because consumers value 100 other things before battery life when buying phones.
it's kind of interesting how batteries because of their simplicity are unlocking use cases that weren't possible or too inconvenient before.
Like hoverbikes, small drones, eVTOLs, high power pocket computers, cordless power tools, literal man-portable solar power systems almost equivalent to the gird, tiny flashlights brighter than the sun, bionic prosthetics, robots
If batteries ever get anywhere close to the energy density of diesel, imagine what insane new applications open up. Practical every day use jet packs, cheap flying cars/bikes with hours of flight time, electric long-haul aircraft, robots with human endurance or more, your phone battery would have as much energy as the 3.75kg Jackery 300 power station.
But the craziest changes will the ones we can't even imagine today.
You didn't mention lithium recycling. I imagine that will become more significant as the price increases.
You can't recycle what hasn't been made yet.
In 1994 during the U.S invasion of Haiti the USAF refused to allow the transport of extra lithium batteries on the same aircraft that carried troops due to fire danger. So we broke open the cases and issued one to each troop to carry in their ruck sack. At the time I thought it was really stupid. NOW I know better.
Do you know what I like about Peter? He doesn't leave you with a lot to say.
I actually think he missed an important point: managing expectations and lowering demand. We should use all the lithium supply first for small EVs, home storage solutions, e-bikes. Everywhere else scale down plans for now: don't invest in state level massive storage batteries, better invest in hydro pumped storage and better transmission lines to trade loads further away; stop with trucking/lorry/semi electrification for now or look for other solutions like small batteries and highway catenaries (Germans experiment) or hydrogen; do not waste 200kWh batteries for large pick-ups but better build 4 city cars or 400 e-bikes or 5 PHEV plug-in pick-ups which use petrol when hauling and electricity for commuting; don't waste batteries for electric bus, use tiny battery combo with catenary where it is easy to install (so called in motion charging electric buses or trolleybuses with autonomy which use batteries to go around accidents or extend routes further away catenary. Lithium is not infinite so lets treat it like this and use it smartly.
@@tomassakalauskas2856You thought it out better than him. Or you know, he just has to put out these videos it. He'll say the least he needs to can't blame him.
@@tomassakalauskas2856 There is more than enough lithium for all our needs. One of the great things about using lithium is that it is not consumable like Oil/Gas. Batteries can be reused, repurposed and recycled quite easily. When talking science, get information from a scientist or at least an expert in that sector, not a political commentator.
@@tomassakalauskas2856 you aren't wrong, but expecting even that within 15 years is utopian thinking at this point.
@@tomassakalauskas2856 lithium power tools are first
An honest assessment of Lithium and the shortcomings of batteries in general.
@BB-cf9gx No offense, but what did Peter say that was based on science?? Peter is giving us his opinion, but he is not a scientist or even close to one. If you want an honest assessment of Lithium go to someone who is an expert on the topic, not a political commentator who got his information so wrong he had to edit the video and retract important segments of information.
LFP and the new MLFP batteries don't have the same risks as Lithium Nickle Cobalt batteries and the LFP is in use now. For electric vehicles, LFP can be charged to 100%, unlike other batteries that are limited to 80-90% daily charge capacity. They have less (almost zero) risk of fires as well.
Peter is an American analyst. What I take from his analysis is that all forms of storing electrical energy have serious technical and economic shortcomings including lithium which is the current front runner and is in a serious undersupply situation in the short and middle term world wide. He is far from the first and will not be the last to take this position. I understand from other sources that this is a substantially true position. No he is not a "scientist". Are you? I'm not.
The 22 million tonnes of identified lithium reserves is enough to replace every ICE vehicle on Earth twice over with an EV powered by lithium. Get back to us in 2050 when this goal is achieved. Then we can work at capturing the other 66 million tonnes of identified reserves that are not as easy to use economically yet, or whatever new supplies show up by then.
Zeihan is the Tony Robbins of geopolitics. He leaves you feeling absolutely convinced that he's a guru. But many of his conclusions don't stand up to critical inspection. He is definitely biased on any topic that hurts oil interests like climate change. This could be because a lot of his speaking fee clients are oil industry executives.
If it's Lithium or Lithium base or like most rechargeables.. Beware !
Here you go, in plain English
Lithium batteries are regulated as a hazardous material under the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 C.F.R., Parts 171-180).
Exposure to Lithium can cause loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. ► Lithium can cause headache, muscle weakness, twitching, blurred vision, loss of coordination, tremors, confusion, seizures and coma.
This isn't for me or my family.
Good luck, with your so called .. clean energy !
Hey Peter, appreciate your approach, actually first heard of you from Doug Wilson, a pastor with a blog (the plodcast) in ID. Anyway, I’m involved in interviewing green startups who have received money from a CA green innovation fund and some of them are fascinating, I think you’d enjoy the science and the potential impact of some of these: Noon Energy, EnZinc, Antora, all pretty new startups in CA. As a life long SoCal resident, I don’t usually find myself lauding any state government projects, but there’s some good stuff coming out of this one.
So alternatives to Lithium ion basically summarize as: Sodium, Potasssium, Calcium, Magnesium, Fluorine, Chlorine. These can be either ion batteries, or air batteries. All these elements are already produced more cheaply then Lithium for pre-existing industries and are more abundant as ores/salts than Lithium.
Also, as a West Australian, I am aware that all of our Spodumene -> Lithium Salts processing industry is done by Tianki Lithium, which is basically Chinese owned. And the only reason that is done here and not in China is because its easier to seperate the Lithium from the dead weight ore. I really, really doubt Australia will ever do any more processing of Lithium ore than it is now. We have a labour shortage here (at least thats whats advertised) and electricity prices are crazy high compared to China, so that doesn't give me hope for Australian downstream processing of Li.
The above elements are basically what is going to be in use, due to the way things get heavier as they go down the periodic table, and how electropositivity / electronegativity works. My bet for the norm battery of electric vehicles 25 years from now is Magnesium-Air or more likely Calcium-air.
