Europe, Lithium’s green potential

“Lithium and rare earths will soon be more important than oil and gas”, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said last September.

The Commission chief pronounced these words as Europe was reeling from an energy crisis accelerated by Russia’ war in Ukraine and which led to the bloc pledging to wean itself off fossil fuels — most of which it has traditionally supplied from Russia — and accelerate its transition towards “homegrown” renewables and other green tech.

These, however, rely on so-called rare earths which are needed to produce everything from the latest generation batteries to the materials needed to manufacture photovoltaic panels.

Why are new mines so hard to open?

New mines currently take decades to get approved, due to fierce opposition by local people and politicians who are concerned about environmental and social consequences.

An example of this is the Norra Kärr rare earth element project in southern Sweden. Despite this deposit being found in 2009 and a 25-year mining licence being granted in 2013, no metals have been extracted.

The licence granting led to large protests over environmental concerns and the extraction licence was overturned in 2016 and a mine leasing application was rejected in 2021.

Speaking about the environmental impact of hard-rock mining, Dr Simon Jowitt, an economic geologist and associate professor at UNLV Department of Geoscience said: “There’s always a certain potential impact on the environment, on ground and service water.”

“Every mine is a little different in terms of that potential, but there’s always some. There’s also the risk posed by dust from mines.”

Most lithium is extracted by one of two methods: solar evaporation and hard-rock mining.

The biggest concerns with this form of extracting lithium are its high water usage, possible depletion of groundwater levels, and the waste salt which is left behind. Approximately 2.2 million litres of water is needed to produce one tonne of lithium using this method.

The other most common way of extracting this precious metal is through more traditional hard-rock mining, typically using opencast pits.

Not only are such pits an eyesore, but dust from such mines can also spread to surrounding areas sparking health and environmental concerns. Furthermore, the processing of the mined material can also use significant amounts of water.

However, it is important to put the risks involved in precious metal mining in the context of the benefit they bring from reducing fossil fuel extraction.

Higher prices enabling more complicated extractions

Increased demand for batteries — it is set to explode 14-fold between 2020 to 2030 — has pushed up the demand and price of lithium from about $20,000 per tonne five years ago to $80,000 per tonne last November and driven innovation into new, more expensive, mining methods that mitigate possible impacts on the environment.

An example of this is the proposed San José de Valdeflórez lithium mine in Spain’s Western province of Extremadura.

Originally proposed as an open-pit mine less than a kilometre away from the UNESCO mediaeval city of Cáceres and a natural reserve, the project faced fierce opposition from all quarters.

However, Extremadura New Energies (ENE), the Spanish subsidiary of Infinity Lithium, is now planning on building the mine completely underground with the entrance of the mine being located 2 km away from the city.

The material will also be crushed inside the enclosed mine, cutting the risk of dust pollution.

It has also unveiled plans to use patented technology which means the mine will not have to use sulfuric acid for lithium extraction, resulting in a zero-flow discharge mine. This dramatically reduces the risk of contaminating surrounding land water sources.

Additionally, the vehicles and mining operations will be powered by renewable energy, including from a new green hydrogen plant.

However, these mitigation methods were only introduced following objections by local people and authorities – highlighting the importance of local engagement in improving lithium mining.

Furthermore, although the deliberations and debates over the San José de Valdeflórez project resulted in a much-improved end project, it has been a long journey since it was first proposed in 2015.

Despite this, the project’s environmental impact has never been approved or evaluated. The company is currently seeking approval for an exploration permit and hopes to submit the project for environmental evaluation by April this year.

A local protest group, Salvemos la Montaña (Let’s Save the Mountain), has also gained significant support in its campaign against the project.

EU mining ambitions

The Commission wants Europe to build a more resilient supply chain to reduce its reliance on strategic competitors for imports and processing of rare metals.

In a document published last year, The Commission stated it could introduce targets into legislation, for example, that at least 30% of the EU’s demand for refined lithium should originate from the EU by 2030.

Another goal is to ensure that the time from the start of exploration work to a mine or a refining facility opening is reduced to a matter of years, not decades.

To do that, it plans “to facilitate the roll-out of targeted raw materials projects in the EU” and for the Commission to be empowered to “list Strategic Projects – which would be labelled as of European interest – based on proposals from member states.”

Ramón Jiménez, CEO of ENE told Euronews he certainly believes that “it is possible to make this process faster without reducing environmental or social impact reductions”.

He said that his San José de Valdeflórez project had enjoyed strong support from the central Spanish government. However, convincing central governments may be the easy part, convincing local residents will be key if the EU really wants to boost its mining output, Euronews writes.

Serbian team on the threshold of scientific discoveries: batteries without toxic and rare materials

One of the main tasks of scientists around the world in recent years is to work on storage of large amounts of energy, i.e. batteries that would store the generated energy and thereby contribute to a more efficient energy transition.

Among the numerous researchers is a group of six young scientists from Serbia who are looking for a battery that would not contain extremely toxic and at the same time rare materials such as lithium or cobalt.

Under the name HiSuperBat (Healthy super battery) they have created a system that does not contain lithium and cobalt but calcium or magnesium, and also uses an aqueous electrolyte that is not flammable and toxic like commercial organic electrolyte.

Doctor Milica Vujković, who manages the project, states that the development of such battery systems could be an excellent energy solution, because thereby the usage of expensive and scarce lithium will be avoided, the cost of the battery will be reduced and safety will be increased…

That is why the search for new, cheap and safer materials, capable of storing a large amount of multivalent ions, is of great importance and is the subject of numerous researches in the world, including the HiSuperBat project, which received 180,000 euros.

Their two-year project, which ends at the end of 2022, is one of 59 selected projects supported through the Promis project supported by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia.

“The project is focused on the development of electrode materials for the next generation of electrical energy storage devices, based on more naturally occurring elements such as calcium, aluminum, and magnesium,” Milica Vujković, a research associate at the Faculty of Physical Chemistry, said for the N1 portal.

She points out that all young experts have expertise in the synthesis and structural study of micro/nanomaterials, electrochemistry, batteries and supercapacitors, that the project has provided new fundamental and practical knowledge in the field of energy storage, which has been published in 11 international scientific journals and 18 conference announcements.

Materials have been developed that can store a large amount of multivalent ions per unit mass.

“On the one hand, carbon material has been developed as an electrode material for supercapacitors of the latest generation, which can store large amounts of aluminum, magnesium and calcium ions on the basis of charge.

A supercapacitor was constructed at the level of a single cell, with carbon electrodes obtained from waste biomass (from the wine industry) and an aqueous electrolyte based on aluminum positive ions, whose optimal operating voltage in terms of long-term charge/discharge is 1.5 volts (V), which is half a volt more than a classic water supercapacitor,” she says.

These results were published in the prestigious electrochemical magazine Journal of Power Sources, and were done in cooperation with Montenegro and Slovenia.

In addition, the young scientists showed how the voltage and capacity properties of the carbon cathode can be improved by mixing aluminum and calcium ions.

Vujković also points out that a cathode material for batteries based on vanadium oxide has been developed that can store a large amount of calcium ions, showing higher capacities compared to the storage of lithium ion charges.

“By combining the aforementioned carbon material as an anode, calcium vanadium oxide as a cathode and an electrolyte based on calcium salt, we assembled a hybrid cell that has an optimal voltage of 1.4-1.5 volts (V).

The advantage over classic lithium-ion systems is that the constructed battery cell does not contain lithium and cobalt, and uses an aqueous electrolyte that is not flammable and toxic like commercial organic electrolytes,” she says.

