Haven't added to this thread for a while, but as some may know whilst this thread was initially about Understanding Lithium Demand, I decided a while back to deal with the issue of understanding Lithium Supply in this thread too. In terms of the latter I have also posted in a Peer Comparison Thread where I also have a look at emerging projects - this is one of the posts in that thread for those interested -
There are others in that thread such as my perception around the Jadar project, geothermal potential projects etc etc
2. Demand forecasts One thing that one may notice in that embedded post is demand forecasts - where I was doing calcs on 3TWh. Since that post my view is demand forecasts have improved further and I looked at one higher end assumption in this post -
Post #:55224139 Like usual HC loses things so this is the table in that embedded post that is missing on what 9 TWh means from the perspective of also breaking data down between supplied by brine and hard rock etc etc, which followed something that
@elphamale was looking at at the time of that post (since teh post is a response to him):
3. Lithium the dominant battery going forward There has also been discussion around vanadium and hydrogen role, so I thought I would just go back to some basics , some of which are already in this thread, noting the key batteries going forward are NCM and NCA batteries - I took this graph from an Ann in a graphite play, but the graph makes the point nicely.
The below is a mish mash of posts I have done lately on the issues above, and some paragraphs are simply cut and paste of old research by me.
4.
Why hydroxide:Hydroxide versus carbonate - impact on spodumene demand(hard rock):Here are the specs for battery grade lithium carbonate and Fe is in PPM terms at 10 or essentially 0.001%,with LiCO3 been 99.5%:http://palith.com/english/product/index.php?act=&sid=23For hydroxide battery grade impurities need to be less:https://livent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/QS-PDS-1021-r3.pdfThe specs for hydroxide are tougher than carbonate is the point so when it comes to cost estimates between brines and hard rock plays well it does boil down to meeting the specs of hydroxide as not all hard rock or brines can get there at a reasonable cost. For hard rock the ones that are likely to get there are the deposits that are i.) high grade or if lower grade the spodumene is coarse meaning easy liberation from the lattice holding the spodumene itself, and ii.) especially have low impurities in a vertically intergrated concept. The continued move to NCM (and NCA) IMO is going to clearly accelerate the process of hydroxide been required in battery chemistries, because it is these battery types that are the basis of increased hydroxide needs. This article sums that up well and I'll just take this quote from it, and these issues have been worked on since this article as it is old -https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1836977-lithium-hydroxide-demand-to-overtake-carbonate-aabc:"But the higher nickel content in NCM cathodes can present challenges in terms of chemical stability. If the metals are used in a ratio of six parts nickel to two parts cobalt and two parts manganese (6-2-2), or 8-1-1, rather than 1-1-1 or 5-3-2 as in the past, the chemistry requires lithium hydroxide rather than lithium carbonate. Cathodes using an 8-1-1 ratio are some way from commercial viability, owing to safety problems with the chemistry, delegates heard.....As nickel content approaches 60pc,the higher temperature required to synthesise cathode material with lithium carbonate damages the crystal structure of the cathode and changes the oxidation state of the nickel metal. But lithium hydroxide allows rapid and complete synthesis at lower temperatures, increasing the performance and lifespan of the battery, said Marina Yakovleva, global commercial manager for new product and technology development at lithium producer Livent."Without hydroxide all hard rock plays will bepossiblydone and dusted (but see SSB comments below) is my point, because if the battery type doesn't require hydroxide (but carbonate) well that is certainly the domain of brines.