(I am the greatest, I am the greatest, I am the greatest).
Mg and Ca don't charge and discharge like lithium. Better for a grid not EV.
Is there no solution to the energy issues around the bend.
Other than Sodium, these are not really alternatives. Not all chemistries are suitable for all applications. Flow batteries, for example, are not even remotely suitable for transportation... the energy density is too low. Magnesium is not competitive as an independent chemistry, it is more of a tweak being applied to existing lithium chemistries. Even sodium has issues with energy density and the wide voltage range of its discharge curve.
Same with silicon... not really useful as an independent chemistry but it is an incredible element for holding lithium ions as a tweak to lithium chemistries (think 20x the theoretical energy density of current lithium batteries, with 2x probably in easy reach).
@@junkerzn7312 I think the real gains are in the oxide, not in the metal being oxidized. The Iron Phosphate in the Lithium Ion Phosphate battery is a boatload heavier than the Lithium. So really any material that they manage to pull off with a -air reaction that is reversible is likely to be at least competitive with the sorts of batteries they have now. Except for Lithium-air, which they have been trying for ages, and when you do Lithium air, you need heaps of lithium, because the weight of the battery is in the Lithium at that point. I don't think I've been very articulate here, but thanks for correcting my previous comment. But yeh basically I think EV's really take off when a type of metal-air battery is developed. But then, perhaps I should grow a beard.
Have you heard about the very large phosphate deposit recently found in Norway. What is your thoughts on that?
The thing I don't like about Peter's prognostications is that he comes out with these blanket statements like "oh it's impossible to do this" or "it'll take 20 years to do that".
The one thing he doesn't take into account is that when there's money involved suddenly it becomes possible and it gets done quickly.
We've seen this happen in the past for wars, for pandemics, and for "gold rushes".
He is flat out wrong here. There are dozens of llithium-Projects around the globe, even one here in Germany (a pretty clean one even with enough production for our domestic battery Industry). And Sodium is also an option if LI is scarce (which it isn't, but NA will replace LI for home storage batteries)
Lithium is not a fuel like OIL. It can be recycled and every mined ton adds to the stock.
China is the main driver for electrification and Peters whole worldview is depending on China failing, so electrification has to fail (it won't). His worldview is also fossil-fuel-centric, so he can't see what is about to come in the next decade.
Global solar Investments were higher than Oil investments this year, the world will put down 320 GWp of Solar next year and even more the years following. And in 2025 there will be true price parity between BEV and ICE Vehicles.
I am looking forward to it in a few years for his explanation in how he got it all so wrong....
Well, yes and no. He studies past performance on a topic, looking for a pattern, and evidence that the output has even really deviated. Next it's the likelihood that an exponential increase in material production, mining and refining will be viable. If these materials are located in developing or corrupt nations that will gladly rape and pillage their own lands and people, it will go much faster that if you want to open pit mine, then create a toxic hellscape as you refine, and deal with pollution that will last for thousands of years. When you are in a developed nation, where the population does not welcome new cancer alleys and total destruction of vast areas where they live,
it can take decades to get a mining permit.
So, what are the real incentives? Copper is obviously going to be in increasingly short supply. Is that fact reflected in massive new mining and refining facilities being built around the world, or in the market watching copper stock values go parabolic? Yea, not so much.
I think that's a fair point, but it's also worth mentioning that there are an infinite number of ways to potentially alter these "paths" he's laying out with these broad prognoses, and you could maybe go on for hours about the potential effect each one of those infinite alterations could have on the path. China and Russia are having a demographic collapse likely before the century ends. UNLESS they conquer a bunch of nations around them and absorb those nation's populations. UNLESS there's a civil war that overthrows their current governments and takes big chunks out of the demographic sections causing the most problems. UNLESS we enter a nuclear war and everyone dies.
The way I see it, he's speaking as if "nothing" to "a moderate set" of changes about the situation occur. Kind of impossible to predict the miraculous solutions that might come up to solve problem before they've arrived. Though I do think Peter could do a better job assessing how those spectacular solutions could theoretically impact things. "Demographic collapse in the next 10 years, unless x thing, which I predict wouldn't be enough but postpone the collapse for another 40 years, giving maybe enough time for some other grand development to throw everything into question."
People are particularly ignorant when their speaking livelihood depends upon it. You are right about the trillions of dollars at stake and therefore the two narratives.
@@thiesclausen4868 Agreed and we are moving refining and everything else we can, out of China.
Oh wow, I did Sherman about 30 years ago. Beautiful area!
Lol the addendum highlights perfectly how blind Zeihan is to the elasticity of supply. He always forecasts based on current supplies and trends - not how markets work. US itself has found massive new lithium supplies, and will develop new techniques to exploit. His forecasts are no different to the folly of 'peak oil' a couple of decades ago - falsified by fracking and ample new traditional finds.
Also, nobody is suggesting flow batteries or vanadium for vehicles - these are for stationary use.
They’ve been pumping the shit out of some US oil fields for years as a waste product. Not sure if that’s in form that can be readily used, but it’s plentiful.
Sodium, a waste product of many manufacturing sources, needs to be adopted for most stationary storage batteries where size doesn't really matter. I saw a proof of concept sodium battery way back at Comdex a few decades ago. CATL and other are using sodium batteries for some smaller EVs currently. That tethered with Teslas new high voltage wiring harnesses will take out another bottleneck of copper shortages for EVs. So it's not all bad news.
Surpised you didn't mention the largest and easiest to access lithium source discovered to date, McDermitt Caldera in Nevada. It's all in clay instead of rock, so extraction and refining are comparatively cheap and simple.
I think he referred to it, not by name, when talking about the time frame for mines to produce.
Isn't water part of the extraction process
Well said!
Any thoughts on the Exon expansion into mining lithium in Arkansas?