As a disadvantage, Vujković cites a lower voltage compared to a commercial lithium ion cell due to the use of an aqueous instead of an organic electrolyte.

“However, something like that could be replaced by sequentially connecting more cells, which would produce a heavier battery.”

For this reason, their potential application is currently limited to systems where weight and volume are not limiting and price plays a primary role”, says our interlocutor.

Production in Serbia

The research was started with the idea that potential discoveries can be made in Serbia. It is the same now. Milica says that the constructed carbon supercapacitor as well as the hybrid cell have the potential to be produced in Serbia.

“Their performance is obtained at the level of a coin-shaped cell, which would enable application in some everyday needs: watches, toys, kitchen scales, car keys, calculators…” she states.

However, before this could happen, additional experiments are necessary in terms of optimizing cell performance.

“There is room to improve the material’s performance and overcome its weak points, and we have several ideas in mind that could be implemented.”

After the completed phase at the laboratory level, the transfer of knowledge to the industrial sector would entail testing the reproducibility of the synthesis of the given materials on a larger scale and their functionality, as well as the optimization of the cell assembly procedure for mass needs.

Such batteries would have the potential to replace lead accumulators or nickel-cadmium water systems, and theoretically speaking, they would also have the potential for application in large stationary energy storage systems connected to renewable sources, where price and safety are more important than mass and energy,” Vujković points out. 

Contemporary world research

Modern world research is focused on the development of different types of batteries, based on different chemistry.

For the development of all types of batteries, it is important that they can be used in different applications, because each type of battery has certain advantages and disadvantages. Milica, on the other hand, points out that you never know in advance what can be discovered through research.

“For now, the market is mainly dominated by Lithium-ion batteries based on carbon as the anode, organic electrolyte containing lithium ions, and lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (NMC) as the cathode.”

However, we are aware of the fact that lithium is a limited resource and that its reserves will not be able to meet the future needs of the galloping electric car industry,” she points out.

“I am convinced that the situation in that field will also change significantly.” As for our research, in the course of the project, in addition to the development of carbon and vanadium oxide, we also started the development of new types of cathodes for sodium ion batteries, based on sodium and iron.

Therefore, the further direction of our research, in addition to the improvement of the developed multivalent model, will also be focused on the development of the sodium ion system, with the aim of obtaining the best possible model not only in terms of energy, but also in terms of price and environmental acceptability.

Of course, I expect that this type of research will be recognized through future national and international calls to which we apply”, concludes Milica Vujković.

Calcite battery industry to match lithium demand and high risks, Serbian mine could provide reliable supply 

Calcium ions could be used as an alternative technology to lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), bringing benefits as a result of their abundance and low cost. Serbia could be one of the top suppliers of calcium carbonate for battery production as it has the highest confirmed quality of calcite deposits of 99% pureness even attractive for high tech pharmaceutical and chemical industry.

Due to a significant disturbances in the supply chain in Europe, there was an interruption in the consistent delivery of materials. Serbian calcite and graphite mine Belkalhan.eu, its availability and cost effective exploitation makes this project highly attractive for investment and R&D JV project.

Time to Take a Calcium Battery Seriously

Calcium is 2,000 times more abundant than lithium, and is available locally in Europe. We find it in anything from bones to chalk in fact. Calcite / calcium carbonate is one the most abundant elements on the earth’s crust,’ adds Dr. Palacín of Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid.

‘It’s not as geographically concentrated as lithium is. This could make a battery inexpensive because the raw material is cheap.’ His team’s calcium battery prototype is already proving promising. Europa.Eu reports the material forms a successful negative cathode with twice the electron exchange as lithium.

‘As any calcium travels through the electrolyte, two electrons would travel outside (instead of one with lithium),’ Dr. Palacín explains. ‘One could imagine that for the same battery size, the range would be higher if you used it in an electric vehicle.’

Why Develop a Calcium Battery Now?

Lithium batteries are making a significant contribution to stored energy. However, their success could become their downfall as scarce lithium prices skyrocket, and the green circular economy becomes paramount. Moreover, the silvery metal is dangerous to handle according to Europa.Eu, questioning its sustainability further.

Europe alone may demand 60 times more lithium by 2050 to fulfill the need for electric vehicle batteries.  Not to mention renewable energy storage that will form the backbone of reaching its emissions goals.Meanwhile lithium mines, many in remote locations are struggling to meet 2022 demands and are opposing serious environmental opposition.

Calcite batteries are surely becoming more attractive for industry usage but also for investors seeking sustainable returns. Serbian academic and technology institutions could serve as excellent ground base for joint venture R&D projects and later its industrial usage. Competitiveness of local Serbian market could be another driver for Joint venture with calcite mine developer Belkalhan company which has all the preconditions meet including permits and location infrastructure managed.

Battle for Lithium

In the hunt for lithium and other crucial minerals for the electric car supply chain, the United States must compete not just with Chinese competitiveness and manufacturing capability, but also with internal Western limits.

While the US does not appear willing to significantly change their Inflation Reduction Act, which will guarantee nearly $400 billion in “green” subsidies to companies operating in the US over ten years, and while the EU is preparing a response that could include a mix of further easing of state aid and the creation of a “sovereign” fund made up of the residues of the Recovery Plan and little else, but without the coveted (by the Italians) Eurobonds, Consider the case of lithium.

The price of this essential mineral for electric vehicles has more than quadrupled to $75,000 per ton by the end of 2022. It is required to seek for new sources and build refineries to process them. All of this, in accordance with Washington’s approach, without relying on supplies from Beijing or any other “hostile” country. According to the Financial Times, the Biden administration has given the Australians of Ioneer a 700 million dollar conditional loan to establish a mine and processing complex in Nevada. Mining might begin in 2026, but supply contracts with Ford and Toyota have already been struck. Production may support roughly 400,000 electric automobiles per year.

The Inflation Reduction Act’s public financial support for the supply chain is based, above all, but not exclusively, on benefits of up to $7,500 for buyers of electric vehicles produced by companies that procure components and raw materials in the United States or in countries with which Washington trades under a free trade regime, defined not as a formal treaty but rather as “friendship” and partnership.

The administration then invoked the Defense Production Act, a law enacted during the Korean War to direct domestic production toward the war effort, and has so far distributed 2.8 billion to approximately twenty companies involved in the electric vehicle supply chain, as well as activated agreements with Canada, the EU, the United Kingdom, and Australia to invest in critical extractive projects.

In the hunt for lithium and other crucial minerals for the electric car supply chain, the United States must compete not just with Chinese competitiveness and manufacturing capability, but also with internal Western limits. Beijing is aggressively forging partnerships in Africa and Latin America to get minerals in less demanding regulatory environments for use in its home refineries. In reality, China owns 80% of the world’s lithium hydroxide processing capacity, a structural advantage that will be tough to overcome in a reasonable amount of time. It is also required to address the internal limits associated with the mining activity’s permission processes. This is an objective problem in the United States, relating to environmental impact assessments.

Nevada has just one operational lithium mine, and another is awaiting a court decision after a fight with conservation groups safeguarding a rare species of wildflower. A similar tragedy befell a mining project in North Carolina, which failed due to environmental limits, forcing Tesla to rely on Canadian supply. The expansion of the EV chain necessitates mining, which has an environmental effect, as well as the building of processing capacity for these minerals, which necessitates time, money, and administrative difficulties. In the battle between Americans and Chinese, the latter has an obvious edge, owing to the relatively minimal limits imposed by local territory on the establishment of extraction and processing systems.

