AND 
LG Chem is Approaching Bolivia for Lithium
We recently heard that Bolivia has over one half the world’s known lithium reserves, and that mining those salts is very important to the future electric car industry. It is also known that politics and lack of development are stumbling blocks to a successful mining industry there.
A new report from Reuters indicates that Korea-based LG Chem, who has been chosen as the supplier of the Chevy Volts lithium-ion battery cells, has been seeking talks with the Bolivian government.
Evo Morales head the country and has been unfriendly towards the US and has nationalized the gas and petroleum industries there.
According to the report, Bolivia state mining director Freddy Beltran said “LG has expressed a willingness to start talks, to make a proposal. For what we know they have an agreement to produce lithium batteries for General Motors.”
Their goal is to be able to tap into Bolivia’s vast Uyuni salt lake, with rivals Mitsubishi of Japan, and Bollore of France already in the race for the reserves.
A pilot plant has begun construction and there are plans to have it operational by 2010. Although bids from Mitisubishi and Bollore have been made, talks have reportedly not advanced, and Bolivia’s “Morales government would welcome a proposal from LG.”
Source (Reuters)
97 Responses to “LG Chem is Approaching Bolivia for Lithium”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
February 10th, 2009 at 8:07 am
No surprise LG Chem would do this. Going after the supposed largest reserve of Lithium is a good idea. Especially if they can manage to get it all. The problem with Bolivia is that there aren’t any guarantees that once LG Chem spends the money to develop a fully functional mining complex, the Bolivian government won’t simply kick LG Chem out and take over.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Seems like things are heating up in Bolivia.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20090208/498e74e0_3ca6_1552620090208-917588490
I’m not sure if anyone will work with Bolivia, as they will expect large investments in Lithium production, only to nationalize the infrastructure and claim as its own once it is built.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Terrific…one regime that will not pass its wealth on to the people for another. My suggestion would be for LG Chem, Mitsu, and Bellore to form a faction and make one demand rather than separate bids. Strength in numbers.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:25 am
From the post:
“We recently heard that Bolivia has over one half the world’s known lithium reserve”
There have been a lot of credible sources disputing this fact. Perhaps the truth is more like Bolivia holds over half the world’s known reserves in held in salt flats.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Getting away from oil to lithium? This could be another Middle East. I hope not!! That’s why I think hydrogen power is the long term solution. Look at lithium as a short term solution.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:41 am
It’s all gonna happen…
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Bob Lutz strikes again!
(No particular reason how or why he is responsible for this one, but I have to get my fill in before April 1st)
Actually, I don’t hold anything aginst LG Chem for trying to get their foot in the door in Bolivia…if the sector takes off, like many are projecting, than it is essential to build a working relationship with this gov’t. This is a necessary evil.
==================
Side note/EDIT:
GM just put out a press release in the last minute or so, ‘offing’ 10,000 employees, 3,400 in the US to be let go by May 1st. (Thats 14% of the workforce worldwide). Looks as if they are going to hardball them out and try to minimize compensation.
Also, all the salaried guys get a pay cut:
“GM also announced a temporary pay reduction for a majority of U.S. salaried employees. This begins May 1, and will be effective through the end of the year, when it will be reviewed. In the U.S., executive employees will have their base pay reduced by 10 percent, and many other salaried employees will see reductions of 3 to 7 percent.”
This is likely the ‘first wave’ of action this week in preperation for (and by that I mean getting their fog machine going in full gear) for the ‘viability plan’
Likely still up: Delphi, hourly employee buyouts, plants & processes closures, maybe an announcement on a brand….and getting the guy who writes the monthly auto sales press releases to work some overtime and spin some failed UAW/bondholders negotiations.
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=51934
/going to be a long week on pins and needles if you work at or for GM
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:49 am
#5 Joe Says: “That’s why I think hydrogen power is the long term solution. ”
————————————————————————————–
Hydrogen is the biggest scam going. It’s the big oil companies that are pushing hydrogen. That’s why they call them Fool Sells. They are meant to deceive us.
Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
“In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.”
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Whenever it’s LG Chem, a french or even a bolivian company that start extracting the Lithium from there fact is the more on the market the better. Make technology more wide spread and price are likely to come down. that’s good news for Volt
NPNS
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:53 am
#5 Joe Says: “Getting away from oil to lithium? This could be another Middle East. I hope not!! … Look at lithium as a short term solution.”
————————————————————————————–
Comparing lithium to oil is like comparing furniture to food. People will always need to buy food, but once you have a certain amount of furniture, you’re pretty much set.
The Lithium in worn out car batteries will be recycled into new car batteries. So once we have enough Lithium , we won’t really need any more.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Time to open up a strategic lithium reserve and start filling it while lithium is cheap.
On the plus side lithium is recyclable so in theory once we’ve imported a vast amount we can keep recycling the batteries that we have here and import fewer and fewer.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Equating lithium to petroleum is a sloppy analogy. Lithium is a raw material for manufacturing a DURABLE GOOD. Interruption in its supply does in fact cause the manufacturing to grind to a halt, but doesn’t effect the goods ALREADY MANUFACTURED. In other words, if I drive an electric car, I don’t need any more lithium for another 10 years. The same cannot be said of petroleum. As a commodity used daily by consumers, any interruption in petroleum supply has an immediate impact to everybody. Bottom line? I will choose lithium addiction over petroleum addiction any day.
PS – Unlike petroleum, valuable materials like lithium and aluminum also can be recycled, thereby decreasing dependence. So I am not too worried about this.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Well, this doesn’t bode well for Bolivia. Any time a resource-rich nation depends on that resource for most of its revenue, massive corruption and abuses of power are sure to follow. See Africa = diamonds/minerals, Sudan=oil, Russia = gas, Middle East = oil, Venezuala = oil, Iceland = cod. No wait, scratch that last one…
The key to a healthy fiscal system and fair society seems to be a diverse economy, and Bolivia ain’t gonna have one (unless you count coca as Bolivia’s answer to economic diversity).
The US will need to institute a very strong system of battery recycling if we are to minimize our dependence of foreign battery commodities.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Here is an article about a company that is looking to extract lithium from geothermal wells. Sounds pretty “proof of concept” phase but still an interesting related thread read. http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2008/08/10/worlds-next-source-of-lithium-geothermal-plants-450/
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The company approaching Bolivia isn’t LG Chem, but LG Trading Corp on the behalf of its sister company LG Chem. They have tons of experience in “trading” with third world countries, selling LG cellphones and LG cloth washers in the middle of nowhere in Africa and importing back mineral ores and other natural resources.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Lithium from Bolivia is just a matter of price. LG is thinking that Bolivia will be the cheapest source. If no satisfactory agreement is reached, LG will go someplace else. There are multiple sources.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Great post, Jim in PA @ 13! Thanks
It is an interesting question why the USA with its natural resources has brought so much benefit to the world, but South America, with its natural resources has not, thus far, had nearly the impact.
One thing is for sure, with about 1/2 of the currently know recoverable reserves in South America, there is a diverse supply from sources outside South America that can supply others. So the limited demand for lithium, assuming “a very strong system of battery recycling” should not put South America in the cat-bird seat.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Fact is like it or not the problem in the Middle East is Religion (of all Kinds) Take away the oil and they will still be fighting.
