Lithium problem
It was a refreshing change to read Dr Richard Dixon’s acknowledgement in his article “Material results of greener industry” that the grass is not necessarily always greener on the other side of the climate change fence (Scotsman, 7 June). However, it is surprising that it took a report from Friends of the Earth Scotland to highlight what many of us have already known regarding the devastating environmental and human costs involved in the sourcing of rare earths, lithium, cobalt etc, necessary for the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs).
Some further detail may help to illustrate this more clearly. The current generation of lithium batteries that power EVs are manufactured principally from either hard rock spodumene in Australia or from salt brines in South America. In the first instance it requires 500 tonnes of ore to produce just one tonne of lithium, a process that emits a staggering 7,500 tonnes of CO2. Alternatively, if lithium is sourced from the salt flats of Chile where the rainfall is a scant 3.0mm per year, it requires 500,000 gallons (2,273,000 litres) of extremely precious water to produce a tonne of lithium. The supply of lithuim carbonate currently outstrips demand and is projected to increase by at least 500 per cent. At £33,000 per tonne investors are enjoying 400 per cent returns while Chile’s chief exporter has earned a quarterly revenue of US$1.6 billion.
Contrary to Dr Dixon’s desire to see fewer cars in the future it is projected that by 2040 there may 2 billion cars in the world, of which around four hundred million will be be EVs. This would replace just six per cent of petroleum demand and would not register any reduction in the global temperature. Although some materials may indeed be recycled there remains a massive unresolved question of end of use disposal to consider.
It is obvious that hydrocarbons are a finite resource but their high energy density means they will have to remain a vital component of transition for the foreseeable future. Instead of the massive subsidies that support dilute, unreliable energy technologies such as wind and solar, and the deluded promotion of EVs that all hide behind their zero emissions smokescreens, funding should be directed instead to basic, radical research and development.
Neil J Bryce, Kelso, Scottish Borders
0 Comments