MIT Researchers Develop a Low-Cost Technique To Get Lithium Out of Rocks (mit.edu) 51
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT News: Currently, lithium hard rock extraction involves baking the rock at over 1,000 Celsius and chemically leaching it to extract lithium. The rest of the rock is discarded. Now, a team of researchers from MIT and elsewhere has developed a low-temperature process for extracting battery-grade lithium from the most common type of lithium-bearing mineral. The process uses a liquid reagent to dissolve the rock into the useful forms of its constituent parts: not just battery-ready lithium salts, but also smelter-grade alumina and cement-ready silica. After the minerals are extracted, the solvent and reagent can be recovered and used again so waste levels approach zero. The researchers estimate the closed-loop process is half the cost of traditional lithium hard rock extraction and could make it cost-competitive with extracting lithium from brine water. "We believe this approach is the lowest-energy, lowest-cost way of getting lithium not only out of hard rock, but period," says Yet-Ming Chiang, MIT's Kyocera Professor of Materials Science and Engineering. "That's what's motivating us to scale this. It will enable the energy transition through batteries that use lithium. This was one of the goals of The Climate Project at MIT -- to work on projects that, within a short number of years, could transition from the lab to commercialization and impact."
A paper describing the process has been published in the journal Science.
A paper describing the process has been published in the journal Science.
Lithium isn't rare, and it is important (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You might sound like less of a dick if you knew that lithium isn't a rare earth
Re: (Score:3)
You might sound like less of a dick if you knew that lithium isn't a rare earth
And, from the World Nuclear Association [world-nuclear.org]:
Lithium is not a scarce metal. It occurs in a number of minerals found in acid igneous rocks such as granite and pegmatites, spodumene and petalite being the most common source minerals. Due to its solubility as an ion it is present in ocean water and is commonly obtained from brines and clays (hectorite). A conservative estimate of an average of 20 ppm is in the Earth’s crust, making lithium the 25th most abundant element.
With current reserves of 40–50 years; known, economically extractable reserves (roughly 28 million tons) of about 45 to 50 years at the current rate of exploding battery and electric vehicle (EV) demand; and untapped resources of 300+ years - and lithium can be recycled. (from Google)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The rare earths are the 15 lanthanides, scandium and yttrium. Some are rare, some are abundant.
Re:Lithium isn't rare, and it is important (Score:4, Informative)
Isaac Asimov explained it this way:
Using modern terminology, we would define an earth as a stable oxide with a high melting point. The four most common of these were silica, alumina, lime and magnesia, in that order....
In 1812, a Scottish chemist, Thomas Thomson (1773-1852), visited the [Ytterby] quarry and marveled over the mineral [ytterbite]. He was still under the spell of the word “earth.”
If an object was called an earth, surely it would have to be a major component of the earth....
Now Thomson was staring at an earth, yttria, that could only be found in one or two favored spots and was unknown elsewhere....
Yttria, in other words, was a “rare earth” which, to Thomson, was almost a contradiction in terms, and that very contradiction helped make the phrase notable to chemists, generally.
Re: (Score:1)
Energy density is important, but I would prefer the batteries to be less flammable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Have a look at the recent developments around Sodium batteries.
If the momentum holds for sodium they will replace lithium in a very short period of time. BYD in China is already using them in cars.
They have many significant advantages over lithium. One of them being the ignition problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Have a look at the recent developments around Sodium batteries.
If the momentum holds for sodium they will replace lithium in a very short period of time. BYD in China is already using them in cars.
They have many significant advantages over lithium. One of them being the ignition problem.
This. It is pretty obvious that sodium is seriously abundant, and rain and the oceans do most of the extraction for us.
It does seem like a contradiction, but Sodium batteries are safer than Lithium. I did a safety video on battery safety, and it was pretty shocking, as I found out when I did the research for it. Not quite as energy dense, but well useable.
Sodium and Lithium batteries were being developed around the same time, I think lithium just got to market first.
And so many elements can and
Re: (Score:2)
Actually lithium should make more powerful and lighter batteries. That's been known for nearly a century. The details come when it turns to practical design.