That will not be the problem anywere else. There will be problems but they will never be like the Middle East.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
*** 658 Day’s to go ***
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I’M EXCITED!!!!!
Ford is launching a serial hybrid electric transport van, due in showrooms in 2010, with 100 miles per charge!!!!
Has anyone else heard about this? WOW!!!! I LOVE IT. Folks who drive transport vans care about 1 thing, economics. So this vehicle will have to be economical compared to it’s gas sucking brethren. I’m very very exited about this. More signs that the tech has come of age.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200902090032DOWJONESDJONLINE000006_FORTUNE5.htm
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am
*** 658 Day’s to go ***
…until what? A handful of Volts are carefully rolled out in a handful of tree-hugger hotbeds?
How about:
***probably over 1000 days to go before a Volt turns up for sale near you, at an outrageous dealer-inflated sum***
No, it just doesn’t have the same ring.
And no, I’m not a morning person…
Cautious Fan:
A lot of companies will pay a premium for greenwashing, if they think it will go over well with their customers.
Wow, I really am crabby today. I hope they fix the coffee machine soon.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
#12 Jim in PA
I think you raise a good point. With lithium you can recycle it, there are substitutes, you can store large amounts easily (relative to demand). Therefore, the suppliers have far less power in this situation, which makes them behave in order to keep the profits flowing.
Oil is a very different commodity.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:51 am
#21 Jackson says “.. I hope they fix the coffee machine soon”
———–
When you can, try a nice hot chocolate. Let the cup warm your hands. (smile)
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 10:07 am
dave b:
Lithium is recyclable and is an energy carrier. Oil is an energy source and once used, becomes unusable by us forever.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I’m kinda with you on this Jackson #21
Where I live (Central Alberta Canada) ,, I would like a Volt here tomorrow if possible.. but likely will not see one til 2012 or longer (if the Volt even gets out the door) and as statik has quoted…. there is going to so much smoke and mirrors over the next couple of weeks….
Wage cuts…. People heading for retirement…. Are the rats leaving the ship ?
GM… NO more concepts.. get the Volt on the road today…ok maybe by June… in large volumes… Get the trucks available as true hybrids (not the 5% increase in milage crap) and you might have a chance..
As stated in a previous post… the 2010 Fusion Hybrid will definetly be in my driveway come September this year.. (unless a small miracle happens)
Yes I have deposit in hand but I don’t see any “REAL” GM vehicles in my future right now.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I like this better than getting it from China. Bolivia can certainly use the business. This is good. IMO.
Edited: Well, assuming they can straighten out their internal affairs and don’t mind selling the product to the “great satan” – the U.S. We do have proven reserves here in the U.S. and hopefully will use it later on.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I don’t think this reflects a general movement within the Saturn brand, but this was in the Atlanta news this morning:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/02/10/staturn_gwinnett_closed.html
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Interesting news on the Saturn of Atlanta dealership closing. The auto industry is being distilled down to it’s valuable core components. This is a good thing long term. And ‘long term’ is how we need to think.
It is the knee jerk TARP loans and the surprise bombing strikes that got us into the current financial bind. We need to stop bailing out worms and losers and let the people decide where they will spend THEIR money.
This past 10 months of slow auto sales means that we now have 10 months of pent up potential spending energy regarding the car industry. And the people (of the entire world) are in a mind set of waiting to buy all things. This is understandable being that we are in a computer and communications craze where what was “the newest and the fastest” becomes “the base model” in 5 to 8 months time.
What is the potential car buyer waiting for?
1>Electric cars
2>The rebate and tax credit system to be installed.
3>Some good news in the jobs market
When these three issues are resolved, we’ll see a robust period of car buying. And the now streamlined (and hopefully smarter) auto manufacturers will see strong profits. It’s this simple.
Yes we can?
=D~
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:19 am
#20 Cautious Fan says “I’M EXCITED!!!!!”
I wouldn’t get my panties too wet just yet.
It is very interesting though. The gas version of this puppy weighs 5000 pounds. We’ll see what type of battery pack Ford uses to get a 100 mile range. (I wonder if there is an exception to the CA battery warranty for commercial vehicles). We’ll also get to see the incremental costs of batteries. The base is around $20k so the price on the electric version will give a decent idea of the incremental cost of the battery.
I will say that if you’re putting 15K miles on a van during a year then a BEV can be cost effective even at a big premium. The running costs should be lower — way way lower.
In this regard, does anyone know what’s up with Phoenix Motorcars? They had some of these same type vehicles scheduled for release this year.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:29 am
repost…
_____________________________________________________
#61 John C. Briggs Says:
http://gas2.org/2008/10/13/lithium-counterpoint-no-shortage-for-electric-cars/
Karen Pease’s article claims that we should not be too worried about lithium shortages. If lithium gets short, it can be extracted from seawater.
——————-
Wow…that blog article by Karen Pease is absolutely brilliantly written. Thanks John C. for that link find.
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
hi DonC #29,
“…what’s up with Phoenix Motorcars?”
_____________________________
Last I knew is that Phoenix is still sticking with fleet sales to utility companies. They offer a truck and a small SUV. Each with 800 lb pre-lithium battery technology. These full EV’s provide over 100 miles per charge. And these can be seen on California freeways as they haul people and gear from base to job sites.
Phoenix needs a provider of low cost li-poly batteries. This will lower vehicle weight and increase pure electric range. Phoenix vehicles are visually attractive.
Be careful GM and Ford, Phoenix has several years of real road test experience. And they are based in Southern California, the biggest potential buyer market on the planet.
The latest is that Phoenix is selling to the Island nation of Hawaii. Your pineapple, sugar, and coffee may soon be transported to Kahului Airport via EV.
=D~
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
For the record: Chile and Argentina are the #1 and #2 producers of lithium but Bolivia has the largest reserves – about 5.4 million tons. Chile has 3 million tons.
New large deposits have been found in Argentina, Australia, Serbia and the US.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
#26 N Riley:
One reason LG Trading went to Bolivia is that the environmental impact statement and related paperwork in the USA would take 2 years.
All this regulation costs, folks.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
GM is laying off more salaried folks and cutting pay of salaried and executives. I love the last line of this article. “To prove its viability, it (GM) must show an ability to repay the loans and prove “positive net present value.”"
Wow. Struggling to just show positive NPV. Not even over a required internal rate of return, just positive NPV. That is a REALLY low bar, and it’s kind of sad that it’s hard to even get that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_job_cuts
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
lets get lithium from bolivia . but the long term solution should be found out .
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Bolivia and Korea should have a lot of common ground, both having been royally screwed the same way by the USG, the IMF, and the World Bank several years ago. How do you think that GM was able to buy up Daewoo for ten cents on the dollar?
If you care why the Bolivians, and so many others, hate and distrust us, read “The Shock Doctrine”. Who can blame them.?
