Lithium crises: What are the alternatives?

[winget]

I'm trying my hand at writing and sharing with you a summary of an American article on alternatives to the Lithium crisis. I am still amazed to see all the possible resources...but at what cost?

In the age of electrification, rechargeable batteries seem like a given. Whether it's phones, laptops, cameras or the bone conduction technology (a surprising discovery in the audio world!), these drums have one thing in common. They are all made of lithium. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries have taken the world by storm in recent years. They are the most popular battery storage option today, controlling over 90% of the global power grid market. And they store energy efficiently, for a long time.

But their most notable use today is in electric vehicles.

Over the past decade, the explosion in lithium-ion battery production has driven prices down 85%, making electric cars commercially viable for the first time in history. Batteries are paving the way for a future without fossil fuel dependency, which is crucial if we are to slow climate change. But lithium is not the most environmentally friendly chemical element we could use. In South America, huge reserves of lithium consume water by the gallons, causing devastating conflicts between local populations. It takes 2,2 million liters of water to produce one tonne of lithium.

Lithium mining also harms soils and can lead to air contamination.

Many point out that Li-on batteries can be recycled, which is definitely a plus as it means they can be reused over and over again without the need for extraction each time.

But this practice is not yet universally established and battery recycling has made little progress in recent years. If we want to continue to rely on lithium batteries, the situation must therefore be improved. As Mario Pagliaro put it in a recent study, "The reuse and recycling of lithium batteries is no longer an option but an inevitable need for battery and EV manufacturers."

In the meantime, many are looking for an alternative. Especially since there is no guarantee that we will be able to find enough raw material to meet demand.

What can we use instead of lithium in batteries?

Salt Salt, or sodium, is a close chemical cousin of lithium. Although it's a very similar item, it doesn't have the same impact on the environment, meaning it could be a viable option for a replacement. The solution could be sodium-ion batteries. Sodium-ion technology does not consume any scarce resources - and its production does not require rare lithium salts - simple table salt is sufficient. On the other hand, sodium is 3 times heavier than lithium! Which means that sodium-ion batteries are also much heavier. Sodium batteries can also be less powerful because their cell voltages are lower.

Sea water If salt batteries exist, why not use seawater? A team from the Institute of Technology in Germany has developed a prototype battery based on seawater. Our oceans contain approximately more than 180 billion tons of lithium. But since it is diluted, researchers are designing many filters to try to selectively extract seawater from the lithium, in order to put it to good use.


Silicon Many scientists consider silicon to be an essential ingredient that could transform batteries. It wouldn't replace lithium, but it would be added to lithium batteries - meaning they would be cheaper and more efficient in the long run. Currently, lithium-ion batteries use graphite as a key component. FYI, graphite is made up of fine and multitudes of layers of carbon, themselves stacked on top of each other. And in a traditional lithium-ion battery, lithium ions can slip through these gaps between layers, causing loss. Replacing graphite with silicon could lead to lighter and safer batteries.


Magnesium Magnesium is currently being researched as a potentially powerful component of future batteries. It is an element that can carry a large +2 charge, more than lithium and sodium. Batteries made from magnesium metal could have higher energy density, greater stability and lower cost than current lithium-ion cells, according to a study. Magnesium has another advantage as well. Each magnesium atom releases two electrons during the battery discharge phase, compared to one electron for lithium. This gives it the ability to provide almost twice as much electrical energy.

Hemp This sustainable plant and fiber, used in clothing, building materials, food and even auto parts, could become a key component of electric vehicle batteries that are cheaper, safer and less harmful to the environment.

The iron Iron could perhaps be an excellent substitute for lithium. This chemical element is believed to have better "oxidoreduction potential", or "reduction potential" in scientific jargon (it does not lose its effectiveness as quickly).
In September last year was published by Bloomberg. It is about a clean energy company in Oregon, USA, which makes a record purchase of batteries based on "iron chemistry". These can apparently store renewable energy for longer and could "help overcome some of the reliability issues that have caused blackouts in California and record energy prices in Europe."
The only limitation of iron flux batteries is that they are much larger than lithium batteries. This means that they could not be used in smartphones, laptops or even electric vehicles, but could be a practical option for network storage.