I forget the details, but I seem to recall that lithium should be half again as powerful per unit weight as sodium. (That might be an underestimate.) But this doesn't include things like flammability, growth of metallic extrusions, etc. Dealing with the details can easily be enough to change that balance.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither sodium nor lithium batteries have elemental sodium or lithium in them. The flammable part is the electrolyte, which is usually an organic oil. Lithium batteries today are much safer than they used to be because electrolytes evolved to be less flammable.
One of the reasons sodium batteries are generally less flammable is because they can't discharge as fast. That's not necessarily a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
This. There are lots of applications where I want lithium batteries: airplanes and cell phone spring immediately to mind. Maybe cars too. But the power storage for my solar array would actually benefit more from Sodium given its greater cycle life. And given the fire safety aspect, I also prefer sodium for the batter backup in my servers. It's not an either or, we can now choose the best technology for our application and that's a good thing.
Re:Lithium isn't rare, and it is important (Score:4, Informative)
LiFePO4 is much safer, but has a lower energy density. It's great for in-house battery backup, less so for verhicles and probably a non-starter for planes.
Where traditional lithium batteries spout flames if punctured and lead to thermal runaway, LiFePO4 mostly just spew noxious gases which can be vented and don't cause nearby cells to ignite.
Re:Lithium isn't rare, and it is important (Score:5, Interesting)
It's accepted that Lithium is not rare.
There are however 3 big issues.
1. Cost and Toxic waste associated with extraction. ( This article shows progress in this regard. )
2. Stability, Lithium batteries have an issue with nasty fires.
3. Density of viable lithium related ores. EG in the west most lithium ore is from 2 areas. Canada and Australia. Both locations are actually rather remote in each country.
Lithium is not a good battery base. Why? It's not stable. Energy density is pretty good. But as we know when you push the limits you can get issues. Samsung did this with a series of phone batteries. They ended up with a lot of fires and a very expensive recall. So something that is energy dense but has a significant risk the health and life. It no longer is a good option for batteries.
For reasons like this lithium will ultimately be deposed as the king of batteries.
That said this process is welcome. As it has a dramatic reduction in toxic residuals from processing. So this is a major plus.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not clear. The problems are real, but some of them already have solutions, and perhaps the others will eventually have solutions also. Also all of the alternatives have their own problems.
The folks working on sodium based batteries have made tremendous progress recently, but there's no proof that analogous advances aren't possible for lithium. At any particular time, you weigh your options, and decide based on the choices available, but that doesn't tell you what the choices will be next week. Fo
New process avoid high heat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It's accepted that Lithium is not rare."
You and I and some may recognize that, but the media organs have been screeching for some time about China's "monopoly" on rare earths and the west's "vulnerability" for a decade or more.
I can't count the number of times I've had to explain that yes, in fact the US has world-leading deposits of lithium. (as much as 40 million tons of reserves. vs Chinas 10)
"this process is welcome. As it has a dramatic reduction in toxic residuals from processing"
Fully agree, this wo
Re:Lithium isn't rare, and it is important (Score:5, Interesting)
Other chemistries are not "cheaper" than lithium. They're cheaper without the quote marks. Sodium is 300x cheaper than lithium, because it's vastly more abundant (neither are rare, but abundance matters), cheap and easy to extract and obtain at gigantic commodity scales, and can be purified to the requisite standards for EV chemistries more easily. It's the frickin salt industry! Humanity has been trading it for thousands of years.
Sodium chemistries also have their own benefits over lithium for EVs beyond cost: cold weather performance, cycle life, and ability to discharge to zero. Lithium will continue to be wildly important for decades, but the advent of new chemistries is wonderful news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're thinking of CATL's Freevoy battery: https://www.catl.com/en/news/6... [catl.com]
"Sodium-LFP Dual-Power Battery - It combines Naxtra with a LFP self-forming anode battery, fully utilizing the low-temperature performance of sodium-ion technology to provide users with an exceptional experience that excels in cold conditions while delivering extended range"
NB, the Li isn't there for speed, it's for range.
Although Gotion's new Gnascent chemistry may mean this is already out of date
https://cleantechnica.com/2 [cleantechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The think is, Lithium is really only good for mobile battery applications, because of energy density. For stationary use, other chemistries offer better lifetime, lower cost, better safety, etc., and that is the reason why alternatives matter.
9V, AA and AAA Lithium (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For that use NiMH is much better. Much, much longer charge retention (with current tech), comparable capacity, many more charging cycles and no fire risk.