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“The latest is that Phoenix is selling to the Island nation of Hawaii”
Silly me I thought Hawaii was a state :>)
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
If Ford does introduce the van 100 miles is pretty small mileage for a business vehicle. Delivery vans run all over town making deliveries. Now, if it had a range extending ICE that would make sense. Get the first 100 miles all electric then finish the day using a renewable fuel. Is this what is planned? The posted link didn’t mention anything except battery electric with a 100 miles per charge rating.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
#27 Jackson
This is only a “sign of the times”. It is tough all over for dealerships. They cannot exist on service alone. They have to have car sales to keep going. For some brands, dealers will be in deep trouble unless they have multiple brands to sell. It could get nasty.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
#29 DonC
In this regard, does anyone know what’s up with Phoenix Motorcars?
______________________________________________________
When a big name company comes out in support of the technology, that is a much stronger signal that it’s mature and ready for mass-market. Big companies take smaller risks then small companies, they can afford to be the second mover (Microsoft). So when Ford says the vans are going to be in show rooms, to me, that’s a far more credible testament to the maturity and cost effectiveness of the technology. The fact they’re targeting a more value sensitive customer is also very good news.
Even if the concept costs a little bit more, it reduces your sensitivity to changes in oil costs and therefore allows long-term business plans to be made with higher confidence. I’d be willing to pay a small margin for that risk reduction, all else being equal. Plus, as Jackson #21 said, you get the “green” sticker.
I wonder about the driving pattern for typical local delivery vans. I’d guess you’d have 3-4 round trips throughout the day, each time returning to home and reloading with material. In such a case, rapid recharge would be necessary, and the home base could be equipped with a high-voltage chargers. I wonder how Ford came up with the 100 mile range or if it was SWAGed?
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
#37 N Riley
OOOppps. I think you’re right. I was thinking it was an EREV. But the article only suggests an EV concept for the Ford Transit.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
#28 Dave K
“What is the potential car buyer waiting for?
1>Electric cars
2>The rebate and tax credit system to be installed.
3>Some good news in the jobs market
When these three issues are resolved, we’ll see a robust period of car buying. And the now streamlined (and hopefully smarter) auto manufacturers will see strong profits. It’s this simple.”
————————————
What they are waiting for is #3, in my opinion. I had thought that with Obama coming into office the news media would suddenly find the economy not as bad as they had been harping on for the last 24 months and would start putting in some “positive” spin to their stories. They have done so much “negative” spinning for so long that it has become a habit they can’t break. The public has been “educated” so much by “fear mongering” that they don’t believe there is any “rosy” pictures out there anymore. People have been simply scared to death and now are afraid to spend anything beyond the necessities.
What the public needs now is some good news and some confidence building. I am not sure the media is ready to do that as quickly as I thought they would. It has become too juicy of a story for even the liberal media to let loose. The democrats have to some extent brought this on by the way they played up every dip in the economy as heralding a new Great Depression and now the people believe it.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
#39 Cautious Fan
I think your points are well taken. But, if the local delivery van does make a couple of trips and returns to the home base to be “quick charged” that would reduce battery life. Assuming that quick charging is done every day, week after week. But, I certainly think it is about time a major company starting planning for this type of vehicle. I had been following Phoenix Motorcars news in the past, but had not heard much about them lately. I had high hopes they would get a good commuter BEV going to production. That would be great. I did not know their battery weighed 800 pounds. That is what, twice the weight of the Volt battery? That is heavy.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
#41 N.Riley says
I am not sure the media is ready to do that as quickly as I thought they would. It has become too juicy of a story for even the liberal media to let loose.
——————————————
You make some good points. Expanding a little bit, if one is inclined to start looking for a new car, and then one hears President O talking about “a decade” of “catastrophe” then one backs off buying anything new and just holds on.
Thinking about the situation, one realizes that President O is pushing hard for passage of the stimulus bill and choosing his words accordingly. Sooner or later, though, he has to get out of campaign mode and to give an encouraging message, for people to regain an outlook of confidence in the absence of hard data.
Usually the jobs numbers are the last to recover, so the economy never recovers if everyone waits for jobs numbers to come first.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Lithium concentrations in Bolivia….
Should lithium become the key resource folks seem to believe it will in eventual electrification of a very large % of the world’s vehicle fleet, what will become of Bolivia? Will it manage its resource well? Or will it get (overly) greedy, stupid, and open itself up to others thinking (again) their own national interest is being hurt badly enough to “intervene”. Rewind a half-dozen years or so for the sorry script.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
#39 Cautious Fan – Agree completely about large company validation. I was just wondering about Phoenix and Dave K gave me the answer. (Thanks Dave). I don’t think, however, the premium will be small. You’ll see a large premium but also large running costs savings. I’d also say you’re right about the need for fast charging in the commercial market.
#41 N. Riley — How do you positively spin a 600K job loss month? I thought the media had undersold how dire things were.
However, at this point the Fed, together with the Treasury with TARP, have actually staunched things. What we’re seeing now are highly rated companies being able to borrow at 4%. This is a significant change. Truly significant. But it won’t get any play because the public can’t understand this. What they understand is junkets to Vegas and bonuses (not that these things aren’t valid). Plus the screeds about socialism and how all their taxpayer money is being wasted.
The bad thing about the coverage has been that it’s fed into the idea that the government shouldn’t nationalize the banks. Hence this crazy aversion to nationalization. But it’s already in effect happened — or better stated the banks have done that by bankrupting themselves — so to me it would be better to do it, wipe out the shareholders, take the losses, sell off the assets to healthy or new banks, and then get out.
The basic problem is this: some banks are bankrupt because they hold bad assets. If the government buys these assets at market value then the banks go under. If the government buys the assets above market value the banks are OK but the taxpayers get screwed. Geithner, as Paulson before him, is trying to come up with some plan that lets the banks stay afloat but protects the taxpayers. I’m not sure that’s possible, and, at any rate, no one has figured out how to do this because what we keep seeing are temporizing plans that don’t illuminate a clear path to resolving the problem. The other parts of the plans, for example consumer lending, will work.
FWIW this is hardly a question of liberal or conservative media. You’re no more likely to get anything serious from the talking heads at Fox than you are from the talking heads at MSNBC. You just get different stuff.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Instead of cocaine cartels, we are gonna have Lithium cartels.!!!
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
LG needs to exert extreme caution with Bolivia. While their regulatory environment is less than US or other Li resource areas – chances for their entire investment to be nationalized are great. A prudent business decision would be to invest in a resource that is stable politically. Or write 20 year renewable contracts to purchase raw stock from Bolivia and process it in a more stable country.
Bolivian prexy Morales should consider diverting some coca income to building a mine and processing facility and then sell the Li carbonate via long term contract. He can then sell to multiple buyers and create jobs at home.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Great, so instead of being held hostage by the oil countries, now we’ll be held hostage by the Lithium countries.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Litium from Bolivia or H2. We need both for now, but I like zero emission H2 from zero emission electricity in the long run. I have a CNG car and love it. I can’t wait until we in Los Angeles get some more H2 stations. There are three that I know of now and CARB has grant money coming to build many more. I drove the Chevy Fuel Cell Equinox and it was wonderful. I will buy one in 2011 after I get my Volt. For us in the sun belt, once Windpower, Solar Thermal and Solar Electric mature and go mainstream, which is going to happen, electricity will be cheap and H2 a great form of energy storage. It will not be overnight but it is coming.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Storage of Hydrogen on a vehicle is a greater problem than storage of electricity in a battery.
