As EV sales slump, a breakthrough lithium extraction method could turbocharge the industry

zohaibahd

Posts: 228   +5
Staff
In brief: A team from the University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering may have cracked the code on a new lithium extraction method that's both more efficient and environmentally friendly than current techniques. Their approach could ultimately make lithium – and therefore EV batteries – much more affordable and accessible.

Electric car sales are experiencing a slump in most regions except China. A significant factor contributing to this decline is the high cost of lithium-ion batteries, which are essential for every model. The expense of these batteries is largely due to the complicated and resource-intensive process of extracting lithium.

Here's the issue with how we get lithium today: The two primary methods, ore mining and brine extraction, have major drawbacks. Ore mining requires intensive surveying, heavy machinery that scars the landscape, and complex chemical processing. Brine extraction is less ecologically damaging upfront but guzzles staggering amounts of water.

Both approaches also require mining sources with extremely high natural lithium concentrations, limiting viable deposits to just a few countries. Countries like the US have had to heavily rely on pricey lithium imports as a result.

The Chicago researchers' new technique completely sidesteps these limitations. By targeting lithium's unique electrochemical properties, their process can extract the mineral from sources as diluted as seawater that were previously considered useless on a commercial scale.

"Our method allows the efficient extraction of the mineral from very dilute liquids, which can greatly broaden the potential sources of lithium," said Chong Liu, an assistant professor involved in the work.

The technical details of this technique are pretty complex, as explained in a study published in Nature Communications. But as dumbed down by The Independent, their approach basically works like a lithium-trapping sponge that soaks up the mineral from low-concentration sources using its electrochemical properties.

The new lithium extraction technique matters because it opens up a vastly larger pool of viable lithium sources in the US and abroad. That could help cut reliance on pricey lithium imports and insulate the country from supply chain disruptions.

Domestically-sourced and processed lithium could also put downward pricing pressure on EV battery production costs. Those savings may eventually be passed onto consumers in the form of cheaper electric cars and trucks.

The researchers are hopeful their work lights a fire under further lithium R&D efforts to get the new approach ready for commercial deployment.

At the same time, efforts are underway to cut down the dependency on lithium entirely. Earlier this year, Microsoft collaborated with the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to discover a new material that could alleviate (if not replace) reliance on lithium in the production of rechargeable batteries. Researchers are also attempting to double the life of Li-ion batteries with alternative charging solutions.

Permalink to story:

 
I will continue to say this, the problem with electric vehicles isn't that they're electric, it's that everyone wants them to look like "the future" and have very little in common with a regular car. Make an electric version of any vehicle from the mid 2000s and I guarantee people will flock to them.

Electric Vehicles could be awesome, but designers and marketing teams are holding them back.

Make a regular car that just happens to be electric, it's that simple.
 
IMO the issues is not that they are electric but that the true costs are hidden. What does it cost the buyer 8-10 years out then the battery is on its last legs. What is the resale value, then?
Plus, there is a cost tot the electric grid that is not being addressed. The power producers are hiding their heads. They know it is going to damage the grid.
One final note: EV owned are paying Zero road tax! GET OFF MY ROAD!
 
Wake me up when we get 600 miles of range for under $25K. US Automakers will never give us that since these days they’d rather we all drive oversized, luxurious (but tacky) battering rams for upwards of $100K, EV or not.
 
Wake me up when we get 600 miles of range for under $25K. US Automakers will never give us that since these days they’d rather we all drive oversized, luxurious (but tacky) battering rams for upwards of $100K, EV or not.
I drive around 30,000 miles a year for work, the battery pack is not the issue
 
Not surprised. North America is slow when it comes to adopting new tech. When the Chinese EV's come before US EV prices come down, I'll believe US automakers had no real plan to begin with. They should have never needed a government push.
 
I will continue to say this, the problem with electric vehicles isn't that they're electric, it's that everyone wants them to look like "the future" and have very little in common with a regular car. Make an electric version of any vehicle from the mid 2000s and I guarantee people will flock to them.
Except this isn't true at all. Look at EVs from, say, Ford: the F150 Lightning and Mach-E -- the exterior and interior alike are near-identical to non-electric models.

Not to mention that literally every consumer poll disagrees with you. Vehicle range, price, battery life, and lack of charging points all top the list of consumer issues with EVs -- not "appearance":

 
Wake me up when we get 600 miles of range for under $25K. US Automakers will never give us that since these days they’d rather we all drive oversized, luxurious (but tacky) battering rams for upwards of $100K, EV or not.
To be fair, when US automakers did offer smaller cars, Americans simply were not willing to pay enough for them to make them as profitable as trucks & large SUVs. And right now any American can buy a perfectly fine Corolla or Civic for about $25k, but more people actively choose to buy a big pickup instead. Its hard to blame any company for only wanting to sell the things people are willing to buy at profitable prices.
 
