Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Geisigee and this is The Limiting Factor.
大家好,欢迎回来!我是乔丹·盖斯齐,欢迎收听《突破瓶颈》。
At Tesla's 2023 annual meeting, Elon Musk said that lithium refining is the bottleneck for lithium-ion battery production and he doesn't expect there to be a bottleneck with lithium mining. In other words, he disagrees with lithium industry experts, which are all saying that mining will be the bottleneck. But he also said that he could be wrong.
So is Elon wrong or are the lithium industry forecast just a big nothing burger like the peak oil hysteria of 15 years ago? And more importantly, what does that mean for Tesla's ability to continue growing at 50% per year? These are critical questions because lithium is the lifeblood of Tesla and will underpin their growth for years to come.
Even though software will likely enable most of Tesla's profits for the next decade through products like Robotaxes and their robot Optimus, all of those products will run on batteries. Furthermore, Tesla's mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. And that takes batteries, most of which will be lithium based.
There's really only one way to address the claims of Elon Musk and the lithium industry. And that's by looking at the constraints of both mining and refining, questioning the methodology of lithium supply and demand forecasting, going country by country to look at where lithium can be sourced from, taking into account the emergence of new chemistries like sodium ion, and what all of that means for Tesla's battery supply specifically.
Usually, I break complex topics into separate videos, but this really needed to be one video. That's because too often people focus on one part of the supply chain and come to conclusions that ignore the rest of the supply chain. By putting it all in one video with time stamps, all the information is in one place and easily referenced to create a cohesive narrative thread. The result is what I think may be one of the most densely packed and longest informational videos on YouTube.
Even if my conclusions are wrong, you're going to gain in-depth knowledge of the lithium industry, forecasting and mining in general. The too long didn't watch of the video is that at a global level, a substantial bottleneck for battery supply is likely from the mid-2020s until the end of the decade, which appears to be due to mining capacity rather than refining capacity, and I'll explain why in detail later in the video.
I say a substantial bottleneck because we already saw a small lithium shortage last year, which drove lithium prices to more than 300% above previous record highs before receding. The shortage later this decade could be more sustained and of a larger magnitude. That's because the investment in mining needed to head off a shortage later this decade hasn't materialized and it really needed to start years ago. More investment now would still increase lithium supply and therefore battery supply beyond what's forecast, but as far as I can tell, not nearly enough to get ahead of demand because it takes so long to spin up a new lithium mine.
On that note, people often hear bottleneck or shortage and assume it means that battery production grinds to a halt. It doesn't. It just means growth becomes more linear rather than exponential. But it means rather than battery prices falling steadily year by year, prices remain more flat. That is, it's counterintuitive, but a shortage in this context means that growth continues. It's just that supply simply isn't keeping up with demand.
The question is, later in the decade, what would a substantial bottleneck in global battery supply mean for Tesla specifically? If Tesla continues to take a more passive role in lithium mining, they'll likely still fare better than any other electric vehicle maker. That's thanks to their industry-leading vehicle margins, which will allow them to absorb large premiums in the price of lithium while reducing vehicle prices to increase their market share.
But if that's the approach Tesla takes, there are three potential implications worth considering. First, over the course of the next seven years, they'll be paying a king's ransom in margins to third-party suppliers. That means Tesla may leave billions of dollars of potential profit on the table, and it may reduce their ability to make their vehicles more affordable. Second, even if Tesla can afford the high lithium prices and thrive, it's unlikely they'll be able to secure more than a third of total global battery supply. That's because they may run up against protectionism or protectionist backlash by governments, or even before that, because they'll be competing for materials with other players in the EV and energy storage markets. Either way, if the size of the battery and battery materials pie doesn't expand beyond what I'm forecasting in this video, it would mean more linear growth for Tesla later in the decade rather than exponential growth.
Third, if Tesla continues to take a more passive role in lithium mining, it'll have a negative impact not just on Tesla's battery supply, but also global battery supply. That's because if they just focus on making sure they get their slice of pie, it doesn't increase the size of the pie. Ideally, the goal should be to create an abundance of lithium at a global level, which kills three birds with one stone. Cost and pricing pressures, pressure from other companies and governments that could limit Tesla's growth and accelerating the world's transition to sustainable energy.
To create that abundance, Tesla would need to take a more active role in lithium mining, whether that means partnering with a mining company or vertically integrating like they did with lithium refining. Although due to the long lead times involved with lithium mining, Tesla may not be able to completely address the supply gap by the end of the decade, they could still make a significant dent.
With that quick video summary out of the way, for those ready to have their brains jam-packed with information, let's dive into it. Before we begin, for this video, a raft of credits and thanks are in order. I encourage watching this part of the video rather than skipping it because it's not just a thanks. It also lets you know the quality of my sources and peer review.
First, Viva's Kumar reviewed the draft script. Viva's was directly involved with Tesla's battery supply chain for nearly three years, where he negotiated billions of dollars of material spend and also did strategic analysis and forecasting for battery materials. After that, he worked for benchmark mineral intelligence for nearly three years. He's now co-founder and CEO of Mitra Kim. If you'd like to know more about that, check out my interview with Viva's Anchiro.
首先,Viva的库马尔对初稿剧本进行了审查。Viva在特斯拉的电池供应链上直接参与了近三年的工作,在此期间,他进行了数十亿美元的物料采购谈判,并为电池材料进行了战略分析和预测。之后,他在Benchmark Mineral Intelligence工作了近三年。他目前是Mitra Kim的联合创始人兼首席执行官。如果你想了解更多相关信息,请查看我对Viva的安奇洛的采访。
Next, my sources. Rodney and Howard of Arc Equity, a Lithium Analysis and Advisory firm, spent several hours and long email threads answering detailed questions about mine development. If you're interested in their work, you can connect with them on Twitter with the details on screen or follow the Rockstock channel on YouTube. Cameron Perks of benchmark mineral intelligence walk me through how lithium supply and demand is evolving over time. I recommend following benchmark mineral intelligence and their CEO Simon Moore's on Twitter to keep up to date with the Lithium industry. Lars Lee's doll provided key data for this video around lithium refining capacity versus production, and beyond that, I've used a number of graphs from Ristad Energy over the years. You can also follow Lars on Twitter.
接下来是我的消息来源。琼·霍华德 (Howard of Arc Equity) 是一家锂分析和咨询公司的代表,他们花了数小时以及通过电子邮件回答了关于矿山开发的详细问题。如果你对他们的工作感兴趣,你可以通过屏幕上的联系方式在 Twitter 上与他们取得联系,或者关注 Rockstock 在 YouTube 上的频道。卡梅伦·派克斯 (Cameron Perks) 是 Benchmark Mineral Intelligence 的代表,他向我介绍了锂供应和需求的演变情况。我推荐关注 Benchmark Mineral Intelligence 和他们的首席执行官西蒙·摩尔 (Simon Moore) 在 Twitter 上,以便及时了解锂产业动态。拉斯·李 (Lars Lee) 提供了关于锂精炼能力与产量的关键数据,并且我多年来使用了 Ristad Energy 的许多图表。你也可以在 Twitter 上关注拉斯。
Austin Devaney helped me put a finer point on a few topics around hard rock lithium mining. Ryan was an executive at Alba moral and Rockwood Lithium for nearly 10 years, which is one of Tesla's largest lithium suppliers and now has been at Piedmont Lithium for the past three years, which has an agreement for future supply to Tesla. Bradford Ferguson and Matt Smith of Rebellionair.com reviewed the final release candidate of the video from an investor lens. Rebellionair specializes in helping investors manage concentrated positions. They can help with covered calls, risk management, and creating a financial master plan from your first principles. Bear in mind, this video is not investment advice and always do your own research.
Finally, despite all the input I received from some of the leading experts and information sources in the Lithium industry, all the opinions in this video are my own. There are differing views and forecasts within the Lithium industry that I had to reconcile and combine with my own insights and expectations. With regards to the peer review, it was for factual accuracy and a sanity check rather than for crafting the tone and conclusions of the video. Overall, my goal was to create the most comprehensive resource out there on how global lithium supply and battery supply will evolve this decade and how that relates to Tesla.
So if you feel like I've hit the mark and get value from the video or my content in general, toss a coin to your witcher. Using a video like this takes months and generally, analysis like this would be packaged up by an analyst house and put in a report that costs thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Generally, I make about $2 to $600 per video in YouTube ad revenues. That is, it's the direct support that I get from less than 1% of subscribers through Patreon, YouTube, and Twitter that makes the channel possible. The details for support are in the description.
A good place to start with the lithium supply chain is Elon's comment from the Q1 2022 earnings call, where he said that mining and refining will be a limiting factor for Tesla. Why is that? The image on screen shows how much of each metal is produced each year on a global level. I've labeled lithium in pink. As you can see, global lithium production is between one and four orders of magnitude smaller than the iron, copper, aluminum, and nickel industries. I mention those four metals because they're the other metals used in lithium ion batteries.
The next closest bottleneck behind lithium is nickel, which is produced at 27 times greater volumes than lithium. While it's true that lithium only makes up about 2 to 3% of the weight of a nickel-based lithium ion battery cell compared to 15% for nickel, that nickel can be substituted for iron, which is hugely abundant. That's as opposed to lithium, which can't be substituted in a lithium ion battery. For those already eager to bring up sodium ion batteries, which will face fewer resource constraints than lithium ion batteries, I'll cover those later in the video. So just on the face of it, to transition the world to sustainable energy, lithium's going to be a bottleneck because it has to grow from a much smaller base than the other materials used in a battery cell.
On an absolute basis, it's easier to scale an industry that's already large than it is to scale an industry that's small. It's not to say metals like copper and aluminum or chemicals like phosphate won't also pose a challenge, just that lithium will pose the greatest challenge.
Let's move on to Elon's comment from the Q2 2022 earnings call, which is that mining is easy and lithium refining is harder. While it's true that lithium refining requires a high caliber technical skill set, it's easier than mining in other ways. For example, getting a mining permit is notoriously difficult in some jurisdictions like the US, where it can take 7-10 years. That is, both mining and refining are each hard in their own ways. Furthermore, in my view, it doesn't actually matter which industry is harder. That's because the technical skills and knowledge to do each are out there, it's just a matter of propagating them with investment. That means the relevant question for Tesla shouldn't be which industry is harder, it should be, how quickly can each mining and refining scale to meet Tesla's needs, and is Tesla paying higher margins to miners or refiners? The answers to those questions will let us know where Tesla should focus their resources, because if Tesla wants to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy, what they need is large volumes of lithium at a low price.
Let's start with margins. In the Q2 2022 earnings call, Elon said that at that time, lithium refining had software like margins. Is that true? And how do the margins for lithium refining compare to lithium mining? The image on screen shows the margin split for producing lithium from SC or spodumene concentrate from Australia that's been bought at spot prices on the open market and refined in China by an independent refiner into lithium hydroxide. Let's take a look at what that means.