Ignoring questions surrounding the creation and distribution of Hydrogen, the Lithium Ion (in particular) battery is nearer fruition, and is advancing more rapidly. In the near term, I have great doubts that Hydrogen will displace it: this despite concerted governmental/private effort to push “demonstration” projects, which can be only that, given their cost.
Hydrogen needs to go on a back burner, IMO: It only distracts from what needs to be done at present.
No, Hydrogen won’t happen overnight, nor for decades either; we’re in trouble now. Research grants and projects should be scaled appropriately.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
hi Starcast #36,
“I thought Hawaii was a state”
_____________________________
There are thousands of islands though out the world. Azores, Bermuda, Newfoundland, Cuba, Jamaica, Keys and West Indies, Guam… ect. The the population of Metro Vancouver alone is well over 2,000,000. All islands are prime selling grounds for EV’s. Power generated from ocean winds will meet recharge demand.
BTW:Last time I was on Maui, the price of gasoline was $4.50 a gallon. This is where Phoenix is selling their small trucks.
=D~
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
(20. “Im excited) I would be very leery about the all Battery electric vehicles. The cost of batteries is the same whether for a volt or all electric so to make them affordable they will have to abuse them run them down to say 5% & up to 95% which will surely reduce their life span. They will not be offering the warranty that GM is & if they do you will not be able to afford one. If batteries for a Volt cost $10,000 for 40 miles range what do you think they will cost for heavier van with 100 mile range. If Lithium Ion can we say $30,000 in battery cost alone if you plan it to be adequately managed.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
#44 StevePA
What will very likely happen in Bolivia is what has happened to many other poor countries who suddenly find themselves with a resource sought after by other parts of the world. The resources will be tapped, money will flow into the country, and the poor will get poorer. That is a negative view, I realize, but a realistic one, I believe. It happens all the time when you have a country with a government that is corrupt and a society that is divided between the haves and the have nots. Look at Venezuela and the oil money flowing into the country. It is not being used to help the poor and educate the ignorant or heal the sick. No, it is being used to support a few and buy warships, warplanes and build a large army. What is Hugo going to do with that new army? Invade its neighbors in the name of “freeing” them from their democratically elected government or just to suppress opposition at home. Maybe some of both.
Bolivia has a president who is following the Hugo Chavez path to a new world society pattern. I don’t hold much hope for the people of Bolivia to reap many rewards form their natural resources. Some will gain jobs, but the vast majority will not benefit any at all. And I don’t have any answers to the problem, before you start to ask.
Edited: Just like in the United States, the people of Venezuela and Bolivia elected their presidents to office. They will, of course, deserve what they get or what they will accept. IMO.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Two years ago, I purchased a “developer’s pack” of six A123 Lithium Ion Nano-phosphate cells from A123 to study the new breakthrough. (For a speech at the Renewable Energy Round-up in Fredericksbug, TX).
Yes, they can store an extremely strong charge. But here is an important question which really needs an answer at this point.
One the outside of the box of the 6 26mmX 65mm high batteries, it says:
“NO LITHIUM METAL”
While the Lithium is likely “processed” at/to an extremely fine particulate or is a molecular compound without being in the physical form of a pure metal, and, whereas there seems to be no published data available to indicate how much lithium is required to, say, produce each Kilowatt of storage capacity,
Can one of you gifted chemists let us know in terms of ounces per kilowatt hour how much actual lithium would be needed per (16 Kwh pack) Volt?
I suspect it to be a relatively minute amount, which would make political concerns quite moot if so. It’s my understanding that the major factor as to cost are the production costs, which economy-of-scale would greatly reduce.
Factual commentary about “ounces of Lithium per kilowatt” would be helpful to know.
Dan Petit Austin TX
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
One more thing about Hydrogen: while putting it in a car is (at this point) a case of a round peg in a square hole, there are all sorts of reasons to consider it as aviation fuel for passenger aircraft. I’ve gone over them before, but here’s a new one to add to the list; a means of doing an end-run around draconian climate-change-fear-inspired regulations:
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=15528
Hydrogen for airplanes would start out as a new niche application for hydrogen, perhaps only for the fastest of the fast (new super and hypersonic liners), which could widen quickly depending on how much political power the eco-zealots manage to obtain.
There are more ways to create hydrogen from water than just electrolysis. Get enough heat concentrated in one place, and water will literally be cooked apart:
http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm
If you have a highly concentrated source of thermal energy, this is something to consider; the cooling of the gasses after dissociation would produce steam for traditional electricity generation; such that hydrogen would be a co-generation scheme, not an electricity robber.
Mind you, that’s a pretty big “if.” The experiments linked above were done with plasma. The kind of solar collector that uses a field of heliostats to illuminate a central tower could probably do some version of this, but not PV or the “trough-and-tube” approach.
The cost of this technology could not be justified until there is a clear use for non-fossil-fuel-derived hydrogen, and for the foreseeable future, it doesn’t appear that cars will be it.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Not the hydrogen thing again. Is it? (whine whine)
Two simple questions:
1) Where can I buy Hydrogen to fill up my tank?
2) Where can I plug in my car?
Two answers, respectively.
1) No where near me
2) In my garage.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Sorry, Rashiid;
I’d rather say that Hydrogen is really, really unlikely in cars instead of saying “no way, no how, end of story.”
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
#45 DonC
“#41 N. Riley — How do you positively spin a 600K job loss month? I thought the media had undersold how dire things were. ”
—————————–
You can’t spin it positively, that is the problem now. But, 18 to 20 months ago the economy was in much better shape and all you could hear from the media was depression, depression, depression. They wanted to make the people believe the economy was so bad that they would not stand to elect another Republican as President. Well, they got what they wanted and now we are in a depression, depression, depression. They literally scared the hell out of the average person and those to “dumb” to realize what was happening. Now, we have a real mess on our hands and it is not all the fault of the economy but is due in a large part to people just clamming up with their purchases. I know too many people who just refuse to spend money beyond their monthly requirements. Why do you think personal savings have hit an all time high? Seems like I heard that on the news last month. I know my savings is not at an all time high, but I have been spending money to do landscaping, creating a new deck and buying a new car. I have spent too much, actually. More than I wanted, but I had it to spend and I did it. I did not listen to the media because I knew what they were up to.
Consumer spending, or the lack of it, is not the primary cause of of current troubles, but it is an outgrowth of some of it. Consumers need to rebuild their confidence in the economy. Obama needs to stop speaking so negatively. The media needs to relax and find some other interesting stories and spend less time on doom and gloom stories. Report on it, sure. But, not every minute of the news cycle, it seems. Obama should be encouraging people who can to go out and spend some money. Fix up their homes. Do some landscaping. Buy new refrigerators, washing machines, all of the things we have been delaying buying. We need to buy that new car or truck. We need to take that weekend trip and maybe extend it a day or two. Speak more positive, act more positive and show the people that you trust in the American economy, not that you only trust in government spending and hand-outs that will only destroy our society and demoralize our people. People need challenges and a belief that with hard work they can and will succeed. Not that if you work hard, raise your earning level and build a bright future for yourself and your family, the government will come in and take most of it and give it to those who don’t even bother to try to succeed.