Except this isn't true at all. Look at EVs from, say, Ford: the F150 Lightning and Mach-E -- the exterior and interior alike are near-identical to non-electric models.

Not to mention that literally every consumer poll disagrees with you. Vehicle range, price, battery life, and lack of charging points all top the list of consumer issues with EVs -- not "appearance":

The problem with the F150 lightning and Mach-e is that the target market was never going to buy them. The Mach E is not a mustang and never will be. Ford tried using brand loyalty to sell an EV to mustang fans. The Mustang has for many decades been a vehicle popular with people who are into tinkering with and modifying vehicles, the Mach-e fails that. Put a Ford Explore body on the rolling chassis of the Mach-e and you have an awesome vehicle. the F150 had always been popular with people who THINK they need a truck but don't want to pay the extra money for a real work truck.

I'd like to talk about the F150 for a moment as I have a perspective on why it isn't working. I do commercial construction and use work trucks frequently for what they're intended to be used for. As a TOOL, new trucks suck and many of us in the industry are buying TOOLS, not vehicles. The F150 fails as a TOOL. People in my industry are begging for a plug in hybrid truck with ~150miles of all electric range and a gas generator for when towing or even just to save on fuel. It's not even just the utility of the vehicle, imagine camping with your RV and being able to charge the vehicle that's towing it off the solar panels on the roof of your RV.

Noone is asking for the vehicles they are making and they aren't making the vehicles people are asking for.

These were decisions made by marketing departments, not people who can function in society.
 
The article I read was about the extraction of Lithium from Lithium-poor sources. The comments seem to have devolved into what is wrong with electric car sales.

If you look at a Periodic Table, you will find that other elements can serve as batteries; elements found more easily with almost the same electron potential as Lithium. Lithium does have advantages, such as the lightest weight and greatest electron potential.

The ability to use a rechargeable, and thus, re-usable energy source is only important to the 40% (or less) of Americans who do not both deny climate change and carbon based fuel sources as the cause. Roughly, half of our government want to elect a person who does not believe in either -- at least this removes the discussion of why electric vehicles don't sell well.
 
The article I read was about the extraction of Lithium from Lithium-poor sources. The comments seem to have devolved into what is wrong with electric car sales.

If you look at a Periodic Table, you will find that other elements can serve as batteries; elements found more easily with almost the same electron potential as Lithium. Lithium does have advantages, such as the lightest weight and greatest electron potential.

The ability to use a rechargeable, and thus, re-usable energy source is only important to the 40% (or less) of Americans who do not both deny climate change and carbon based fuel sources as the cause. Roughly, half of our government want to elect a person who does not believe in either -- at least this removes the discussion of why electric vehicles don't sell well.
The demand for Lithium is driven by the need for energy storage in electric vehicles.
 
The problem with the F150 lightning and Mach-e is that the target market was never going to buy them.
These are just two of many examples of EVs with aesthetics similar to existing vehicles -- yet still fail to sell. And you skipped over the polling data which shows the actual reasons consumers are shunning EVs: range, cost, battery life, charging availability, etc.

I'd like to talk about the F150 for a moment as I have a perspective on why it isn't working ... The F150 fails as a TOOL. Noone is asking for the vehicles they are making and they aren't making the vehicles people are asking for.
Your (valid) concern boils down to range -- which is a problem for all EVs, when used by consumers whose vehicle use lies outside of the "straight-to-work-and-back-again" paradigm.

Furthermore, if you added a gas generator and hybrid capability to the F150 Lightning, not only would its sky-high price rise even further, but it would no longer qualify for the EV tax incentives and fleet-wide emissions mandates. Do you honestly believe automakers are just flatly ignoring consumer opinion polls? There are more factors in play here than you're acknowledging./


...imagine camping with your RV and being able to charge the vehicle that's towing it off the solar panels on the roof of your RV.
Except a few moments of will show what a fantasy this is -- unless you want to park for a couple weeks after each day's drive.
 
If you look at a Periodic Table, you will find that other elements can serve as batteries; elements found more easily with almost the same electron potential as Lithium.
"Almost" means even less suitable -- less range, greater weight (and thus lower efficiency), and higher cost. Current EVs are already having difficulty selling, and you want to make them even less attractive to consumers?