Europe is in the middle. Which engages in extractive project funding but risks being undermined by the appeal of American environmental subsidies? At the World Economic Forum in Davos, the White House’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, asked the EU to move quickly on its own version of the Inflation Reduction Act, in order to shorten the development timelines of the Western approach. Because, in Kerry’s words, “money, money, money” is required. Even on our continent, attempts to build lithium mining and processing factories face stiff opposition from local residents.

Examples include the $2.4 billion Serbian Jadar mine project, which Rio Tinto’s Anglo-Australians aimed to exploit but which ended up stalled by the resistance of local communities, which led to the revocation of the initial authorizations by the Serbian government. Or the cancellation of a mining project in Portugal, by government decision.

To these obvious critical issues, which demonstrate that Green Mining is not an oxymoron, is added the European Chemical Agency’s (ECHA) request to classify lithium salts as dangerous to human health and, as a result, subject their extraction and processing to a more stringent and onerous regulatory framework. This might swing the cost balance in favor of imports rather than domestic manufacturing, with all of the associated geopolitical risks. The EU will have to give answers to these crucial operational and budgetary challenges. Keeping in mind that if the new “sovereign wealth fund” is simply a repackaging of the Recovery Fund’s unspent leftovers, individual nations with fiscal ability will act alone, posing a relative danger to the integrity of the single market, Europeans 24 writes.

Serbia and lithium, black and not green

If, in addition to 11,400 tons of metal lithium, 100,000 electric cars were produced annually in Serbia, this would increase carbon dioxide emissions by at least 1.15 million tons or by an additional 3.5 percent.

In addition to the justified concern for damage (pollution of underground and surface water, devastation of forests and agricultural land) that can be produced by the mine and processing plants for obtaining compounds of lithium and boron in the Jadar river valley, there are also less well-known harmful consequences that these activities, and the eventual launch of the production of electric cars in Serbia, I can have.

According to data published in February 2021 by the Rio Sava Exploration company itself, the mine would annually produce about 60,000 tons of lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) or about 11,400 tons of metallic lithium. Without going into the issue of mining, the brochure states that the processing plant would consume 80.8 million cubic meters of natural gas per year, which would increase the consumption of that energy source in Serbia by 3.1 percent, given that in 2020, 2,265.96 million cubic meters.

The annual emission of carbon dioxide CO2, the main cause of global warming, in the technological process of lithium carbonate and boric acid production would be between 526,000 and 620,000 tons, which is an increase of 1.22 to 1.44 percent of the total emission in Serbia, which is 2020 amounted to 43 million tons.

In that estimate, in addition to CO2 emissions due to the burning of 80.8 million cubic meters of natural gas and during production, other necessary chemicals that would be used in the technology of obtaining lithium carbonate and boric acid, as well as the effects of the use of 60,000 tons of calcium oxide (quick lime), 320,000 tons of sulfuric acid, 188,000 tons of different types of cement, 110,000 tons of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) for the deposition of lithium carbonate, while on the other hand, the destruction of more than 520 hectares of forest and agricultural land will permanently destroy the assimilation of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This assessment does not include gas emissions from various means of transport, bulldozers, trucks, commercial passenger cars, necessary for the functioning of the mine, production plant and administration.

According to official announcements, Serbia is ready to invest significant funds in the gigafactory for the production of lithium-ion accumulator batteries (LIB), and later also electric cars. With the optimistic estimate that 100,000 electric cars with a 50 kWh battery will be produced annually, this would increase carbon dioxide emissions by an additional 500,000 tons or 1.16 percent, because it is known that one kWh battery emits about 100 kilograms during production. CO2. For the production of electric cars without batteries, which include various metals, plastics, glass, rubber, approximately five to six tons of CO2 are emitted per vehicle, or 500,000 to 600,000 tons for 100,000 vehicles, which would increase the emission by 1.16 to 1, 4 percent.

All together, the production of lithium and 100,000 electric cars would annually emit about 1,150,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which means that the annual emission of greenhouse gases would increase by at least 3.5 percent. In other words, each electric car would emit about 11,500 kilograms of CO2. The same amount of CO2 would be emitted by the consumption of 4,420 liters of diesel in ordinary cars (a liter of diesel releases 2.6 kilograms of CO2). This means that with an average consumption of five liters per 100 kilometers, a diesel car would travel 88,400 kilometers before the electric car even leaves the factory.

The EU is planning or has introduced taxes of 50 euros per ton of CO2, so increased emissions would expose Serbia to a cost of at least 75 million euros per year (50 euros times 1,150,000 tons). In addition, it should be noted that the production of just one kWh of lithium-ion battery requires 328 kWh of different types of energy, and Serbia, in addition to importing gas and oil, has been importing electricity for more than a year, and the prices of all energy products are at record levels.

With all that, even if Serbia were to produce 100,000 electric cars a year, which is unlikely, with a 50 kWh battery, it would require about 800 tons of lithium metal. So, only seven percent of the total annual production in Jadro, while Rio Tinto could sell the remaining 93 percent to whoever it wants. Of course, Serbia would also buy lithium from him at realistic, market prices.

In addition to lithium (its share ranges from four to ten percent), positive (cathode) materials contain many other expensive and rare metals, cobalt, manganese and nickel, which Serbia does not have and would have to be imported, and the price of cobalt on the world market has varied from 30,000 to 90,000 dollars per ton in the last five years.

Many were also surprised by the announcement of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Serbia and the Slovakian company InoBat, one of whose investors is Rio Tinto, on the construction of a gigafactory for the production of lithium-ion storage batteries with an innovative, revolutionary approach (?!), but on the basis of already well-known nickel-manganese-cobalt cathodes NMC622.

By looking at InoBat’s website, it can be seen that they have developed only one so far prototype of a lithium-ion battery, giving virtually no specifications of that prototype, such as voltage, specific capacity, energy, etc. The internet presentation does not show any mini-factory built so far, so the construction of a giga-factory of this extremely technologically demanding production is highly debatable. Of course, the presentation showed fantasies about flying cars, plant sketches, and a modern, in my humble opinion, average typical laboratory with empty desks, as if drawn.

If all these ideas and projects come to fruition, the crucial question is how to charge such “green” electric cars. The most environmentally acceptable solution is solar energy. The problem, however, is that a quick, half-hour charging of an electric car with a 50 kWh battery requires about 100 kW of electrical power. Therefore, the minimum area of the solar collector would be 800 square meters (dimensions 28 by 28 meters), because an average solar collector of 1.6 square meters (meter by 1.6 meters) and in ideal conditions gives a power of 0.275 kW, and in an average of 0.2 kW.

A multi-car charging station would have to have a huge area for the installation of solar collectors, which is technically unfeasible in urban conditions. And if solar photovoltaic panels were to be installed outside cities, even greater problems of transmission and distribution of that energy would arise. The relatively low DC voltage of the solar photovoltaic collectors would first have to be converted into alternating current by special devices, inverters, and then the voltage should be raised to a much higher value with transformers in order to reduce losses, transmission lines with copper wires should be built, and transformers again in order to reduced the voltage to a usable value and finally installed rectifiers alternating to direct current, which all represent huge investments. Aside from the fact that six to eight tons of carbon dioxide is released to produce a ton of steel for transmission lines and copper for conductors.

An even bigger problem is that solar collectors cannot work 24 hours a day, so additional accumulators are necessary to store surplus solar electricity, so that electric cars can be charged during the night, and all this produces new construction and maintenance costs.

Wind energy (wind generators) is a special story because of the big environmental consequences and oscillations (no wind, no electricity), and they are mostly built on fertile Vojvodina soil to reduce transport costs from locations like Stara Planina.

