# Lithium In Short Supply



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Is Litium chemistry really an answer? Everything I read is Lithium chemistry cannot replace fossil fuel, the supplies are even less than oil.

Here is a decent document


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

lithium is one of the most abundant metals

you cannot recycle fossil fuels, but you can recycle lithium batteries.....


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Exactly, and there are many sources of lithium that are not being pursued as of yet because the demand isn't there. Plenty of lithium for quite a long time, not to mention that lithium is only one of many potential battery chemistries being developed.
Lithium supply: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=20938


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Is Litium chemistry really an answer? Everything I read is Lithium chemistry cannot replace fossil fuel, the supplies are even less than oil.
> 
> Here is a decent document


Lithium cannot replace fossil fuel because its not a fuel at all. You are talking apples and oranges. We still need proper energy source to make electricity which is then stored in lithium battery for mobile applications.

Lithium only represents 3% of weight in typical LiFePo4 battery for example, majority of weight is Iron, somewhere like 40% IIRC.

There are plenty of metals on the planet, that is the least of our problems, since all metals can and should be recycled.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

frodus said:


> lithium is the most abundant metal on earth.....


Don't know where you got this from; last I heard Aluminum held that distinction. Too, Aluminum is easily recoverable from readily available ore while Litihium deposits are very scarce.

May be true, but I suspect that if so it is too hard to extract most places to make it true in practical terms.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Don't know where you got this from; last I heard Aluminum held that distinction. Too, Aluminum is easily recoverable from readily available ore while Litihium deposits are very scarce.
> 
> May be true, but I suspect that if so it is too hard to extract most places to make it true in practical terms.


corrected, its ONE OF
http://www.lithiumalliance.org/abou...s/74-frequently-asked-questions-about-lithium

but its more abundant than lead. You're also right, it can be hard to extract.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

frodus said:


> lithium is one of the most abundant metals


Beg your pardon. Show your source. Lithium is a rare metal acording to the USGS. I already showed my source.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

dimitri said:


> Lithium cannot replace fossil fuel because its not a fuel at all. You are talking apples and oranges. We still need proper energy source to make electricity which is then stored in lithium battery for mobile applications..


You are correct and the only hope is the metal uranium which is a source and recyclable.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Sunking said:


> You are correct and the only hope is the metal uranium which is a source and recyclable.


Amen to that! 
Its ironic that cold war resulted in massive accumulation of nuclear fuel in US and Russia, and now as a result of nuclear disarming US is buying nuclear fuel from Russia's former warheads to power its electric plants 

I personally believe that nuclear energy is THE ANSWER , even though I used to live not too far from Chernobyl in the 1980s  

Just because its dangerous, doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. If we didn't use dangerous technologies we'd be living in caves today.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Beg your pardon. Show your source. Lithium is a rare metal acording to the USGS. I already showed my source.


1 post above yours, read it.

Here's a few more:

"Lithium is a moderately abundant element and is present in the Earth's crust to the extent of 65 parts per million (ppm). This places lithium a little below nickel, copper, and tungsten, and a little above cerium and tin in abundance."

"At 0.00002 kg lithium per kg of Earth's crust [15], lithium is the 25th most abundant element. Nickel and lead have the about the same abundance."
(note that Lithium is the 3rd lightest element).

http://www.answers.com/topic/lithium


A great read:
http://www.worldlithium.com/An_Abundance_of_Lithium_1.html


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I don't think there is a silver bullet solution to our energy problems (nuclear or otherwise).

I like lithium because its so light and energetic. Theoretical energy density can go beyond that of crude oil in some chemistries. This means that lithium still has a great deal of potential for many years to come. Current consumption rated relative to Wh of storage capacity could be driven down even more than it already has.

Does that mean we should ignore other battery research? no, but lithium is a front runner right now.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

dimitri said:


> Amen to that!
> Its ironic that cold war resulted in massive accumulation of nuclear fuel in US and Russia, and now as a result of nuclear disarming US is buying nuclear fuel from Russia's former warheads to power its electric plants
> 
> I personally believe that nuclear energy is THE ANSWER , even though I used to live not too far from Chernobyl in the 1980s
> ...