Minor error in the methods of production. You can look at it like this: there's hardrock which includes the mechanical mining, roasting, and separation of lithium from it's host rock of mainly spodumene or lepidolite. Those brine ponds are the other method. That isn't spodumene, it's brine with free lithium in the reservoir brine. The brine is produced from the shallow subsurface and placed into evaporation ponds, mainly in the Atacama and Argentine Puna. Those are your two methods. Clay is the third that is coming soon as owners figure out the leaching process.
Cant we collect it also as a byproduct of Geothermal energy production in places like the Salton Sea in So Cal?
No the ponds are no containing free lithium, ever. They have lithium carbonate.
@@jeremiahlynn9584yes. There are a number of companies working on that
@@jeremiahlynn9584sort of. The problem is brine cycling and throughout. The concentrations of lithium are quite low. You have to circulate a lot more brine than you need for geothermal purposes. So two separate industries unfortunately
@@donaldkasper8346the ponds don't. Obviously. The reservoir does. It is turned into li2co3 precipitate.
Thank you for all your work, Peter.
I'm a college student doing a speech on lithium production and the effect it has on the environment and people. Some of your work is cited in my speech. I'm giving the speech this morning!
Don't use Peter as a source! A lot of what he says is misleading. Get better sources!
Facts are deeper perceptions. The only truth is from the Godhead ( God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost). Telling the student not to use Oeter Zeihan as a source is wrong advice. He should just verify and curate Peter’s information ostensibly to draw interesting nuances. It’s the case of the glass being half full or half empty, depending on the way you look at it. Good luck to the kid.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191
Facts are deeper perceptions. The only truth is from the Godhead ( God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost). Telling the student not to use Oeter Zeihan as a source is wrong advice. He should just verify and curate Peter’s information ostensibly to draw interesting nuances. It’s the case of the glass being half full or half empty, depending on the way you look at it.
I really like your videos, appreciate the pun in the title here!
Thanks for your continuing focus on numbers over nonsense.
They also found a huge deposit in Sweden. Sure it has to be developed but they are already working on it.
Wasn't that a huge deposit of rare-earth elements, or do I remember wrong?
This is why I just walk everywhere I need to go and don’t travel outside my town very often. I get exercise, I don’t add anywhere near as much pollution as anyone with any kind of vehicle, and since I don’t travel I find I have more motivation to try and make where I live a better place.
I agree. But walking on concrete and asphalt is so hard on my feet and back. 😢
Peter. Sodium batteries are already in mass production. by CATL. Sodium is cheap and right next to Litium on the periodic table. Sodium is cheap, and common. . It’s one downside is Energy density is somewhat less than LITHIUM. CATL is only getting about 160 KWH PER Kilogram compared to 180-200 for Litium.
CATL’s Lab is achieving close to lithium.
4 other points.
1. Sodium works well with iron so Nickle or Cobalt isn’t required.
2. Sodium isn’t affected as much as Litium by cold weather .
3 faster recharge times are possible.
4. With life of the Battery capable of being handed down to grandchildren.
They found a large deposit of Li in Nevada.... but if that will take years to access to the extent we would need.....
I believe the second largest Lithium deposits in the world were recently discovered in Iran. They lack mining and distribution systems,
Oooohhh saaayyyy can youuu seeeeeee...
all mine this sooooon beee.....
When I was in college a very bright environmental professor showed conclusively how we were going to run out of oil by 1979. The price may go up but I doubt we’ll run out of Lithium or lose availability. There is already a tremendous amount of research going on to find better battery chemistry both in the private as well as the public sector. That’ll come as well.
Your professor probably didn't know about miles & miles of U.S./Canadian Shale deposits at the time of his prediction.
@@palmbeachcitizen He probably didn't know about a lot of things that would happen in the future. And either does PZ. There is more than enough lithium on earth. And I have no doubt that if the price is right, it will be extracted and put to good use. As will the chemicals necessary for the next best battery yet to be discovered. Only a fool bets against the future.
Peak oil I remember that. still haven't discovered a bigger deposit then they found in Saudi Arabia almost 100 years ago. Very intelligent response though I would agree it's all economics.
@@Tom-dt4ic Both you and the OP (@old_pilot) seem to have ignored the actual point that PZ is making and instead provided "responses" to nonexistent claims. The issue isn't whether we'll "run out" (he didn't say we would) nor is it how much might be available in the long-term bye-and-bye. The question is "how much do we have RIGHT NOW and how much will we feasibly have access to in the next five to ten years?" to meet all of the green energy goals and target dates that are being slopped about blithely and recklessly these days. And the physics, the chemistry, and the economics all say "NOT ENOUGH." Nothing that either of you said changes that fact one iota.
That is what the politicians want to believe. Fracking solved the end-of-oil problem, but as Peter Zeihan says, bringing on extra lithium production takes decades, and even if we were to find the perfect battery chemistry tomorrow, bringing that into large scale productions will take decades. Optimism is just not enough.
I tune in to see where Pete is today! I stay for his opinions and perspective on geopolitics.
Peter, I’m glad I stuck around for the addendum. I was thinking your lithium production numbers looked a bit light - glad you updated with better info. 👍
He still didn't go deep enough to really understand the current development, tech, and recycling.
Lithium is the bridge to the next better battery source
Everything is a bridge to the next better.
That's what he's saying !!
Yep, I agree. @@keithfernandez8965
Yes, in the same way that natural gas from fracking replaced most coal burning - it was promoted as a bridge and that's what it is.
@@keithfernandez8965 Exactly. In the same way as your comment is a bridge from the obvious to the stupid.
Peter ur opinion on Iron flow batteries and the approach that Honeywell and their partner ESS has taken for large scale/long term storage for the grid.
Peter is negative on anything that might disrupt the energy status quo.
I love your videos
Green Transition: P.T. Barnum would be proud. 😎
"The Limiting Factor" just did a deep dive on Lithium (and sodium ion batteries) titled "The Global Lithium Supply Chain and Tesla’s 50% Growth Rate" which is a good watch. (almost 2 hours long)
Lithium ion batteries were such a break through that they were actually a trap.