OK, I’m getting off the box. Let some one else take over. I am sure that some of you hold directly opposite views and you are welcome to them. That is what makes America great. Problem is my views and those like mine are being forced into the shadows because we call for personal effort, personal responsibility and personal success gained from that personal effort and personal responsibility. Again, IMO.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The Altacama desert brines have the highest concentrations of Lithium. They caused all the other mining sites worldwide to close down. But not forever.
Where are most of the other proven mines that are in stasis/reserve?. Why right here in the US. Reserves in the US dwarf the high concentration reserves of Lithium Carbonate in Chile and Bolivia. There is plenty for every car in the World to be powered with Lithium cells from lithium mined right here in America.
BTW the idiot Holdren, Obama’s official Science Advsior and forecaster, had Lithium as one of his “natural resources” for which scarcity would collapse civilization, and the US population would be 22 million starving peasants in the Year 2000.
He made that famous bet with Julian Simon and lost ignominiously, when not a single “exhausted natural resource” that he hand-picked, turned out to be exhausted. Ten years later they were all plentiful and cheaper.
He came out looking like the idiot he revealed himself to be, in his published writings. Resurrected from the Carter Club of Rome trash heap; he is here to bring back “Malaise”. Judging by Obama’s pronouncements, he is succeeding in convincing the new Prez, that the World is coming to an End.
.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
#45 DonC
You did make some sound points on into your comments that I fully agree with. We are starting to see some positive movement, but the general news cycle can’t get off the negative spin stuff. My biggest problem with the bail-out isn’t the money we are spending, although that scares the hell out of me sometimes. What really bothers me is that we are not requiring any changes to the people, laws or regulations that allowed this to happen in the first place. The same congressmen and senators that were pushing laws and regulations down on the banks to force them to take “bad” loans that they normally would have shunned are still in place. No change at all. Now, you might ask, what are the chance of this happening again in five, six, or ten years. My answer is a resounding 100% chance of it happening again. No question in my mind. You leave the same people in place, the same laws and regulations and what do you expect? A different result? If you say a different result, let me sell you some real good real estate that will be coming on the market on Arizona’s west coast.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The general news cycle is always negative. What gets on the air is what gets the most ears and eyeballs in front of advertisements. Nothing does this better than the strident blare: “The End of the World is at Hand.” Politics attempts to harness this tendency to it’s own ends like anything else which might swing a vote. If the political class has started believing it’s own bad press, this could be a real catastrophe.
“The only thing we have to fear is … a lack of fear, itself –?”
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
55 Jackson
There already was a hydrogen aircraft . . . the Hindenburg
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
For #54 Dan Petit
“And that brings us to yet another issue: the fact that lithium ion batteries, despite the name, just really don’t use that much lithium. About 1.4 kilograms of lithium carbonate are needed per kilowatt hour of lithium-ion batteries. A kilowatt hour of bulk lithium ion batteries costs $300 to $500. Hence, lithium carbonate costs only make up 1/30th to 1/50th the cost of the cells! ”
This is from the post at #30
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
All of this is so overblown…
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
#50 Jackson
I think RamZ #49 has been drinking too much Kool-Aid lately. Hydrogen as a fuel source is just too expensive to produce, too expensive to store and transport and gives too little energy for the cost. It is a fictional fuel that the oil companies, auto companies and the government is trying to force off onto us. The oil companies and the government both have vested interest in keeping the service station model that has been perfected over the last century. It employs many hundreds of thousands of people to drill, refine, transport, store and sell fuel for our vehicles all over the country. It is a model of production and marketing no one in government or the oil companies want to give up. The government likes the method developed to tax our fuel as we purchase it to support the infrastructure and they are afraid of electrical transportation because they haven’t figured out a good way to tax it properly that can’t be bypassed by the public. Auto companies like hydrogen because it keeps their dealership service bays working and profitable for the dealer.
Hydrogen fuel cells are called fool cells not because the government and industry is foolish to research and develop it. No, in my opinion is called fool cells because we would be foolish to accept it as a fuel source. Maybe in another hundred years after there are ways to extract it cheaply at home or on the road so you can cut out all the people and cost that is now between you, the consumer, and hydrogen fuel. IMO.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Hydrogen fuel tanks are very large and very heavy. They are essentially bombs on wheels. Until such time as an element containing hydrogen is placed in a storage tank and hydrogen is extracted from it as you drive, hydrogen has no real future, as far as I am concerned. Put a tank of water in a tank and extract the hydrogen from it. Safe if you get hit. Easily accessible as the closest water tap. Now, I don’t know if this is even possible, but at least it is as conceivable as hydrogen created somewhere, transported to a station where you can refuel you hydrogen tank in your car or truck. At least with water you would not be driving around with a bomb on board.
Plus, if I remember correctly, only about 25% of hydrogen gets used in a fuel cell car. The rest is, what, wasted?
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Back on Lithium from Bolivia:
It seems to me that LG is trying to become the low-cost battery supplier. From a corporate perspective, that is a huge advantage, and in pursuit of it LG is hoping to lock up a low-cost lithium supply in Bolivia, preferably with an exclusive agreement. Reasonable.
LG’s Bolivian focus does not imply that there are not alternative sources. Some alternatives may have only marginally higher costs, and there may be alternatives with an even lower cost still unrecognized by LG. As several commentators have said, there is a lot about Li sources that has not yet been thoroughly explored.
The main point is that what LG is doing, I think, has everything to do with costs, not much to do with availability, and almost nothing to do with science or engineering. There is a point where commercial considerations become paramount, and they have reached that point.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
#49 RamZ Says: “I have a CNG car and love it.”
————————————————————————————–
CNG cars produce more CO2 emissions than regular gas engine cars.
While it’s true that CNG cars cause less pollution, remember carbon dioxide is not currently classified as a pollutant.
In other words, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, but all fossil fuels produce lots of CO2, and CNG engines are very inefficient, so carbon dioxide emissions are from CNG engines are worse that a regular gasoline engine car.
See here for details:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
(table on page 4)
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
#49 RamZ Says: “…but I like zero emission H2 from zero emission electricity in the long run… I can’t wait until we in Los Angeles get some more H2 stations. There are three that I know of now and CARB has grant money coming to build many more. I drove the Chevy Fuel Cell Equinox and it was wonderful.”
————————————————————————————–
Hydrogen is the biggest scam going. It’s big oil that’s pushing hydrogen. Most hydrogen will be made from natural gas, as it is now. Hydrogen made this way will produce more CO2 than a regular car.
You can use electricity to crack water, but this is very inefficient. The same amount of electricity would drive a BEV or EREV three times further.
Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense
“There is a lot of money in the field now,” he continues. “I think that it was a mistake to start with a ‘Presidential Initiative’ rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories—otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.”
