I went through this a while ago. NCA and NCM batteries are moving to 8:1:1 configurations and the reason essentially is to reduce cobalt in the cathode and thus have more nickel (and as a means to improve battery efficiency). The fact you have more nickel is the reason you need hydroxide for battery stability. It is also why players are starting to increase lithium hydroxide production, and there are a host of developments in that area. Explained in post, duplicated below: Post #:56535539
However there will always be a role for lithium carbonate in the market. It is just IMO, it won't have the predominant role it previously had, meaning it will be competing with hydroxide, and hydroxide appears to be the choice in a number of new, emerging and taken up battery specifications.
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=23
The 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 be possibly done 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 above picture is a key, your NMC 6:2:2 batteries can either be sourced by carbonate or hydroxide, but hydroxide is more stable, but your NMC 5:3:2 batteries are lithium carbonate based, but the 3 represents cobalt. So because cobalt is been reduced in NCA and NCM batteries, and nickel share increased, these batteries are required to be sourced by hydroxide (i.e. the red bars).
From the same embedded post above, you can see the predominant batteries going forward are 8:1:1 configurations from this below picture in that post.
As I understand it, and I haven't looked at LIS batteries for some time, these batteries remain conceptual because right now for those batteries to compete with lithium ion batteries they need to improve cycle times as those types of batteries have low cycle outcomes, meaning they degrade relatively quickly and can't compete with lithium ion batteries on a life cycle perspective. They need to deal with degregation of the cathode, either by getting an appropriate seperator between the cathode and anode or changing the material in the cathode. LIS batteries actually use lithium metal in the anode as well.
Having said that there is a lot of research in this area and lets hope cycle life improves for LIS batteries. Having said that, LIS batteries need more lithium than NCA and NCM batteries, so won't impact supply/demand needs if they get LIS batteries up and get them to be more efficient/better on a life basis than traditional batteries. However, until the research works, I still remain of the view that the predominant batteries going forward in EVs will remain NCM and NCA batteries, and that solid state batteries and LIS batteries if they can deal with their issues, will be in the upper end marks. The picture in the embedded post explains lithium needs in differing battery types - above
All IMO IMO
LTR Price at posting:
$1.35 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)