Yes, and its not the only one. Industrialization, and civilization, as a whole, can be viewed as a trap. As we progress, our population has increased, and has urbanized. The old cliché, "you can never go home", points at this very fact, that we can not go to past methods. Trying to go back to pre-industrialized lifestyles, will REQUIRE 7/8ths of the world's population to die ! Do you want to be the next "Hitler", "Chairman Mao", or "Pol Pot", to implement that policy !?
We have to develop the next energy technology, to pull us thru, and even stick with fossil fuels, for a while, indifferent to environmental hit, to sustain humanity. This means nuclear power must also be in the picture, and the path to all EVs for ground transport, WILL be extended. The governments, with their current milestones, are delusional !
If you really want to save humanity, study engineering. Don't stop because "math is too hard". Like physical exercise, also exercise your brain ! The concepts of calculus really aren't that hard. If a goof ball like me, can get an engineering degree, so can you !
Kinda like oil.
@@cwx8 Hundreds of ICE vehicles burn each day but it's not newsworthy.
@@leanja6926 That's something that lithium critics don't realize. Yes, lithium batteries burn a long time and are hard to extinguish, but the more energy dense something is, the more exothermic the reaction when it's compromised. Hydrocarbons are more energy dense, and you can see that quite easily if you mix those hydrocarbons with air and light a match.
I am considering a move to Colorado based on the scenery in Peter's videos!
The situation isn't QUITE that bad, I mainly object to the phrase "nothing else is even close to the prototype stage". Several companies are prototyping alternative batteries around sodium chemistries. Where lithium is rare and precious, *sodium* currently costs about 1/4 as much as lithium and you can find it on every continent or make it from seawater if you have to. Sodium batteries aren't quite as energy dense as lithium but the price is right.
The problem with sodium based batteries isn't just that they're not as energy dense, it's also that the chemistry breaks down a lot faster. You get MANY more charge cycles from lithium based batteries than you do from sodium based ones.
I enjoy your venues. Nothing like a walk in the mountains to clarify one's thinking.
I'm here for the headwear
Great video as always. I would like to know your comments about the deposits of phosphate found in Norway two or three months ago, are they as significant as the news portray and could ease a bit the possible upcomimg shortages of fertilizer? Thanks
Between deposits and going into production there is a long layoff. Norway ain’t Russia. Mining has to be approved by a Scandinavian way of Democracy that can go either way . In Russia everything is opaque and anything goes. If there are a few to profit , environment be dammed , it is all fair game.
Lithium is the ultimate long term fix. Yes solid state and other tech needs to make but it can. The difference between lithium and other chemistries is potential energy density by volume, mole, and mass are much higher than any alternative.
It's new tech. Give it time.
Kings Peak in Utah or Wyoming is 13,000 too. I have not backpacked King’s Peak since the 1990s. Good for you Peter.
Peter - I love your analyses, but as always, when you delve into complex techno-economic questions, you miss things. The Lithium supply is in the shape it is because of HISTORICAL Lithium demand. Lithium is an extremely common element, it's just that highly concentrated deposits are fairly rare. Because demand has historically been much, much lower than what our future projections have become, prices have remained low, and it has only been worth tapping the richest ores / brines. As demand and prices rise, two thing will happen. Less-concentrated deposits will be tapped, and Lithium-extraction & purification methods will be improved for both traditional and new resources. There are multiple examples of both trends already underway. You wouldn't look at today's workforce in China and assume that it will be the same in 20 years, would you? So, too, is the Lithium supply curve a moving target.
The second miss is that once EV and other Lithium markets mature, RECYCLING of Lithium from spent batteries will begin to make a significant contribution. A spent battery is a very rich "ore" for a number of vital elements. It's not a 100% replacement source, because components like graphite and polymer membranes can't really be recycled, at least not with current technology. But Lithium, Cobalt, Manganese, and Nickel all can be separated, recovered, purified, and reused. Until the supply of spent batteries grows significantly, this will not be a meaningful supply. But long before we run low on extractive sources of these minerals, it will.
And yes, we certainly should continue research on new battery technologies, and this has been underway for decades already, at least two decades of intense R&D, with several alternate chemistries and solid-state batteries showing promise. The underlying limit is not technology, but economics. As long as fossil fuel users have our atmosphere as a free sewer for their CO2 emissions, change will be very slow. But begin charging an appropriate "tipping fee" for every molecule of CO2 that exits a tailpipe or a chimney, and you will see brisk expansion of all of the materials & technologies required for alternative energy, including batteries.
In the U.S., even the Democrats, nominally supporters of combatting climate change, are too chicken**** to actually place sensible penalties on emissions of fossil CO2 and other GHGs. To me, the only real question is this: will we have a "Pearl Harbor Moment" where greedy and self-centered plutocrats and consumers will be moved to self-sacrifice, or will it be more like the apocryphal proverb of "boiling the frog," where we let things get worse incrementally but indefinitely until it is too late to avert total catastrophe.
What you said makes sense to me. If lithium is the new gold, and there is plenty of it, then simple economics will keep in flowing. This has played out on a small time scale in just the last few years as lithium prices sky rocketed in 2022, as supplies were scarce...but then the current lithium mines upped production to cash in on the higher prices, which then plummeted in 2023 from OVER supply of lithium. It seems this boom and bust cycle will continue for lithium for quite some time as the law of supply and demand does its thing. The only point I agree with in this prodigious hiker's vlog is we don't have enough refined lithium production tomorrow to meet demand for lithium in five years. Brilliant stuff. It's something like, I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger I eat today.
I think you make good points but are way off in thinking CO2 is a problem to begin with. However, Lithium and other battery technologies are fine. They probably aren't 18X fine in the short term, which is why in the short term the world won't all be driving electric cars. Again, not a problem.
CO2 not a problem!!!!
Antiwaxing flat earther too?