The ability to use a rechargeable, and thus, re-usable energy source is only important to the 40% (or less) of Americans who do not both deny climate change and carbon based fuel sources as the cause.
The number of fallacies in this statement are beyond count. I'll name just one: personal autos worldwide constitute less than 10% of total manmade GHG emissions, and all manmade emissions combined are less than 1/25 of total global emissions. Furthermore, since much of electricity production is generated via hydrocarbons, even if the entire world switched to EVs overnight, it would cut manmade emissions by less than 4%, and total (natural and manmade emissions) by less than 0.2%.
 
Last edited:
These are just two of many examples of EVs with aesthetics similar to existing vehicles -- yet still fail to sell. And you skipped over the polling data which shows the actual reasons consumers are shunning EVs: range, cost, battery life, charging availability, etc.
so I'm just going to start by saying thank you for formatting your replies in a way that make it easy to reply to each poijt being made an argued. I will actually put my best effort into discussing this rather than my usual tendency of being a sarcastic *******

so when I talk about range and range anxiety, I like to make it a point that people to claim t have range anxiety have probably never driven more than 300 miles in a day in the last several years. Range anxiety is more of a psychologica problem than an actual problem. anyone living with an EV will have noticed this goes away with in a few weeks and becomes a non issue. The problem with range anxiety comes from "but maybe" scieneros" that do happen, but could be solved by renting a car. Or, on my recent trip from Pittsurgh to FLorida and back, the EV range was a non issue. 300 Miles is about 5 hours of driving, You want to get out and take a break for awhile after driving that long. Road trip in my friends Model Y, range has never been an issue for us. I wont say there are not scenarios where you need to put 300 miles of range in your car in 10 minutes, but they are very, very few. I usually "top off" my trucks gas tank while im getting coffee in the morning rather than going out of my way to fill it up a few times a week.
Your (valid) concern boils down to range -- which is a problem for all EVs, when used by consumers whose vehicle use lies outside of the "straight-to-work-and-back-again" paradigm.

Furthermore, if you added a gas generator and hybrid capability to the F150 Lightning, not only would its sky-high price rise even further, but it would no longer qualify for the EV tax incentives and fleet-wide emissions mandates. Do you honestly believe automakers are just flatly ignoring consumer opinion polls? There are more factors in play here than you're acknowledging./
going to Opinion polls, I think society in general ignores opinion polls in favor of "progress" rather than practicality. This is borderline a politil issue so I wont go into detail regarding that specifially.

I would like to note that when the F150L was being developed, interest rates were low, credit was easy to get and everyone had money to spend. The F150L is not as expensive as its MSRP would suggest that it is. Ford thought that they could sell them for that price in the current economic climate, and they did. This is because of the dealsership network. The dealerships financed these vehicles using low iterest rates from Ford and then tried to resell them to consumers, Due to how difficut getting a franchise dealership licesense is, all the dealers had to eat the cost of the F150L's. The electric motor is actually cheaper than an ICE drive chain(motor, trans, ect.) so the cost of the battery pack in the F150L shouldn't make it cost more than 5-6k after accounting for it. The battery pack adds 20k to the cost of the vehicle, but they reduce the cost by around 10k by going electric.

Im not even saying the F150L is a bad vehicle, it's a fantastic truck for a grocery getter where they "work" on the weekends. The thing is, the people looking for work trucks aren't going to buy it and the guys with small ***** wont, either.

Except a few moments of will show what a fantasy this is -- unless you want to park for a couple weeks after each day's drive.
And I just want to say that, yes, this is 100% a fantasy I have right now. The real issue is, why is it a fantasy? I have 1100W of solar on my 22' RV, it's over kill but it is cheap. I am sometimes parked on jobsites for a week or two at a time, I'm often camping for a few days in and I frequently get the F*** out of Pittsburgh in the winters. But running a fridge, a laptop and some lighting doesn't requre 1100watts of solar. I was a fool thinking that much when I installed it, but I'm rarely below 90% of the batteries in my RV, I would LOVE to dump that power into a vehicle when I'm either at work or just camping and not having to worry about it. Plug in hybrid trucks that can tow 7000 freedom units of weight are a fantasy right now, but there is an entire market of people who don't want that to be a fantasy.
 
I will continue to say this, the problem with electric vehicles isn't that they're electric, it's that everyone wants them to look like "the future" and have very little in common with a regular car. Make an electric version of any vehicle from the mid 2000s and I guarantee people will flock to them.

Electric Vehicles could be awesome, but designers and marketing teams are holding them back.

Make a regular car that just happens to be electric, it's that simple.

And CUT DOWN on all the electronic garbage, tv screens inside the vehicle!
 
IMO the issues is not that they are electric but that the true costs are hidden. What does it cost the buyer 8-10 years out then the battery is on its last legs. What is the resale value, then?
Plus, there is a cost tot the electric grid that is not being addressed. The power producers are hiding their heads. They know it is going to damage the grid.
One final note: EV owned are paying Zero road tax! GET OFF MY ROAD!