Excellent post Dimitri - Спасибо!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't think there is ONE single answer, but many possibilities. For example
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I don't think there is ONE single answer, but many possibilities. For example
> https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047



No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

If this works, it will turn evil infra-red energy (heat) into usable electricity.

It will spell the end of Global Warming, and we'll go into another ice age!!!


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

I agree with Dimitri.
I lived on a Nuclear Plant for 18 months. It was called the USS Thomas Jefferson SSBN 618. That Westinghouse Reactor ran perfectly. My only concern regarding commercial use of nuclear is terrorism. We must not locate new plants in high population density areas. The public utilities who operate them must spend the money to stepup their security.
As for the spent rod storage problem, the recycling research has come a long way and governments must commit the funds to complete it and implement it. It is within our grasp.
Roy


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Can the waste be recycled into nuclear fuel again? My main concern with nuclear how long would it really last. Uranium is a limited resource.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

I read a report somewhere that Earth has 10,000 years worth of Uranium. I believe that current reactors only use the "low hanging fruit" process becuase its cheaper, but as fossil fuels get more scarce that same uranium can be retrieved from storage and used again, using more complex process and so forth.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> Can the waste be recycled into nuclear fuel again? My main concern with nuclear how long would it really last. Uranium is a limited resource.


Depends on whose numbers you want to use: On the conservative side is 1 million years, and up to 4 billion on the liberal side.

As for spent fuel rods, there is no reason to store them, that is a man made political problem. Fuel rods originally contain about 11% fissile uranium and discarded around 5% when there is not a high enough percentage to sustain a reaction. Al you have to do is recycle the rods and pull off the daughter elements like Plutonium to also be used as fuel.

The USA is the only country I know of that insist on burying spent fuel rods. Where as a small country like France that is heavily populated and generates 80% of their electricity by nuclear generation has no storage problem, they recycle and use it again.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Hmm, I heard that it could be as short as 50 years if all the worlds power came from nuclear. I have not verified that myself but can you tell me why there seems to be such a big range in projected estimates?

Nuclear power isn't something I research very often (can you tell?)


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Could just be a limitation on our ability to drill. Some scientists now believe the earth's core is made up of a combination of fissile materials as well as iron and lead.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> Hmm, I heard that it could be as short as 50 years


We have in the USA 50 years worth just in used fuel rods and weapons. Like I said it depends on whose numbers you want to use. Every rock, grain of sand and ocean water all contain uranium. At current prices of $80/kg there is well over 100 years, plus what is left in spent fuel rods and weapons.

Up the price to say $160/kg and the amounts jump to 1000's of years. What makes it really hard to answer from 1980 to 2006 there has been no exploration, so no one has a clue what the proven sereves are at what cost. But it is safe to say there is enough domestically to run all our electric needs and light vehicle transpiration for development of fusion reactors or the next unkown source.


----------



## Voltswagen (Nov 13, 2008)

David
The French have been reprocessing Spent Rods since 1966.
Jimmy Carter squashed the attemts here in the states to reduce the chance that the extracted Plutonium might find it's way into foreign weapons.
Here is an article on it:
http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-13.htm

Roy


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Interesting......

This would obviously result in waste reduction, but the article doesn't say by how much. Does anyone know? .....or is the fuel consumed completely until no hazardous waste is left?

Maybe I should start reading up on this. I know more about fuel cells than I do about nukes....oops.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> Interesting......
> 
> This would obviously result in waste reduction, but the article doesn't say by how much. Does anyone know? .....or is the fuel consumed completely until no hazardous waste is left?.


You keep using it until nothing is left.

There is nothing new here really and the government knows all this. In fact DOD and DOE are building two new reactors. What is interesting about these two plants is they have pipe line, heavy rail, and coal lifts and crushers at the plants. I know my firm did some of the designs on the train winch and lifts in the coal dumping/crushing plant. 

What they plan to do is make electricity and sell it to coops and power companies. With the excess heat they will will turn the coal into liquid synfuel to be used for the military.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sunking said:


> You keep using it until nothing is left.


I didn't know that was possible. ok, getting pissed off now.

I remember back in high school reading how wonderful the canadian CANDU reactor was because it didn't have to run on "weapons grade" plutonium. As though it was some how better than the american design since the "other" way could cause global military tension (that course was REEEEEEEEAAAALy old even back then).

