Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As far as I know so far most of the lithium used has been from existing copper mines, where there's a lot of lithium, so that's made pinpointing it and extract it fairly cheap. I remember reading there's 5-10 years worth of lithium left in these mines. It will be interesting to see what happens once we need to start looking for new sources again.


The vast majority of lithium does not come from copper mines, but from lithium mines such as the Salar de Atacama in Chile https://www.lithiumchile.ca/project-item/salar-de-atacama/ with evaporation and spodumene mining in Australia: https://www.albemarle.com/businesses/lithium/products/spodum...

There is a lot of lithium potential in places such as the lithium triangle in South America.


The cathode material is pretty much the sole contributor to material cost. Plastic, anode, casing, current collector plates/terminals all make less than a quarter of the price.

Main contributor to the cathode powder price is cobalt, and its unpredictable price: bad weather in Congo? Prepare to see the price increase n-fold within few weeks. Nickel comes second, to much lesser extent.

LFP cells use radically different cathode chemistry from common cell types, and use no cobalt, or nickel at all, hence the low price. We dump phosphates on in the fields by gigatonnes after all.


Cobalt futures are traded on the LME. So factories can lock in fixed prices for cobalt in advance.


This is not a deep market, with daily value traded in the millions of dollar (not hundreds of millions or billions).


You can also go to your bank and have them sell you a derivative over the counter.

It won't help your average price (just the opposite), but it can take the unpredictability out.


The next "iron ore boom" in Australia is supposed to be lithium. There's a lot of deposits waiting to be commercialised apparently.

Just waiting for some other country to start building enough battery factories. Because actually making anything in Australia seems to be impossible.


A common element - more common than lead, about the same as cobalt. I wouldn't be surprise if more lithium mines are waiting to be found.


> Because actually making anything in Australia seems to be impossible.

I keep hearing that. Could you expand on this bit? For those of who are are far away and have zero idea why. While I know labour cost and protection are high. I would have thought battery factory is now highly automated.


More a mindset than economics. Mining is what Australia does. No-one really knows how to set up a manufacturing base. Investors aren't willing to invest in it. There's no end of stories about how it's too small of a domestic market, and too far from export markets (all of which are true for lots of other countries with thriving export markets), or that the labour costs are too high (also true for Germany, which has a thriving manufacturing export industry). And everyone's rich from mining, so why bother?

Same for the solar industry. If there was ever a place to build enough solar to power the planet, it's Western Australia. We could build the batteries, too, from local ingredients. But it's all too hard and too complicated and why do that when we can make enough money from just mining the lithium?


Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Australia's high min-wages + high prices of everything sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease

I imagine it's a political live-wire to suggest heavily taxing the mining operations?


Don't get me started. There's a 4-hour rant I have about that hehe

Aussies think that they're in competition with other mining countries to supply the Chinese. From a mining executive perspective, I get this. You need all that revenue now.

But from the country's point of view, it's a disaster. Non-renewable resources are being exported as cheaply as possible in as large a quantity as possible. The royalty system works on revenue earned, so the taxes are tiny compared to what they could be if the aim was to maximise the value of each Kg of ore.

So yes, suggesting that we tax the exports more brings cries of "making Australia uncompetitive" and that it'll destroy the mining industry, and then what will we do?

Crazy. Sad, too.

That article on the Dutch Disease is spot on


> Mining is what Australia does.

There's another odd perspective on this in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, in the "Mining Australia" chapter:

> Most of Australia's remaining agriculture is in effect a mining operation that does not add to Australia's wealth but merely converts environmental capital of soil and native vegetation irreversibly into cash, with the help of indirect government subsidies [...]

That is, similarly to how mining activity depends upon consuming non-renewable stocks of ore or fossil-fuel* that can be extracted with sufficiently low energy cost, the argument is that agricultural activity depends upon consuming stocks of high-quality soil at a much faster rate than the stock of high-quality soil can be being refilled. If the rate of consumption is much higher than the rate of production then high-quality soil is effectively non-renewable.

* i guess fossil fuels are also "renewable" in a literal interpretation of the word that it is possible to refill stocks, given a long enough time horizon (billions of years?) & a willingness to take a bit of a gamble that the conditions for large-scale fossil fuel creation will recurr, provided the rate of consumption of fossil fuel slows.