The battery will last longer than most people will ever own the car. That's not a problem. What is that even minor damage in an accident can see the car written off. Lack of qualified mechanics to repair and dangers of the product itself are both key reasons. But if you do have a dodgy battery and it fails outside of warranty, you may be up for a fortune. Audi e-tron battery costs ~$60K to replace which is criminally insane.

Couldn't care less about this new breakthrough, will never buy an EV until solid state batteries are a proven and reliable thing, and we see weight savings of the order of 75% on the battery pack and charging times of no more than 5 minutes from 0 to 80%. PHEV is the most electrified I would go in the next 5-7 years.
 
When are researchers going to ditch Lithium and move on to other chemistries? Lithium is a dead end. Seriously, people need to move on..
 
What can be used instead for batteries? General honest inquiry.
Despite what @ZedRM claims, researchers are investigating literally hundreds of alternatives, but none have been yet found that have lithium's advantages of high energy density, safety, manufacturability, lifespan, and reasonably low cost. Some beat lithium in some areas -- like Sodium, Li-Sulfur, or polymer solid-state batteries -- but fail in others, meaning they may be used in other areas, but not for EVs.
 
Why are we still peddling the lie that EV sales have slumped, when equivalently priced ICE cars have slumped by MORE, reflecting an overall market decline?

Heck, exclude Tesla and EV sales are actually growing. Tired of this narrative.
 
IMO the issues is not that they are electric but that the true costs are hidden. What does it cost the buyer 8-10 years out then the battery is on its last legs. What is the resale value, then?
Plus, there is a cost tot the electric grid that is not being addressed. The power producers are hiding their heads. They know it is going to damage the grid.
One final note: EV owned are paying Zero road tax! GET OFF MY ROAD!

Nothing, because modern batteries last longer than 8-10 years, and even if you did replace, the petrol and maintenance savings easily cover it.

Also, especially if you’re in the UK, road tax doesn’t pay for the roads…
 
Wake me up when we get 600 miles of range for under $25K. US Automakers will never give us that since these days they’d rather we all drive oversized, luxurious (but tacky) battering rams for upwards of $100K, EV or not.

Less than 1% of owners remotely need even half this range.
 
"Almost" means even less suitable -- less range, greater weight (and thus lower efficiency), and higher cost. Current EVs are already having difficulty selling, and you want to make them even less attractive to consumers?


The number of fallacies in this statement are beyond count. I'll name just one: personal autos worldwide constitute less than 10% of total manmade GHG emissions, and all manmade emissions combined are less than 1/25 of total global emissions. Furthermore, since much of electricity production is generated via hydrocarbons, even if the entire world switched to EVs overnight, it would cut manmade emissions by less than 4%, and total (natural and manmade emissions) by less than 0.2%.
"Almost" means even less suitable -- less range, greater weight (and thus lower efficiency), and higher cost. Current EVs are already having difficulty selling, and you want to make them even less attractive to consumers?


The number of fallacies in this statement are beyond count. I'll name just one: personal autos worldwide constitute less than 10% of total manmade GHG emissions, and all manmade emissions combined are less than 1/25 of total global emissions. Furthermore, since much of electricity production is generated via hydrocarbons, even if the entire world switched to EVs overnight, it would cut manmade emissions by less than 4%, and total (natural and manmade emissions) by less than 0.2%.

You talk about fallacies yet continue to repeat one. Literally no one is suggesting only switching to EVs. It comes hand in hand with grid changes
 
Heck, exclude Tesla and EV sales are actually growing.
You fail to realize that Tesla in 2023 sold more EVs than everyone else combined. Tesla sold 162,000 EVs in Q1 2023. Toyota sold 1,800. Nissan: 5,200. BMW 7,200.

And it isn't just Tesla that saw a dip in sales. GM's EV sales are down 20% from one year ago, and Volkswagen's are down 12%. Hyundai and Ford are up -- but their sales increases are less than 10,000 vehicles from each.

Less than 1% of owners remotely need even half this range.
While few may need 600 mile range driving to work, many wish to take long weekend trips-- and don't want to buy an extra car just for that purpose. And a "600 mile range" can decline to half that when towing, and cold weather or battery age can lop off even more.

You talk about fallacies yet continue to repeat one. Literally no one is suggesting only switching to EVs. It comes hand in hand with grid changes
Oops again! "Grid changes' don't alter the fact that the vast majority of CO2 emissions come from nature, not man, nor that personal auto emissions are a tiny fraction of man's total emissions.
 
Back