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Bolivia’s president is nationalizing companies that were sold cheaply to private companies in previous mandates. Under the new bolivian constitution, no private company can own more than 49% of an enterprise that exploit its natural resources. The Bolivian Govt must have majority in any enterprise, of this kind. this is due to the privatization experience and what happened with tin during WWII. Bolivia practically gave away all its tin to the US for the war effort and in return got no development, no grants like Europe did. The only thing it got of any value were a couple of dozen surplus P-51 mustangs. If a fair and just mechanism for exploiting and developing the lithium fields which will bring clear benefits and advancement to Bolivians I dont think there will be any appropiations. These are the rules in essense, play fair u get what u need, play naughty everybody loses. I dont think its bad at all.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Hey hydrogen again! Ever wonder why you hear less and less about this? Because it never made any sense. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a distribution system. There are NO hydrogen mines, although even in scientific publications you might have gotten that impression. The energy still has to come from somewhere else—fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar. That said, does it really make sense to build a hydrogen distribution system? To many it was obvious that we had an alternative energy distribution in place already—it is called the electric grid. The missing piece was the battery. Well, we almost have it now and would have decades ago if some effort had been put in that direction.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Hydrogen talk = excitement.
Side note on the economy…Wall Street doesn’t appear to be too keen on the ‘new plan’ today, lol.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
#70 Hector says of Bolivia
These are the rules in essense, play fair u get what u need, play naughty everybody loses.
—————————————————–
As Bolivia (or landowners or existing rights holders) will be negotiating with LG, which is not a US company, I am not sure the history of Bolivian contracts with the US has any bearing, either positively or negatively. Once LG has made a purchase, I imagine they will sell to any customer, if the price to LG is right.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
#72 statik says “..Wall Street doesn’t appear to be too keen..”
——————————————
Now that’s an understatement. Maybe you can look toward NYC and use your ability to calm squirrels
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
k-dawg (#62):
“There already was a hydrogen aircraft . . . the Hindenburg”
Haw, haw.
For the record, more people were killed trying to jump out of the Hindenburg than were burned to death.
“The blaze killed 35 people on board and one person in the ground crew; 62 passengers and crew members survived”:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270258,00.html
N Riley:
When Michael Faraday demonstrated electromagnetism to a visiting British official, he was asked of what possible use could it be put to. His answer, “Someday, Minister, you may be able to tax it,” has passed into folklore. It bears repeating, when it comes to Hydrogen. Here we are, how long after Faraday, talking about batteries and motors in a car. I’d hate to put myself on the wrong side of Hydrogen in the same vein as the Minister.
And yes, it could take as long as it did from Faraday to the Volt; but that isn’t “never.”
I wouldn’t say that Hydrogen in a car is impossible, just very, very unlikely in the next half century. That doesn’t mean other uses (such as LH2 as jet fuel) won’t emerge sooner.
As for hydrogen tanks being heavy, they have been lifting them into Outer Space for decades in boosters; most of their weight being in the fuel. Don’t know the particulars, but maybe nasaman will gas-by, later.
The rest of what you said in comment #66 I pretty much agree with, except for the water-to-hydrogen idea. It is a common misconception that Hydrogen from water is an energy source. It is only an energy carrier, releasing some portion of the energy when reacted which was used in liberating it. If you’ve got that much energy on-board the car, why not use it directly?
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
#66 N Riley Says: “Put a tank of water in a tank and extract the hydrogen from it. Safe if you get hit. Easily accessible as the closest water tap. Now, I don’t know if this is even possible, but at least it is as conceivable as hydrogen created somewhere,…”
————————————————————————————–
I’m not sure if you’re serious, but just in case, let me explain:
Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It’s an energy carrier. In other words, you need some other source of fuel to make hydrogen.
What’s more, hydrogen is not a particularly good energy carrier. When you use electricity to crack water into hydrogen, then do all the stuff you need to get it to a car, then convert it back to electricity in a fuel cell, you only get back 23% of the electricity you put in. With an electric car, you get back around 69% of the electricity you put in, and that includes grid transmission, the AC/DC conversion, and the battery charge/discharge efficiency losses. So an electric car uses electricity 3 times as efficiently as hydrogen. See the chart here for details:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
So now let’s look at your tank of water in the car. You would need huge batteries to store the electricity required to convert the water into hydrogen, which goes into the fuel cell to make electricity. In other words, hydrogen is just a waste of electricity. That’s the best way to look at it.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
statik:
“Hydrogen talk = excitement.”
We exist to entertain you.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
#70 Hector:
Thank you.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
#75 Jackson Says: “I wouldn’t say that Hydrogen in a car is impossible, just very, very unlikely in the next half century. That doesn’t mean other uses (such as LH2 as jet fuel) won’t emerge sooner.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, Ulf Bossel, who heads up the European Fuel Cell Forum, did an analysis of using hydrogen as jet fuel:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
The result:
“At least 25 nuclear power plants plus the entire water consumption of Frankfurt needed to serve all 520 jet aircrafts per day at Frankfurt Airport”
The conclusion:
“Heavy duty and long distance transport by land, air and sea will be powered by the last drops of oil or hydrocarbon biofuels”
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
#49 Ramz,
You’ll have a long wait for H2 in Los Angeles from water. Your elected DEMO-gogues have created a Potemkin Village of your electric supply. Worry not about making H2 from electricity, It won’t be too long before you’ll wish you had electricity even two or three days a week. We fellow Americans in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Oregon Washington and even the neighbors in Mexico, all have our Utility Commissions watching nervously as our reserve electric margins dwindle to nothing while selling our “SURPLUS” electricity to desperate California Utilities.
As soon a one says we can’t do it any more, and that could come any day, then there will be cascade of similar announcements State by State as none of us can bear the added load, alone. And you can’t bankrupt our Utility Commission like you did to Enron and force them to sell electricity for less than it costs to buy. There isn’t any left to buy, anymore.
Welcome to daily brownouts, blackouts, and electricity rationing, and all the wonderful Potemkin Village effects your Green wackos have created and in store for you.
California can’t meet even 80% of it’s own electric demand anymore, and that gap grows wider every year, as your greenie wacko DEMO-gogues refuse to allow new plants to be built. When they do it, amid the Blackouts, it will take years to build plants to rectify the decades of idiocy.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html
Then you can worry about other uses for your water like taking hot or even warm showers or baths, or running your refrigerator or stove. You also might consider the practical uses of TAR and FEATHERS for your elected DEMOs too.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Well, that may be, Dave G; but the fact remains that Hydrogen is the only possible fuel for the scramjet which would be used in a hypersonic aircraft. Once the foot is in the door with aviation, someone will do some experiments and update Ulf, if necessary, based on the conditions that exist at that time.
You could argue that the foot is already in the door with the rest of aerospace, namely cryogenically-fueled launch boosters.
I dimly recall an eminent doctor someone’s report roundly denouncing solar power, back in the ’60s. He made the worst possible assumptions, and magnified them based on the state of the industrial art at that time. In a nutshell: You’d have to cover oompety oomp acres with manufactured materials that you’d need a gazillion ergs to produce, and which you would never get back in the life of the arrays. The loss of the oompety oomp acres of arable and forested land would DOOM THE ENVIRONMENT!
Obviously, we don’t think of solar energy in those terms, today.