This was/is certainly true of the vast sheep stations. Sheep farming was a disastrous decision for Australia, made because British garment manufacturing needed more cheap wool[0]. IIRC this is part of that chapter of the book.

But recently, there's been much more of a move to less destructive practices. Lots of mediterranean-type farms (olives, wine, etc) more suitable to the soil and climate.

[0]anecdata: in the late 80's I worked on an English sheep farm, at 100 sheep to the acre, and cut their toenails. I also worked on an Aussie sheep farm, at 100 acres to the sheep, and had to kill flyblown sheep being eaten alive by maggots. Crazy contrast.


>or that the labour costs are too high (also true for Germany, which has a thriving manufacturing export industry)

Germany can get packaged cheap labor from East of Europe when they need it.

Infact, a lot of German companies have their labor intensive units in East.

Only highly automated manufacturing and management/finance and R&D work in done in Germany.

Australia doesn't have the same advantage which Germany have had for years now:

http://conradbastable.com/essays/the-germany-shock-the-large...


Wouldn't you be killed in this distribution part of the solar power for the world story?

What form would you be shipping the energy in?


> What form would you be shipping the energy in?

One option is hydrogen. There's some amount of government & think-tank produced research arguing for australia to pursue a "hydrogen economy". E.g. https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/aust...

From skimming through the report, there are also applications to use directly use hydrogen as an input to produce ammonia, and also an argument that existing means of shipping ammonia could be used to ship hydrogen, conditional on research that can extract hydrogen out of ammonia with low energy input.

I don't have a handle on what kind of policies would be needed to encourage private investment in hydrogen vs coal, gas, oil (assuming it is even a good idea). There's a graph of estimated prices of hydrogen vs alternatives in various uses in the report (search for "breakeven"). It does not look price competitive in many applications, but I assume the comparison does not include price adjustment that account for the externalised environmental costs of one energy source versus another.

Regardless of hydrogen or solar or batteries or whatever, a carbon tax with a price set to help internalise the externalised costs of greenhouse gas emissions would be a great way to push activity in a better direction, regardless of if that is hydrogen or anything else that strikes a good combination of efficiency & low greenhouse gas impact. Perhaps the carbon tax could be rolled out nationally with tariffs put in place to penalise the import of goods & services produced in other countries that did not yet have an comparable carbon tax installed.


I always liked Buckminster Fuller's idea of superconducting cables distributing electricity around the world.

waves hands distribution is a different problem. Someone else will solve that.

I've seen more expensive plans started with bigger holes ;)


Submarine HVDC should work.


In modern times there's a definite case of Dutch Disease going on with the economy some sectors have been very successful and have sucked all the air out of the rest of the economy. Why this has been allowed to happen is due lot of cultural and political reasons that go back a long way, if you look closely you will see a lot of decisions that have terrible economics over the long term but are based on some political reasoning. The quick summary is that the ideas about what the economy "should be" since colonial times has been based around extraction rather than value adding.


Lithium mining has little to do with copper.


There's an abundance of lithium in the oceans, but it's heavily diluted, so currently there's no large scale process in place to obtain it.

But it is possible in principle, just expensive using the technology of today.


I know nothing about what it'd take to extract elements from seawater, but I've heard people say similar things about gold and uranium. I wonder if the economics for "mining" seawater become more favorable if you try to extract multiple types at once, maybe in a pipeline. Extract the uranium, then the gold, then the lithium, etc.


Lithium and uranium are basically the only two things that could be worth extracting from ocean water besides salt itself. It’s not crazy expensive to do it.

And you save a bunch of money by using the brine left over from desalination. But you can find naturally occurring brines with higher lithium concentration, so why bother with ocean water?

...in other words, lithium is plentiful, and the cheapest is from places like South America where it is extracted from brines similar to how sea salt is extracted, so the process is cheap, too (which is why we don’t really do hard rock mining of lithium any more... sea salt like evaporation ponds are just much cheaper).

(Another interesting source is the brines from geothermal power stations... there are some at power stations I California that are rich in lithium and there are efforts to extract it... two birds and one stone. Example: https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1066 )


Perhaps with desalination can produce other materials besides drinking water?


Desalination is extremely energy intensive to get potable water. If you're using RO extraction it's 10:1. 90-95% of water is returned back to the sea. That little bit of potable water is just the bonus of compressing saltwater into saltwater.


Yes, but there are desalination plants being constructed at great cost to provide drinking water, so why not get the available minerals etc at the same time...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: