Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

Lithium Extraction Gets Faster and Maybe Greener, Too (ieee.org) 67

Long-time Slashdot reader xetdog shared this report from IEEE Spectrum: High in the Andes mountains where the borders of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile intersect, white expanses of salt stretch for thousands of kilometers. Under these flats lie reservoirs of brine that contain upwards of 58% of the world's lithium. For decades, producers have extracted that lithium by pumping the water up to the surface and letting it evaporate until the lithium salts become concentrated enough to filter out. The process takes 12 to 18 months, leaving behind piles of waste containing other metals. It also evaporates nearly 2 million liters of local water resources, harming indigenous communities.

To keep up, many companies are now developing processes to chemically or physically filter out lithium from brines and inject the brine back underground. These direct lithium extraction (DLE) technologies take hours instead of months and could double the production of lithium from existing brine operations. Much as shale extraction did for oil, DLE is a "potential game-changing technology for lithium supply," because it could unlock new sources of lithium, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs. But in contrast to shale's fracking risks, DLE brings environmental benefits, reducing land and water use, and waste...

In China, a handful of commercial projects already use Chinese DLE innovator Sunresin's technology.

More than 12 startups are pursuing new DLE processes, according to the article, "with the intent of commercial production as early as 2025."

And America's Department of Energy is also investing millions of dollars in new DLE tech "to extract lithium from geothermal brines in the U.S., such as the Salton Sea in California, which the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates could provide over 24,000 metric tons of lithium a year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lithium Extraction Gets Faster and Maybe Greener, Too

Comments Filter:
  • One problem solved (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Sunday January 07, 2024 @02:41PM (#64138927)

    Which is great, today's best mobile platform batteries need lithium, and battery prices are the primary expense for an EV. More lithium, extracted more efficiently, means lower battery prices and maybe an affordable EV before my current ICE dies of old age.

  • It's all benefit. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Sunday January 07, 2024 @02:59PM (#64138989)
    The absolute worst methods of extracting lithium are better for the environment than the absolute best methods of fossil fuel development. Not to mention you can recycle it once mined. In fact, it would be better for the environment to develop lithium at maximum speed to finally destroy the damnable fossil fuel zombie industry that both literally poisons and politically corrupts everything it touches.
    • Re:It's all benefit. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Sunday January 07, 2024 @03:13PM (#64139013) Homepage Journal

      Indeed.

      Right now, we're in a situation where previous uses of lithium, specifically batteries, was too small to justify large amounts of recycling. However, that's currently changing, but will still take years. The longer LiIon EV batteries turn out to last, the longer it'll be before recycling them becomes a major source.

      I've read the reports. Keep in mind that most of a LiIon battery is things other than lithium. Your typical LiIon battery is only 7% lithium. But that's still a lot more lithium than present in ore, and it should be obvious that all the other elements in a lithium ion battery are elements used in LiIon batteries. ;)

      So pretty much by definition, LiIon batteries are the most dense source of materials for LiIon batteries available. Far denser than any ore or natural resource extraction.

      You just need a big enough pile of batteries to make running the equipment worth it. Even if you're treating the batteries just like ore.

      If you can use other separation and extraction techniques more suited for recycling batteries, even better. Less energy, labor, processing required = cheaper.

      But, until then, we're looking at needing X millions of tons of lithium. There's about 8kg of lithium in an EV. If we consider EVs, UPS units, grid storage*, laptops, cell phones, power tools, and everything else, that we need 10kg per person, that's around 3M metric tons for the USA alone, 80M for the world.

      Once we get up there, recycling can become the major source of lithium for our batteries, but until then we need to mine an awful lot of the stuff. Using "mine" generically of course, most lithium extraction isn't "hard rock" like we think of for traditional mining of stuff like iron or coal.

      *Most of which wouldn't be lithium, I think.

      • Agreed. I figure grid storage will use some battery banks, but most of it will be simple mechanical stuff like reverse hydro (pumping water into a reservoir), pendulums, weights, flywheels, etc. We need the lithium mostly for transportation. Excellent point about there being a critical mass of lithium-based batteries in operation before the recycling facilities can properly scale. Suggests extraction should be pursued as quickly as possible for the time being.
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Recycling will get fixed as soon as the volume is there. You can design batteries for easy recycling. You just need to do it and there need to be convincing incentives. This can be that the cost of recycling gets priced into the sale price, or it can be that recycling the batteries is actually profitable (best version).

        The other thing is that lifetimes have been extended massively with secondary use as stationary storage. The only problem this industry has is that it was niche for too long. That time is ove

        • Recycling will get fixed as soon as the volume is there.

          That's what I said though? "You just need a big enough pile of batteries to make running the equipment worth it."

          The problem is that Tesla Roadsters were too small of a run to justify running a recycling center for their batteries, plus I'm not sure how many of those toys have actually been disposed of, rather than having 2nd or 3rd parties doing battery repairs and such. Most of even first year Model S cars haven't reached end of life either. They're only hitting 12 years old right now.

          As you say, lifet

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Recycling will get fixed as soon as the volume is there.

            That's what I said though? "You just need a big enough pile of batteries to make running the equipment worth it."

            Yep. I agree with you.

