7 ms·

We can now harvest usable lithium from seawater: study

112 points by SQL2219 5y ago

innagadadavida 5y ago
Someone built a machine to do this for gold: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sabgy/scientists_of_reddit_can_the_sullivan_generator/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sabgy/scientist... Are these practical given the right conditions or just crazy ideas?
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Sure, the "right conditions" being "cheaper than other sources". :-) There are a few things that we extract from seawater right now... common salt, obviously (though a lot of that is also mined), magnesium, bromine... It's definitely not a completely cockamamie idea, but I have no idea whether this particular process is enough cheaper than existing sources to make it worthwhile. They claim $5 USD/kg for electrical costs. Capital costs are unspecified. Looks like lithium metal goes for about $80-85/kg, so it seems promising, depending on what kind of capital investment is required.
- fake-name 5y ago
  Someone claims to have built a machine to do this. They're also claiming they *figured out how to derive energy from the rotation of the earth*. Which if it were real would be a major revolution in and of it self. Why not just sell that? Nope, they have to attach a gold extraction thing and desalinate seawater. They're obviously a quack.
Animats 5y ago
Is this the same group that announced they could do this last month? There was a mention on HN. His team also aims to enter a collaboration with the glass industry, to develop the LLTO membrane at greater scales with affordable cost. five dollars of electricity (to extract) 1kg of lithium In other words, they have this working on a lab bench, and the cost estimates are pure speculation. a copper cathode coated in ruthenium and platinum. Ruthenium - US$25,000/kg. Platinium - US$35,000/kg. Anode cost not included in cost estimate. This is going to turn on all the usual cost factors - how often do you have to replace the membrane and the anode, what about corrosion, does it need cleaning, etc. There's no question that this is possible, but a big question is whether it is cost effective.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  A measurement of how much electricity it uses is not speculation. Don't go too far in your skepticism. Edit: Unless someone has a specific reason I'm wrong, I stand by this. A criticism that makes four good points and one bad point is worse than a criticism that just makes four good points. I don't see any reason to call out the electricity use specifically as "pure speculation". It's only part of the cost but it's not a made-up number, and it's not a number that should change significantly between the lab and the real world.
- longwick 5y ago
  This is the fundamental issue. If there is a environmentally friendly way to industrially produce something, it is not rewarded by our current system of capitalism. It is a form of green capitalism, still looking for profits to guide us to the best solution (when in fact there are better solutions. Our assertion of value is based solely on profits which is fundamentally at odds with this climate emergency. Would love to hear alternative thoughts.
  - parineum 5y ago
    Many people consider one of the roles of government to create markets for technologies like you're describing which would otherwise have no markets. Markets are quite good at finding good solutions. Pursuit of profits isn't at odds with addressing climate change, we just need to make it profitable.
- Retric 5y ago
  Platinum has ultra low reactivity, slightly below gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_series Ruthenium… edit: ops NN.
  - amluto 5y ago
    Are you perhaps confusing Ruthenium with Rubidium?
    - 5y ago
infogulch 5y ago
Why is the news like this? There are only two types of articles: those spelling doom and despair on the world and those championing every millimeter of progress while blind to downsides. It's tiring how much work you have to put in to actually pick these apart to find the little nugget of truth in the middle. But apparently the truth doesn't generate clicks so it's lost to us under a cloud of extreme polarization. Maybe there's some law that the more you abstract the details and write for a layman audience the more polarized the result. Anyways, I expect this one is the latter. It seems the general method is to elecrolyze seawater with a special membrane (lithium lanthanum titanium oxide (LLTO)) and special electrodes (ruthenium and platinum) that only allows lithium ions but not other metals through. "Five dollars of electricity is needed per kilogram", hey that's pretty good. Not so good: did you notice the phrases "seawater", "special membrane", and "special electrodes" in the same sentence? Yeah, that means $$$$$. The quote on that little detail? "His team also aims to enter a collaboration with the glass industry, to develop the LLTO membrane at greater scales with affordable cost." Mhm. But hey, I'm just an idiot that took a chemistry class way back when and my first paragraph was cast at this article unfairly. Maybe we'll be lucky and get one of those awesome HN moments where an expert in the field chimes in, otherwise I hope to see you in 5 years with another headline claiming that this tech was finally commercialized. And good luck to the team! Just don't hold your breath.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Theory, we’re so used to little dopamine hits from social media and shock headlines it’s the only thing people will entertain?
  - bogwog 5y ago
    Or Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc design their products/algorithms to maximize addiction, news organizations are forced to adapt their content to game those algorithms in order to survive, and this has been happening for so long that people don't notice how warped and stupid the whole thing is anymore.
    - bamboozled 5y ago
rsuelzer 5y ago
$5 of electricity is a near meaningless metric. The real question is how many kWh does the process require to get the 1kg of Lithium? Electricity prices vary widely, so I don't understand why they would use dollar figures, especially on an engineering site. If we know how many kWh of electricity is used to get the Lithium, then we can compare that to how much energy the Lithium would be able to store and release over it's usable life. Some rough numbers in my head, the total weight of Lithium in the average 18650 battery is probably 25 grams (the other components being other metals like Cobalt). This means that the 1kg of Lithium would be able to make about 40 or so 18650 batteries. The average 18650 battery has an average watt hour capacity of 11 (a good one). So with 40 batteries you have 440wh of storage. The average lifespan of the batteries would be about 1000 cycles... so 440kWh of capacity over the lifetime of the battery. I will assume that the electricity rate they use for the $5 figure is a very cheap $0.10/kWh. Meaning that it would require 50kWh in the extraction process alone to extract enough lithium capable of storing 440kw over it's usable life. I have no idea if this is a good return or not compared to how much energy is spent mining lithium.
- vitus 5y ago
  Clicking through to the actual study: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/EE/D1EE00354B#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/EE/D1EE0... "Based on these data, we estimated the total electricity required to enrich 1 kg lithium from seawater to 9000 ppm in five stages to be 76.34 kW h. Simultaneously, 0.87 kg H2 and 31.12 kg Cl2 were collected from the cathode and the anode, respectively. Taking the US electricity price of US$ 0.065 per kW h into consideration, the total electricity cost for this process is approximately US$ 5.0." So, the electricity usage is even higher than you estimated, with an even lower cost per kWh. But that said, there are places in the US that have even cheaper electricity (especially if you're looking at industrial rates).
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    To me, 76.34kwh per kg seems really bad. Tempered by, what do I know actually. Here is an article describing electrowinning iron at 3.53kw/kg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918249/
docuru 5y ago
What are downsides?
arthurcolle 5y ago
News media corps are clearly learning! They don't ask questions that suggest bullshit... (whats that law about if the headline is a wuestion the answer is no?) they just directly suggest nonsense now. Cool, cool
TedShiller 5y ago
It’s official. We can now destroy the oceans, too.
reacharavindh 5y ago
Thinking out of the box, I wonder if the ocean could be turned into a giant battery somehow. Considering most population lives closer to the coasts, it would be amazing if it was possible without any environmental harm. Not saying something like electrifying the oceans. But, something like power generation with Wind, solar or tidal energy, and store it in some kinetic form like Norway did with water up the mountain, and then transfer power upon need to the coastal cities.
dang 5y ago
Recent and related: Scientists develop ‘cheap and easy’ method to extract lithium from seawater - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27411631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27411631 - June 2021 (290 comments)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