5. Solid State Batteries - impact on forecasts and hard rock supply
Solid State Batteries will, from my understanding, require a lithium carbonate input, but not the type of lithium carbonate people may think. The key is not about comparing carbonate or hydroxide here in the now IMO, because IMO SSBs are going to be about controlling the impurities, because conceptually SSBs are going to need very very low impurities (probably of the scale and better of those of technical grade applications in the higher end markets you see for lithium per se). If others have comments please share as a debate worth having at some point.The idea behind solid state batteries is to increase energy density in a battery, meaning you have smaller batteries but having a higher range. To increase energy density IMO means the battery has to be more pure, meaning the impurities in the battery would need to be less than those associated even with hydroxide or else the charge in the battery and release of energy is adversely impacted. Hence some of the comments you read that SSBs can be potentially unstable IMO. With solid state batteries you are also relying on a solid, possibly polymer, metal electrolyte instead of a liquid electrolyte and replacing graphite in the anode as well.That is, higher density and efficiency means lower impurities and differing cost structures because the smaller a battery gets but gives you the same bang, the more unstable the battery can become if its pureness is not increased IMO etc etc. In other words, I suspect SSBs (and the carbonate input) are going to need impurity levels within the scope of higher end technical grade carbonate (TG) applications (which is what you use in say glass and high end use where impurities are low) - hence my comment around cost and that these batteries will probably be used in the higher performance end markets, whilst NCA and NCM batteries will remain the predominant battery types for ordinary consumers of EVs. Chemical grade (CG) lithium carbonate is what you currently use in batteries, albeit in effect converted to hydroxide for NCA and NCM battery types, but the difference between TG and CG is essentially simply impurity levels.
The pic below explains battery types from Albermale and lithium needs - SSBs actually have double the lithium need of NCM and NCA batteries btw:
From -https://investors.albemarle.com/static-files/303f2ffb-f2a5-4e62-8e95-c5241c3dae09
This post gives my initial thoughts on LI-S batteries - Post #:564255686. Further reading for those interested to understand the above:1. Understanding brines -
Post #:44584547
2. Brine versus spodumene, why sulphate, as posted in AVZ -Post #:49911604 Brine is essentially a two stop process to getting to hydroxide, whilst it is one process for spodumene. If the growing battery market was carbonate based that remains the shpere of brines, but hydroxide is the sphere of spodumene.
3. Some comments on clays and geothermal -
Post #:548859774. Understanding deleterious elements, because this is a fundamental key -
Post #:500538355. A really good article IMO explaining what is and isn't battery grade lithium:
Why most analysts are overstating lithium supply forecasts (linkedin.com)
7. HydrogenA bit of chatter on hydrogen too.
In terms of hydrogen fuel cells, it is about cost in vehicles for the moveable market, and the size of the fuel cells themselves. That is not to say, in future there will be opportunities for advancement in hydrogen fuel cell technologies in the vehicle market - in time technology improves as it also will for lithium in terms of improving efficiency and cost - , as does takeup, but at this stage I see a limited role of hydrogen fuel cells in the passenger vehicle market especially but time will tell. For others, these two links below are an ok read of for and against:
https://www.bmw.com/en/innovation/how-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-work.html
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/93180/hydrogen-fuel-cell-do-hydrogen-cars-have-a-futureAll IMO IMO IMO but at the end of the day depends on one's perspective of which renewable energy technology will dominate, especially in the vehicle market. I think lithium will dominate there, and most think hydrogen will have a limited role in the moveable market. So lithium is here to stay for a hell of a long time, and the links provided provide further data. The graph below comes from the link immediately below:
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will make up just 1 pct of cars by 2050 (thedriven.io) 
8. Vanadium - battery storageIn the immovable market, energy storage in the electricity market, especially the large energy storage stationary market, that is likely the sphere of vanadium in future - which is something I stated in the opening post to this thread. However, for smaller scale electricity storage batteries in the immovable market, i.e such as those at the household level, that is probably likely to remain the sphere of lithium (because of cost mainly). For the moveable market, i.e. EVs/ebikes etc, vanadium will not replace lithium IMO because of weight and price. Vanadium is heavier than lithium, and a key to the efficiency of EVs is weight (and obviously cost is the other factor). My perspective on vanadium batteries as it pertains to the energy stationary market when I held AVL - no to be confused with AVZ - embedded posts in this Post #:44275995S Section 2 of this post -Post #:40855132- talks about atomic weight and how that transcends to how much lithium you need in a battery to compare to the vanadium example above, and if one is inclined compare this to Section 4 of the opening post to this thread
Posted these as general information only as well. A bit of a refresher course around lithium and why I am here etc etc etc
Since I haven't posted in this thread for a while, thought I would just dump some thoughts into it. Nice to see the thread back, even though in a slightly weird way.
All IMO IMO IMO