@@TheSwiftCreek2
Your overlooking a major problem. Lithium prices rising to the level that makes sparse deposits valuable also pushes lithium to a price that's untenable for use in common transportation. The price needs to go DOWN, not up, for a lithium economy to scale.
This dude sounds fun.
I'm really failing to understand the push to full electrification. Here in Australia we've had catastrophic storms and fires which have demolished electrical cables and infrastructure leading to full state blackouts (my State - South Australia 2016 - where some pylons were demolished and literally the WHOLE state went dark). We've had regulators suffer cyber attacks and only two weeks ago one of major telcos completely shut down due to a "network issue" affecting 10 million customers who couldn't make or accept retail purchases and banking as well as some hospitals on the telco's network (not to mention their "government guaranteed emergency call" ability not working for the 000 police and ambulance requirement). If trains and trams and banking, buying petrol and food are at risk, why are governments (the USA and recently Australia) pushing for NG to be taken away. Seems that the old conspiracy story of making all of us serfs might yet prove to be true .... just sayin'.
Given how many conspiracies' we know now are true from government information requests and leakers. You'd be an idiot to believe the rich and powerful aren't weaponising environmentalist policy against the average person. Hell they talk all the time about overpopulation. That isn't just hot air. They've actively been undoing the freedoms and successes of western nations of the last hundred years.
There's a lot of agenda driven BS on TH-cam about power in Oz. I've seen popular youtubers claim that South Australian renewables gives the cheapest electricity bills and checked myself; it's actually 50% more expensive than coal fired Queensland.
nobody is saying "full electrification". Conservative myths.
@@azhardavreally? Because the way short sighted progressives bash fossil, they sure sound like they mean full when they say full.
People want electrical because they believe that burning carbon leads to global warming that will change climate and force even more extreme adaptations in the future than "going green" now.
Love hearing about anything lithium/mining/energy, Peter. Thank you!
Any updates on the new Argentinian president and his plan to move to the USD?
I would love to see a comment on some of the recent criticism, particularly regarding the future of China and the rationale behind the U.S. withdrawal. It seems that this is somewhat oversimplified
I've seen signs and news articles about Lithium mines being started in Nevada. I don't know how much they expect from them though.
Not enough water in Nevada...
It currently takes 500,000 liters of Fresh drinking water to process 1 ton of Lithium..
After the process, that water is unusable for human consumption, because it is laced with the Toxic Chemicals used in the process.
In China, they dump the water into large containment ponds, where it sits..And people can only ponder what affect that has in the local wildlife, much less if the water somehow reaches the natural water supply.
@@johnnyappleseed6960 No, that's not how lithium will be extracted from desert sand. There will be no ponds.
It's looking like Batman had the answer back in the 60's.
"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed"
Hey Peter, any thoughts on Exxon's experiment to drill for lithium rich brine in Arkansas? I am aware that places on earth with formation water with high concentrations of lithium are rare but do you think Exxon's play will be economically viable and will make a significant dent in domestic lithium demand?
I was looking for this comment about the S. Arkansas play. Hell, the entire Gulf Coast sits on a bed of salt kilometers thick. Haha, let's do another boom with salt brine and the awful "Big Oil" companies like XOM are still gonna control energy. That'll make the irrational haters squeal. Suddenly- lithium Bad!
The problem is most people who highlight problems with battery technology are not interested in finding solutions. They're interesting in keeping things the way they are.
Of all your hats, the Elf hat is the best one.
I want to spend a word on lithium.
The entire world has suddenly forgot about other battery chemistries. A Lithium battery has the advantage of high power density - both in volume and weight. But there are a lot of disadvantages; the Li-Ion battery can't take even a minimal electric abuse, so it has to be always paired with a microcontroller; because of the high terminal voltage, a Li-Ion battery operates outside of the thermodynamic window of stability, and this requires a lot of (secret) additives, it reduces the shelf life, and ages the battery even if it is not used, and make it intolerant even of a moderate warmth. Etc., Etc.
Lithium batteries are very good for automotive applications because of their reduced size and weight. But why should somebody equip a power plant with a lithium battery for backup? In that case, there are some cylindrical Lead-acid batteries which are more appropriate; they last 25+ years in operation, they are way cheaper; they are rugged and aren't killed by a defective power controller the way Li-Ion batteries are. Also, they don't catch fire, as the electrolyte is acidified water, not a volatile solvent. Also they don't self-ignite in case of incidents.
Yes Lead Acid batteries are bigger than a Li-Ion equivalent, but for a stationary installation this isn't a problem.
But every battery user and their dog want Li-Ion batteries - even when they aren't appropriate. This is caused by a political-industrial-research conundrum which I'm unable to decipher.
Thank you
Anthony
The whole premise of transitioning to batteries is not even remotely scientific. Looking at global temps over the last 140 years, some of the drops in temperature corresponded after the largest bursts of human industrial output.
When average temps started dropping in the last decade, the verbiage was altered from Global Warming to Climate Change.
It's not scientific. They especially are avoiding the discussion about deep sea floor heating.
Several times you referred to lithium as “fuel”. Be sure that you are clear to those who follow you that lithium is used in the storage of power, but not the production of power.
Love your stuff!
Yes indeed, but uranium *is* a fuel, with the highest energy density known. Li is not a fuel, but U is the fuel of the future, or we do not have one. Period. btw highest performing commodity stock this year. One guess. :)
Excellent analysis. Peter, what made you decide to live in Colorado?
Short, succinct and to the point. Great quality video!
ARKANSAS has just announced a huge deposit of lithium and has launched major mining efforts.
Could become one of the biggest sources of lithium in the world!!!
It's fairly impossible to get an EPA permit for a lithium mine in the US
@@teekay_1 The Arkansas find is not a mine in the traditional sense, but rather dissolved in brine. Exxon Mobile is the one that just purchased the alreday-granted drilling rights and will be extracting it using oil/gas drilling tech and not hard rock mining. Google "Exxon drilling arkansas lithium" for details. Oh, and the Thacker Pass hard rock lithium mine in Nevada was granted all their permits and construction started in 2023 -- so "impossible" is not the word you are looking for.