This effectively eliminated both the waste disposal problem AND much of the mining problem as well since X amount of uranium can be extended for that much longer. I remember even in school wondering about why radio active waste was being burried. Radio active means energy potential.

You guys might have made a believer out of me.

Using nuke fuel to make high cost military fossil fuel from coal. Thats a good one.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> I didn't know that was possible. ok, getting pissed off now.


David this is the problem; public ignorance. Between US Government policy of recycling fuel, politics, minority special interest using fear tactics, and public awareness keeps us from acting to secure our energy future. Think of the jobs that would be created. Not McJobs, but good paying jobs building, designing, and operation the plants. Couple that with cheap clean energy (about 2-cent per Kwh fuel cost compared to 5 to 8-cents for coal and NG) what that would do for the economy. Now your government wants to pass Cap-N-Tax that will artificially inflate all energy prices, and subsidize your neighbors solar system with your money . You should be pissed, or at least asking questions.

The reactors of yesterday are history. Today's modern reactors are passively safe and can use a number of different fuels including all the daughter waste products.



david85 said:


> Using nuke fuel to make high cost military fossil fuel from coal. Thats a good one.


Well by using excess heat not to sure how expensive that works out to be, but the fact is it is not possible to use electricity to run medium and heavy transportation like airplanes, tanks, trucks, and construction equipment. If there is a World War it is a sure bet we will not be able to get the oil to run a war.  The DOD and DOE know this and taking appropriate action. The Germans found out too late in WWII before they started making synfuel.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I didn't think all of the energy/radioactivity is completely gone, but enough of it so that half life is between 10-100 years instead of thousands. Links claiming otherwise?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> about 2-cent per Kwh fuel cost compared to 5 to 8-cents for coal and NG


This is not at all accurate. The nuclear industry has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers since its inception. Without the subsidy, the cost per kWh is much greater. The high capital cost of nuclear plants is what has kept most power companies from building them. Coal plants are much cheaper to build and operate.

The fuel for current fission reactors is uranium oxide. About 95.6% of the spent fuel is the same uranium oxide, only a small portion is "burned" in the reactor. About 3.4% of the spent fuel is hot, relatively short half life (less than 1000 years) fission products and about 1% is long half life actinides. President Gerald Ford 1n 1976 (not Carter, Carter just continued the practice) decided not to reprocess this unused uranium oxide on advice from the defense industry due to concern of use of this reprocessing technology in developing countries permitting plutonium (one of the actinides) to be used for weapons. It is also economically unfavorable. Gen4 nuclear reactors such as the GE "fast reactor" use far more of the uranium oxide fuel, reducing waste volume by 90%, and reduce the half life of the fission products to less than 1000 years (actinide half lives are on the order of 100,000 years, peak radiation release from these is after about 300,000 years).

Heat production by the waste falls by about 99% in the first year, and by another factor of 5 in 5 years. After a few years the wasted can be safely stored in concrete and steel silos on-site.

It is interesting that Yucca Mountain was never the preferred candidate for waste storage by geologists. Other potential sites were in Texas and Washington State. In 1987 the Speaker of the House was Jim Wright from Texas, the majority leader was Tom Foley from Washington State, and the Vice President was George H.W. Bush also from Texas. Harry Reid was in his first term as a senator from Nevada. So what do you know, NV was suddenly the preferred site by the congress (not geologists), not Texas or Washington State.

As for supply of uranium, as with most things it depends on who you believe. But there would certainly be plenty of uranium if GEN4 reactors were used, and far less waste to deal with. 

Tom


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> This is not at all accurate. The nuclear industry has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers since its inception. Without the subsidy, the cost per kWh is much greater. The high capital cost of nuclear plants is what has kept most power companies from building them. Coal plants are much cheaper to build and operate.


Tom I am referring to fuel cost, not building cost. I agree the building cost is higher for nuclear, but for fuel cost my numbers come straight from DOE.

Now with that said the construction cost can be greatly reduced by slashing the litigation, permitting and licensing cost which the NRC has taken some steps to do that but still needs a lot of work.


----------