Because of all this, electric cars would probably be powered by electricity obtained from thermal power plants, because around 70 percent of electricity is produced by burning lignite in Serbia. Considering that 1,490 kWh of electricity can be produced from one ton of lignite from Kolubara, for 100 chargings on average, each electric car would consume 3.3 tons of lignite per year. Therefore, only 10,000 electric cars would increase coal consumption in Serbia by 33,000 tons, and electricity by as much as 50 GWh per year.

Certain parts for electric cars are also problematic. The construction of a lithium-ion battery consists of a positive and negative electrode, a thin porous separator that prevents their contact, and an electrolyte. The last two parts are the main causes of battery fires and explosions. Accidents accompanied by fire and explosion are mainly caused by uncontrolled overheating of batteries, manufacturing errors, damage to batteries in collisions… Self-ignition of a battery always causes an internal short circuit, which occurs when an electrical circuit is formed inside the cell, due to damage to the separator and the formation of an electrical connection between the positive and negative electrodes. The most common cause is corrosion of the negative copper collector, which occurs when the cell discharges below 30 percent capacity.

A battery pack in some electric vehicles can store up to 100 kWh of electricity, and when ignited it can release from two to twenty kilograms of hydrogen fluoride, which is enough to contaminate between 80,000 and 800,000 cubic meters of air. It is unimaginable what would happen in a chain collision of several such cars, because inhaling hydrogen fluoride can cause laryngospasm, laryngeal edema, bronchospasm and/or acute pulmonary edema, and in the most severe cases it can be fatal. According to the standards of the American National Institute for Occupational Safety, a concentration of 24.5 milligrams of hydrogen fluoride per cubic meter of air for 30 minutes is immediately dangerous to life and health, while the latent (lethal) concentration is 139 mg/m3.

An internal short circuit caused by a manufacturing defect is believed to be the root cause of both the 2013 Boeing 787 battery accident and the 2016 Samsung Galaxy 7 cell phone battery explosion. As of February 2022, there were 354 (or about 22 per year) confirmed air/airport incidents involving lithium batteries transported as cargo or baggage.
“In an effort to minimize potential damage to the facility”, and nearby vehicles in rare cases of potential fire, we recommend parking outdoors and 15 or more meters from another vehicle. In addition, we still insist that you do not leave your vehicle unattended while it is charging, even if you are using a charger in an open parking lot,” said Dan Fowlers, a spokesman for General Motors, as reported by the Detroit News on September 17, 2021. That safety “recommendation” came is just days after a 2019 GM Chevrolet Bolt caught fire in the garage of a home in Cherokee County, Georgia.

The owner realized something was up when the smoke alarm in his house went off. When he entered the garage, he noticed smoke billowing from his electric car, which was completely destroyed. Chevrolet has recalled more than 140,000 of the model so far, but is still working with supplier LG Energy Solution to determine the cause of the battery damage that led to the fire.
On November 23, 2022, firefighters used an enormous 45,425 liters of water to extinguish the Tesla Model S fire. Unfortunately, the fire is very difficult to extinguish because it is an internal combustion in the cell, where water cannot reach. By comparison, a standard car fire generally requires less than 2,000 liters of water. In Australia in 2021, it took three full days to put out the big battery fire at the Victorian Big Battery in Moorabbin, near Geelong. The fire started during testing in a shipping container containing a 13-ton lithium-ion battery and spread to another battery pack.

These are just some of the accidents with lithium-ion batteries. The predicted exponential growth of their application in the near future, as well as the purchase of cheaper systems with less security, leads to the thought of a drastic increase in such relatively sporadic cases, with unforeseeable consequences, especially if electric cars catch fire in densely populated urban areas or in a tunnel.

Considering the large emission of carbon dioxide during production, the possibility of self-ignition, the lack of resources for the production of a large number of lithium-based electric cars, the synergy of different alternative sources should be considered. Some of the alternatives in the near future are sodium-ion batteries, hydrogen energy and fuel galvanic couplings, as well as liquid and gaseous biofuels (biodiesel, bioalcohols, biogas), which do not pollute the environment, since the amount of carbon dioxide produced by their combustion is equal to the amount that would be released by rotting the biomass from which they are obtained. The possibilities are unlimited, and clean energy is all around us, we just need to recognize it and use it, NiN writes.

The story of Serbian lithium is once again in the revival phase

Where will Europe source its lithium from?

Europe has set ambitious goals to electrify its transportation, with proposed legislation looking to ban all internal combustion engine cars by 2035. The region is behind only China when it comes to electric vehicle sales growth, and the hunt for raw materials to power the batteries these cars need is understandably picking up pace.

Europe currently produces very insignificant amounts of lithium to feed its own needs, and although demand is widely expected to go up, it’s still unclear where the region will find the lithium it requires. In 2032, Europe will make up 25 percent of lithium demand, but on the supply side it will contribute only 4 percent globally, according to Fastmarkets.

“There will be fierce competition for supply in markets such as Australia, Chile, Argentina and Africa,” analysts at the firm said. “Competition that suggests prices will remain high.”

Challenges for lithium miners in Europe

When looking at whether Europe could source lithium domestically, the reality of its geology becomes apparent.

There are very few lithium deposits available in Europe that are viable for mining, Allan Pedersen of Wood Mackenzie told the Investing News Network (INN). “This challenge will be supplemented by the fact that most countries in Europe have limited recent experience in mining, which can make government, environmental and social permitting challenging,” he added.

In Europe, lithium hard-rock mineral deposits are located in Portugal, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Spain and Austria. Significant brine resources also exist in Germany. At present, imports from Australia cover the majority of the EU’s demand for lithium concentrates, while Chile is by far the EU’s largest supplier of refined lithium compounds.

For Jack Bedder, there are several challenges that Europe faces in securing sufficient and stable lithium supply.

“(The) most apparent is the legislation and public opinion to mining that lithium projects must navigate to develop projects of the critical battery material,” the founder and director of Project Blue told INN. “Public and subsequently government opposition to Rio Tinto’s Jadar project in Serbia stalled development at one of Europe’s most advanced projects, a testament to challenges faced more broadly across European jurisdictions.”

Another hurdle is the development of lithium resources that are not yet commercially viable, such as geothermal brines.

“The prospect of lithium production from geothermal brines is an attractive one, as there are benefits to the environmental footprint and co-production of renewable energy which could be achieved,” Bedder said. “The required technologies and processes to commercially recover lithium from geothermal brines, however, remain under development, and further breakthroughs will be required to bring these projects into reality.”

It will also come as no surprise that junior miners in the region have been facing challenges in accessing sufficient financing.

“Competition from lithium projects globally, whether that be South American continental brine operations, Australian spodumene projects or African hard-rock projects, has made a difficult hunting ground for European projects,” Bedder said.

“Government-led investment in other regions has also supported project development for critical minerals, a practise in which the EU has lagged behind other major regions.”

Europe’s strategic partnerships with top-producing countries

Serbia, Rio Tinto have not given up on the Jadar project

The CEO of Rio Tinto Ltd., Jacob Stausholm, said that the company has not given up on the “Jadar” lithium project in Serbia, TV N1 reported today.

Reuters reported that Stausholm said at a briefing for investors in Sydney that “Jadar” represents “unbelievable value”, he said.

Reuters recalls that Rio Tinto announced in July that it was “exploring all options” regarding the Jadar project when it comes to local community concerns.

The Prime Minister of Serbia, Ana Brnabić, recently stated that she does not see the possibility of the “Jadar” project being revived, but that she still regrets it, because, according to her, it was a historic opportunity for the development of Serbia.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said last night on RTS that he likes to talk about lithium, “that it is terribly important and that we made a terrible mistake by stopping the ‘Jadar’ project.”