All of the sudden , someone and everyone is finding lithium in their backyard. Sounds like a tail of Jethro finding oil on his patch and moving the family to Beverly Hills.
Stop dancing you fools.
@@serafinacosta7118 It reminds me of how the evangelists claim that a new battery for EVs is right around the corner. Any day now. They just saw a TH-cam video on it...
"Profit"!?
When i first read the thumbnail, i was like man Zeihan is so open with his mental health treatment.
Don’t forget about the massive discovery of high grade lithium on Vancouver Island Canada
Odd question, but as you travel, a lot, how does it impact you going from 13,000' to sea level? Do you feel more energy at sea level?
😂🤣🤣 I need to see him speak live. Must be a blast.
Has Zeihan ever responded to a comment?
From sea level to altitude is the problem but I don't know of any advantages or disadvantage of going from high to low. Research Acute Mountain Sickness. From sea level to 8000 will cause symptoms and they could become serious. The higher you go, the more pronounced the effect. Humans acclimate, to a point but this kills people, mainly climbers. It has to do with pressure and oxygen in the bloodstream.
I can tell you my experiences, I don't live too far from Peter, in CO. When I go down to sea level & I mean on the coast or a few hundred feet above, I feel like I'm swimming in the air. There is low humidity were we are, 75% and above feels like soup... Harder to breathe too😊
I get exercise induced asthma in Denver that I use an inhaler for. At 13000 ft it's even worse. In Florida I can run a mile with no issues at all. So not really more energy but far more endurance.
Sodium batteries are already being made by CATL. Energy density is somewhat lower than lithium, but sodium is cheaper, and safer.
Good for grid storage, so it may take some of the load off lithium. But it will likely have it's own supply issues.
@@mawhim I am no authority on any matter but would not Sodium be very abundant as a byproduct of salt brines which are everywhere - table salt (NaCl) is pretty cheap in the super market?
you have any thoughts on the sodium ion battery tech i’ve been hearing about?
I'm a chemist who is getting close to retirement. I plan on finding a porch in Appalachia somewhere, relax in a rocking chair, cross my arms and say, "This ought to be good."
Hydrogen can be thought of as a ‘super-battery’, and we are currently working to lower PGM (platinum group metals) loading to be close to what is used in a catalytic converter. PGM-free fuel cell membranes may also be a possibility at some point. FCEVs still use conventional batteries, but they are 5-20x smaller depending upon the use case. Breakthroughs with membranes and solid state H2 storage would improve matters substantially.
And solid state sodium ion batteries are in development, which would probably end up performing a little better than current Li-ion, but be far cheaper. A major challenge for BEVs is the charging infrastructure, which also requires a massive buildout of the grid. An energy distribution system around H2 should be able to scale far faster, especially as advanced nuclear starts to come online within the decade.
Overall system efficiency for FCEVs has the potential to get within one half of BEVs, compared to the 3-4x it is today.
FCEVs and the whole hydrogen economy don't make any sense as long as any of our power plants are still fossil fuel based.
If you are producing any hydrogen at all from either hydrocarbons or from power made by hydrocarbons, then fuel cells are a complete nonstarter. The ONLY way FCEVs make sense is if you are producing so much excess electricity from non-carbon sources that 1) no power at the same time is being made from fossil fuels, 2) you need something to do with the excess energy. Only in that case does water electrolysis make sense for the generation of LH2
@@Meton2526
Fossils can be used to rapidly grow the hydrogen economy, but of course the emissions are a problem. There is the possibility of using pyrolysis to extract the H2 from natural gas, leaving only solid carbon (no CO2!), but there are still some emissions from leakage.
As I said above, H2 has advantages, and its use case expands as the technology improves. Furthermore, energy production can grow faster if it is decoupled from the grid. H2 should be able to help decarbonize ammonia production, aviation, rail, shipping, and long haul trucking. To the extent that batteries become an issue due to material and infrastructure constraints, H2 could prove useful with light duty vehicles provided that solid state H2 storage works out.
So, I think you are greatly underestimating the usefulness of this technology, and overestimating the capabilities of alternatives.
@@cbarcus I know exactly how H2 works, it's not the problem of how LH2 works once you have it. The problem is where are you getting the H2, and THAT is where it doesn't make sense. All the use cases you listed are just assuming that the LH2 exists to serve the use case. However when you look at end-to-end costs in terms of both pricing and carbon emissions, NONE of it makes sense right now. Why would you buy a FCEV when an ICE car is cheaper and less polluting after accounting for all emissions?
"There is the possibility of using pyrolysis to extract the H2 from natural gas, leaving only solid carbon (no CO2!)" ABSOLUTE bullshit. Or if it's not, there's no way you could do it without the power input costs being astronomical, much worse than just getting water from the ocean (there's quite a bit you know, not hard to find,) and you still have the problems of NatGas production to serve as an input into producing this mythical H2. It just violates too many inviolable properties of chemistry to think you can break those bonds C-H bonds and reform them as some solid pure carbon allotrope without paying all the energy costs of those bonds, and any time you're breaking and reforming bonds like that, you're talking significant efficiency losses.
It's all about the raw power required, and the losses involved in making the LH2. Until all of the power requirements excluding transportation are produced by non-carbon sources, it doesn't make sense to increase consumption of fossil fuel based power to then make H2 for transportation. It's just more efficient to combust the petroleum in ICE engines. BEVs only barely make sense for small commuter cars because commercial NatGas power plants are so much more efficient than internal combustion engines, and even then it would have been much better for us to have replaced all commuter sedans with plug-in hybrids than to have full BEVs for a fraction with the rest still ICE.