First, spot market pricing means buying a material on the open market rather than on contract. There's spot market pricing available for a number of materials that go into batteries and at different stages of the manufacturing process. This image shows the cost breakdown for producing lithium hydroxide, where all the transactions are done at spot market pricing.
As a side note, spot market prices for lithium vary by country, the quality of the lithium and the type of lithium. Lithium carbonate spot prices in China often attract media attention because it's the largest and most liquid spot market for lithium. However, there's two reasons why the price on the Chinese spot market for lithium carbonate can sometimes lead people astray. First, the Chinese spot market makes up less than 10% of the total lithium market because most lithium is bought on contract at lower prices. Second, as you can see, under the same shipping terms, battery grade lithium carbonate costs about $10,000 less than lithium hydroxide. Both lithium carbonate and hydroxide are used in EV batteries and each chemical has its own market dynamics. Because lithium hydroxide will cost more than lithium carbonate and sometimes lithium carbonate will cost more than lithium hydroxide. That is, the single variable market pricing that often attracts people's attention is a blunt instrument. It doesn't take into account the country quality or type of lithium, let alone whether an EV maker is buying lithium on the spot market or through contract, which we'll get into later.
During the long, spodumine is a type of rock that contains about 1% lithium. Part of the mining process for spodumine involves concentrating the raw material to about 6% lithium, which is called spodumine concentrate. The spodumine concentrate is sent to a refinery in China where it's refined to greater than 99% pure lithium carbonate or hydroxide.
The Australian spodumine with Chinese refining pathway for lithium hydroxide is one of the major production pathways that Tesla relies on for their lithium. It probably makes up about a third of the lithium that goes into their batteries from all sources and three-quarters of the lithium Tesla uses to produce cells with Panasonic and for their own 4680 production. That's because lithium hydroxide is used for high nickel batteries, which is about half of Tesla cell consumption. The other half of Tesla cell consumption is LFP batteries from Chinese companies like CATL, which use lithium carbonate.
Although Tesla uses the Australian spodumine with Chinese refining pathway heavily, they buy most of their lithium through private contracts rather than through the spot market. More on that in a moment.
With all that background about lithium markets and pricing out of the way, as you can see, for lithium hydroxide production, most of the margin is actually going to lithium miners, shown in orange, as opposed to lithium refiners, shown in green. Though this graph provides a good visualization, it doesn't provide as much detail as we need. That's because mining and refining production costs are lumped together as cost of production in blue. Let's dig deeper to tease out the production costs for each mining and refining to work out the profit margin percentages for each.
The production cost of spodumine concentrate for lithium miners is about $600 per ton. Around December of last year, they were able to turn around and sell that spodumine concentrate on the spot market for $7,000 per ton. It takes 7 tons of spodumine concentrate to make one ton of lithium hydroxide. That means in December, the mined material that went into one ton of lithium hydroxide had a production cost of $4,200 and a market price of $49,000. That led to a profit margin of about 91% for lithium miners.
How about on the refining end? Rapping and transport to the refinery costs about $5,000 per ton. In December, the refiners were adding about $10,000 per ton of refining fees. That led to a profit margin of 67% at a sale price of $64,000. That is, on the spot market, both mining and refining offer software like margins. But in December, mining was offering margins 24 percentage points higher than refining. So Elon was correct in saying that refiners are getting huge margins, but at least on the spot market, miners are getting even larger margins. However, both are currently getting large margins because lithium demand is growing faster than both lithium refining and mining capacity. That is, a shortage.
But as I said a moment ago, Tesla buys their lithium hydroxide through private contracts rather than on the spot market. Unfortunately, because Tesla has a number of lithium contracts in place with different suppliers and the contracts are private, we don't know what Tesla is paying on average across all suppliers. With that said, we do know that around December, Tesla's all-in contract price was probably around $30,000 per ton for the Australian mine, Chinese refined pathway for lithium hydroxide. At the same time, of course, it was around $60,000 to $70,000 on the spot market. So Tesla was getting more than a $30,000 discount thanks to contract pricing.
As a side note, most lithium contracts are partially indexed against the spot market with a 3-6 month rolling average. So movements in contract pricing typically lag 3-6 months behind the spot market. Taking into account the rolling average, Tesla was still probably seeing contract prices well above $30,000 per ton in the first and second quarter despite falling prices on the spot market. That's because prices didn't start coming back to earth until the first quarter, which was 3-6 months ago.
But getting back on topic with margins, based on a $30,000 per ton lithium contract price in December, what would the margins look like for the miner and the refiner? Again, it's difficult to say because they're private contracts. However, let's assume that the refining margins remain the same as they were on the spot market and we only adjust the margin for the mined material. That is, like the previous scenario, we'll assume that the refiner still charges $15,000 per ton for refining and pockets $10,000 in profit. But for the mined material, instead of getting $7,000 per ton, the miner only gets around $2,100 per ton. The result is the same 67% margin for the refiner, but the miner still comes out ahead with a 72% margin. So even at contract pricing and giving the refiner the benefit of the doubt, the mining companies are still currently getting higher margins than the refiners.
That's not always the case and there have been times in the past when refiners saw larger margins than refiners, like in 2020. But currently, mining margins are higher because mining is the larger bottleneck. As a side note, some lithium miners integrate lithium refining into the mining operation, which is expected to become more commonplace over time as the industry matures. It's because it increases the end-to-end efficiency of lithium production and allows the miner to capture more profit. It also means whether mining or refining experience an over or under-supplied market in the future, integrated operations can generate a good profit margin in most scenarios. Furthermore, it means that the differentiation Elon highlighted between mining and refining may become less relevant over time because the miner and refiner will be the same company. Other way, currently, lithium miners are holding all the chips. Whether they sell their lithium on the open market at a high spot price to an independent refiner or sell it on contract and refine it themselves, they're scooping up a huge profit margin. And that'll continue as long as the demand for mined lithium continues to exceed supply, which will likely be the case for most of the decade.
While we're on the topic of lithium margins and pricing, as per Tesla's Q1 earnings call, in the past, they were able to take advantage of low lithium pricing and lock it in with fixed price contracts. Now that prices are coming back down to Earth, they again intend to lock in lithium prices into the latter half of the decade. The question is, will those again be fixed price contracts and how long are the contracts expected to last? There really isn't a clear answer because it depends on the lithium supplier. But we do know that Tesla's negotiating position isn't going to be as strong in this round of negotiations. That's because even though lithium prices have dropped, there's more competition in the lithium market now than there was at any time between 2018 and 2021, which would have been the last time many of these contracts were negotiated.
With all that said, we can take some guidance from this slide from Alba-Marl, which is one of Tesla's largest suppliers. By the end of this year, Alba-Marl intends to sell more of their lithium on the spot market and completely eliminate long-term fixed price contracts in favor of long-term variable contracts, long-term meaning two to five years, which would carry these contracts into the latter half of the decade. Within those long-term variable contracts, companies like Alba-Marl and Tesla will build price floors and ceilings into the contract to protect both parties from large price swings. However, the fact that Alba-Marl is moving away from fixed price contracts gives us an indication of where they think lithium prices headed in the longer term, which is up. That is, Alba-Marl also expects lithium to remain in short supply for the rest of the decade and variable pricing gives them a chance to maximize their profits. They can negotiate that because their bargaining power is increasing.
So yes, although Tesla might be able to lock in some fixed price contracts with some suppliers to reduce their exposure to higher prices, an increasing portion of their lithium contracts will be exposed to spot market index pricing. That means even with contract pricing, they'll be paying a higher margin penalty for lithium than they ever have in the past.
Now that we've covered the margins for lithium refining versus mining, let's look at the potential for scaling. Rather than doing a deep dive on the players in the lithium refining industry and the technical challenges of lithium refining, all provide aggregate data and the timeframes involved.
As with other topics in the video, if more depth is needed, I can follow up with a specific video on refining that walks through the gritty engineering details and scaling plans of each refiner.
Onscreen is a forecast for global lithium processing capacity complements of riestat energy. The dark blue bars are announced nameplate capacity and the light blue bars are anticipated demand based on the 1.6 degree UN climate scenario.
The UN scenarios are a topic for another day, but as shown by this graph, based on that climate scenario, riestat is forecasting 6.4 terawatt hours of total battery demand by 2030, which is much more aggressive than most analyst houses. That is, they aren't softballing it on production demand for lithium refining on their lithium supply and demand graph.
Despite that, as you can see, announced nameplate capacity far exceeds demand. For example, in 2023, the announced nameplate capacity is equivalent to 2.1 million tons of lithium carbonate. That's against 880,000 tons of demand for an implicit utilization of 42%.
Implicit utilization is simply calculated by dividing production demand by capacity. The actual utilization will be higher. What do I mean by that? Nameplate capacity is the maximum potential output of a factory, but due to downtime, production ramps and yield losses, the actual utilization is much higher. Additionally, sometimes low quality lithium needs to be reprocessed to reach battery grade or converted from lithium carbonate to lithium hydroxide.
So even though implicit utilization is around 42%, my understanding is that actual utilization is probably around 80-90%. With that said, it still leaves spare lithium refining capacity of about 10-20% this year and in the next several years.
What about later in the decade? The implicit utilization does creep upwards to the 50-60% range, but that likely won't be an issue for two reasons. First, it only takes about two years to build a lithium refinery and about four years to get from planning to volume production. That is, if refining capacity does look like it'll come up short later in the decade due to an unexpected volume of mined lithium, there's still plenty of time for more refining capacity to be announced and built.
Second, implicit utilization already reached 65% last year, so we already saw a worse lithium refining crunch last year than we're expecting to see later in the decade.
So if there appears to be plenty of refining capacity coming online at a global level, and there's still plenty of time to build more refining capacity before the end of the decade, why is Tesla pushing for more refining capacity? There are several potential reasons, but for me, three stick out as the most likely.
First, Tesla has specific requirements that the market may not be able to meet at the supply levels and price that Tesla needs it. What do I mean by that? The rice stack graph shows aggregate demand for all lithium chemicals. As I said earlier, there are actually several spot markets for the different types and grades of lithium. High purity lithium hydroxide is the only chemical that can be used to produce the high nickel cathodes that are used in Tesla's 2170 and 4680 battery cells. Lithium hydroxide is more difficult to produce than lithium carbonate, so it tends to be more expensive and more difficult to source. So Tesla could be seeing a bottleneck in their specific supply mix that might not show up in the aggregate data. That bottleneck likely wouldn't affect their LFP battery supply, but could affect the roughly 50% of their vehicles that do use nickel-based battery cells. In fact, this may be one of the many reasons why Tesla is increasingly shifting to LFP battery cells.
The second reason why Tesla may be pushing for lithium refining is that there's expected to be a large amount of mined lithium coming online around 2024 that could overwhelm refiners. However, that would require two things to happen. First, all of those lithium mines would have to come online on time, which is unlikely. Just like any production ramp, it's more likely that some of the project timelines slip, and they don't hit volume production until 2025 or even 2026. Second, at the same time, lithium refiners would have to experience huge setbacks to the 50% growth rate they expect to hit not just this year, but in 2024 and 2025 as well. That is, a sustained shortage of lithium refining capacity could happen, but it's unlikely. With that said, it is possible that refining sees occasional bottlenecks. That's because it's rare for everything in a supply chain to ramp perfectly in unison. With so many mines ramping production, there could be times where it catches the refiners off guard.
