Battery Metals

In the coming decades, the mining of precious minerals in space is likely to have a major impact on the global economy. And existing laws are nowhere near ready for the shift

Zip into the future for a second. It’s 2035 and Earth’s population has grown dramatically. People are desperate to find alternatives to the dwindling natural resources needed to keep the global economy functioning. We have bled the Earth dry.

In January 2035, a US company becomes the first to successfully mine minerals from space and transport the cargo back to Earth. The haul contains huge quantities of gold and platinum, although it is only a fraction of the resources from the asteroid. The price of gold falls by 50 per cent.

In the spring of 2014, a team of 20 students took part in a role-playing game, in which they were placed in the above scenario. Pretending to be at the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) conference, dedicated to space mining, the students acted out how they believed each nation would respond to this completely new idea of global wealth.

The results of the roleplay have now been detailed as part of a study by researchers from Tel Aviv University, Israel, looking into the impact space mining could have on the world.

“The realisation of space exploitation will disrupt world politics,” explains Deganit Paikowsky, lead author of the paper. “We present in this paper a review of current space mining ventures, and the international legislation, which could stand in their way – or aid them in their mission.”

The researchers describes a situation in which one private company wins the race to space mining, immediately reducing the value of once precious commodities on Earth. The situation is not unlikely to happen in the future given current advances in technology.

However, according to the experts, our law is not ready for it.

Another production setback for Tesla involving its new electric sedan is drawing unwelcome attention to the company’s shaky finances, including enormous inventories of goods and rapidly growing loss provisions.

With market concerns growing, a further delay in the delivery of the mass-market Model 3 could threaten the loss-making Silicon Valley automaker’s ability to secure needed funds from capital markets and lenders.

On Jan. 3, Tesla said it would reach its target pace of cranking out 5,000 Model 3 units weekly in by the end of the April-June quarter, later than the previous goal of the end of 2017. The announcement marked a second such delay.

The delay prompted sudden scrutiny of the company’s financial state, which a finance executive at a Japanese peer described as “unusual for an automaker.”

For the year through December 2016, Tesla’s inventory turnover period was 139 days. That is significantly slower, for instance, than Toyota Motor’s average count of about 35 days over the past five years, a feat achieved by using a “just-in-time” strategy of timing parts orders and manufacturing to keep cars from languishing in inventory. For Mazda Motor, the count was about 57 days.

Moreover, Tesla’s loss provisions reached $2.4 billion as of September, according to QUICK Factset — double what they were in December 2015. That figure “appears to include reserves such as for trade-in warranties on broken batteries,” according to the automaker executive.

These concerns point to the tight financial spot the American electric vehicle maker is in. It posted a net loss of $1.286 billion for the nine months through September, more than double the $553 million loss it suffered in the period the previous year. And amid swelling capital expenditures related to mass-producing the Model 3, Tesla’s free cash flow for January-September 2017 came to negative $3.198 billion. The year before, it was negative $434 million.

Investors maintain high hopes for Tesla nevertheless. Its shares have lost about 10% from a recent peak in September, but currently, the company’s market cap is over $57 billion, beating Ford Motor, a venerable pillar of the U.S. industry, by about $5 billion.

Yet rivals are steadily making progress developing electric vehicles of their own. Every delay to the Model 3 makes it likelier the sedan will face stiff competition.

If there is to be an effective response to climate change, it will probably emanate from China. The geopolitical motivations are clear. Renewable energy is increasingly inevitable, and those that dominate the markets in these new technologies will likely have the most influence over the development patterns of the future. As other major powers find themselves in climate denial or atrophy, China may well boost its power and status by becoming the global energy leader of tomorrow.

President Xi Jinping has been vocal on the issue. He has already called for an “ecological civilisation”. The state’s “green shift” supports this claim by striving to transition to alternative energies and become more energy efficient.

But there are material benefits as well. China’s proactive response has impacted on global energy markets. Today, five of the world’s six top solar module manufacturers, five of the largest wind turbine manufacturers and six of the 10 major car manufacturers committed to electrification are all Chinese-owned. Meanwhile, China is dominant in the lithium sector – think: batteries, electric vehicles and so on – and a global leader in smart grid investment and other renewable energy technologies.