@@Meton2526
Today, liquefaction costs 11+ kWh/kg-H2, but we should be able to get that down to around 6-7 kWh with an economy of scale. The DoE is targeting $2 kg-H2 in just a few years, and $1/kg-H2 by 2031 (end-to-end delivery perhaps doubles this). Generous subsidies will help make things economically viable in the shorter term. There will also be an H2 pipeline network, and the solid state H2 solutions that are in the works require far lower pressures than the 700 bar tanks. 52% thermal efficiency looks viable with a sulfur-iodine thermochemical process and advanced high temperature nuclear. We may be able to get close to 50% thermal efficiency with high temperature electrolysis.
And of course, pyrolysis is not free, just like SMR, but that does not make the process impractical. The DoE developed plans for the H2 economy decades ago, and the outlook has only improved since then.
Climate mitigation is an enormous challenge, and many approaches will be required to address the myriad of industrial sectors that make up our economy. We will also produce carbon-neutral energy carriers, though at a far smaller scale than fossil use today. The bottlenecks we face are primarily material requirements and time, more than mere power production. Power density is a major advantage of nuclear, and I expect it to be fully exploited in the coming decades.
@@cbarcus Aviation and maritime shipping probably won't touch liquid hydrogen without it's transformation into methanol (the better choice) or ammonia (the worst choice). Despite having a good specific energy, the energy density of liquid hydrogen isn't good, it requires significant insulation and trillions in infrastructure upgrades for transporting it. Both aviation and shipping require a dense fuel while aviation additionally requires a high specific energy fuel as well. This is the minimise the space taken up by fuel so you can fit more cargo/payload and in the case of aircraft the fuel mass fraction is quite significant.
The biggest problem with hydrogen and methanol is the poor round trip efficiency.
The alkali metals are very energetic(lithium in an alkali metal). The real problem with the processing and purifying of the lithium ionic compounds(carbonate, citrate, etc...) is that it's very much not green. Then there's the problem that lithium is kinda rare in our crust, which is why only a few countries are able to mine it without too much trouble. When it comes to batteries that can be reliably recharged, we don't have a lot of choice commercially, currently it's either lead cell or lithium ion batteries. There's some potentially promising research into ferric compounds for the making of batteries, but that's still early in its research.
Lithium isn't rare?
@@harrison4461compared to other elements it is relatively rare. Although lithium is well dispersed and you can find at least a little bit in most places its very rare to find a deposit of igneous rock or brine that has commercially viable concentration of lithium
@@harrison4461 It is, just not as rare as gold or platinum or plutonium.
Why not sodium? It has properties almost as good as Lithium and is ridiculously abundent - it's a big part of the salt in the oceans. It's not even poisonous. I know that several companies are working on sodium ion batteries - not sure why they're not already established.
@@thulyblu5486 Because lithium is more reactive than sodium. It's easier using lithium salts along with electrolytes to control the flow of electrons. The research into using sodium salts for batteries is fascinating. There has also been some promising research using iron and nickel for batteries.
Your absolutely correct on this same as Solar panels -Commercial application up the creek
Hi Peter, they say AGI was created/reached/... in OpenAi. Your thoughts of prospects of this?
There are several new batteries being developed using sodium , iron-air, and other non lithium metals. MIT, NASA and Germany have some interesting new battery tech under development.
Thanks, Peter, for another really informative report. I'm wondering what role Lithium recycling will have in all this. Once electric car batteries start getting old in quantity, won't all that already refined Lithium we can now recover more than 90% of from their used batteries play a major role in the supply?
Yes they are all setup to do lots of recycling. Redwood materials is very close to Tesla in Nevada.
The problem actually is the batteries are lasting longer than expected. They are also being diverted to stationary storage. The projections for them wearing out were only estimates and they underestimated.
@@stephenbernard3003 Right. Battery extra long life is of course a very good thing for society, but a bit of a delay for companies like Redwood.
Peter's logic is impeccable. My problem is with the underlying assumptions. Everyone seems to believe that the future is pure EVs with at least 300 miles of electric range. Instead, take that 300-mile EV and replace 3/4 of the battery with a gas engine range extender. The resulting 75 miles of EV range would cost less and cover > 95% of driving just by charging at home. No need for a huge new infrastructure of fast public chargers, and by the way, the demand for Lithium is 4 times less, which we have in the pipeline.
Sounds great, but you also need to build out slow charging at work. This gives you flexibility to use PV panels to charge cars when the sun is shining. Also, still using ICE for range extension won't satisfy the folks who want to complete ban them.
@@richdobbs6595 If you have a gas/electric car with 75 miles of EV range, why would you need to charge at work? Better to prioritize landlords and condo associations installing slow chargers in their parking lots. As for folks who want to ban ICEs, this seems more like a religious argument. If passenger cars drive > 95% on electricity, there are other ways to get to net zero.
There have been advancements in Sodium Iron batteries. Hopefully we will hear something soon.
You didn't mention Sodium Ion battery tech. It's higher energy density that lead-acid, almost as high as Li Ion, but far less dangerous that either of them. It's also a vastly more widely available mineral. Still in the prototype phase for the most part though.
Sodium Ion is not a replacement for Lithium. Nobody trust this technology anymore.
It barely works in some niche applications.
The problem with sodium based batteries is that the chemistry breaks down a lot quicker than lithium.
And also slow to charge and discharge
It's not really applicable to transportation, if I understand correctly.
Will it be fully commercialized within 15 years? He mentioned there will be alternatives, but we have to worry about the time it takes before we get there
Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) is a chemistry I prefer over Lithium Ion because: 1) LiFePO4 uses no Cobalt in its chemistry, 2) it has a 4x usable lifespan (think charge cycles) over L-ion chemistry, and 3) it's not a fire hazard like L-Ion batteries are. LiFePO4 are not as energy dense as L-Ion (~60%), but they are more environmentally friendly (due to no Cobalt), more cost effective & more responsible use of resources... I.e., it's currently the best option we have within the Lithium chemistry options to date. If consumers, (and that's a BIG IF) were willing to take a ~40% hit in regards to energy density in their batteries and switch to LiFiPO4, then the available supply of Lithium could stretch 4x further... though something tells me that's not going to gain wide adoption in EVs, though it has gained considerable ground in stationary batteries.
