I was having a similar conversation with Cmonaussie.No doubt,...

I was having a similar conversation with Cmonaussie.

No doubt, both hydroxide and carbonate do have their place, but I am seeing the a greater shift to carbonate based LFP.

While hydroxide has been in the dominant chemistries to date, I do see a rapidly shifting adoption to carbonate base LFP battery.

Interesting that battery grade carbonate is now more expensive than battery grade hydroxide.
So will this now push the preference back to hydroxide?
Maybe not, because the elimination of nickel and cobalt from the cam chemistry, has also reduced the overall cost of each cell, while range, stability, charge rates and longevity have been equalled or improved.



The BYD blade battery is heading toward wider adoption.

Great range, thermal stability/heat dissipation, punctured cell stability(no thermal runaway),charging speed, life, price. etc...

Internal resistance is a little high, but they are still getting hydroxide/nickel beating performance from it.

So much so, Tesla has is shifting from CATL and signed up.
May 22 2023-


Other manufacturers to use this tech are Toyota and Hyundai and SVolt is making their own version.

So, although most current chemistries are planning to use hydroxide, I see a big shift to LFP.

If I were to be planning a greenfield site for the future, I would 100% be building a carbonate plant, with an additional hydroxide circuit, that can produce both.
Just a hydroxide facility in such a fluid landscape of chemistries, in my opinion is short sighted, narrow minded and could ultimately prove uneconomical.
Particularly when considering the time, effort and long term investment that is required for a 20+ year project.
Who knows which way the tech will lean in 5 years time?