112 points by SQL2219 5y ago

Someone built a machine to do this for gold: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sabgy/scientists_of_reddit_can_the_sullivan_generator/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sabgy/scientist... Are these practical given the right conditions or just crazy ideas?

Turing_Machine 5y ago
Sure, the "right conditions" being "cheaper than other sources". :-) There are a few things that we extract from seawater right now... common salt, obviously (though a lot of that is also mined), magnesium, bromine... It's definitely not a completely cockamamie idea, but I have no idea whether this particular process is enough cheaper than existing sources to make it worthwhile. They claim $5 USD/kg for electrical costs. Capital costs are unspecified. Looks like lithium metal goes for about $80-85/kg, so it seems promising, depending on what kind of capital investment is required.
fake-name 5y ago
Someone claims to have built a machine to do this. They're also claiming they *figured out how to derive energy from the rotation of the earth*. Which if it were real would be a major revolution in and of it self. Why not just sell that? Nope, they have to attach a gold extraction thing and desalinate seawater. They're obviously a quack.

Animats 5y ago

Is this the same group that announced they could do this last month? There was a mention on HN. His team also aims to enter a collaboration with the glass industry, to develop the LLTO membrane at greater scales with affordable cost. five dollars of electricity (to extract) 1kg of lithium In other words, they have this working on a lab bench, and the cost estimates are pure speculation. a copper cathode coated in ruthenium and platinum. Ruthenium - US$25,000/kg. Platinium - US$35,000/kg. Anode cost not included in cost estimate. This is going to turn on all the usual cost factors - how often do you have to replace the membrane and the anode, what about corrosion, does it need cleaning, etc. There's no question that this is possible, but a big question is whether it is cost effective.

Dylan16807 5y ago
A measurement of how much electricity it uses is not speculation. Don't go too far in your skepticism. Edit: Unless someone has a specific reason I'm wrong, I stand by this. A criticism that makes four good points and one bad point is worse than a criticism that just makes four good points. I don't see any reason to call out the electricity use specifically as "pure speculation". It's only part of the cost but it's not a made-up number, and it's not a number that should change significantly between the lab and the real world.
longwick 5y ago
This is the fundamental issue. If there is a environmentally friendly way to industrially produce something, it is not rewarded by our current system of capitalism. It is a form of green capitalism, still looking for profits to guide us to the best solution (when in fact there are better solutions. Our assertion of value is based solely on profits which is fundamentally at odds with this climate emergency. Would love to hear alternative thoughts.
- parineum 5y ago
  Many people consider one of the roles of government to create markets for technologies like you're describing which would otherwise have no markets. Markets are quite good at finding good solutions. Pursuit of profits isn't at odds with addressing climate change, we just need to make it profitable.
Retric 5y ago
Platinum has ultra low reactivity, slightly below gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactivity_series Ruthenium… edit: ops NN.
- amluto 5y ago
  Are you perhaps confusing Ruthenium with Rubidium?
  - 5y ago