I maintain that we cannot sit here at the dawn of the 21st century and do more than say that hydrogen is anything but very, very impractical for all but a few applications (which I’ve ‘heard’ you say here, many times). However, we also have to say, if we’re intellectually honest, that this is almost certain to change as more is learned, and industries and economies change.
There. Now wasn’t that just ever so much more fun that gloomy financials and a Lithium-supply non-issue?
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
There’s an interesting read about global lithium reserves and distribution at:
http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
N Riley #58
#45 DonC
“#41 N. Riley — How do you positively spin a 600K job loss month? I thought the media had undersold how dire things were. ”
—————————–
You can’t spin it positively, that is the problem now. But, 18 to 20 months ago the economy was in much better shape and all you could hear from the media was depression, depression, depression.”
While I am in no way a fan of our current media, in general, but more for the lack of meaningful content and sensasionalism rather than any partisanship. I would blame them more for underselling the potential economic problems up until about 6-8 months ago. I think if you go back 18-20 months you would only here some rumblings about foreclosures on the rise and the housing market collapsing. They kept eating the government and business spin that it was a little problem that would go away in 6 months or so and that it was unlikely we would enter a recession. IMO, this was incompetence on all parts. There was no way to avoid this recession without further damaging our economy. Quite frankly this the recession that should have happened after the internet bubble bust followed by 7-8 years of doubling down on those issues with the false (overspeculated) real estate growth and leveraging (cashing out on appreciation). I believe if you subtract out all of the effects of this “false” growth, you will find that our “real” GDP has stagnated or contracted during this time. As soon as real estate values stopped their appreciating we were screwed and the media, along with most everyone else, were caught unawares. It was until 2nd quarter last year that any circumspective realization started to show up in a meaningfull way. The number of people that got caught in a condo, 2nd home, 1st home that they couldn’t afford, lost their job, or have had their pay significantly reduced is staggering. There is no “good” on button to get them to start spending again like they had been and that is probably a good thing. People and businesses need to re-evaluate the timeframes and reality they budget with. We need to find ways to “meaningfully” grow our economy. It will be a long and tough struggle to get our economy where it needs to be:
-Unemployment <6%
-Balanced budgets (fed, state, muni, personal)
-GDP growth
-Trade deficit reductions
-”Reasonable” savings rates
I think DonC is right. There are some positive signs but they are more of relative positives (not as bad as it was before) than actual good events. We can’t and shouldn’t expect to consume our way out by switching a consumer sentiment switch. But, there are areas that are OK or are growth areas. We can look at the “relative positives” and these other areas while still being cautious about how to proceed and avoiding other missteps. The media and the politicians and business leaders are now pretty much all saying rough rest of ‘09 but some growth starting ‘10. I don’t have a major problem with this perspective but given the current state of the state, this seems pretty optimistic.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
#81 Jackson,
Yes, all things can change over time, so I would never rule anything out entirely.
What angers me about hydrogen is not the research, but the development. Research might change the outlook for hydrogen in the future, but right now, today, we have to admit that hydrogen is not viable. Fuel cells are outrageously expensive, and hydrogen is extremely inefficient. So any development of hydrogen cars and fueling stations today is a total waste of money. It’s a red herring.
As for scramjets and cryogenically-fueled launch boosters, these things are not used by the masses, so they don’t have to be efficient or cost effective. So yes, hydrogen will work here near term. Nuclear submarines are another near-term application for hydrogen as well. But a “hydrogen economy” based on any technology we know of today – this is a pipe dream.
As for solar power, it turns out that solar panels today are still very expensive because they take gobs of energy to manufacture, and that’s 40 years after that guy in the 60’s predicted it, so I’d say he wasn’t that far off. Near term, I would say solar thermal and wind power plants are the most competitive. That’s what we should be building today. Some new photo-voltaic technologies hold promise, but they don’t appear to be available in mass production yet. So for today, solar panels seem to be for people with a lot of money, or for people who live in states with massive subsidies.
But as always, things change. Actually there’s a fairly good movie called “Things Change”. Worth a rental.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
#82 David L Says: “There’s an interesting read about global lithium reserves and distribution at:
http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I’d seen this before but lost the link. Thanks!
Here’s the part of the paper I don’t understand. It’s on page 8:
“Of course, unlike oil, Lithium is recyclable. As with Lead Acid batteries a closed recycling circuit would have to be implemented to ensure recycling of used Lithium batteries… But 100% recovery will never be possible and growth in automobile demand will continue.
The World Automobile Parc currently stands at about 900M vehicles. If they all used a … 10kWh battery per vehicle, over a quarter of the world’s current Lithium Carbonate Reserve Base would be consumed. 10KWh is still a small battery – even if 20kWh was achieved with the same Lithium utilisation, Lithium consumption will be at unsustainable levels. “
So if all 900 million vehicles in the world were EREVs with an average 20kWh battery, we would have used 1/2 of the world’s Lithium reserves. After that, we’ll be recycling, maybe not at 100%, but at a high percentage, which means the remaining 1/2 of the world’s Lithium reserves will last a long, long time.
Am I missing something here?
As for exponential population growth expanding the market for automobiles ad infinatum, it’s obvious to me that this is unsustainable, for many reasons. Population growth will slow to meet available resources. It’s already happening in China. So I don’t buy the argument that Lithium is unsustainable because there will always be more and more cars on the planet. If true, it seems we would run out of many other things before we ran out of Lithium.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
By the way, if all 900 million vehicles in the world were EREVs with an average 20kWh battery, and we have used 1/2 of the world’s Lithium reserves to make those batteries, and we are recycling the vast majority of Li/Ion batteries, so that the remaining 1/2 of the world’s Lithium reserves are being used much more slowly, that would be a really, really good thing. A lot better than where we are now with peak oil.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
#85 Dave G notes
So if all 900 million vehicles in the world were EREVs with an average 20kWh battery, we would have used 1/2 of the world’s Lithium reserves. After that, we’ll be recycling, maybe not at 100%, but at a high percentage, which means the remaining 1/2 of the world’s Lithium reserves will last a long, long time.
———————————————————————
It also is necessary to keep in mind the limited meaning of the word “reserves.” Generally it means what people have discovered exists. But, people stop looking once enough supply is found for the next 20 years (or maybe more or less depending on who is looking). That is, someone is paying geologists to look, and at some amount of know reserves, there is no longer any incentive to look any more.
That is, “reserves” does not represent an inventory of the world supply in any comprehensive way, just what has been discovered so far. The former has an unknown relation to the latter, but there certainly is some more supply that has not yet been tabulated, and maybe a lot of that.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
It’s great when the math is brought out to clarify (as relates to Kilograms of Lithium needed per Kilowatt hours per E-REV), Lithium supplies being decentralized, how political concerns (regarding regional availability of Lithium) in the thread evaporate.
GREAT COMMENTARIES!!
Dan Petit Austin TX.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
For the last year it has amazed me how reactionary the people who are very pro battery electric vehicles are so anti H2. To me they are a very complementary technology. It also seems that Pure Battery car people can be totally anti Chevy Volt because it has a (presently) gas engine.