Although, at least officially, mining of lithium has been abandoned, according to the Handelsblat daily, Serbia is one of those countries that, according to Germany’s plan, should be encouraged to exploit lithium in order to strengthen European battery production and reduce dependence on China.

It is, as stated, a secret document that Berlin submitted to the European Commission (EC) which lists 20 specific proposals and projects that should start the EU’s “Global Gateway” initiative from the deadlock in response to the Chinese project. Belt and Road” and infrastructure investments.

Not a single lithium mine has yet been opened in the EU, although it is planned that the EU will reach zero carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution by 2050, and that tens of millions of electric cars will be driven by 2030.

There are projects that are in the development phase. Lithium is extracted only in Portugal, but for the needs of ceramics, while the opening of a large mine, like the one planned in Serbia, is still awaited. The reasons are expected, namely the negative impact of the mine on the environment.

The Barroso project in Portugal was supposed to be the first large-scale lithium mine in the EU, but the opening has been delayed several times, sometimes indefinitely.

In 2021, the first temporary permit was issued after a preliminary environmental impact report. However, it stopped there, because water pollution, energy consumption, steps after digging and crushing were not solved. In addition, the mine is strongly opposed by the local population and environmental associations.

Optimists believe that the mine could start working in 2023, since at the beginning of this year the government of Portugal approved it in principle, however, the municipalities where the mines should be opened announced the initiation of the procedure for the ban on mining.

It was originally announced that 10 percent of the world’s reserves were located there, but until today the projection was reduced to one percent. The estimated capacity is 27 million metric tons, and the company that wants to mine in Portugal is Savannah resources.

While the uncertainty continues, the Portuguese government has announced that they will not be in a hurry to grant permits.

Several more lithium mines are planned in the EU, and the best-known example is in Germany, where a project is underway where lithium would be obtained with the help of geothermal energy for the extraction of lithium-rich salt water from the Upper Rhine. The final product lithium hydroxide would then be obtained by electrolysis. That lithium should have a zero point of carbon pollution, however in Germany they want to avoid water pollution as well.

The entire project was conceived as an isolated system where the water would be completely purified, and only then released. This is a new approach with obtaining lithium from water, according to the first estimates it pollutes the environment far less than mines.

Research is underway, started in 2021, and this year the State Institute for Geology and Mining determined that the impact of the planned wells on the environment, taking into account their size, scope and intensity of action, cannot be assessed as significant. If everything goes according to plan, the beginning of commercial exploitation is possible from 2025.

The French company Imeris has announced that in 2028 it will start mining a lithium deposit in the Central Massif, which should last 25 years. Since the second half of the 19th century, the site has been home to a quarry that produces 30,000 metric tons of kaolin per year for tile production.

This company states that with 34,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year, they would enable around 700,000 electric vehicles to be equipped with lithium-ion batteries.

The “Cinovec” project, implemented by European Metals Holding, is 100 kilometers from Prague in the Czech Republic. It aims to produce nearly 30,000 metric tons of lithium for batteries annually over a period of 25 years.

According to the 2022 feasibility study of European Metals, “Cinovec” has the potential to become the cheapest lithium rock producer in the world. The ore could produce at $5,000 to $6,000 per metric ton.

It is not yet known whether that will happen, just as it is not known when the mine could start operating. “Cinovec” is, they say, the fourth largest deposit without salt water in the world. With the completion of the investment in April 2020, the project started the work program, but not the production.

An updated Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) for the project was completed in June 2019 when the Final Feasibility Study was initiated but not yet complete. This mine is located close to companies that make cars, but also to Tesla’s giga battery factory.

European Lithium is developing the Wolfsberg project in Carinthia, 270 kilometers south of Vienna. This mine project plans to mine 10,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year.

According to the company, this will equip the batteries of around 200,000 electric vehicles. They hope to achieve an operating rate of 800,000 metric tons per year with a mine life of over 10 years. The company expects to start production in 2025.

Finnish mining and battery chemicals company Keliber is currently running a project in western Finland with the goal of reaching production of 15,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year, starting in 2025. The company also strives for sustainable production.

The lithium they plan to extract will, they say, have a smaller carbon footprint than the competition. This is because the refinery is located 70 kilometers from the mine. More than half of the electricity in the Finnish national grid is produced from renewable energy sources. As a result, the refining process will be more environmentally friendly.

In addition to the above, there are several other projects in Europe that are in the development phase. The presence of lithium in several other locations is also being investigated in Serbia.

As things currently stand, more serious lithium production in Europe, that is, the European Union, will not begin before 2025.

The pressure of industries and large capital will certainly increase, and the rise in the price of lithium, which is expected to increase several times over the next decade, is also certain.

Whether the EU will succeed in reconciling mining projects with environmental standards or whether it will enter the green transition with potential devastation on its own or surrounding soil, will be seen soon. The EU certainly needs supply chains that are closer to the continent, but also non-Chinese supply.

The European Green Deal of 2020 indicated that some environmental standards would be lowered, while the RipoverEU plan, published after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, further prioritized the switch to renewables as part of efforts to rapidly reduce use of Russian fossil fuels, Beta writes.

Serbia is one of those countries that should be encouraged to exploit lithium

Although Serbia has at least officially abandoned lithium mining, according to the Handelsblat daily, our country is one of those countries that, according to Germany’s plan, should be encouraged to exploit lithium, in order to strengthen European battery production and reduce dependence on China.

It is in question, according to a secret document submitted by Berlin to the European Commission, which lists 20 specific proposals and projects that should start the EU’s “Global Gateway” initiative from a deadlock in response to China’s “Belt and Road” project and infrastructure investments.

And how are things in the European Union when it comes to lithium mines?

Although it is planned to reach zero carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution by 2050, and tens of millions of electric cars will be on the streets by 2030, not a single lithium mine has yet been opened in the European Union. Instead, there are projects that are in the development phase. More precisely, lithium is extracted only in Portugal, but for the needs of ceramics, while the opening of a large mine like the one planned in Serbia is still awaited.

The reasons are expected, namely the negative impact of the mine on the environment.

Barroso Project, Portugal

The Barroso project in Portugal was supposed to be the first large-scale lithium mine in the European Union. It is not known whether it will actually happen. The opening, which was planned several times, was postponed, sometimes for a certain time, and sometimes for an indefinite time.

In 2021, the first temporary permit was obtained after the preliminary environmental impact report. However, it stopped there, because water pollution, energy consumption, steps after digging and crushing were not solved. In addition, the mine is strongly opposed by the local population and environmental associations. Similar to what was seen in Serbia.

However, optimists when it comes to the opening of the mine believe that it could start operating in 2023, since the government gave the “green light” at the beginning of this year. However, the municipalities where the mines are to be opened have announced the initiation of the procedure to ban mining.

It was originally announced that 10 percent of the world’s reserves were located there, but until today the projection was reduced to one percent. The estimated capacity is 27 million metric tons, and the company that wants to mine in Portugal is Savannah resources.

While there is uncertainty about this mine, the Portuguese government has announced that they will not be in a hurry to grant permits for further research when it comes to lithium.

Apart from Portugal, several more lithium mines are planned in the European Union.

Vulcan Project, Germany

After Portugal, about which there is the most data, perhaps the most famous example is in Germany, where work is being done on a project where lithium would be obtained with the help of geothermal energy for the extraction of lithium-rich salt water from the Upper Rhine. The final product lithium hydroxide would then be obtained by electrolysis. That lithium should have a zero point of carbon pollution, however in Germany they want to avoid water pollution as well.

The entire project was conceived as an isolated system where the water would be completely purified and only then released. This is a new approach with obtaining lithium from water, according to the first estimates it pollutes the environment far less than mines.