This is only a start. There are modest projections that just 20 per cent of the country’s primary energy consumption will come from non-carbon sources by 2030. Nonetheless, China’s sheer size means Beijing’s aggressive pursuit of the emergent and expanding renewables markets should not be ignored. After all, dominating such markets has strong material benefits, while pioneering a green revolution provides intangible benefits in terms of state image and prestige.

So what are these benefits? First, concerns over environmental degradation are very real in China, owing to issues such as air, food and water pollution, and should be acknowledged. Beijing doesn’t want food and water scarcity or smoggy skies either, whether for altruistic environmental reasons or concerns over its popular legitimacy.

But it is worth also considering the geopolitical implications of climate change leadership. Take the US for example, historically the largest carbon emitter. The country had previously been active in climate policy, if somewhat hypocritical (support for hydraulic fracturing, for instance). But the current Trump administration is forthright in its baseless denial of climate change, having withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. It has also hired climate deniers to head its environmental agencies and other offices of power.

Contrast this with China, which is becoming increasingly proactive. In 2016 it became the largest shareholder in a new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which, along with the BRICS-established New Development Bank, invests heavily in green energy. The two institutions are seen as potential competitors to the IMF and the World Bank.

Of course, the situation is not black and white with China “going green” and everyone else sitting idly by. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which commits to political, economic and military integration across Eurasia, the world’s largest landmass, for instance, comprises of nations with strategic interests in exporting hydrocarbons and coal. However, the same is true for the more environmentally aware Obama administration which advocated forcefully the Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have overridden attempts to establish green industries and constrained signatory states to its agreements with big business ahead of climate change action.

To this end, former President Obama argued that it was necessary for the US to shape the rules of global trade to US benefit. That being the case, what about China? As a major power, it is strengthening its international agency by pioneering these multilateral alternatives, many of which heavily invest in green energy projects. Through development banks or Asian trade agreements, China can provide an alternative vision to an international integration ostensibly based on the universal values espoused by the US and its chief allies.

Caterpillar has shipped an electric load-haul-dump (LHD) loader to a mine in Canada, where the first such proof-of-concept vehicle will be tested in active service.

The Underground Mining group within the equipment giant began the initial build and validation testing of the R1300G test unit in early 2017 at the Caterpillar Peoria Proving Grounds, which will continue now with moving muck in the Canadian mine. The LHD is an earth-moving equipment class designed for underground mining operations.

According to Cat, the test machine is a proof of concept for packaging and performance of a lithium-based energy storage solution the company plans to bring to the LHD market. The Cat R1300G does not represent a final design that will go to market, the company said in a statement, adding that it will launch after testing a full-fledged new product introduction programme that follows a more in-depth, rigorous design and validation process.

“Our customers are planning for deeper mines with very high ambient rock temperatures where ventilation costs are pivotal to making the mine viable,” said Jay Armburger, product manager with responsibility for underground technology. “One means of reducing ventilation demand is through electrification of the mining equipment.”

With over 250 patents in the electric drive and energy storage fields, and products like the D7E dozer, F-Series asphalt pavers, 794 AC and 795F AC large mining trucks, the recently introduced 988K XE wheel loader, Caterpillar says it has fully integrated electric drive train technology and components to bring to underground machines. 

According to Cat, the programme to develop the R1300G started with a full production study and data analysis of the diesel machine in order to set a baseline. Once this was done, the transformation of the machine to a battery electric proof-of-concept began. The modifications included removing the engine, transmission and torque converter, then reconfiguring the engine end-frame to accommodate the battery boxes and electric motors. The result is a battery-electric powertrain driving a conventional and mechanical drivetrain with drive shafts and axles.

The R1300G proof-of-concept is an older machine without the benefit of efficient electro-hydraulics. As a result, said Cat, it will drive worst case scenario loads on the batteries. In the final production model, the design will enhance battery life through the use of load-sensing hydraulics driven by piston pumps, such as those on the new Cat R1700. The less refined proof-of-concept machine will yield solid understanding of heat generation and cooling needs, performance criteria, space claim and safety considerations in day-to-day operations. 