I have a pure electric Ford Ranger EV which I love and I have a CNG Ford Crown Vic which I love too. Both have major short comings. The Ranger is Pb-Acid and has a 30 mile range. It works for me because it is only 8 miles to my work. The CNG I love because it has more range and I am not buying any Middle East gas. It does give off CO2 though. We have to make compromises but we can do our best to save our world. There are many complementary solutions coming. Some near term some longer term,
Two years ago you should have heard how I got lambasted at work for thinking electric cars were coming, I work at a company of Rocket Scientists.
Electricity getting more expensive is true for now, Today with Solar Electric at its infancy I can cover all my electric needs from solar cells on the roof of my house.
MIT scientists have new solar cells that will generate H2 from the roof of your house. No it will not be tomorrow but is is coming.
Keep up this great website and we all will see the Volt shortly.
(Quote)
February 10th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Oh yes, and the Hindenburg, When H2 burns you do not see the flame. What you see burning in the Infamous Lakehurst NJ film is the doped fabric. Not to say it didn’t burn as you can see the energy of H2 everytime you see the Space Shuttle take off.
H2 though is so light that when it escapes it leaves earth at something like 66 mph. Gasoline stays put when it leaks and burns. We have been driving around with gas tanks in our cars for 100 years and they can cause some deadly accidents. The H2 tanks are made to leak before burst and the gas excapes so fast and the mixtuire ratio has to be correct to start a fire. I wonder more about the energy of 10,000 psi compressed gas stored in a tank more than the gas being H2.
There has been no CNG tanks in cars exploding as far as I know. There was one on YouTube but it turned out it was not the CNG tank that exploded. Infact after the explostion the CNG tank was still intact. CNG also is much heavier than H2 so will hang around longer if there was a ruptured tank.
You may think I digress from the Volt but this is related as I want H2 in my volts fuel tank not Middle East gasoline.
(Quote)
February 11th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Dave G:
“What angers me about hydrogen is not the research, but the development. Research might change the outlook for hydrogen in the future, but right now, today, we have to admit that hydrogen is not viable. Fuel cells are outrageously expensive, and hydrogen is extremely inefficient. So any development of hydrogen cars and fueling stations today is a total waste of money. It’s a red herring.”
I don’t disagree at all. Unfortunately, this decision has to come from the top; and I think that unless Stephen Chu really asserts himself here, the current administration will follow the previous ones down the “hydrogen now” pathway — because it looks so good. People have been convinced that hydrogen is ‘just around the corner,’ and that electric cars with batteries are for ’someday;’ when in fact, the reverse is true. Hydrogen needs to be scaled back to research-only, at the National level.
I would submit that those of you who have driven one of these fuel-cell demonstrators (someone mentioned the Equinox), have actually experienced a Volt ride; since the only difference is the source of the electricity.
Hydrogen in 50 years, maybe; EREV in 3 years … maybe. Hydrogen will face a long enough delay to more than justify the development of high-performance batteries. When and if hydrogen does appear in automobiles, it will simply replace the range-extender. Don’t hold your breath.
At last, an on-topic comment:
Lithium is used for a lot of things, including a few tiny laptop and cellphone batteries. What the market will bear for limited reserves is not very much at the moment. The only thing that will result from a Lithium-based transportation infrastructure is that the market will bear much more, and there will be much more economic incentive to develop and look for new sources.
If you want to worry about shortages to come, think about future generations of electricity production technology. Unless you have solar cells on your roof (not practical for most, at present), you are still going to buy electricity from a large energy company.
(Quote)
February 11th, 2009 at 9:43 am
#89 RamZ Says: “For the last year it has amazed me how reactionary the people who are very pro battery electric vehicles are so anti H2.”
————————————————————————————–
The issue for me is that development of hydrogen takes away from more viable forms of alternative energy.
If you look at it closely, most arguments for hydrogen are based on wishful thinking and future technologies that don’t yet exist. People seem to lose all sense of logic and reason when they start talking about hydrogen. Any serious bang-for-buck analysis using today’s technology shows that hydrogen is nowhere near being viable.
So, as I said before, I think research of new hydrogen technologies is great, but the development of hydrogen cars and fueling stations using the current technology is a total waste of money that could be used for something that’s already viable.
(Quote)
February 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
#5
Joe Says:
February 10th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Getting away from oil to lithium? This could be another Middle East. I hope not!! That’s why I think hydrogen power is the long term solution. Look at lithium as a short term solution.
=========================================
You need to look at battery technology in the long term, not specifically lithium.
To make calculations easy, lets assume the battery pack for every EV (or vehicle using the technology) is 500 LBS.
Lets throw out there that in the next 5 years, we can expect sales of EV’s to have a mean value of 2 million. 2M*500LBS=1B LBS, or 500,000 tons.
Taking Bolivia’s lithium out of the picture, it’s still estimated that there is over 4 million tons available (8yrs worth).
With all the talk that’s going on about new battery technologies, I’m not worried at this point, as I’m expecting one of those other technologies to rise up within the next few years.
It sure would be beneficial to both Bolivia and the rest of the world if they sold it now, rather than waiting until the technology is outdated.
(Quote)
February 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am
#90 RamZ Says: “You may think I digress from the Volt but this is related as I want H2 in my volts fuel tank not Middle East gasoline.”
————————————————————————————–
OK, let’s take a real world look at that, and not some emotional argument. Your stated goal, as I understand it, is to eliminate the use of gasoline that is made from Middle Eastern oil.
Let’s start with how much gasoline you would use. For a typical yearly driving pattern, here’s how much gas you would use with various types of cars:
Vehicle ………………… Gallons per year
Volt …………………….. 37
50 MPG car …………… 228
40 MPG car …………… 285
30 MPG car …………… 380
22.2 MPG car ………… 513
20 MPG car …………… 570
22.2 MPG is significant because this is the current combined CAFE standard, which includes cars, SUVs, and passenger vans. At 37 gallons per year, the Volt only uses 7% of the current average gas consumption.
By now, most people would agree that hydrogen isn’t worth the effort, but let’s keep going…
Contrary to public opinion, cellulosic ethanol technology is real now. They’re already building plants that will mass produce cellulosic ethanol for $1 per gallon, and GM is investing in this.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
If EREVs replace the vast majority of gasoline consumption, then ethanol becomes extremely viable to replace the rest. So that completely solves your goal to eliminate the use of gasoline that is made from Middle Eastern oil, and it does so using our existing infrastructure of electrical outlets and liquid filling stations. This is why our national security experts are recommending a combination of plug-ins and bio-fuels to eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
http://www.setamericafree.org/
By the way, if you look at total oil consumption, gasoline is only 44%, so to eliminate oil imports, you’ll have to go after home heating oil, jet fuel, diesel, plastics, petro-chemicals, etc.. In addition, we import more natural gas than we export, so to become energy independent, we’ll have to reduce natural gas consumption as well.
(Quote)
October 18th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Stop assuming on issues that you have no clue.
Thanks
(Quote)
October 18th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
LG is a Korean firm; Korea has affinity with Bolivia, this mutual cultural affinity may go back centuries in time. It will be a win-win situation. However, Evo said that electric cars will be build in Uyuni Bolivia next to the source of Lithium
(Quote)