[Exnihiloest]

 
Hypotheses about alternatives, especially when presented with rave reviews as the lithium trial rages, are to be wary of. Cells and batteries are now recycled so soil pollution by lithium is a fallacious argument, except for the question of its extraction in the mines, but there it is a question of political will to put in place a protocol safety, as in the nuclear industry.

The alternatives are the subject of a considerable number of studies, but between theory and marketing, there is a chasm. It's been 15 years since I've seen them pass, promising ideas we are told, from which nothing concrete comes afterwards. If the alternatives are not in service, it is because they have disadvantages superior to lithium, such as in particular insufficient energy density, but also degradation over time, the number and time of refills, various risks. That doesn't mean that a metal like magnesium wouldn't be valid, but that currently, we don't know how to do it.
For example, to the question "if salt batteries exist, why not use seawater?", this has been done, particularly in the field of fuel cells. And of course what had to happen happened: the fouling of the membranes, because seawater is not only salt water, it is full of microorganisms and particles in suspension. And if you have to purify seawater before using it, hello to the energy cost.

The alternatives will certainly come, lithium was also a big advantage over the cadmium that preceded it, no need to claim them, all the players in the field are aware of the problem and are doing research. Considering the juicy prospects that a valid innovation would represent, if they do not present any it is that they have not succeeded. The general public does not realize the difficulties when confronted with the reality of engineering. Some even go so far as to imagine conspiracy theories to explain that we don't want technological change when in fact, we don't know how. These have certainly never gotten their hands dirty in terms of innovation.

PS - For the reference to bone conduction, I have the equipment for that, I tested. As for innovative batteries, the reality is less rosy than what is said. If it can be suitable for a telephone conversation, or for an athlete who listens to music in his activity where the quality requirement is not great contrary to the need to hear the ambient sound, on the other hand it is much less good headphones are very sensitive to positioning, to tightening, the frequency spectrum depends on this positioning, in particular the treble is easily muffled, or has leaks heard externally for those with sensitive ears.

[winget]

 
Hypotheses about alternatives, especially when presented with rave reviews as the lithium trial rages, are to be wary of. Cells and batteries are now recycled so soil pollution by lithium is a fallacious argument, except for the question of its extraction in the mines, but there it is a question of political will to put in place a protocol safety, as in the nuclear industry.

The alternatives are the subject of a considerable number of studies, but between theory and marketing, there is a chasm. It's been 15 years since I've seen them pass, promising ideas we are told, from which nothing concrete comes afterwards. If the alternatives are not in service, it is because they have disadvantages superior to lithium, such as in particular insufficient energy density, but also degradation over time, the number and time of refills, various risks. That doesn't mean that a metal like magnesium wouldn't be valid, but that currently, we don't know how to do it.
For example, to the question "if salt batteries exist, why not use seawater?", this has been done, particularly in the field of fuel cells. And of course what had to happen happened: the fouling of the membranes, because seawater is not only salt water, it is full of microorganisms and particles in suspension. And if you have to purify seawater before using it, hello to the energy cost.

The alternatives will certainly come, lithium was also a big advantage over the cadmium that preceded it, no need to claim them, all the players in the field are aware of the problem and are doing research. Considering the juicy prospects that a valid innovation would represent, if they do not present any it is that they have not succeeded. The general public does not realize the difficulties when confronted with the reality of engineering. Some even go so far as to imagine conspiracy theories to explain that we don't want technological change when in fact, we don't know how. These have certainly never gotten their hands dirty in terms of innovation.

PS - For the reference to bone conduction, I have the equipment for that, I tested. As for innovative batteries, the reality is less rosy than what is said. If it can be suitable for a telephone conversation, or for an athlete who listens to music in his activity where the quality requirement is not great contrary to the need to hear the ambient sound, on the other hand it is much less good headphones are very sensitive to positioning, to tightening, the frequency spectrum depends on this positioning, in particular the treble is easily muffled, or has leaks heard externally for those with sensitive ears.

Thank you very much for this informative feedback! I cannot contradict you, I feel that you have much more experience than me on this subject. My intention of writing this article was in no way a question of highlighting these alternatives as "THE" solution. With your experience, which resource(s) do you believe most in the latest discoveries? I'm basically here to educate myself Regarding bone conduction; yes, I had seen that indeed it was not a device that "uncouples" in terms of sound quality ... but my mother who has suffered from tinnitus for 10 years is very grateful for this little gadget!