Caterpillar said that it is getting feedback to help drive the programme forward with the help of several customers who have visited the proof-of-concept and operated it at the proving grounds. All customers agree that pursuing a system that is rechargeable on the machine is the right path forward, the company says. Recharging on the machine prevents the mine from incurring additional infrastructure costs or from having to manage or store replaceable battery packs. Instead, Caterpillar is focusing on fast charging of the batteries on the machine such that an operator can take a quick break and come back to a charged machine. In addition to developing the LHD itself, the programme has been prototyping a robust charging station, the technology behind which is unique to Caterpillar and uses Cat components and technology.

“We tried hard to break this machine and technology before sending it to Canada,” Armburger said. “With the results we’ve seen so far, we’re confident this R1300G proof-of-concept is giving us the answers we need to develop a machine that is safe and lives up to the Cat brand promise of durability and reliability.”

Lithium-sulfur batteries are promising candidates for replacing common lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles since they are cheaper, weigh less, and can store nearly double the energy for the same mass. However, lithium-sulfur batteries become unstable over time, and their electrodes deteriorate, limiting widespread adoption.

Now, a team of researchers led by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have reported that a new lithium-sulfur battery component allows a doubling in capacity compared to a conventional lithium-sulfur battery, even after more than 100 charge cycles at high current densities, which are key performance metrics for their adoption in electric vehicles (EVs) and in aviation.

They did it by designing a new polymer binder that actively regulates key ion transport processes within a lithium-sulfur battery, and have also shown how it functions on a molecular level. The work was recently reported in Nature Communications.

“The new polymer acts as a wall,” said Brett Helms, a staff scientist at Berkeley Lab’s Molecular Foundry and corresponding author of the study. “The sulfur is loaded into the pores of a carbon host, which are then sealed by our polymer. As sulfur participates in the battery’s chemical reactions, the polymer prevents the negatively charged sulfur compounds from wandering out. The battery has great promise for enabling the next generation of EVs.”

When a lithium-sulfur battery stores and releases energy, the chemical reaction produces mobile molecules of sulfur that become disconnected from the electrode, causing it to degrade and ultimately lowering the battery’s capacity over time. To make these batteries more stable, researchers have traditionally worked to develop protective coatings for their electrodes, and to develop new polymer binders that act as the glue holding battery components together. These binders are intended to control or mitigate the electrode’s swelling and cracking.

The new binder goes a step further. Researchers from the Organic Synthesis Facility at Berkeley Lab’s Molecular Foundry, a research center specializing in nanoscale science, designed a polymer to keep the sulfur in close proximity to the electrode by selectively binding the sulfur molecules, counteracting its migratory tendencies.

The next step was to understand the dynamic structural changes that are likely to occur during charging and discharging as well as at different states of charge. David Prendergast, who directs the Foundry’s Theory Facility, and Tod Pascal, a project scientist in the Theory Facility, built a simulation to test the researchers’ hypotheses about the polymer’s behavior.

“We can now reliably and efficiently model sulfur chemistry within these binders based on learning from detailed quantum mechanical simulations of the dissolved sulfur-containing products,” stated Prendergast.

Their large-scale molecular dynamics simulations, conducted on supercomputing resources at Berkeley Lab’s National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), confirmed that the polymer has an affinity for binding the mobile sulfur molecules, and also predicted that the polymer would likely show a preference for binding different sulfur species at different states of charge for the battery. Experiments conducted at Berkeley Lab’s Advanced Light Source and Argonne National Laboratory’s Electrochemistry Discovery Lab confirmed these predictions.

The research team took their study one step further by also examining the performance of lithium-sulfur cells made with the new polymer binder. Through a set of experiments, they were able to analyze and quantify how the polymer affects the chemical reaction rate in the sulfur cathode, which is key to achieving high current density and high power with these cells.

By nearly doubling the battery’s electrical capacity over long-term cycling, the new polymer raises the bar on the capacity and power of lithium-sulfur batteries.

The combined understanding of the synthesis, theory, and characteristics of the new polymer have made it a key component in the prototype lithium-sulfur cell at DOE’s Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR).

Berkeley Lab’s Molecular Foundry, Advanced Light Source, and NERSC are DOE Office of Science User Facilities that are open to visiting researchers from around the nation and world.

Researchers from JCESR at Berkeley Lab and Argonne National Lab comprised the team, together with scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and UC Berkeley. Funding for the project was provided by JCESR, a Department of Energy Innovation Hub that is supported by the DOE Office of Science.