Is There Enough Lithium for the Batteries of 1 Billion Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles?

Illustration – Salt « mining » in the Salar of Uyuni in Bolivia, the largest lithium reserves in the world (source: Wikimedia Commons)

The introduction of Li-ion high-performance batteries was, without doubt, the trigger for the imminent revolution in road transport. But is there enough lithium to power a billion cars on the planet, ultimately?
To respond, we must know first that according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the reserve base for lithium on the planet is estimated at 11 million metric tons. But these estimates do not include reserves of Argentina reported recently by the company Orocobre (3 million tons). A very informative report on the global lithium reserves and markets is available from this company. This report by Martin Place Securities can be downloaded by clicking on the news dated March 31, 2008 about Project Olaroz. In United States, the company Western Lithium is currently conducting geological expertise of a large clay deposit of lithium in Nevada, at King Valley. The estimated reserves are 2.08 million tonnes of lithium (11 million tons of lithium carbonate, Li2CO3) and they are not included neither in the USGS evaluation. Updating the USGS assessment, there is therefore a global reserve base of 16 million metric tons of lithium.

In addition, the USGS reports a global annual production of 25,000 metric tons of lithium in 2007. At this rate of exploitation, there would be enough lithium for several hundred years. This abundance and the low price of lithium (8$/kg) obviously did not stimulate the exploration of new deposits. We can therefore expect that global reserves are more than 16 million tons.

Now, in the Martin Place Securities report mentioned above, we learn that the percentage of lithium recovery from the reserves is about 50% on average. Thus, counting 16 million tons of reserve base it means that 8 million metric tons of lithium are available for the industry.

75% of the Lithium reserves are in the form of salt, mainly lithium carbonate from the deserts of salt. The key deserts are found in South America (top of photo) and also in Tibet. Lithium carbonate is the raw material used by the battery industry (5.3 kg carbonate give 1 kg of lithium).

Now, for a midsize plug-in hybrid car a battery giving it a range of 100 km in electric mode currently requires storing 20 kWh of electric energy. In addition, the company LG Chem, which provides the Li-ion batteries for the GM Chevy Volt, through its subsidiary Compact Power, says on its website (in the Technology section at the FAQ page http://www.compactpower.com/faq.shtml) that they need 140 g of lithium per kWh of battery, giving 2.8 kg of lithium for 20 kWh, which we round up to 3 kg (6.6 lbs). Let us recall that with this 3 kg (6.6 lbs) of lithium, a midsize car can run 100 km (60 miles) in electric mode with today commercial technologies.

Now, hybrid cars of the 2020s will be lighter, more aerodynamic and will be equipped with wheel motor powertrains that consume considerably less energy. These midsize cars of tomorrow will consume about 12 kWh/100 km instead of 20 kWh/100 km as mentioned above (see my book Driving without oil). So one will need only 2 kg (4,4 lbs) of lithium per car [for 100 km (60 miles) all electric range] in 2025. Thus, for a billion vehicles (there are currently 800 million on the planet), we would need about 2 million tonnes of lithium, a quarter of global reserves base available after extraction.

There is therefore enough lithium on the planet for plug-in hybrid cars. But if we wanted to use all electric cars with batteries providing a 400 km range (240 miles), then we would have problems. It is always preferable to use the smallest battery possible to travel 80% of our mileage.

Now, we must realize that the Li-ion batteries can be recycled at 95%. Finite lithium reserves can not therefore be compared with finite oil reserves, since oil is totally lost in an internal combustion engine.

Some critics of electric mobility also point out that about 60% of lithium world reserves are located in South America and that it is a similar situation than the Middle East for oil. But, as lithium price goes up steadily, more and more companies will search for new deposits. Only in the King Valley deposit in Nevada, there is sufficient lithium for 500 million advanced midsize cars with an all electric range of 100 km (60 miles).



Illustration - A mining project of the company Lithium Canada Corporation, near Val d'Or in Quebec, could produce enough lithium to equip all Canadian vehicles with a battery giving a range of 100km (60 miles) in electric mode. (source: Lithium Canada Corporation)

The company Lithium Canada Corp. also uses an old mine near Val d'Or Quebec. It expects to produce the equivalent of 55 million kg (120 million lbs) of lithium, enough for 25 million advanced midsize cars with a range of 100 km (60 miles) in electric mode, which would fulfill the needs of all Canadians.

Where to find land for biofuels?

Illustration - The livestock industry emits more greenhouse gases than all vehicles on the planet. (photo: Wikimedia Commons)

When we talk about biofuels, people are afraid of losing land to feed people and say that it makes no sense. But let us try to be objective and to look at our land management on the planet from a broader perspective and see if we could not do better.

First, according to a report of the United Nations published in 2006, 70% of farmland in the world are dedicated to the livestock industry [H. Steinfeld et al., Livestock's long shadow, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome 2006]! These lands are divided into pastures and cultivated areas to feed livestock (33% of cultivated land on the planet).

Moreover, according to the same report, the livestock industry is responsible for 15% to 18% of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) expressed in CO2 equivalents. But what we need to know is that all road vehicles in the world are responsible of approximately 12% to 13% of greenhouse gas emissions (including GHGs to produce fuel). So, the livestock industry emits 50% more GHG than road vehicles!