The third reason why Tesla is pushing for more lithium refining may be related to regionalization. Besides aggregating lithium carbonate and hydroxide, the rice that graph doesn't break down refining capacity by region. Lithium chemicals can be shipped around the world for processing, but it's not ideal. At the groundbreaking for Tesla's new lithium refinery in Texas, Turner Caldwell said that the major focus of the refinery was regionalizing the lithium supply chain. Before that event, Ellie in Space contacted me and we worked shop some questions for Drew Baglino. Ellie did get a chance to speak with Drew and she posted the interview for her Twitter subscribers and gave me permission to share part of the interview here. For the rest, subscribe to Ellie on Twitter. Drew Baglino confirmed regionalization has several benefits for Tesla. First, it improves the feedback and learning loop for the lithium supply chain. Second, it reduces logistics costs. Lithium usually has to be shipped from Australia or South America to China and then back to other parts of the world for use in batteries, which is expensive and wasteful. Third, tax credits from the recently passed inflation reduction act will help drive down the cost of lithium production in the US. However, there are two other things that Drew didn't mention. First, the bulk of lithium refining capacity is in China. So if Tesla wants to be the master of their own destiny, they need to break that monopoly. If Tesla can establish a lithium refining beachhead in the US and in doing so encourage others to do the same, it'll help accomplish that. Second, the talent pool for lithium refining in the US is small. Tesla's lithium refinery will incubate a US-based talent pool for lithium refining. If some of those engineers are ambitious, they can start their own lithium refining companies in the US and take some of the load off of Tesla. With all that in mind, if Tesla wants more entrepreneurs to get into lithium refining, their words might have greater impact if they provided insights into which region that bottle neck is in and what type of lithium chemical. That's because there appears to be plenty of refining capacity in the pipeline and it can be brought online more quickly than lithium mines. More on that in a moment.
Although Tesla's comments do draw attention to lithium refining, and that's somewhat helpful in itself, money talks. So the one factor that's most likely to increase lithium production in the US is the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits for battery materials. Either way, if lithium refining capacity is tighter than the forecasts indicate and Tesla's force to build more in-house refining capacity, I view that as a positive. That's because it'll dramatically reduce logistics costs, give them access to Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, and reduce the software-like margins that they're paying to lithium refiners, all of which will reduce the bill of materials for battery cell production.
That's important because the bill of materials for battery cell production has increased from 40% to 70-80% of the cost of a battery cell since 2015 due to improvements in battery cell manufacturing, which will continue. And within the bill of materials in the last three years, the price of lithium alone made up between 9-44% of the total bill of materials. Telling that up, vertically integrating on lithium refining would save between 2-12% of the cost of a battery cell. Let's say 7% on average.
Battery cells this year will probably cost on average around 110-120 dollars per kilowatt hour. If Tesla gets their cells cheaper at around 100 dollars per kilowatt hour, that would mean a savings of around 7 dollars per kilowatt hour from refining alone, which would be costing Tesla over a billion dollars per year.
Beyond that, Tesla's goal is to build at least one terawatt hour of in-house battery production in the US by 2030. At $7 a kilowatt hour, in-house lithium refining would be worth $7 billion per year, which at a PE ratio of 30 would be worth $210 billion of market cap or $70 per share. That is, vertically integrating on battery materials, even just lithium refining is a seriously worthwhile endeavor.
As an interim summary on lithium refining, although margins are high for lithium refining, the margins for lithium mining are higher. Furthermore, there appears to be enough lithium refining capacity on the market to maintain healthy supply growth well into the second half of the decade. Although there are several circumstances where there is a potential for lithium mining to outpace refining, it doesn't appear to be the fundamental bottleneck for the growth of lithium supply. Finally, regardless of whether the fundamental bottleneck is or isn't lithium refining, the financial benefits of vertically integrating into lithium refining is worth Tesla's time to say the least.
Now that we've covered the margins for refining versus mining and the forecast for lithium refining and its ability to scale, let's move on to the forecast for lithium mining and the ability of the mining industry to scale.
First, it's worth reviewing Tesla's claim from Investor Day that there's enough lithium in the ground to transition the world to sustainable energy. For those who watch the Investor Day presentation, this will be a brief recap, but I'll be adding some context and specific numbers to put some meat on the bones of Tesla's claim. The image on screen indicates that it'll take less than 30% of the world's lithium resources to transition the world to sustainable energy. However, a resource is an estimate of how much of an element might be in the ground. That is, the work hasn't been done to define how much of the element is actually there and whether it can be extracted profitably.
For example, the ocean contains enormous amounts of lithium, but it's at such low concentration that currently it can't be extracted profitably. That's where this graph on lithium reserves comes in. Reserves are resources that are well defined. We know how much material they contain and generally whether the material can be extracted profitably. I say generally because profitability depends on both market price, which fluctuates, and extraction efficiency, which improves over time as technology improves. Although Tesla's graph on reserves is illustrative, it's normalized to the year 2000, meaning that it doesn't tell us how much material is in the ground. But rather, how much reserves have grown over the past two decades?
Is the eight times growth in lithium reserves enough to transition the world to sustainable energy? Let's look at US Geological Survey data for global lithium production and reserves. As of 2022, global lithium reserves were nearly 25 million tons of elemental lithium. That's enough for roughly 178 TWh of batteries. I'd like to emphasize that's a back of the napkin estimate, and it could be off by plus or minus 25%, depending on what type of battery cell is used.
In Tesla's Master Plan Part 3, they call for about 198 TWh of battery cells, so the reserves come up a bit short. However, lithium reserves have grown by about 80% in the past five years, and I have no doubt that within the next three to five years, even taking into account that some of those reserves may be off limits due to political challenges will have all the lithium reserves we need to transition the world to sustainable energy.
So if most of the work is done to find and to find lithium reserves, why do lithium forecasts show that lithium supply will come up increasingly short as the decade progresses? If all that's needed here is mining, and mining is just digging things up, what's the issue? In short, mining is a lot more complicated than just digging things up, and just like it'll take Tesla years to build enough factories to hit their goal of 20 million vehicles per year, it's going to take years to build the mines to supply those factories. However, the mines have to jump through more regulatory and technical hoops before they can even break ground, but we're getting ahead of ourselves.
To fully understand why mining will likely be the bottleneck for lithium production, we first need to look at forecasts for lithium supply and demand. That's for three reasons. First, lithium supply tends to be the focus of most discussions I've seen about lithium, but despite being half the equation, lithium demand is often neglected. Second, we need to understand the assumptions behind the forecasts and what makes a good forecast. Along the way, we'll get a feel for some high and low end boundaries for lithium supply and demand. Third, that in turn is a good springboard to take a detailed look at where all the units of supply and demand will come from and why, and therefore where the forecasts could be wrong.
From there, we can build our own forecast. With that in mind, let's start by looking at three forecasts, from low to high quality. This graph from Lion Town Resources is based on data from Wood Mackenzie. The first thing I'd note about the graph is that it contains the wrong units. It should be in megatons rather than kilotons. That would be an easy mistake for most people to make, but it's a big mistake if you work in the industry. The next thing worth noting is that, in my opinion, the demand is below what's reasonable. They project 1.9 million tons of LCE demand by 2030. LCE stands for Lithium Carbonate Equivalent, which just tells you that they weren't referring to Pure Lithium, but rather a commonly traded Lithium chemical. Five LCE units are equivalent to about one unit of Pure Lithium, because Lithium Carbonate is about 80% carbonate by weight. However, 1.9 million tons LCE is fairly abstract. What does that mean in terms of battery production? It's roughly 2.7 TWh. For perspective, this year in 2023, there will likely be over one TWh of actual Lithium demand. That means the graph is forecasting an average annual growth rate of only 15%. That's as compared to the actual average demand growth for Lithium over the past six years, which was 40% per year. Furthermore, Tesla stated that just from their demand alone, they're targeting 3 TWh by 2030. That is, Tesla expects their own in-house usage to be more than Wood Mackenzie is forecasting for the entire world.
This graph from Lithium Americas, which is based on data from benchmark mineral intelligence from 2021, is a little better in a few ways. First, the LCE units are at the correct magnitude, megatons. Second, the 2030 demand forecast is for 2.4 megatons, which is enough for about 3.4 TWh of battery cells. That's getting a bit more realistic, but in my view, it's still too low and doesn't specify whether that's a bull, bear, or base case. Third, the supply data actually includes a rough split between increases in supply from mines that are already operating, brownfields mining projects, and greenfields mining projects that are probable or highly probable. Brownfields projects are expansions near existing mines that have already been surveyed, and greenfields projects are completely new mines. Overall, it appears that Lithium Americas used a simplified version of benchmark minerals data to good effect.
这张图是由Lithium Americas根据2021年benchmark mineral intelligence的数据制作的,从几个方面来说有所改进。首先,LCE单位以正确的数量级——百万吨示。其次,2030年的需求预测为2.4百万吨,足够提供约3.4 TWh的电池容量。这已经变得更加现实,但在我看来,它仍然过低,并且没有明确指出是看涨、看空还是基准情况。第三,在供应数据中,实际包括了来自已经运营的矿山、已经勘探过的旧矿区的扩展项目、以及有可能或极有可能的新绿地矿区的供应增加的大致分配情况。旧矿区的项目是在已经勘探过的现有矿山附近的扩建项目,而绿地矿区的项目则是完全新的矿山。总体来看,Lithium Americas利用benchmark minerals数据的简化版本取得了良好的效果。
However, let's look at a more up-to-date forecast directly from benchmark minerals that provides a greater level of detail. First, the 2030 demand forecast shows two primary pathways, a base case at 2.9 megatons LCE and a high case at 5.4 megatons LCE, which equate to roughly 4 TWh and 7.6 TWh. Could the demand in 2030 be up to 7.6 TWh? Absolutely. 7.6 TWh would be an average growth rate of 34% per year, which is less than the average growth rate over the last six years, so it's fairly reasonable. Furthermore, it's not just reasonable historically, but also backed up by the 8.5 TWh of Gigafactory capacity that's already been announced for 2030. 7.6 TWh of demand from 8.5 TWh of capacity would mean a fairly high utilization rate for those factories of 89%. That is, it doesn't accommodate much for things like downtime, yield loss, and production ramps. With that said, more Gigafactories are being announced each year. Last year, rather than 8.5 TWh of Gigafactory announcements, there was only about 6.7 TWh. That is, the desire and or need is there for a huge amount of battery cells later this decade, and it's growing every year. The question is, will there be enough lithium, other materials, capital, and talent to get those factories off the ground? More on that later in the video.