Research is underway, started in 2021, and this year the State Institute for Geology and Mining determined that the impact of the planned wells on the environment, taking into account their size, scope and intensity of action, cannot be assessed as significant. If everything goes according to plan, the beginning of commercial exploitation is possible from 2025.

The Emily Project, France

The French company Imeris has announced that in 2028 it will start mining a lithium deposit in the Central Massif, which should last 25 years. Since the second half of the 19th century, the site has been home to a quarry that produces 30,000 metric tons of kaolin per year for tile production.

This company states that with 34,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year, they would enable around 700,000 electric vehicles to be equipped with lithium ion batteries.

Cinovec, Czech Republic

The Cinovec project, located 100 km from Prague in the Czech Republic, is being implemented by European Metals Holding. It aims to produce nearly 30,000 metric tons of lithium for batteries annually over a period of 25 years.

According to a 2022 feasibility study by European Metals, Cinovec has the potential to become the cheapest lithium rock producer in the world. The ore could produce at $5,000 to $6,000 per metric ton.

It is not yet known whether that will happen, just as it is not known when the mine could start operating. According to their statement, Sinovec is the fourth largest deposit without salt water in the world. With the completion of the investment in April 2020, the project started the work program, but not the production.

An updated Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) for the project was completed in June 2019 when the Final Feasibility Study was initiated but not yet complete. This mine is located close to companies that make cars, but also to Tesla’s giga battery factory.

Wolfsberg Project, Austria

European Lithium is developing the Wolfsberg project in Carinthia, 270 km south of Vienna. This mine project plans to mine 10,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year.

According to the company, this will equip the batteries of around 200,000 electric vehicles. They hope to achieve an operating rate of 800,000 metric tons per year with a mine life of over 10 years. The company expects to start production in 2025.

Project Keliber, Finland

Finnish mining and battery chemicals company Keliber is currently running a project in western Finland with the goal of reaching production of 15,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide per year starting in 2025. The company also strives for sustainable production.

The lithium they plan to extract will, they say, have a smaller carbon footprint than the competition. This is because the refinery is located 70 km from the mine. More than half of the electricity in the Finnish national grid is produced from renewable energy sources. As a result, the refining process will be more environmentally friendly.

In addition to the above, there are several other projects in Europe that are in the development phase. Also in Serbia, the presence of lithium is being investigated at several other deposits.

As things currently stand, more serious production of lithium in Europe or the European Union will not begin before 2025, when the first shortages of this ore are already being overlooked.

The pressure of industries and large capital will certainly increase, and the rise in the price of lithium, which is expected to increase several times over the next decade, is also certain.

Whether the European Union will succeed in reconciling mining projects with environmental standards or whether it will enter the green transition with potential devastation on its own or surrounding soil, will be seen soon. The European Union certainly needs supply chains that are closer to the Continent, but also, as you can see, supply that is not Chinese.

The European Green Deal from 2020 indicated that some standards regarding environmental protection will be lowered, while the RipauerEU plan ( REPowerEU ), published after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the European Commission additionally prioritized switching to renewable sources as part of efforts to the use of Russian fossil fuels is rapidly reduced.

In any case, we will look at the mix of political, economic and environmental interests with the hope that it is possible to achieve sustainability, N1 writes.

Serbia, The ban on lithium has not even been passed

Public controversy surrounding lithium in Serbia has been going on for years. The current government, representing the interests of the Rio Tinto company, has been convincing the citizens of Serbia for years that lithium is a historic development opportunity, comparing Serbia to El Dorado?! The question arises, why does the state avoid mentioning the negative sides of Rio Tinto?

Under the pressure of the December protests in 2021, and the blocking of the highway at the Gazela bridge, the state “officially” withdrew from all projects related to lithium mining in Serbia, and thus supposedly put an end to the topic. Is this the end of the Rio Tinto saga? It’s not. Today, we have daily situations where officials are preparing the ground for the return of the opening of lithium mines, both by Rio Tinto and other companies, such as Ultra Lithium and Eurolithium. This is just the beginning. It is time to analyze this problem according to the following points:

1. The facts

Although insider information from the company Rio Tinto and the Government of the Republic of Serbia claimed that the ban on lithium was not true, but only to buy time before the elections, the citizens, like the protest organizers themselves, believed the representatives of the authorities and withdrew from the protests and blockades because they respected their word. . What happened in the meantime?

• With a false promise to ban lithium, the government managed to kill the energy of the protests and the anger of the people that threatened to jeopardize the April elections. The citizens were convinced that they had achieved victory by their actions because they trusted the word of the state leadership. However, none of the companies that plan to mine and process lithium (Rio Tinto, Eurolithium, Ultra Lithium and others) closed their offices in Serbia (which would be a logical move for any company that received a state ban), but continued to buy land. around future mines and haul heavy machinery. The deceived people achieved a Pyrrhic victory, while the government avoided a revolution. The government and Rio Tinto still don’t seem to understand that this is only half time and that the current score is state 1 – citizens 0.
• Rio Tinto was told to put up with it and continue to work in silence, only to continue publicly with their activities after 10 months, while they recently announced competitions for new jobs. We ask why a company that has been officially “forbidden” by the state to mine lithium is hiring new staff? It’s just proof that Rio Tinto never had any intention of giving up on the lithium mine.
• In the meantime, we learned that the government issued 60 permits for lithium exploration in the territory of the Republic of Serbia! Why permits if the lithium ban is officially in place? In Rekovac, despite the official ban, work continued on the planned lithium mine, so the citizens blocked the work while the state watched silently.
• Rio Tinto states on its profile that, in addition to Argentina and the United States, it also works in Serbia (Loznica). No serious company keeps information on its website (over a year old) that it is still planning work in Serbia, unless it is true.
• Rio Tinto states on its website that it plans 1,000 jobs in the long term and over 2,000 jobs during the construction phase. Why so many jobs if they are forbidden to work?
• Rio Tinto hired domestic experts to make positive studies on the impact on the environment, while rejecting the already made negative studies, and threatening the same experts with lawsuits that they may not speak about it publicly because of the signed Confidentiality Agreement. Domestic experts are obviously not interested in the fact that they are working against the interests of their country and people, endangering the environment, health, land, and rivers. The Faculty of Biology is the first institution that spoke about it publicly, but they were silenced by the media due to the Confidentiality Agreement.
• Environmental Impact Study: Does it make sense for the Environmental Impact Study to be funded by Rio Tinto instead of being done by an independent company? Rio Tinto’s funding of the study is a classic conflict of interest. I am asking whether I, or any other person/association, as an independent person, can finance the Environmental Impact Study? If the answer is no – why can’t they while Rio Tinto is allowed, even though it is in a conflict of interest? Who in their right mind can believe that Rio Tinto will finance and publish negative Environmental Impact Studies? So far we have seen that there are several negative studies (eg the Faculty of Biology) that Rio Tinto is hiding from the public, threatening the authors with Non-Disclosure Agreements.
• Rio Tinto’s media preparation implies that hired local experts, university professors, whom Rio Tinto sends in cooperation with the state to visit the state-controlled media and whose editorial policy the state can influence, advocating the thesis that lithium mines are not such a bad solution for state and that they do not have a large negative impact on the environment while they kept silent that these experts are on the payroll of Rio Tinto, i.e. that they are paid to represent the interests of the company. Otherwise, they would be summarily dismissed. Such experts are compromised and in a conflict of interest, and their goal is to prepare citizens for lithium mines because most citizens believe the information they hear in the media, regardless of the fact that it is untrue.
• Rio Tinto finances state universities, asking them for support for its project in Jadro. This is called corruption, for which deans and professors will have to be held criminally responsible for abuse of official position.
• Would Rio Tinto open lithium mines across the EU if allowed? Of course he would. Well, only Germany has three times more lithium than Serbia. The EU will not allow Rio Tinto to open its mines on its territory because they are aware of the environmental consequences, but at the same time they are ready to turn a blind eye to the destruction of the environment if lithium mines are opened throughout Serbia, because Europe needs lithium batteries, while Serbia has enough close for cheaper shipping compared to North and South America.