          • Redwood Materials is mainly recycling phone/laptop/gadget batteries due to the lack of EV batteries
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Not quite. But once the method has to be economically viable, then yes, very much. I do agree that the fossile industry has to die as soon as possible. At this time, they still have ample bribe money though and the voters are asleep, easy to manipulate and deeply stupid.

  • Important correction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday January 07, 2024 @03:03PM (#64138993) Journal

    From the summary:

    High in the Andes mountains where the borders of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile intersect, white expanses of salt stretch for thousands of kilometers. Under these flats lie reservoirs of brine that contain upwards of 58% of the world's lithium

    It is absolutely not true that these regions of the Andes mountain contain 58% of the world's lithium. They contain a negligible percentage of the world's lithium, which is an abundant element found all over the world, especially the oceans. What these regions contain is upwards of 58% of the lithium reserves that are easily accessible via the currently-economical extraction techniques. New techniques or shifting economic conditions could radically change this situation.

    For example, if the price of lithium were to increase by a few times, extraction from seawater would become economical even with no changes in technology. New techniques for making extraction from seawater less energy-intensive, or continuing decreases in energy prices due to renewables could make seawater extraction economical even at current lithium prices (and note that the cheap energy could be intermittent).

  • 58% sounds wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Sunday January 07, 2024 @03:09PM (#64139001) Journal

    According to the US Geological Survey [usgs.gov] [pdf], Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile have a combined lithium resources of 52 million tons, with a global estimated resource of 98 million tons.

    Middle of last year, large lithium deposits in the McDermitt caldera estimates between 20 and 40 million tons, which even the lower estimate puts it in the #2 largest deposit tied with Argentina.

    Turns out that with lithium in demand, people are starting to prospect for it and surprise surprise, actually finding it. People make a lot of hay about the Andes region being a major resource, but because of the political situation they're getting bypassed entirely.
    =Smidge=

    • Ouch. 98M tons is awfully close to my estimate that a non-carbon "fully EV" world would require ~80M tons of the stuff world wide. That's ~10kg per person, when an EV takes ~8kg.

      But, as you say, we're prospecting for more, so the reserves are going up now. In addition, as we see here, new technologies are being developed and sometimes just engineered* to make extraction cheaper(which increases reserves). The price ticks up a notch? That increases reserves too, as now more areas are economical to extrac

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Argentina is either a huge opportunity for someone to come in and get rich off lithium mining, or a write off for at least a decade.

  • Do they mean 24 KiloTons of actual Lithium? Or just 24Kt of Lithium salt(s)

    • Reading the article, it'd be elemental lithium, most likely.

      They're doing ion exchange stuff. Give out a hydrogen ion, get back a lithium ion. So a salt might be formed when they regenerate the beads, but they probably try to keep it elemental. They may be using an oxide of it, that's normally what's in batteries, rather than elemental lithium. It'd be a lot easier to transport at least, elemental lithium likes to react with stuff.

  • I clicked the link to figure out how evaporating toxic brine harms the indigenous communities and the link does not support the statement. It speaks about how they are not benefitting enough with jobs and money from the resources being extracted but nothing about actually being harmed from evaporating the undrinkable water.
    • by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Sunday January 07, 2024 @04:04PM (#64139101) Homepage Journal

      I think that it's the after-processing that causes the problems.

      Basically, after concentrating it, they use various chemicals to actually extract it. The "vast amounts" of clean water(we don't care about the brine) is in the regeneration and rinsing of those chemicals.

      Basically, the unstated step 4+ in the process is what uses the water. Including stupid shit like releasing the waste brine into drinkable streams.

      https://www.ibatterymetals.com... [ibatterymetals.com]

      • Thanks that makes much more sense.
        • It's another blinder us western/modern societies have. The 'value' of relatively undisturbed nature is almost never factored into assessments we produce.
          • Value wasn't the topic, a claim of harm to people was.
            • an excellent example of my point...
              • Your point was that you can't stay on topic?
                • And another. Harming the 'land' harms the indigenous people. The 'value' of the land is intertwined with the 'value' of the people themselves. They are from it, it is very close to being a part of them itself.

                  Again, I'm sad for your blinders and anger.
                  • And another off topic. You are good at being off topic I'll give you that. No, harming land does not necessarily harm people in fact it can benefit them. They are no more from the land or have the land as part of them than any other person on earth. It's ironic you would mention blinders given your stubbornness.
          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Value of undisturbed nature is extremely negative, because undisturbed nature is a torturer-murderer of humans. Parasites alone are a stuff of Lovecraftian nightmares.

          • In this case, land use hasn't been an identified problem, while water use has been. Using evaporation to collect salts has been around since very early times. Indeed, people still collect salt via evaporation including natives of Hawaii, around the dead sea, and in India (I saw a special on it once).

            Note how you had to put quotes around it - said value is very hard to quantify. Reminds me of how "priceless" can often translate as "worthless".

            Undisturbed nature isn't very good if it means that the people

  • Seriously. I must be tired - because I saw "Latinum" the first time I read the title...Had a bit of a WTF moment there.

  • I'm hoping they can make progress on the silicon based battery tech I saw in the press a little while back

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Working...