LiFePO4 is a lithium ion battery... You mean you prefer LiFePO4 over nickel based lithium ion batteries.
@@Les_S537 While it is technically true that LiFePO4 is a variant of Lithium-Ion, in common parlance & battery usage, the term L-Ion refers to batteries using a cathode composed of Cobalt Oxide, whereas LiFePO4 uses an Iron-Phosphate cathode. I'm not interested in splitting grammatical/technical hairs here.
@@IAMSatisfied The point is that lithium is used in both battery chemistries as the ions that transfer back and forth from cathode to anode, thus they are both lithium ion batteries.
That will help. Hopefully, even better batteries will emerge in the future.
So, if I understand you correctly, we take already heavy batteries and nearly double the weight (which will have deleterious effects on lots of other things) in order to achieve the same thing? Not sure that makes much sense.
Sodium-Ion is probably the best battery tech in terms of cost to produce and least environmental damage. The Chinese currently are ahead in this tech for EV's (CATL the leading company).
The most important point is that despite massive push back from the oil industry (and we still need petroleum products in any future green tech society, as many people are correct to point out), EV's will dominate personal car ownership in the future. Finding the best way to do that is the key.
Both lithium and sodium batteries will be the future. I'd guess at least a third of vehicles will have sodium ion for short range driving and quick 15 minute recharges. Lithium will only be needed by those who driving long distances and can't stop to charge.
Exxon Lithium
Today, most of the world’s lithium is produced in Western Australia, South America and China. Exxon plans to produce lithium in North America.
They will tap lithium-rich brines deep underground (10,000ft) using processes similar to those they use in their existing production and refining businesses.
They plan to produce enough lithium for 1 million EV’s by 2030.
Thank you. Finally someone out there calling lithium for energy what it is: bad chemistry.
Right, because the geopolitics bro knows more about battery chemistry than the engineers at the car manufacturers.
@@L233233 All of whom agree that it is crap. It's just the crap we have right now. Nobody wants to maintain lithium one second longer than necessary. Insurers want it gone. Manufacturers want it gone. Reyclers want it gone.
But hey, go find me some EV manufacturers that say they'll prefer lithium the moment something else comes along. List them out right here, so we can learn from you. Thanks in advance.
@@L233233 Information regarding lithium batteries is freely available and not that complicated. Old tech
Not really true but.. certainly the supply chain is a question.
@@L233233 I work for one of those manufacturers, Peter is right. Your mistake is assuming that because we're using it, we think it's good. We don't. It's simply the only thing we have that will meet Americans' 300 mile range requirement to reduce range anxiety to an acceptable level, but it's very dangerous due to the fire risks. Far more so than a conventional ICE car is. If water gets inside for any reason (and it's nearly impossible to guarantee a massive box bolted into a flexing chassis riding around exposed to the elements for 10+ years will remain sealed, even sans accidents) it's a ticking time bomb. However, EVs are both a wall street darling AND being government mandated, so there isn't much choice in the matter at the moment.
Lithium: The False "Profit" of Electrification? Either a clever pun, or an unfortunate typo, which can be easily corrected. Love your stuff, Peter Z.
He started by saying it was the "new gold" so I'd guess the former
Lithium prices have come down by 75% in July 2023 from the same time in 2022, then the price went up slightly in August but prices keeps going down because there's more production everywhere.
I'm coming to you from near Kiowa Mountain in Northern, NM. I keep thinking that you will be in this area. You get close though.
Lithium batteries come in different chemistries. NMC can catch fire and is rated for 500-800 cycles. LFP chemistry absolutely cannot catch fire and is rated for 5000 cycles. LFP is already used in Tesla model Y.
LFP is a lot safer, but it will participate in a fire if it gets hot enough.
Unfortunately long range Tesla models and a lot of other car brands still use NMC or NCA. These Cobalt based batteries should be banned asap. Sooner or later they will fail and take down another car park, ship or building
@@SolAce-nw2hf Increased safety is always good, but NCA and NMC aren't inherently more dangerous than gasoline vehicles.
@@iamalmostanonymous As much as I would love that to be true, Cobalt based batteries are just a nightmare when they do catch fire.
Gasoline and diesel fires happen more often (mostly older cars), but are often easy to put out and generally not that toxic.
Whenever Peter gets into energy tech, he quickly finds himself over his head. It's happening again.
Unfortunately in these instances he doesn't realize he's in over his head, so he just keeps rolling along with his usual self-confident delivery style, so most of the people listening will just believe it. On the bright side, we get to watch as these doomsday pronouncements about the green energy transition tumble away, one by one, over the next few years. ;-)
Could you do a video on the prospects of deep sea mining?
It’s great in a soak bath or hot springs. Highly recommended.
some Australians just discovered a new better way to extract lithium.
there is a lot of lithium expansion in Australia, just Greenbushes is about 25% of the worlds lithium and doubling output in the next year, also processing plants in construction already. That being said, a lot is Chinese owned and probably headed there
1:15 That's not true, LFP batteries are already shipped by Tesla and BYD, LFP batteries are also considered as very safe
The "L" in "LFP" stands for Lithium...
@@johnlane8053 yep
Agree with you. My model Y has LFP, les risk of fire than other lithium ion due to the iron used. They are using LFP in the normal models but not in the performance models as LFP can be discharged as quickly as normal lithium ion to get that instant amp to the motors.
And they're all good at certain things, but not others, except the the intensive processing pollution part, and the hard to recycle part where they're all pretty good at sucking.
@@audreychen5363 there are M3P batteries that have both lithium and magnesium inside which give them more power output, shipped by Tesla currently as well from CLTA, also considered as safe (so far)
A fact that was not discussed here is the recent discovery of Lithium on the border of Nevada and Oregon. That said, Peter is right that Lithium is not the be all and end all.
"Graphene"
-Ian Crossland