2. Privatization of the Jaroslav Cherny Institute

In order to justify their project, Rio Tinto employees often refer to a positive opinion from the compromised Jaroslav Černi Institute (the only institute dealing with water in Serbia), which, under the pressure of the state, after 74 years, was privatized for only 2.5 million euros by the Millennium Team, even though the Anti-Corruption Council demanded that the privatization be overturned. The question arises why the state does not listen to what the Council for the fight against corruption says? What is the point of the existence of this Council if their conclusions are not acted upon? Is it corruption in action by the state? Obviously it is!

Černi (allegedly under political pressure) gave positive opinions for all ecologically debatable projects in Serbia (Makiško polje, Belgrade na vodi, Rio Tinto, Rekovac/Levač…) and now it is in the hands of the Millennium team, a company that is allegedly close to the government. There is a justified danger that in the future the Millennium Team will control to whom Jaroslav Cerny will give positive opinions, which will depend on the permits for all future projects in Serbia.

3. Does the affair with lithium mines end with Rio Tinto? By no means! This is just the beginning

In addition to the Jadra valley (Loznica) where Rio Tinto is planning its excavations, the company Eurolithium in Rekovac (Levač) continues to bring in heavy machinery that is already ready for excavation. Citizens revolted and organized round-the-clock vigils to prevent the excavations until the police wanted to interfere, even though they were supposed to act and prevent further work by the Eurolithium company. The works have stopped and will not continue because the company Eurolithium, as well as Rio Tinto, do not want to risk a physical confrontation with the local population, which would motivate the people to rebel, which would make their further business much more difficult.

Lithium mines are planned at 40-60 locations throughout Serbia, in the Loznica-Vranje-Bor triangle. Over two million of our citizens live in that territory, where many of them will have to move out of their homes, while others will have their living environment (land, water) threatened. Other lithium mining companies are on standby, waiting to see how the currently resigned Rio Tinto fares. If Rio Tinto goes ahead with its plans, the other 59 sites will be wide open for lithium mining.

For example, the company Ultra Lithium received seven exploration permits in the Republic of Serbia – through its local subsidiary, Ultra Balkans doo – for the mines Valjevo, Kragujevac, Blace, Koceljeva, Trnava, Istok, Preljina and Ladevci from the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry mining. Application permits for research cover a total area of ​​676.54 km ².

The Government of the Republic of Serbia claims that only Serbia has lithium deposits, which, of course, is not true. Lithium is also found in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina , North Macedonia, Albania, Greece and Turkey. The fact that someone drew the borders does not mean that lithium, which has been under the ground for thousands of years, “moved” to Serbia. Also, lithium can be found in many EU countries, while it is most abundant in Germany (three times more than in Serbia).which does not think of allowing companies like Rio Tinto to open mines in their territory. The question arises why the mentioned countries are not in the same lithium fever for the opening of a lithium mine that should bring them tens of billions of euros in profit? Are those countries greedy for money or is it in their national interest to preserve their natural resources and prevent the destruction of their country?

The issue of lithium is neither a political nor an economic issue, this has become a matter of life and death, on which the future of us and our children depends. I don’t care if the lithium companies are from the east or the west! No company that does not respect EU environmental standards and that is not allowed to mine and process lithium on the territory of the European Union, cannot work on the territory of the Republic of Serbia either! Point.

4. How does Rio Tinto work?

Rio Tinto is a corporation with a value of 60 billion euros that is used to using all possible means to achieve its goals. This summer, the Chinese became the single largest shareholder of Rio Tinto.

The company Rio Tinto (Rio Sava) has hired people in charge of constantly observing, monitoring and recording everything negative that appears about the company in public. Their PR teams are constantly on the alert to immediately respond to every statement in the media with a denial, forcing the media to publish their statements that are more political marketing ploy than they have anything to do with the truth. Until now, my articles about Rio Tinto have been regularly tried to be refuted, stating falsehoods and claiming the opposite without any evidence. Calls to organize a TV duel where we will present our arguments are still regularly ignored.

When they deny, they always accuse by name anyone who criticizes Rio Tinto’s way of doing business, telling falsehoods that they are a socially responsible company that prioritizes the environment, which so far has not been demonstrated in any of their lithium mines around the world. Discrediting the opponent is their priority, although until now they have not realized that by doing so they are only promoting the opposite side, harming themselves. No company in Serbia has become as hated as Rio Tinto. Citizens are becoming more and more aware of the consequences, although the state media is trying to confuse citizens through broadcasts, claiming that lithium is not as dangerous as claimed, although there is not a single lithium mine in the world that meets environmental standards. The legal representative of Rio Tinto (Rio Sava) Colin McKay is in the latest issue of NIN (December 8, 2022),THE GOVERNMENT OF SERBIA NEVER MADE A DECISION ON THE LITHIUM MINING BAN THAT WOULD APPLY TO RIO TINTO!”And what are we going to do now? Is this proof that the Government of the Republic of Serbia lied to its citizens? Of course it is.

Rio Tinto is used to doing business in corrupt countries like Serbia, paying politicians to lobby for their company (which could be seen in the media in previous years). At one time, Rio Tinto announced that it was ready to talk to the leaders of the opposition in order to explain to them that lithium would not endanger the environment. Although it seems to me that they are indirectly offering a bribe in this way, trying to convince the leaders of the opposition not to oppose the opening of the lithium mine. For persuasion, they increasingly use EU and US officials who, in talks with opposition leaders, set conditions that the Rio Tinto project should not be hindered.

The coming period will show which political organizations will reconcile in public appearances and protests against Rio Tinto, as well as which organizations have not signed the Social Agreement. So far, the political organizations that do not want to commit in writing that they will be against Rio Tinto and lithium are Nebojša Zelenović (Coalition Moramo), who became famous with a video from Brussels where he claimed that they are looking for a solution for Rio Tinto with the EU Greens, as well as We are not strangling Belgrade, which has repeatedly refused to sign the Social Agreement. Insider information from several parties claims that both political organizations have received orders from Brussels that they must not sign the Social Agreement. It is not clear to anyone which organization can claim to be against Rio Tinto, while at the same time refusing to officially sign it. Any political organization that refuses to sign the Social Agreement cannot be considered an opponent of Rio Tinto and the lithium mine, but only their ally.

Rio Tinto has its own list containing the names of all the people who speak negatively about the company and who are against lithium mining, who are on their measures, whose social media accounts are monitored daily. Since we have mostly listened to inept explanations from Rio Tinto representatives, it is necessary to get answers from the authorities to the following questions:

• Is there an official ban on lithium mining by the Government of the Republic of Serbia? If there is, then Rio Tinto is lying, for which it should bear the consequences, close its offices and leave the Republic of Serbia. If it doesn’t exist, then the state has deliberately lied to its citizens, which is why it should bear the consequences!
• Why does Rio Tinto continue to buy land in the Jadra Valley if they have no intention of mining lithium there? Until now, they have not mentioned that they will be engaged in agriculture.
• Was such a statement by the head of state just buying time to appease the protesters who blocked the Gazelle Bridge in December before the April elections?