Next, let's look at supply. Benchmark tracks every lithium mine in the world along with the plans of each mine, and then they assign a probability on the likelihood that each mine will go into production for a given year. There's seven categories of supply. Operating supply is production supply expansions at mines that are currently operating. Secondary supply is actually recycled material, which is often neglected in supply forecasts. Caron maintenance supply results from improvements to existing supply sources, and so it's so minimal that it doesn't really show on the graph.
Brownfield supply expansion, which I mentioned briefly earlier, is expansion near existing mines. Beyond that, there's highly probable, probable, and possible expansions in supply from greenfield's mining projects, which are new mines. Now that we have a basic understanding of the two primary demand scenarios and the basic elements that make up supply, let's look at how the data is evolving over time. For the dashed gray line, I asked Cameron Perks at Benchmark to overlay their demand forecast from three years ago to get a feel for how the landscape has shifted over time. As you can see, the base case demand scenario has shifted upwards, and if my thinking is correct and demand is close to the high case demand scenario, then a manned curve is starting to look more like an S-curve. And that's exactly what we should expect from the key component of a new technology like EVs, the same adoption curve that many other technologies have followed. The question is, will this adoption curve be hampered by the supply of raw materials? More on that later.
So if Benchmark's demand line has shifted upwards, has their supply forecast also shifted upwards? Yes. This graph from about three years ago shows that supply and demand are roughly aligned until about 2027, and then demand breaks away from supply around 2028 when supply is at around 1.4 megatons. The new graph with up-to-date data also shows supply and demand roughly aligned until about 2027, and demand also breaks away from supply around 2028. But it happens when demand is at about 2.2 megatons rather than 1.4 megatons. That is, the shapes of the graphs are nearly identical, but over the past three years, supply and demand have drifted upwards by over 50%, which is a pretty huge variance. What's going on here? Why did the lithium forecast change so much between 2020 and 2023? In my view, there's three primary factors. Let's take a look.
First, as I'll explain later in the video, between 2018 and 2020 there was a demand crash for lithium, which caused surplus lithium supply to the point where some lithium miners idled some of their production capacity. When demand started returning in 2021, it was just a matter of cranking the dial to increase supply. That is, benchmark minerals 2020 supply forecast was hiding latent supply due to weak demand. Supply usually doesn't exceed demand because selling when demand is weak can mean selling at break-even or at a loss. That in turn means supply and demand tend to move in unison and only diverge when lithium supply comes up short, rather than vice versa.
The second factor that caused benchmark minerals forecast to be revised upwards is that the high lithium prices of the past two years have driven the development of new mining projects. As we'll see, a lot of that new supply contains fish hooks and includes caveats, but the market is responding. What all this means is that circumstances have changed for both supply and demand and the forecasts have had to adapt.
The third factor that caused benchmark minerals forecast to be revised upwards was the forecasting methodology itself. As I said earlier, benchmark minerals tracks every lithium mine in the world along with the plans of each mine as well as gigafactory announcements. Their data set is robust. However, they don't build factors into their forecast that can't be predicted, like the effect of high prices on supply growth, how many new gigafactories will be announced, or the impact of rapidly emerging supply in regions like China and Africa that have shorter lead times. That means that so long as we're in a supply constrained environment, both supply and demand forecasts for lithium are likely to continue to undershoot actual supply and demand.
If that's the case, what's the point of forecast for lithium supply and demand? If you're a player in the lithium industry, it tells you what the future looks like based on all the information currently available. That is, it's a benchmark. It's a starting point for understanding an analysis, not the end game.
For example, the forecasting data can be combined with pricing data and cost of production data to develop growth, production and pricing strategies. What if you're a Tesla investor? We can use the forecast to frame up high and low end boundaries for lithium supply and then take a closer look at potential lithium supply from all sources to see where actual lithium supply might fall within that range. From there, we can factor in Tesla's plans and see where Tesla's plans start colliding with potential supply issues.
For the low end boundary, I've set global lithium supply in 2030 at 3.5 terawatt-hours, which is the current upper lithium supply target for benchmark minerals. I'm setting that as the bear case number because lithium supply forecasts have been creeping upward as lithium supply responds to demand.
If the 3.5 terawatt-hour bear case came to pass, it would make life difficult for Tesla because their 3 terawatt-hour target for battery consumption in 2030 would be about 86% of the global market, which isn't realistic.
For the high end boundary, I've set global lithium supply in 2030 at 7.6 terawatt-hours, which is benchmark minerals high demand case forecast. I'm setting that as the bull case number because it's higher than any bull case I've seen, but still a reasonable 34% average annual growth rate.
If the bull case came to pass, Tesla's 3 terawatt-hour target for battery consumption would be about 39% of the market, which would make Tesla's life a lot easier.
Now that we have high and low end boundaries for global lithium supply, let's run through the recent history of lithium supply and demand. The reason I'm covering this is because there have been a few events over the past 8 years that could be construed as proof that lithium supply can ramp rather quickly in response to demand. I have to put those examples to bed so we can start with a clean slate as to what is and isn't possible when it comes to increasing lithium supply.
There was a minor boom in lithium prices from 2015 to 2018. That's because the EV industry started to take off thanks to China and Tesla. That boom went bust from 2018 to 2020 when three things happened. First, lithium mining and refining started to catch up with demand about three years into the boom in 2018, which provided some price relief. However, most of that new supply came from existing operations in Australia, not new mining operations, which would have taken longer. Second, in March 2019, China's EV subsidies were reduced. It caused EV growth to stall in 2019, which in turn pushed the lithium market into oversupply and lithium prices crashed. Third, in 2020, COVID hit. 2020 was supposed to be a year that lithium demand strengthened and prices recovered, but instead prices continued to drop. That string of bad luck led to a lithium market in 2020, where lithium miners and refiners were operating at break even. Since despite the fact that from 2018 to 2020, large lithium producers in Australia had been throttling lithium supply by idling their mines and putting projects on hold in an attempt to increase prices.
So in 2021 and 22, when demand and prices surged, there was reserve capacity in the system to satisfy the demand. However, that didn't last long. In 2022, lithium prices reached about four times the previous record high. Since then, lithium prices have moderated, but that's mainly due to a brief respite and demand from the US and Chinese auto markets that gave lithium supply a chance to catch up. Even then, prices still remain above historic highs and may already be rebounding.
With that in mind, we have two examples of how the lithium market responds to a large demand wave. In both the 2015 to 2018 bull run and the 2021 to 2022 bull run, lithium supply responded quickly. But a good portion of that was thanks to large existing mines in Australia rather than new mines. And in both bull runs, it was more a drop in demand that really ended the bull run rather than an increase in supply.
The fact that Australia came to the rescue pretty quickly in both bull runs might be part of the reason why Elon pointed to Australia when downplaying concerns about mined lithium.
If that is his logic, there's an issue. The Australian lithium mines that Tesla gets most of their lithium from are unique because they're large, historically they had room for expansion, and are in a region where permitting is relatively quick. However, those mines are now at their operational capacity and Australia is basically rummaging around in its pockets for 37% more lithium at a time when lithium supply should ideally quintuple in the next seven years.
That is, it appears that Tesla can't rely on Australia for large increases in lithium supply later in the decade. To gain a deeper understanding of why that's the case, we need to take a closer look at how lithium mines are developed. Along the way, we'll gain insights into Australia's ability to exceed lithium forecasts over the short, medium, and long-term horizons. And of course, while we're at it, I'll walk you through every major lithium region. This is so we can find where there's wiggle room in global lithium supply for the rest of the decade to develop our own forecast.
To kick things off, I'll start with Australian hard rock lithium on a two to three-year time frame. Australia is the largest producer of mined lithium in the world, coming in at about 61,000 tons of lithium in 2022. And it has reserves of 6.2 million tons. Note that that's elemental lithium rather than lithium carbonate equivalent, or LCE. Alumni supply elemental lithium by five to get a rough approximation of LCE.
It takes about two to three years to get a mining permit in Australia, which basically sets the minimum time frame to get a new mining operation up and running. But there's only two situations where that can happen. First, with a brownfields project where the lithium deposits are adjacent to existing mining infrastructure, brownfields projects are some of the fastest and cheapest to set up. So they're low-hanging fruit and at the top of the list for development by mining companies. Unfortunately, there aren't that many mining sites with untapped deposits that are close enough to use existing mining infrastructure. As benchmark minerals shows, globally, the brownfields opportunity is only about 100 kilotons or 140 gigawatt hours of lithium by 2030.
The second way that lithium production can be expanded within two to three years is by accelerating the extraction rate of existing mines. At the annual meeting, Elon said that three-quarters of Tesla's lithium supply comes from Australia and that you could increase the rate that those mines are operating at. By operating at, I'm assuming he means extraction rate. The life of a lithium mine is generally about 20 years, and it is technically true that the extraction rate of lithium mines can be accelerated. That is, instead of extracting the lithium in 20 years, it could be extracted in 10 years at double the yearly production volume, or five years at quadruple the yearly production volume.
With that said, increasing the extraction rate is usually an on-starter. Why? First, whether a lithium mine is extracted in five years or 20 years, it still has the same value. But, extracting it in five years means more machines and manpower are required and therefore greater cost. For example, if the material in a mine is worth $20 billion, the mining company could spend $2.4 billion to extract it over the course of 20 years, or $4.8 billion to extract it over the course of five years. That's because you need to, for example, quadruple the grinding and crushing capacity, quadruple the filtration and flotation, and quadruple the earth-moving equipment. Yes, capital cost is only a portion of production cost, and my figures are just guesses here, but it illustrates the point.
If you're a mining company, there's no financial incentive to increase the extraction rate. It costs money to increase the extraction rate, but doesn't change the total revenue. That in turn reduces profit margins and reduces return on capital. So, I don't see mines lining up to increase their extraction rate unless Tesla provides a big financial incentive. As a side note, the reason why mining companies don't do the opposite and stretch the life of the average mine beyond 20 years is that besides looking after profit margins and return on capital, they also need to maximize annual revenue. The quicker the extraction, the greater the annual revenues. So it's a balancing act between annual revenue and profit margins. And that was decided when the mine was designed in order to hit the optimal balance of not just financial considerations, but also environmental and technical considerations.
The second reason why increasing the extraction rate isn't pragmatic is because in a best case scenario, it takes 4 to 7 years to set up a mine. If a mining company extracts a mine in 5 to 10 years, and it takes roughly the same amount of time to set up the next mine, they'd basically be eating hand to mouth, which wouldn't be sustainable. To put that in perspective, if you're a long term Tesla investor, imagine if Tesla said that each Gigafactory they build would only be in production for about 5 years. It would mean Gigashang High, which entered production in 2019, would shut down next year in 2024. Such a short factory life would create persistent anxiety amongst investors. But even a 10 year factory life would feel like being on a gerbil wheel. It's no different for a lithium mine except lithium projects have a lead time 2 to 3 times longer than vehicle factories.