Re: (Score:3)
NiMH also doesn't eat shit immediately if you deep discharge it once and leave it that way for a few days, which is my favorite thing about it. A lot of chargers are too dumb to recharge deeply discharged cells, though. Of my three NiMH chargers, only one will do it. I love eneloop batteries, but the eneloop bundled charger is trash...
Re: (Score:2)
I love eneloop batteries, but the eneloop bundled charger is trash...
I noticed that as well. I have gotten a better one. But the Eneloop batteries are very good. Shame they do not seem to want to do 9V, but Duracell has some 9V NiHM intended for smoke-detectors and the like that seem almost as good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NiMH also doesn't eat shit immediately if you deep discharge it once and leave it that way for a few days, which is my favorite thing about it. A lot of chargers are too dumb to recharge deeply discharged cells, though. Of my three NiMH chargers, only one will do it. I love eneloop batteries, but the eneloop bundled charger is trash...
Nearly all AAA/AA battery needs in our house for the last 15+ years have been met by the same rotating selection of maybe 30 eneloops (plus a few energizers) that's gradually grown over that time. I have a Rosewill smart charger that intelligently detects when a battery is done charging, and a dumb energizer one that just dumps current into whatever for when the Rosewill charger can't see a totally dead one. The idea of discarding a battery after a single use just seems so weird now.
Re: (Score:2)
For that use NiMH is much better. Much, much longer charge retention (with current tech), comparable capacity, many more charging cycles and no fire risk.
I'll use eneloop rechargeables for things inside the house, or outside when not extremely cold. But for the things that lives in the car, or the garage (southern california), disposable lithium is better due to its handing of temperature extremes. Similar for cold weather outdoors. The rechargeables can take long term damage and discharge faster.
Re: (Score:3)
The think is, Lithium is really only good for mobile battery applications, because of energy density. For stationary use, other chemistries offer better lifetime, lower cost, better safety, etc., and that is the reason why alternatives matter.
Li-ion batteries should be looking in the rear view mirror, Sodium is catching up, and if energy density is the big thing, "Sugar batteries" that run on maltodextrin as fuels are being developed as well. They use enzymatic catalysts and air that reduce the maltodextrin, which creates a voltage. It is only .5 volts per cell, but the ED and stacking of cells, and the energy density (10X Li-Ion) makes them extremely interesting. non toxic as well.
For stationary grid purposes, I like Nickel-Iron batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sugar batteries" that run on maltodextrin as fuels are being developed as well. They use enzymatic catalysts and air that reduce the maltodextrin, which creates a voltage.
How do they keep the proteins from denaturing?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite sure what you're going for here. It sounds like you're the one making the assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
But will this process get investment? (Score:1)
If this was discovered even 2 years ago my personal belief is the investment in the process would be huge.
However,
With recent industrial progress on Sodium batteries investors are going to have to weigh the pros and cons. With many big investors actually holding money back from both until they see real results from both systems.
I want to invest but I'm definitely holding back myself.
Re: But will this process get investment? (Score:2)
Re: But will this process get investment? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know. So many people clearly flunked chemistry, including a good many "college educated" journalists.
That is the sort of R&D I would have enjoyed doing back when I was in that industry.
Re: (Score:3)
How bad is this for the envionment? (Score:3)
Is this as bad for the environment as the current methods of extracting lithium?
Re: (Score:2)
did you even read it?
Re: (Score:2)
did you even read it?
This is Slashdot. You can't expect someone to read the summary, let alone the actual article or report, whatever it is that the summary is supposedly ganked from. I wouldn't know. Something about lithium?
Finally, Lithium-free rocks ! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how crazy you are.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li3DfhMVqzo
I see (Score:2)
As soon as everybody is ready with new Lithium depots, Lithium extraction facilities etc, everybody will have switched to a different battery.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as everybody is ready with new Lithium depots, Lithium extraction facilities etc, everybody will have switched to a different battery.
A very good chance of that. There are a lot of different chemistries available, and Lithium isn't necessarily the best.
Titanium (Score:2)
This reminds me of a video I saw on titanium extraction, except there seemed to be dozens of steps involved.
You're using the wrong periodic table (Score:2)
Obligatory xkcd:
https://m.xkcd.com/2723/ [xkcd.com]