Posted on 02/27/2014 11:16:45 AM PST by ckilmer
From Wiki:
Worldwide identified reserves of lithium in 2008 were estimated by the US Geological Survey as 13 million tonnes. Deposits of lithium are found in South America throughout the Andes mountain chain. Chile is the leading lithium producer, followed by Argentina. Both countries recover the lithium from brine pools. In the United States lithium is recovered from brine pools in Nevada. However, half the world’s known reserves are located in Bolivia, a nation sitting along the central eastern slope of the Andes. In 2009 Bolivia was negotiating with Japanese, French, and Korean firms to begin extraction. According to the US Geological Survey, Bolivia’s Uyuni Desert has 5.4 million tonnes of lithium. A newly discovered deposit in Wyoming’s Rock Springs Uplift is estimated at 228,000 tons. Additional deposits in the same formation were extrapolated to be as much as 18 million tons.
What tesla makes best is hot air (from burning vehicles) and unsupported claims.
I think that they're looking at something sulfur-based, instead.
No matter how big the batteries are, the electricity still needs to be generated, somehow. And, it needs to get to the battery, somehow. Musk has some good ideas, and the technology needs to start somewhere, but we're still at the Model T stage of development, here.
Unlike most metals, Lithium is not a product of Star formation.
It transmutes to Hydrogen isotopes in high neutron flux.
This makes it fairly uncommon in concentrations worth extracting.
Sulfur batteries are possible but they need to run at 600deg to generate electricity. (if I remember correctly)
There’s a missing element to that calculation. Actually, one full year’s production from the plant will account for zero hours of average nuclear plant power production. Batteries don’t generate electricity. The energy to charge them needs to be produced somewhere.
One objection raised in the article claims the batteries have a two-year lifespan, obliging the happy Tesla motor-er to replace them.
Maybe two years is the limit, but I would think that restoring the battery would be a good deal cheaper than manufacturing a new one, or recycling components should offset some of the costs or manufacture.
I’m not sure about the comparison to Nuke plant either. Efficiencies on both sides of the equation will improve the profile. Over the past two years I’ve begun to use lithium batteries for my drills and one of my routers. They are pretty amazing. I’m also planning to switch out the light bulbs for LEDs— which should yield the same illumination at a little more than say, 1/8 the power.
In sum, I think this guy’s perspective is not that different from Marx’s— deterministic and materialistic,he discounts the advances to be gained through innovation from this assessment.
Understand, I’m not a Pollyanna, and I really don’t know that much about the technology, the company, or whatever sweetheart deals they’ve made with Obama. It just seems that investors should take potential innovation and refinement into consideration.
Plus, transportation costs are a bear.
Joe Biden's donating his stockpile. :)
I started to, this year. More out of necessity - "The bulbs I like are going away. Do I buy a pallet of them for a lifetime supply, or try out this new technology, instead?"
So far, I've been happy. I ran the numbers and the LEDs will pay for themselves in about 2 years. Since they have a 10 year warranty on them (and should last for 20) ... we'll see. More important, I'm not climbing around on a ladder to replace the old incandescents several times a year.
I got "Cree" LEDs at Home Depot. They're an "instant-on" variety, which solves that annoying delay between hitting the switch and the light coming on (*THAT* would have been a deal-breaker for me...) that you sometimes get. Packaging says that they're "Assembled in America" for what that's worth.
I started in one room. As I run out of the old incandescents, I'll keep migrating the rest of the house over. Like I said....we'll see. :-)
Godspeed, Tesla. A123 couldn’t do it with over $275 million in grants and tax credits. Hopefully you’ll have better luck.
but.....there are lots of cute green chicks involved.
Batteries used for transportation must have a high energy density — they must be as light and as compact as possible. It’s worth paying a large premium for those features, for use in electric vehicles.
OTOH, batteries for stationary applications (such as buffers for the grid) can be much heavier, and much larger. The only thing that really matters is cost per unit of energy storage. That means that there are several alternative battery technologies for stationary storage. Lithium is unlikely to be the most cost-effective.
So, Lithium is the future where the government doesn’t allow it on airplanes or the post office? Where will we park when we use those facilities? ;-D
tesla’s valuations are not really based on what they’re earning now but rather on what people figure tesla will be earning in the years ahead. the point of the big battery plant is to cut the cost of the battery in half and sell cars for 35k instead of 65k. that price point brings in a whole new set of buyers.
Ok. Fine.
But I draw the line when the gubmint says ‘we have to bail them out’ then lithium rockets up in price 1000% both as it becomes more expensive to extract and as demand drives up the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.