Other lithium consuming processes

There are many lithium consuming processes outside of batteries, whether for electric vehicles (EV) or not. Examples include ceramics, glass, polymers, aluminium, medications, continuous casting molds, air conditioning, lubricating greases, etc. However, there is a distinct lack of data on the lithium consumption of the various lithium consuming processes. 

One scientific paper from 2009 (Yakson and Tilton, doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.05.002) estimated the growth rates for 8 different processes until 2100. More recently, two industry reports from Deutsche Bank (DB) (2016) and Stormcrow (SC) (2015) included estimated for a more elaborate range of processes, until 2025. As they both distinguish different processes, only a few can be compared for the assumed volume and growth rates. The resulting similarities and differences, and thereby implications on total lithium demand, are interesting to note. 

I compared these two estimates per process on total volume and growth rates, and extrapolated reasonable growth rates until 2050 for each process to magnify the effect of the estimates and provide a range of likely total industry growth for lithium consuming processes other than EV batteries. The first step was to convert the estimates of lithium carbonate equivalent into lithium in tons. Next I determined annual growth rates for the SC data. For both data sets I estimated reasonable growth rates per process as listed in the table below. As a last step, I compared both data sets to my previously estimated total of demand from lithium consuming processes other than EV batteries (dependent on Yakson and Tilton, 2009).

Of the five comparable categories, air treatment, lubricating greases, and primary batteries (non-rechargeable) show similar volumes and growth rates for both DB and SC source data. For polymer production, SC starts with a volume 50% larger than DB and a slightly higher growth rate, resulting in a volume of 100% more in 2050. Aluminum shows the largest difference, with DB having 300% more volume and a positive growth rate of 3%, while SC has a negative growth rate of 20%. If extrapolated, this would lead to a volume of 0 by 2042, whereas for DB the volume would increase to 1,098 tons by extrapolating its growth rates.

The categories of glass and ceramics are described differently for both sources. DB has a process called 'glass, ceramics', which volume-wise matches with the SC processes of 'glass' and 'ceramics'.  The growth rates however are 4% for DB, and 3% and 7% for the respective SC processes, which leads to huge differences when extrapolating the 7% growth rate for ceramics. SC has an additional process described as 'glass-ceramics', a new industry with products such as gorilla glass for mobile phones, also with a growth rate of 7%, which adds to the total volume of lithium estimated by SC. 

While the remaining processes differ and it thereby cannot be said which processes are included in the category 'other', interestingly the volume and growth rates for DB and SC are nearly the same. Aside from the 'other category', DB identifies medications and continuous casting powders, and important as battery use: e-bikes, energy storage, and rechargeable batteries excluding EV. For SC this is metallurgic powders and rechargeable batteries, unfortunately including EV. For this reason the SC growth rate of rechargeable batteries is not continued, but it is clear this number would continue to grow and add to the total lithium demand as well. It is unclear if SC included e-bikes and energy storage into its estimates. 

The total demand for lithium for processes other than EV batteries becomes 116,395 tons based on DB data, and 150,235 tons based on SC data (excluding additional rechargeable batteries that are not EV). The previously calculated demand based on data from Yakson and Tilton (2009) was a much more conservative 49,511 tons. Using the currently available data, it is clear this estimate needs to be at least doubled to arrive at a reasonable projected demand volume. While this may seem problematic, the good news is that for most of this processes alternatives already exist (medications are a notable exception). According to Graedel et al (2015, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1312752110) sodium, calcium, and ammonia can form substitutes for several of the processes currently demanding lithium. If lithium, which at the moment has a very low price/kg, becomes in such high demand that prices increase to an uneconomical value for these processes, their production can continue by readily available substitutes.