The third reason why increasing the extraction rate isn't pragmatic is because although it increases production volume, it doesn't increase the total amount of lithium reserves or extend the production runway deeper into the future. It's much better for a lithium company to spend an extra 2 years to explore new lithium reserves and start a new mining project than to tap out their existing reserves more quickly. Yes, a lithium mining company could extract their existing mines more quickly and explore for new resources at the same time, but that's easier said than done. Some companies don't have unlimited financial resources and have to make prudent financial decisions about where to explore and invest. It's the age old constraint of unlimited once and limited resources. That is, again, Tesla has deep pockets and could help out here.
Fourth, there are technical reasons why increasing the extraction rate at a mine tends to be avoided. But I would consider those difficulties rather than showstoppers. For example, managing traffic at the mine where space is tight and the roads are dug or blasted out of bare rock. Or the fact that as the extraction rate of a mine increases, quality tends to suffer because precision mining goes by the wayside when there's pressure to move more rock more quickly. And of course, there are other factors like dust, water usage, and waste management. Again, not showstoppers, but increasing the extraction rate isn't as simple as just flipping a switch. That is, if Tesla wants to see the production rate from Australian mines increase, it's likely those mines aren't going to play ball unless Tesla kicks them several hundred million dollars in cash to make it worth their time. Alternatively, Tesla could buy a lithium mining company and crank the production dial up to eleven. More on that later in the video.
What all that means is, although Australia could technically bring more supply online in a two to three year time frame than what's forecast, it's unlikely. Some companies are already working on tapping into brownfield's resources, and there's no incentive to increase extraction rates at existing mines. There are two other ways that I can see Australian mining companies increasing production on a two to three year time frame, but they're even less likely. The first is to increase the efficiency and productivity of the mines, but the mining industry is conservative and tends not to change unless it has to. For example, it might take a company like Tesla entering the industry and forcing change, and even if that did happen, it would of course take years, and there's no indication that Tesla will get into lithium mining anytime soon. So it's not even on the horizon this side of 2026 or 2027. The second, low likely possibility for increasing lithium production on a two to three year time frame would be if governments took wartime measures to accelerate mining. That would mean throwing mining regulations out the door, steamrolling environmentalists and political resistance and dumping billions of dollars into the mining industry. I can only see that happening in the event of some kind of immediate and pressing global emergency, like a war between China and the West, but I wouldn't exactly call that a win for a sustainable future.
What about beyond two to three years? The next substantial time frame for Australia is four to seven years. That's the quickest that a greenfield's mining project can be brought online. By so long, let's again use Tesla Gigafactories as an example and go from there.
Three years ago in 2020, Tesla broke ground on Giga Austin. By 2021, most of the main structures were built, and then one year ago in 2022, the production ramp had begun, but it wasn't yet at a thousand vehicles per week. This year, it's finally hit volume production. That is, it took two years to go from groundbreaking to production and another year to hit production in earnest.
That two to three year time frame is roughly the same time that it takes a lithium mine to go from groundbreaking to initial production and volume production. However, the reason why a greenfield's lithium project takes four to seven years rather than two to three years is because of what needs to happen before groundbreaking occurs. Let's take a closer look.
Bear in mind, the timeline I'll be providing here is a grossly oversimplified view, and reality is more complex. Before a lithium mine can break ground, the mining company needs a detailed understanding of the shape of the lithium deposit along with the lithium concentration throughout the deposit. How is that done?
The first step of mapping the lithium deposit is exploration drilling to gather core samples, which takes about three to six months. Drilling sounds straightforward, but lithium mines are usually in the middle of nowhere and in rough terrain, so getting the equipment on and off site to the right locations takes time. Beyond that, it involves drilling not just one hole, but dozens. Those holes are sometimes hundreds of meters deep and often through solid rock, which is slow going.
Then, the resulting drill core samples have to be logged and then promising sections are sent off to a lab for analysis. That means thousands of measurements and tests along the length of the hundreds of meters of core samples. A lot of the core samples will contain no lithium. Exploration drilling is hit and miss, like playing a game of battleship. It involves taking a guess as to where the ore body is based on things like observations of geologic formations. However, even if the drilling misses the ore body, it provides a data point for where the lithium deposit isn't, which is still helpful.
When the exploration drilling and testing is complete, the lithium company should now have a low resolution view of the shape, size, and concentration of the lithium deposit. That low resolution view is used to plan the second step of mapping the lithium deposit, which is called step-out drilling. Step-out drilling is more intensive than exploration drilling, and it has two goals. First, to more clearly define the shape and composition of the lithium deposit. Second, to gather more material from the deposit for processing studies. Processing studies are a lab-scale test to work out how to economically separate the lithium from other materials like rock, clay, and brine.
Although there are tried and trusted methods for different resources, the specific chemical makeup of a resource can have big impacts on the extraction process and the economics of the mine. The step-out drilling and processing studies take about 12 months and provide the mining company with a basic understanding of whether the lithium mine would be commercially viable.
If the mine does look viable and with a detailed understanding of the lithium deposit in hand, there's still at least one more year of work required for detailed engineering. Detailed engineering includes designing all the infrastructure for the mining site, researching environmental concerns, calculating the ideal extraction rate, creating remediation plans, and more. That is, on a greenfield's mine with an aggressive timeline at least two and a half years of work needs to be done before breaking ground. Three to six months for exploration drilling, a year for step-out drilling and processing studies, and another year for detailed engineering.
Usually all of that takes six to seven years, but that's because mines are trying to be capital efficient and they have to build the case for further investment each step of the way. If Tesla got involved, they could compress the schedule by running all the development activities concurrently rather than sequentially.
So if we combine the roughly two and a half years of exploration and planning with the two years it takes to build the mine and get it into production, that's over four years to go from the first drill core to production for a greenfield's mining project. Bear in mind, that's just on the technical side and a best-case scenario, and it didn't take into account factors like the process for obtaining a mining permit, which varies by mining jurisdiction and can take years to work through.
That is, taking into account regulatory, technical and financial realities in a western country four to seven years is closer to reality for the quickest that a mine can be brought online, which is still faster than what we've seen historically. We'll talk about regions like China and Africa in a moment.
One of the implications of the long development timelines for lithium mines is that investing early is key. Unfortunately, there's been a drastic underinvestment in mining in general for the last decade, and as I covered briefly earlier, lithium is no different, and in Australia there's a shortage of greenfield sites being developed. Australia currently only has about a dozen J ORC compliant mines. J ORC is the Joint or Reserves Committee, which sets standards for reporting mineral exploration results. The top three largest mining projects in Australia are already in production, and the next two largest are under construction and coming online in the next couple of years. Those five mines make up 89% of Australia's J ORC compliant reserves. Then, on a timeline beyond three years, there's only three small mines that are planned. So in the next four to seven years, for Australia, we shouldn't expect large increases in lithium production beyond what's been forecast.
With Australia out of the way, let's move on to the next region and resource type, South American lithium brides. Chile produced 39,000 tons of lithium in 2022, and Argentina 6,200 tons. Between them, they have by far the largest reserves in the world at about 12 million tons, or 48% of global reserves. That's as compared to Australia, which has 24% of global reserves, but manages to produce about 36% more lithium. So if South America has such large reserves, why doesn't it produce more lithium? It's because South American lithium brides involve flooding large areas of desert ecosystem, which means water usage issues, environmental issues, and running up against the rights of indigenous communities. That means they're fraught with social and political pushback, so it generally takes about five to ten years to bring new lithium capacity online. That's in contrast to the two years that it takes to fully evaporate a lithium brine for processing. With that said, Chile is working on the political and environmental issues. They're developing a national lithium strategy and suggesting that new projects will reduce water usage by using only direct lithium extraction technologies. But it's too early to predict how that's going to affect their lithium production and when. In fact, government involvement may mean that the growth of South American lithium production actually slows down rather than accelerates. So just like Australia, in the next four to seven years, we shouldn't expect large increases in lithium production from South American lithium brides beyond what's been forecast.
The next largest lithium-producing region is China at 19,000 pounds per year. China produces lithium from both brides and hard rock sources, which includes spodumene and lapitolite. Lapitolite is a type of lithium-containing mica, and most of the future growth in China is expected to be from lapitolites in Jiangxi province. Lapitolites are a dark horse when it comes to lithium supply. Let's look at why. In response to the demand wave of the past couple of years, China now intends to roughly triple their 2022 production of lithium by 2025 by tapping into lapitolites. That is, their goal is to significantly increase global lithium supply within the space of about three to four years. So unlike Australia and South America, Chinese lapitolite appears to offer the promise of rapid growth on relatively short notice. That means China has a good chance of surprising to the upside for mined lithium supply later in the decade.
However, there's two fish hooks that come with lapitolite mining. First, it's fraught with environmental concerns. Every ton of lithium carbonate produced through lapitolites produces 200 tons of waste that can end up in large tailings ponds which can leach into the surrounding environment. Furthermore, lithium produced from lapitolites has a large CO2 footprint due to the energy required for processing, which is exacerbated by China's tendency to use coal power. The environmental drawbacks mean that many EV companies will try to avoid the use of lapitolite-sourced lithium.
Second, lapitolite production is so inefficient that it's generally only profitable when lithium prices are above $20,000 to $30,000 per ton, with more mines becoming more viable at higher prices. That means when lithium prices drop, miners shut down production. And in China, recently, some have. Given the lapitolite fish hooks, it's difficult to get a solid bead on how much China can increase the global supply of mined lithium beyond what's already been forecast. But here's my speculation.
If China succeeds in tripling lithium production by 2025 and builds on the large amount of lithium already forecasted from Australian sources, we could see a supply glut and price crash for lithium in the middle of the decade. On a short-term basis, that would be great for the EV industry. However, a price crash in the mid-2020s could reduce investment in lapitolites because they're only viable at higher lithium prices, and miners use profit to drive investment. If that happened, it would mean that, despite the ability of lapitolites to scale within a three to four year lead time, they fail to meaningfully increase actual lithium supply against the forecast later in the decade.
But what if I'm wrong, which there's a very good chance of? By 2025, even after China triples their production of mined lithium within the next few years, China will only make up 13% of global lithium supply. In absolute terms, that's 0.3 terawatts, which is in contrast to the potential 4.2 terawatt-hour demand gap later in the decade. So although some people are viewing lapitolites as some kind of Deus Ex machina for lithium supply later in the decade, it's unlikely that they can completely fill the potential supply gap. It's possible, but unlikely.
That means for the forecast we'll build later in the video, I'm going to assume that China can contribute an additional one terawatt-hour of lithium supply by 2030 by continuing to grow their mined lithium production at about 40% per year.
The next region to cover is the United States, with only 900 tons of lithium production in 2022 and lithium reserves of 1 million tons. Most of the proposed lithium extraction in the US is in the form of direct lithium extraction from brines or from lithium clays, which are relatively unconventional ways of producing lithium.