5. Processing of lithium

We all already know the consequences of lithium processing around the world, regardless of whether the lithium is mined, from salt rocks or from geothermal sources. In the world, one ton of lithium requires over 1000 tons/cubic of water mixed with sulfuric acid, which after processing becomes poisoned and can no longer be used. Such water ends up in the soil, streams and rivers, which permanently destroys the environment and endangers the health of citizens. Only the planned lithium mine in Loznica is estimated to contain 148 million tons of lithium, while Rio Tinto will consume over 1,000 tons of sulfuric acid per day, which will eventually have to end somewhere. Rio Tinto had previously inquired about the abandoned Viscose factory in Loznica, where they wanted to use their discharge pipes to discharge their poisoned waste water directly into the Drina. And that’s not all.

In addition to the sulfuric acid used for lithium processing, the citizens do not know that 15,000 cyanide tanks will be used in Loznica alone (as explained by the vice-chancellor of Belgrade University Prof. Dr. Ratko Ristić). And mines are planned in 40-60 locations! If only one tank were to spill, it would be an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions. This is precisely why no EU country will allow Rio Tinto to process lithium and destroy the environment on its territory. The citizens of Serbia, in contrast to the state leadership, refuse to be a dumping ground for the EU, where fertile land will be destroyed and streams, rivers and lakes will be poisoned, where the population will be forcibly relocated in order to provide lithium batteries for the EU market.

The representatives of the Rio Tinto company claim in their denials that all of this is not true and that their new technologies will not destroy the environment. The problem is that these new technologies do not want to show, justifying it as a trade secret, with the oft-repeated phrase “take our word for it”! Rio Tinto has no answer as to why they have not opened lithium mines in the EU with these “new technologies” while at the same time they are convincing the citizens of Serbia to allow them to open lithium mines in Serbia. Until Rio Tinto opens its lithium mines in Germany (which has three times more lithium than Serbia), there is no logic in opening them in Serbia either.

6. Confrontations

In order to clarify the dangers of lithium processing, I have repeatedly sought media confrontations with Rio Tinto management. Director Rio Tinto has repeatedly refused to be a guest on shows (like “Impression of the Week”), because she didn’t like the interviewees!? Is it logical that the director of Rio Tinto, who is accused of destroying the environment, sets the conditions with whom she will exchange opinions. She’d probably like to be a guest on a show with some of the experts on Rio Tinto’s payroll and choose the questions to ask her.

Rio Tinto “became famous” with a video advertised on the media, where the company misled the public that they were producing green energy. Even the ambassadors of certain countries claimed that lithium is green energy, probably not knowing what the lithium processing procedure looks like in which sulfuric acid and cyanide are used. Such a video caused a counter effect, provoking the anger of the people who rioted and blocked the highway near the Gazelle Bridge. Realizing their mistake, Rio Tinto employees were ordered to mediate truce and not expose themselves until the dust settled. That truce still holds while the project continues to be carried out quietly away from the public eye.

7. How to solve the problem called Rio Tinto?

All employees of the company Rio Tinto (Rio Sava) should know that they are accomplices because they are well aware of the consequences of poisoning water and fertile soil, as well as that they will be held criminally responsible together with the management. They are paid to misinform the public, to shoot commercials where they try to present themselves as an environmentally conscientious company, even though they have been leaving devastation behind for decades all over the world. In some countries, civil war broke out because of their business, where over 10,000 people lost their lives, while children who bathe in rivers poisoned by Rio Tinto have living wounds.

In order to check whether the company Rio Tinto, despite the “ban” of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, continues its work in violation of the laws, as an environmental protection analyst, I propose the following solutions:

• That the Government of the Republic of Serbia should publish a document in which it is written that there is a ban on working with lithium , because the representatives of Rio Tinto were obviously not informed, or they were well informed, which means that the citizens were deceived.
• Publicly publish the list of all employees on the Jadar Rio Tinto (Rio Sava) project in Serbia. Citizens have the right to know who are the people who are ready to endanger their water, land, and health for a lot of money, despite the “official ban” of the Government of the Republic of Serbia.
• Publicly publish the list of all experts (especially university professors and scientific researchers) who are engaged in the Rio Tinto project . Those people write fake positive environmental impact studies for money, while colleges get money through cooperative agreements. In the modern world, this is called corruption and it is criminally responsible! Citizens have the right to know who are the experts among us who, despite strong warnings, are working to destroy the environment in order to achieve financial gain.
• To cancel the Confidentiality Agreements signed with the Faculty of Biology as well as with other institutions, so that their experts could tell in detail what consequences await us without Rio Tinto threatening them with a lawsuit.
• That all political organizations undertake that all employees who actively participated in projects related to lithium in the company Rio Tinto (as well as all other companies that work with lithium) will be prosecuted and prosecuted, that professors and researchers will be stripped of their scientific titles, that their work contracts in institutions will be canceled due to the criminal offense of deliberately misleading the public, endangering the environment, land, rivers and the health of the citizens of Serbia. A prison sentence must be sought for such crimes. No fines and suspended sentences are out of the question.
• That the company Rio Tinto , which is officially forbidden to work in Serbia, be ordered to close all its offices (in Belgrade and Loznica) and leave the territory of the Republic of Serbia within a month.
• As an environmentally friendly solution for lithium batteries, new technologies have already been developed – lithium batteries that do not leave any consequences for the environment , are of better quality and last longer than lithium batteries. Alternative solutions are hydrogen batteries, as well as aluminum, sulfur and salt batteries, which will soon be in use.
• That statesmen stop telling falsehoods that Germany is already working extensively with lithium because currently only a pilot project is being developed to obtain lithium through geothermal waters and not from jadarite ore (for which sulfuric acid must be used) as planned in Loznica. At the same time, Germany is currently only in the experimental phase and their institute is still working on pilot plants where research is carried out because they have not yet reached the level of cleanliness that corresponds to the environmental requirements of the EU.

8. Conclusion

The problem is that nobody is accountable in corrupt Serbia, so the people on Rio Tinto’s payroll relaxed, thinking that they will not suffer any consequences because they “cooperate” with the state. It is time for them to be warned that they are accomplices who will be held accountable for their actions. If they are ready to live and work under such pressure, because this kind of crime does not get old – good luck to them, they will need it.

So far, I have not met a single person who supports the Rio Tinto project, except for the company’s employees (who are financially dependent), although many of them do not support, but work there because their existence depends on it. Many Rio Tinto employees have already resigned (both out of conscience and public pressure), while a large number of employees are actively looking for new jobs in other companies in order to “clean up” and escape in time.

The state has reconciled and defends itself to every question about Rio Tinto by saying that it is officially forbidden to work with lithium. The fact that the state tacitly approves the continuation of the activities of Rio Tinto and other companies, avoiding to react, means that this government is deliberately deceiving its citizens. My assessment is that it will remain so until the April elections in Belgrade, because the government does not want to risk a new blocking of the Gazelle, a rebellion of the people that will cause them to lose power in Belgrade. Even though it is a local election, Rio Tinto is one of the few topics that can bring citizens of Belgrade to the streets.

I am personally convinced that the state will not give up its intention to push through the lithium mines, and knowing that citizens will not give up defending their lives and the lives of their children, I am afraid that incidents and physical conflicts will escalate in the future. That’s why I ask the question, does someone have to die in order to prevent the lithium farce? Are we facing a civil war like the one in Papua New Guinea where over 10,000 people lost their lives due to a lithium mine that poisoned all drinking water sources? How many people need to lose their lives for someone from the government to say enough is enough, we don’t want a civil war, Energija Balkana writes.