Another factor to consider also is that one hectare of land (1 hectare = 2.47 acres) produces about 25 kg (55 pounds) of beef protein, whereas the same hectare can produce 400 kg (880 pounds) of vegetable protein with soy, 300 kg (660 pounds) of protein with rice and 150 kg (330 pounds) with wheat. Not to mention that to produce 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of beef, it takes more than 40,000 liters (10,566 US gallons) of water, which means more than 6000 liters (1,585 US gallons) of water for a steak of 150 grams (5.3 ounces) (see the website of the organization Compassion In World Farming www.ciwf.org.UK, in particular The report Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat, 2004)! Too much meat in our diet is therefore a blatant waste of our planet's resources in agricultural land and fresh water, not to mention other resources such as fossil fuels (natural gas for fertilizers and oil for machinery).

We must know these facts if we are to make informed decisions about the use of our farmland.

In my last book Driving without oil, I recommend to reduce our meat consumption by 15% (one day a week without meat). In doing so, it releases more agricultural land than necessary to produce biofuels equivalent to 5% of petroleum fuels currently used. Now, 5% that's all we need from energy crops to remove oil from the road transport (see previous post).

In closing, we must not forget that by reducing our consumption of meat to produce second generation biofuels, we DOUBLY reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since the livestock industry emits more than all vehicles on the road.

Carbon negative Biofuels: 2 - Polyculture of wild grasses

Illustration - The wild prairie grasses have abundant and deep roots reaching 3 to 4 meters under the surface. (source: United States Department of Agriculture, the depth in meters was added by the author of this blog)

With petroleum fuels, one takes carbon that was underground, burns it and constantly increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The idea behind biofuels is not to emit CO2 from carbon sequestered in geological formations (géocarbone) and use in place of biocarbon found in plants. Biocarbon enters in what is called the carbon cycle, where the carbon we send into the atmosphere by burning biofuels is reabsorbed by plants that grow to produce biofuels. It does not constantly adds to the atmosphere if we do not use fossil fuels to produce biofuels. In this ideal case we say that biofuels are carbon neutral.

This ideal case is not achieved in practice and net CO2 emissions are also associated with biofuels, but at lower levels than CO2 emissions from petroleum fuels. This reduction is only 20% for ethanol produced from corn, and some even say it is zero if one takes into account the greenhouse gas involved in the fabrication of the machinery. Add to this the problems of land degradation and water pollution caused by fertilizers and pesticides, and we understand why many environmentalists do not like biofuels.

However, second-generation biofuels have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 90%, using the whole plants instead of only grains and fruit, as it is currently the case. But the problems of degradation and soil erosion by intensive monocultures must also be taken into account.

To solve these issues, in the last few decades researchers have studied the advantage of wild tall prairie grasses, as switchgrass. First, these plants are perennials, they do not need to be sowed each year, such as corn or soybeans. In addition, these grasses have well-developed and deep root systems (illustration at top of post). With these two features, the wild prairie grasses protect soil from erosion, rather than increasing it as do the intensive in row monoculture of annuals.

Furthermore, wild grasses need not be watered because their roots are very efficient to retrieve soil moisture, 3 to 4 meters deep. By comparison, corn requires often watering with several hundreds of liters of water per liter of ethanol produced.

But the cultivation of wild grasses becomes particularly interesting when it is grown in a mixture, including plants that fix nitrogen. This was studied by researchers at the University of Minnesota for 10 years on degraded land. They cultivated 152 different parcels of land containing different mixtures of up to 16 different plants in the same plot. The astonishing results of their study were published in 2006 (Tilman, Hill and Lehman, Science, Vol. 314, December 8, 2006, pages 1598 to 1600).

First, the quantities of fertilizers and pesticides required are significantly reduced compared to corn and soybeans, as shown in the chart below, taken from their publication. The word "Biomass" in this graph represents the high diversity mixture of 16 different plants.



Now the surprise is that second generation biofuels from such high diversity prairie grasses mixture are strongly carbon negative! This means that in addition to avoid net emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere (carbon neutral), these cultivations are literally removing CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce its concentration. The reason is simple, the carbon is stored underground in large quantities in the roots. It's a bit like charcoal in the Terra preta, buried by the Amazon natives (see previous post).

However, to get stong carbon negative biofuels (-150% to -250%), we must cultivate several plants together. For example, plots with a mixture of 16 plants store 31 times more carbon in the soil than in monoculture plots!

No, definitely, biofuels of tomorrow will have nothing to do with those of today, hence the importance of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sustainable development of biofuels is entirely feasible, if done intelligently and if we produce only small quantities.

In my last book ”Driving without oil”, I demonstrate that cultivating energy crops to produce biofuels equivalent to 5% of current petroleum fuels would be sufficient to stop oil consumption in road transport. The electricity networks would, of course, provide the main ”fuel”. One would also use municipal waste, forest residues and recycled oils and fats from the food industry to produce biofuels, which can easily supply the equivalent of 2.5% of current petroleum fuels, for a total of 7.5% in biofuels (including dedicated energy crops).