As for permitting, the timeline for a mining permit in the US is typically 7 to 10 years, but it can happen more quickly. Lithium Americas is making great progress in Nevada and after 3 to 4 years they have permission to start construction. They don't yet have the mining permit in hand, but presumably they will by the time they start production in 2026. Overall, lithium Americas is expected to take about 9 years to get from exploration to production, which is actually a good pace for a new mine in the US. That is, it's not realistic to expect movement in lithium supply forecasts out of the US before the end of the decade.
However, what if the US changed its laws to allow for permitting to occur in 2 years? Even we might see some movement in US lithium supply forecasts by the end of the decade, but it would be late in the decade. What about Tesla's Lithium Clay Extraction technology, or if they developed an extraction technology for lithium brines? That's a big wildcard because there's no public confirmation that Tesla actually bought a lithium clay mine. But even if they have, and even with an update to the permitting process, any permitting would take at least 2 and a half years, and construction to commissioning would be another 2 and a half years, and that doesn't include the production ramp. That is, based on what we know currently, in a best case scenario, a Tesla Lithium extraction operation in the US would happen in 2027 to 2028 at the earliest. If they wait another year or two to pull the trigger, then they'll be lucky to get an operation off the ground this decade. So once again, in the next 4 to 7 years, we shouldn't expect large increases in lithium production from the US beyond what's been forecast.
As a side note, many people point to direct lithium extraction, or DLE, as one potential avenue for massively increasing lithium supply by 2030. The basic process of DLE is pumping lithium brine through a filter that pulls out the lithium and returns the spent brine back to the source. That is, it doesn't involve moving huge amounts of raw material around and sorting through that material, but rather simply pumping a fluid through an extraction process and returning it to the reservoir. That should mean a lot less work, a smaller environmental impact, and therefore fewer issues getting a permit. However, the conceptual simplicity of the process is deceiving.
Every DLE process is different, and has strengths and weaknesses, and every lithium resource is different. That means just like a lithium mine, there's a number of technical challenges to work through, and it takes years to get a DLE project off the ground. Some brines contain few contaminants, and DLE is easier to set up at those sites, while other brines do contain contaminants like heavy metals and ore can reach temperatures of 600 degrees Fahrenheit or 300 degrees Celsius. Those harsh conditions can make the DLE process uneconomical or even destroy the equipment.
Because of last year, DLE represented about 7% of global lithium production, so DLE isn't new. It's a proven technology that continues to develop and expand into new resources as technology improves. And looking to the future, Benchmark Minerals forecast is for DLE-sourced lithium to increase from about 55,000 tons LCE last year to about 650,000 tons by 2032. That'll increase the market share of DLE from about 7% last year to 15% by early next decade. That means the Benchmark Minerals forecast includes the growth of DLE, so it hasn't been forgotten or neglected. It's just not going to change the game and the timeframes that some people assume it will.
The next lithium producing region to cover is Africa. Rather than using USGS data, which has very little information on Africa, I'll use this image from Ristad Energy. This year, Ristad expects that Africa as a whole will produce about 50,000 tons LCE. Again, like China, Africa is a black box, except for different reasons. In China, most of the question marks are around how pricing will affect long-term supply growth. For Africa, for me, the question centers around the reliability of the estimates in unstable countries. That's because 80% of the lithium in Africa is expected to come from four countries that are in the top 30 most unstable countries in the world. Beyond the political stability issues, there's also a potential for human rights issues. By that, I mean digging lithium out of the ground in hazardous working conditions like we've seen with cobalt in the Congo, sometimes with child labor. So EV companies will have to monitor their African lithium supply closely.
If the instability and human rights risks can be managed, lithium mining in Africa is likely to play a big role in the transition to sustainable energy. By Ristad's estimate, lithium production from Africa will grow by about six times 2023 production in the next three years, and then reach 400,000 tons of LCE by 2030. Benchmark Minerals forecast for Africa by 2030 is roughly 200,000 tons LCE, which means their estimate is half that of Ristad's. Why the discrepancy? Although Ristad and Benchmark are using similar base data, Ristad is building an additional growth that hasn't been announced yet, whereas Benchmark is providing a forecast grounded in what's actually been announced. In my view, that provides us with a base case and a bull case for lithium production in Africa. With that said, I'm going to push Ristad's bull case of 400,000 tons LCE for 2030 up to 500,000 tons LCE in 2030. Why? Because Africa seems to be the only lithium producing region in the world where we could see relatively unconstrained growth.
Could is the key word here, because in unstable countries a lot can go wrong. However, on the upside, if things go well, they could go very well. Africa has less regulation, high quality lithium deposits, plenty of Chinese investment, and potentially low production costs. That is, unlike China, the lithium from Africa won't just be something that can be tapped into in response to extreme market demands, but could sustain continuous growth on a long-term basis.
For those wondering how I arrived at the 500,000 tons LCE figure for 2030, I applied an average annual growth rate of 40% per year from this year's expected production base of around 50,000 tons LCE. I chose a 40% growth rate based on two precedents.
The 40% growth rate global lithium supply sustained in the last six years, and China's expected burst growth rate of 44% in the next few years. It also makes for an even tenfold increase in lithium production in seven years, which on the face of it is clearly aggressive, and where I can I'm trying to be reasonably bullish. I'll explain why later in the video.
For now, the takeaway is that we're going to add 420 gigawatt hours of lithium supply from Africa to the lithium supply forecast that we'll be collating in a moment.
目前来说,我们将在接下来的时期内向我们即将整理的锂供应预测中添加来自非洲的420吉瓦时的锂供应。
As a side note, some people might have noticed that Ristad is forecasting 3.4 megatons LCE by 2031, which is quite a bit more than benchmark minerals forecast of 2.6 megatons. That's because Ristad's supply forecast is based on UN climate goals rather than actual scouted supply. In other words, Ristad's working back from climate goals, and benchmark is once again providing actual market data from all sources.
The next lithium-producing region to cover is Canada, with only 500 tons of lithium production in 2022, but lithium reserves of 930,000 tons. Canada's lithium resources are a mix of lithium-bearing rocks and lithium brines. Like Australia and Canada, it only takes about two years to permit a lithium mine. However, like the United States, Canada's working off a low base with little mining capacity. That means unlike Australia, there aren't opportunities to quickly expand production at or near existing mines. So all new production will have to come from new mining projects that have long lead times. That is, once again, in the next 4-7 years, we shouldn't expect large increases in lithium production from Canada beyond what's been forecast.
Finally, as for Brazil, Portugal, and other countries, I'm not going to do deep dives on each one. That's for several reasons. First, because on an individual basis, these countries have relatively small lithium reserves. Second, they're all already accounted for in Benchmark's forecast, and I don't expect significant revisions. Third, much of the reserves listed under other countries are in Africa, which we've already fully covered. And fourth, because they don't give us additional insights that haven't been covered in working through all the other regions.
As an interim summary, I've made this table showing what I view as the realistic potential upside from Benchmark Mineral Supply Forecast data for each lithium-producing region in 2027 and 2030. The Benchmark forecast for lithium supply in 2030 is 3.5 TWh. Based on the country-by-country walkthrough we just did for mined lithium supply. I added 1 TWh from China, 0.4 TWh from Africa, and then 0.1 to 0.2 TWh each. For the rest of the regions. That means a total lithium supply of 5.4 TWh in 2030, versus the 3.5 TWh currently forecast by Benchmark, which is a 55% increase.
作为一个临时总结,我已制作了这张表格,展示了我对Benchmark Mineral Supply预测数据所显示的每个锂生产地区在2027年和2030年的现实潜在增长空间。Benchmark对2030年锂供应的预测值为3.5 TWh。根据我们刚刚进行的逐个国家的采矿锂供应情况的概述,我添加了1 TWh来自中国,0.4 TWh来自非洲,然后每个地区再增加0.1至0.2 TWh。对于其他地区来说。这意味着到2030年总共将有5.4 TWh的锂供应,而Benchmark目前预测为3.5 TWh,增长率为55%。
So by my estimate, global lithium supply comes up 29% short of Benchmark's 7.6 TWh high-case demand scenario in 2030. That's not the end of the world, because total lithium supply will still increase by about 4 times in the next 7 years. It just means that due to a lack of mining investment, we may not see the 5-6x growth that could have been possible.
Note that so far, we've only covered lithium-ion batteries, and a moment will factor in battery supply from sodium-ion batteries as well. After that, we'll look at what total global battery supply from all sources means for Tesla in the coming years.
Before we move on to that, it's worth pointing out some of the assumptions that went into this table beyond what was discussed in the country-by-country walkthrough. First, for Australia, South America, the United States, and Canada, I said that we shouldn't expect large increases in mined lithium supply in the next 4-7 years. I dealt with that by assuming that there would be no additional supply from those countries in 2027, and then 0.1 to 0.2 TWh each in 2030. That's because for those countries, the lead time for a new mine is at least 4 years, and we're already more than halfway through 2023. So there's not much opportunity for potential upside in 2027. But in 7 years by 2030, there's a pretty good chance we see some new capacity come online.
Second, I set the 2027 numbers for China and Africa at half the 2030 numbers that we discussed in the country-by-country walkthrough. That's because I assume they'll see typical S curves for growth, where scaling becomes more difficult at higher material volumes.
Third, the 7.6 TWh demand figure is just a guidepost. That's because there'll be actual demand for lithium and latent demand for lithium. What do I mean by that? The 7.6 TWh of demand is from factories that have already been announced. If I'm forecasting 5.4 TWh worth of lithium supply, that means some factories simply aren't going to be built because there won't be enough lithium to feed them. But beyond that, those factories will need a large amount of other materials, skilled workers, and machinery. So there'll be actual lithium demand from the factories that get built, and latent demand waiting in the wings when enough lithium, other materials, skilled workers, and machinery are available.
So although with further Gigafactory announcements, latent demand could be over 10 GW in 2030, I've adopted Benchmark's high demand case of 7.6 TWh for 2030 as a guidepost for actual demand. But all we really know is that demand will likely exceed supply. It could happen that skilled workers and machinery end up being the bottleneck instead of lithium, but in my view, that's unlikely for two reasons. First, because the lead times for upskilling workers and building machinery are shorter than the lead time for building a mine. Second, because the lead times to permit, build, and commission chemical processing, cathode production, and cell manufacturing are all shorter than mining. Other materials could be the bottleneck as well, but I covered that off earlier in the video. But if I'm wrong and lithium isn't the bottleneck, the net effect for Tesla and the transition to sustainable energy would be the same. A more linear, rather than exponential growth rate.
Before we move on, and while we're on the topic of the ways that I could be wrong, I'd like to emphasize that the odds of my forecast being correct here, or even within 5% of correct, is low. With that said, although my primary goal for this video is to make the best forecast I can, there's also two secondary goals. And they're the reason why the video ended up being so long. First, I laid out my thought process and sources in detail so that if you disagree, you can build on or tweak my thinking based on your own assumptions. I'm not handing down stone tablets here, but rather giving you the tools to make your own. Second, as much as possible, I've tried to offer useful information and insights to help you understand the lithium landscape. Which hopefully, if you've made it this far in the video, you've gotten.