infogulch 5y ago

Why is the news like this? There are only two types of articles: those spelling doom and despair on the world and those championing every millimeter of progress while blind to downsides. It's tiring how much work you have to put in to actually pick these apart to find the little nugget of truth in the middle. But apparently the truth doesn't generate clicks so it's lost to us under a cloud of extreme polarization. Maybe there's some law that the more you abstract the details and write for a layman audience the more polarized the result. Anyways, I expect this one is the latter. It seems the general method is to elecrolyze seawater with a special membrane (lithium lanthanum titanium oxide (LLTO)) and special electrodes (ruthenium and platinum) that only allows lithium ions but not other metals through. "Five dollars of electricity is needed per kilogram", hey that's pretty good. Not so good: did you notice the phrases "seawater", "special membrane", and "special electrodes" in the same sentence? Yeah, that means $$$$$. The quote on that little detail? "His team also aims to enter a collaboration with the glass industry, to develop the LLTO membrane at greater scales with affordable cost." Mhm. But hey, I'm just an idiot that took a chemistry class way back when and my first paragraph was cast at this article unfairly. Maybe we'll be lucky and get one of those awesome HN moments where an expert in the field chimes in, otherwise I hope to see you in 5 years with another headline claiming that this tech was finally commercialized. And good luck to the team! Just don't hold your breath.

bamboozled 5y ago
Theory, we’re so used to little dopamine hits from social media and shock headlines it’s the only thing people will entertain?
- bogwog 5y ago
  Or Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc design their products/algorithms to maximize addiction, news organizations are forced to adapt their content to game those algorithms in order to survive, and this has been happening for so long that people don't notice how warped and stupid the whole thing is anymore.
  - bamboozled 5y ago

rsuelzer 5y ago

$5 of electricity is a near meaningless metric. The real question is how many kWh does the process require to get the 1kg of Lithium? Electricity prices vary widely, so I don't understand why they would use dollar figures, especially on an engineering site. If we know how many kWh of electricity is used to get the Lithium, then we can compare that to how much energy the Lithium would be able to store and release over it's usable life. Some rough numbers in my head, the total weight of Lithium in the average 18650 battery is probably 25 grams (the other components being other metals like Cobalt). This means that the 1kg of Lithium would be able to make about 40 or so 18650 batteries. The average 18650 battery has an average watt hour capacity of 11 (a good one). So with 40 batteries you have 440wh of storage. The average lifespan of the batteries would be about 1000 cycles... so 440kWh of capacity over the lifetime of the battery. I will assume that the electricity rate they use for the $5 figure is a very cheap $0.10/kWh. Meaning that it would require 50kWh in the extraction process alone to extract enough lithium capable of storing 440kw over it's usable life. I have no idea if this is a good return or not compared to how much energy is spent mining lithium.

vitus 5y ago
Clicking through to the actual study: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/EE/D1EE00354B#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/EE/D1EE0... "Based on these data, we estimated the total electricity required to enrich 1 kg lithium from seawater to 9000 ppm in five stages to be 76.34 kW h. Simultaneously, 0.87 kg H2 and 31.12 kg Cl2 were collected from the cathode and the anode, respectively. Taking the US electricity price of US$ 0.065 per kW h into consideration, the total electricity cost for this process is approximately US$ 5.0." So, the electricity usage is even higher than you estimated, with an even lower cost per kWh. But that said, there are places in the US that have even cheaper electricity (especially if you're looking at industrial rates).
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  To me, 76.34kwh per kg seems really bad. Tempered by, what do I know actually. Here is an article describing electrowinning iron at 3.53kw/kg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6918249/

docuru 5y ago

What are downsides?

arthurcolle 5y ago

News media corps are clearly learning! They don't ask questions that suggest bullshit... (whats that law about if the headline is a wuestion the answer is no?) they just directly suggest nonsense now. Cool, cool

TedShiller 5y ago

It’s official. We can now destroy the oceans, too.

reacharavindh 5y ago

Thinking out of the box, I wonder if the ocean could be turned into a giant battery somehow. Considering most population lives closer to the coasts, it would be amazing if it was possible without any environmental harm. Not saying something like electrifying the oceans. But, something like power generation with Wind, solar or tidal energy, and store it in some kinetic form like Norway did with water up the mountain, and then transfer power upon need to the coastal cities.

dang 5y ago

Recent and related: Scientists develop ‘cheap and easy’ method to extract lithium from seawater - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27411631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27411631 - June 2021 (290 comments)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]