However, we're not done yet. As I've said in past videos, I expect sodium ion batteries to hit the market in force in the late 2020s. There's no telling what the actual ramp could look like, but if sodium ion batteries are everything they're advertised to be, the ramp will be aggressive. Let's look at the production estimates that I've seen for sodium ion from lowest to highest, and then we'll look at my forecast, or more accurately, guesstimate, because everyone is just guessing at this point.
First, wood McKenzie, which estimates 40 gigawatt hours of sodium ion production in 2030 for their base case, with another 100 gigawatt hours possible if sodium ion has a good launch by 2025. In my view, that estimate is so low that it can be effectively thrown out. That's because there's already 80 gigawatt hours of production capacity planned by 2025, and about 150 gigawatt hours planned by 2030. Second is ICC Sino, which is expecting 165 gigawatt hours by 2026. I place the most trust in ICC Sino's estimate because it's directly from a Chinese analyst house that's keeping close tabs on announcements and developments in China.
The third estimate is from Frank Wanderlich, who's an active proponent of sodium ion. Frank is predicting a run rate of 100 gigawatt hours of sodium ion batteries by the end of next year, which is 18 months away, and by the end of 2025, he's predicting a production capacity of 300 to 400 gigawatt hours per year. However, he doesn't state what he expects the actual production rate to be, given that it'll take time for that capacity to ramp, I would assume the actual production rate would be about 50% of capacity by the end of 2025, meaning 150 to 200 gigawatt hour run rate if things go really well.
ICC Sino expects 66 gigawatt hours of total production in 2025, which would mean a production run rate of about 100 gigawatt hours at the end of the year. That is, Frank is predicting a production growth rate of roughly 50 to 100% greater than ICC Sino, 150 to 200 gigawatt hour run rate by the end of 2025 versus 100 gigawatt hours. In my view, given that the end of 2025 is only 30 months away and we're essentially working from a base of zero, 150 to 200 gigawatt hours is overly bullish. Unfortunately, neither ICC Sino nor Frank is providing an estimate for 2030.
For that, let's turn to my forecast slash guesstimate. My bowl case scenario is for 160 gigawatt hours of sodium ion in 2026. From there, I factor roughly 60% growth per year from 2027 to 2030 for a total of one terawatt hour of sodium ion battery supply in 2030.
Given that sodium is available in huge quantities and therefore, sodium ion batteries don't have the same primary constraint as lithium ion batteries, why haven't I forecast a more aggressive ramp?
It's because although sodium ion batteries aren't as constrained by raw materials, their growth is still limited by the speed that the entire supply chain can be scaled. Sodium is plentiful, but it still needs to be refined into high-purity battery-grade sodium combined with other chemicals to form the cathode and then manufactured into a battery cell. And that's just on the cathode end. Supply chains are also required for the separator, electrolyte, anode, and electrode foils. All in all, each battery cell factory requires two to three dozen factories to support it and every one of those factories has to ramp in unison.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, all of the forecasts are dependent on sodium ion delivering on what's been promised by the industry hype. So far, it's untested and unproven at scale. That is, all the forecasts, including mine, are generously assuming that sodium ion will deliver on all the hype and there aren't any hidden drawbacks for the chemistry that would hamper its adoption.
Moving along, let's take my forecast of one terawatt hour of sodium ion battery production by 2030 and add it to the lithium ion forecast I showed earlier to arrive at battery supply from all sources. The result is 3.8 terawatt hours of total battery supply in 2027 and 6.4 terawatt hours of total battery supply in 2030. That means a relatively reasonable growth rate of about 30% per year for the rest of the decade. However, it still leaves a supply gap at the end of the decade of about 1.2 terawatt hours, despite some pretty aggressive assumptions.
Let's review those assumptions before moving on. First, the sodium ion industry has to grow from non-existent to the size of the current global lithium ion battery industry within 7 years. Second, companies from Australia, South America, and North America will have to announce 500 gigawatt hours worth of new, greenfield mining projects. In order to hit production by the end of the decade, on an aggressive timeline, all that mining capacity will have to be announced in the next 2 to 3 years. Third, China will have to build an additional 1 terawatt hour worth of mined lithium production by 2030. That means continuing to expand production at an average annual growth rate of around 40%, which will only happen if lithium prices are high enough for long enough to encourage aggressive growth of Chinese lapitolite production. Fourth, Africa has to go from producing about 70 gigawatt hours of lithium to about 700 gigawatt hours in 7 years. Given the instability and unique challenges of Africa, such as poor infrastructure, that would be impressive. Fifth, politicians, regulators, and the general public in each country will have to play ball. It's not uncommon for new mining projects to get caught up in red tape and public pushback for several years, or even blocked entirely. The odds of at least 2 or 3 of these assumptions playing out in support of the 6.4 terawatt hour supply forecast is decent, but the odds that all 5 will is possible but unlikely. That is, the 6.4 terawatt hour forecast is on the bullish side. However, the bullishness is intentional. It's to show that even with a bullish forecast, battery production from lithium, sodium, and recycled materials still appears to come up short against potential demand.
Now that we've established a forecast for battery supply for the rest of the decade at a global level, let's specifically look at Tesla. What share of global battery supply can Tesla scoop up? And if they do face a crunch, when could that happen? Bear in mind, the goal here isn't to be highly precise because we're already dealing with so many unknowns, but to get a strategic view of the challenge that Tesla's facing and how they could respond to that challenge.
To kick things off, I expect that Tesla will use between 150 to 200 gigawatt hours of battery cells this year from all sources for all products. Tesla stated that, on average, their goal is to grow 50% per year until 2030. If they hit that target in 2030, they'll be consuming 3 terawatt hours of battery cells per year. 3 terawatt hours is also the number that Tesla gave at Battery Day, so Tesla set firm expectations for a 3 terawatt hour consumption rate in 2030.
If we take the cell supply data points for each year and divide them by the cell consumption data points for each year from Tesla's expected battery consumption, the result is the graph on screen. What we're seeing is Tesla's battery demand as a share of global battery supply for each year from now until 2030. It grows from 16% this year to 47% in 2030.
One big caveat with this graph is that it's backstop by one overriding assumption, which is that Tesla will continue to have the highest margin of any EV and grid storage company. That in turn will allow them to pay the highest price for batteries and battery materials, and gain greater access to battery supply than their competitors.
On that note, Tesla's battery supply is often viewed as black and white. That is, there's enough batteries or there isn't. But the reality's a bit more nuanced. Supply is somewhat variable to price. The more Tesla is willing or able to pay for batteries and lithium, the more they'll have access to. I say somewhat variable to price because most battery cell manufacturers prefer to diversify who they do business with, and because it's dependent on how well Tesla's planned out their battery supply for each product, which each have different requirements.
To say the quiet part out loud, if Tesla does manage to secure greater cell supply through greater buying power, it necessarily involves putting some competitors out of business that are already struggling to turn a profit. I'm not saying I want that to happen, just that it's the most logical outcome.
So if Tesla can afford to pay the most and therefore buy all the batteries and battery materials they need, the sky is the limit until they're consuming all the batteries in the world, right? No.
In my view, at some point in the latter half of the decade, Tesla will start bumping up against government pushback and or the market share displaced by other automakers and energy storage manufacturers that have successfully made the transition to renewable energy. For example, Tesla and BYD are currently the only major auto manufacturers that can turn a profit on EVs and their neck and neck in growth and sales volume. If that continued, even if no other company survived, Tesla would end up with a 50% market share in a best case scenario. But more than half a dozen auto manufacturers will likely survive.
That is, it'll be difficult for Tesla to consume more than a third of global battery supply, which will happen by around 2028 if they hit their growth targets. If you disagree with the 33% estimate and believe Tesla will max out at consuming, for example, 20 or 50% of global battery supply, you can run your finger along the X-axis to get an idea of when Tesla could start facing challenges.
As a side note, earlier, I said that my battery supply forecast was aggressive and on the bullish side. If we take that into account and assume a less bullish battery supply of 5TWh instead of 6.4T, Tesla would be consuming 33% of global battery supply a year earlier in 2027. Bear in mind that 5TWh is still 43% above Benchmark's 2030 supply forecast, so it's still bullish against the baseline.
After taking all that into account, if Tesla doesn't take a more active role in lithium mining, they'll start facing a lithium crunch as early as 2026 if there's fierce competition. But no later than 2028 if most of the competition goes bankrupt. We'll say 2027 as a base case.
After 2027, Tesla might see their rate of battery consumption growth dropped from 50% in 2027 to 42% in 2028, 29% in 2029 and 22% in 2030. Again, that's if they don't take an active role. We'll talk more about what Tesla can do in a moment.
On a related note, I've seen people concerned that Tesla is being out-competed by companies like Ford and GM, which seem to be on a lithium-sourcing bonanza. Here's my view on that. Tesla tends to sign with the largest lithium producers in the world, but just doesn't advertise it. Tesla's never shared much about their lithium supply because there was no reason to, and so its business as usual. That is, the absence of information isn't necessarily a cause for concern. In fact, the argument could be flipped on its head. It could be that GM and Ford investors are concerned about competition from Tesla, and so GM and Ford are making announcements about locking in lithium supply to put investors at ease. Not saying that is the case, but rather we don't know the minds of the people involved and their strategy. And because we don't know, it becomes an exercise and imagination.
Getting back on track, if Tesla's 50% growth rate is in jeopardy later in the decade and the primary cause is a shortage of mined lithium, what can they do about it? If Tesla took a more active role in the lithium mining industry now, with lead times of 4-7 years for a new mining project, there's still an opportunity to make an impact by the end of the decade. I'd be surprised if they could bring enough new mined lithium supply online to fully cover the supply gap, but even an increase of 10% would be enough for another 2 million vehicles per year by 2030.
But in my view, even if they weren't successful at increasing the supply of mined lithium, it would still be worth their time to become more active in the industry. Why? First, as I said earlier, Tesla's paying large amounts to both lithium miners and refiners. Not 4 years from now, but today. Those margin costs could be running over a billion dollars per year. Furthermore, the better the battery industry gets at manufacturing batteries, the greater their proportional cost of the raw materials. That is, the best way to reduce the cost of lithium-ion batteries is now to reduce the materials though. And the best way to do that is to cut out the third-party margins.
The second reason it would be worth Tesla's time to become more active in lithium mining is that the industry doesn't always share Tesla's goals. Tesla wants as much lithium as possible at the lowest cost to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. Lithium miners are looking to maximize profits and minimize risk because lithium mining is a capital-intensive risky business. That means what's best for miners is to increase lithium supply, but not so much that it exceeds demand and creates thin or non-existent margins.
So overall, if Tesla wants to be the master of their own destiny rather than be held captive by third parties, and one form or another, they may need to take a more active role in lithium mining. The logic here is the same logic that Tesla used for vertically integrating into battery cell manufacturing, cathode production, and lithium refining. Vertical integration can accelerate the speed that they scale, reduce margins paid to third parties, and de-risk the business. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Tesla necessarily has to vertically integrate into mining, but that they may need to take the supplier relationship one step further to form partnerships.
On that note, if Tesla does decide to take a more active role in lithium mining, what are their options? First, they can finance or partner on mining projects that might be struggling for capital or need money to accelerate development or increase production. This is the best option in my view because it allows Tesla to keep some distance from some of the negative sentiment around mining. Second, Tesla could buy one of the major mining companies. Besides hitting the accelerator on the speed of extraction, Tesla could let the lithium contracts of their competitors expire and redirect that lithium supply to themselves. That is, a buyout would be the nuclear option and Tesla might come under fire for being monopolistic. Third, and finally, Tesla could become a miner themselves by buying, exploring for, and or developing mines. This is the worst option in my view because it carries the most technical and reputational risk without much additional benefit.
If there's so many reasons for Tesla to get into lithium mining and so many ways to structure that, the question then becomes, why is Tesla said that they'll only get into lithium mining if they have to? I see five reasons, which aren't mutually exclusive. First, because lithium mining creates a lot of social and environmental headaches and Tesla's trying to avoid associating themselves with those issues. Second, on more than one occasion, Ford's CEO Jim Farley has said that they're securing lithium supply three years in advance. By this, I'm assuming he means confirming lithium production volumes and costs and signing the contracts. It could be that Tesla's looking three years down the road at lithium supply and it still looks pretty good up until 2026. That is, a shortage of mined lithium hasn't hit their radar yet and it's still a theoretical risk.
Third, it could be that Tesla intends to buy a mining company and they're downplaying mining because they don't want to inflate the price of lithium mining stocks before making a purchase. Fourth, as Elon said, it could be that they're avoiding vertically integrating into mining because vertical integration diverts resources. That is, building or running a lithium mine could slow Tesla down on other projects like building vehicle factories. Fifth, and finally, it could be that Elon is being over-optimistic about lithium mining because it doesn't appear to be a technical challenge. That is, he may be underestimating the array of other non-technical challenges involved in lithium mining.
With all that said, despite all the reasons Tesla may not be considering or may not want to get into lithium mining, I think they eventually will. That's because although Elon tends to be over-optimistic, he's usually good at course correcting when reality makes itself apparent. If Tesla's locking down lithium supply three years into the future like most companies are and the assumptions in this video are correct, we might expect more aggressive action from Tesla in the next few years. As usual, I could very well be wrong and I'm looking forward to the feedback on this video. Maybe it'll bring something out of the woodwork that I've missed.
Before we move on to the summary, it's worth addressing the dozens of other potential battery chemistries beyond lithium and sodium ion. There are a lot of promising technologies out there such as vanadium flow batteries and liquid metal batteries. However, in my view, they won't scale quickly enough to make a big impact by the end of the decade. Sodium ion batteries are evidence of that. They're ready for commercialization, comparatively easy to scale, and the materials are abundant. But even with all those things in their favor, they're unlikely to take more than a third of the market by the end of the decade, and likely much less. Beyond that, every battery chemistry has strengths and weaknesses. The implication of that is that each chemistry has specs and economics that lend those chemistries to specific use cases. These use cases might have no overlap with lithium or sodium ion batteries, or the use case could be so narrow that the market of the chemistry is 5 to 10% of the total battery market.
In summary, let's review the key points of the global lithium supply chain and how it could affect Tesla's 50% growth rate target. First, lithium mining and refining are both potential bottlenecks for lithium production in the next seven years. But all indications are that refining will be less of a bottleneck than mining. In my view, the reason why Elon's pushing for refining and why Tesla's building refining capacity in Texas is for all the benefits related to regionalization and potentially because Tesla may have a specific bottleneck for lithium hydroxide supply. But whatever the reason, it's good to see Tesla vertically integrating into lithium refining because it cuts out the margins of third party suppliers and it's one of the best ways to decrease the cost of their battery cells.
Second, Elon said that there's enough lithium in the ground to transition the world to sustainable energy. Building on that, not only is there enough lithium in the ground or resources, but within the next few years we should have enough of those resources upgraded to reserves to transition the world to sustainable energy, which means not only is the lithium there will have confirmed that it can be extracted profitably. Third, the quality of lithium forecasts vary, but a good quality lithium forecast from the likes of benchmark mineral intelligence is an accurate representation of what's in the pipeline for lithium supply today. However, they don't build in any speculation for supply growth, so they tend to undershoot supply in the long term, but they also undershoot demand and potentially by a larger margin.
第二,埃隆说地下有足够的锂来实现世界可持续能源转型。除此之外,不仅地下或资源中有足够的锂,而且在接下来的几年内,我们将有足够的这些资源升级为储量,以便使世界向可持续能源转型,这意味着不仅锂存在,而且已经证实可以盈利性地提取锂。
第三,锂的质量预测各不相同,但像benchmark mineral intelligence这样的机构的良好质量锂预测是对今天锂供应情况的准确描述。然而,它们没有考虑供应增长的任何推测,因此在长期内往往低估了供应,但也低估了需求,而且可能低估得更多。
Overall, I expect lithium supply to respond strongly to market forces this decade, but likely not quickly enough to cover demand, let alone to keep prices low. So those who expect free market forces to kick in and increase lithium supply are right, and so are those who point out that there are limits to the speed that the lithium industry can scale on short notice. Fourth, I walked you through the primary regions where mined lithium can be produced, why it takes so long to bring lithium supply online, and why the regions that do have potential for scaling come with fish hooks. Chinese lithium sourced from lapitolite is only viable when prices are high, which may limit its growth, and it comes with a large environmental footprint. African lithium can scale rapidly if everything goes well, but it's starting from a low base and comes from unstable countries with poor infrastructure, which may complicate scaling plans.
Fifth, sodium ion battery supply has the potential to scale like man, but because it's working from a low base, it likely won't fill the supply gap created by the lithium shortage that's expected later this decade. I forecast one terawatt hour of sodium ion battery production by 2030. Even if the lithium forecast isn't revised upwards, that means sodium ion battery supply would only make up about a third of the total battery market in 2030. Hitting more than one terawatt hour by 2030 is unlikely because although sodium ion batteries use highly abundant sodium as the active ion, the sodium still needs to be refined and manufactured and to highly specialized battery grade materials, which means like lithium ion batteries, it'll take time to build the supply chain for sodium ion batteries.
There are sodium ion bowls out there that expect sodium ion to dominate the market by 2030. But I haven't seen logic that can justify that, and what I'm forecasting is already unprecedented, which is a 60% growth rate after an aggressive launch from 2023 to 2026. The sixth key point of the video is that taking into account all battery supply from lithium ion, sodium ion, and recycled material, my forecast is for 6.4 terawatt hours of battery supply against demand of 7.6 terawatt hours from battery factories that are already planned. That makes my supply forecast about 36 to 54% higher than benchmark minerals forecast from 2027 to 2030. Demand is more difficult to pin down because although we know there's 8.5 terawatt hours of factories planned, in the face of shortages, we don't know which factories will be built.
Seventh, there's very little publicly available information on Tesla's lithium or battery supply chain. However, if we assume that due to Tesla's profit margins that they can outbid everyone on batteries, they can continue growing at 50% per year for at least a few years. Beyond that, if they continue to grow at 50% per year, they'll be consuming more than a third of total global battery supply, which means they'll start running up against other players in the market and potentially government protectionism that limits their growth rate. In my view, that means Tesla may find it a real struggle to continue growing at 50% per year beyond 2027 and may have to accept a slower growth rate.
Eighth, the only way that I can see Tesla mitigating the battery supply shortage is to take a more active role in lithium mining to increase the supply for both themselves and the global market. They could do that by financing or partnering on new mines, buying out one of the largest mining companies in the world or even getting into mining themselves. With that said, given the lead times for increasing the production of mined material, my concern is that Tesla may have already waited too long to completely solve the supply challenge. Although there's still an opportunity to impact lithium supply later in the decade, it may not be enough to guarantee growth of 50% per year. But as I said earlier, it may be that Tesla runs up against other limiting factors first, such as shortages of other materials, skilled workers, and machinery. The party has to end at some point. It's just a matter of understanding what the primary bottleneck will be so we can keep the party going as long as possible.
Ninth, my view is that Tesla should get into lithium mining for more reasons than just lithium supply. Lithium miners are careful about expanding supply because overproduction lowers prices, revenues, and profits. By taking a more active role in lithium mining, Tesla can not only gain access to more lithium, but also reduce the price they pay for their lithium. Currently, Tesla's paying billions of dollars per year in margins to lithium miners and refiners, and that will only grow as they go from consuming about 175 gigawatt-hours of cells this year to 3 terawatt-hours by 2030. So if Tesla gets into lithium mining, they could produce vehicles more cheaply or with higher margins.
The tenth takeaway of the video is that there are a number of reasons why Tesla may be hesitant about getting into lithium mining. Those range from the fact that mining could create public relations issues to the fact that they're waiting until they must get into lithium mining, regardless what must be done will be done. And I think Tesla will eventually bite the bullet and take a more active role in lithium mining.
To close out the video, let's address the open question that I left at the beginning of the video. Are lithium industry forecasts just a big nothing burger like the peak oil hysteria 15 years ago?
No, because peak oil was about supply slowly decreasing over time, and it was painted as some kind of herald for civilizational collapse. That's as opposed to lithium, where everyone in the lithium industry agrees that lithium supply will continue to grow, only that if no action is taken, that it's not expected to keep up with exponential demand growth.
So from the perspective of Tesla, it's not doom and gloom, but potentially a missed opportunity. For the lithium industry, it means huge demand, and therefore a huge opportunity for investment and profits, a situation they're not shy about advertising. But is that a reason to dismiss their narrative out of hand?
In my view, no, because based on what we know today, despite the clear potential for bias, the narrative holds up discrutiny. Furthermore, it's driving much needed investment into the lithium industry. Elon Musk supports that view, but just disagrees on where money and entrepreneurship should be focused. The lithium industry says mining? Elon says refining.
That is, despite disagreements on priority, the lithium industry and Tesla both have an interest in increasing the lithium supply, and they're generally pulling the same direction. Either way, now that Tesla's gone one step further up the supply chain into refining, my question as a shareholder is, will they take the next step up the supply chain by partnering with a miner to maximize their own lithium supply, reduce costs, and increase the size of a global lithium pie to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy.
We should know within the next few years and all continue to provide updates as the situation evolves.
在接下来的几年中我们应该会知道,并且在情况发展时持续提供更新。
That's all for today, but before I close out the video, as I said at the beginning of the video, if you can, toss a coin to your witcher. The information I've provided today is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive video on lithium supply out there. Other reports that are available on the market can cost thousands of dollars, and by comparison, if this video does well, I expect it to make less than $1,000 from YouTube ad revenues.
It's the supporters who contribute directly that make the channel possible. On that note, a special thanks to my YouTube members, Twitter subscribers, and all the patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all your support, and thanks for tuning in.