Appalachia Lithium Cache Could Power U.S. for Centuries

From Legal Insurrection

The newly published lithium resource numbers are estimates, and much more work needs to be done to take advantage of our current mineral capacity.

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

Back in February, I reported that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that 5 to 19 million tons of lithium are located in southwestern Arkansas. That is enough lithium to meet the world’s estimated 2030 demand for lithium nine times over.

Now the USGS is saying that Appalachia contains an estimated 2.3 million metric tons of undiscovered, economically recoverable lithium, enough to replace 328 years of U.S. imports at last year’s level.

The southern Appalachians hold an estimated 1.43 million metric tons of lithium oxide, concentrated in the Carolinas, and the northern Appalachians hold an estimated 900,000 metric tons, concentrated in Maine and New Hampshire, according to estimates in a new USGS scientific paper published in Natural Resources Research. The lithium is present in pegmatites, large-grained rocks similar to granite.

“This research shows that the Appalachians contain enough lithium to help meet the nation’s growing needs – a major contribution to U.S. mineral security, at a time when global lithium demand is rising rapidly,” said USGS Director Ned Mamula. “USGS mineral science is the leading edge in the effort to restore America’s mineral independence by mapping our nation’s mineral resources. Everything else follows on the science: permitting reform and other policy changes to support investment in clean, responsible mining to 21st century standards, and mining workforce training for new American jobs. The United States was the dominant world producer of lithium three decades ago, and this research highlights the abundant potential to reclaim our mineral independence.”

The United States had one sole producer of lithium and relied on imports for more than half the lithium used last year, factors that contributed to its inclusion on the 2025 List of Critical Minerals published by the USGS. Lithium is used in the lithium-ion batteries that power computers, military equipment, vehicles, phones, electric tools, and energy-grid storage, as well as in aerospace alloys. Additional lithium is imported into the United States every year inside finished products made elsewhere and containing lithium-ion batteries. While Australia is the world’s largest producer of lithium, China is second, and accounts for the majority of world lithium refining and consumption.

@USGS has found that the Appalachian region of the U.S. contains enough lithium to replace 328 YEARS of imports!

Thanks to world-leading mineral science, permitting reform and renewed investment in domestic mining, @POTUS has reclaimed America’s mineral independence. pic.twitter.com/INis76fW6o

— Secretary Doug Burgum (@SecretaryBurgum) April 28, 2026

The country currently operates just one full-scale lithium mine, Albemarle’s Silver Peak facility in Nevada, and this forces domestic automakers and battery producers to depend on imports for over half of their supply. As I have noted before, this situation becomes problematic when a foreign supplier becomes hostile.

As lithium demand is projected to grow more than 48-fold by 2040, driven by electric vehicles and energy storage technologies, securing new domestic sources has become increasingly critical.

USDS Director Ned Mamula notes that the US was the dominant world producer of lithium three decades ago. The newly published lithium resource estimates are preliminary, and much more work is needed to fully realize our current mineral capacity.

To quantify the region’s potential, USGS geologists compiled geologic maps, geochemical data, geophysical surveys, and records of known mineral occurrences. These inputs were combined with global datasets on lithium-bearing pegmatites to model the number and size of undiscovered deposits across the Appalachian belt, which stretches roughly 1,500 miles from Alabama to Maine.

The resulting assessment provides a probabilistic estimate, with a 50% likelihood that the region contains about 2.3 million metric tons of lithium oxide. Actual resources could be higher or lower, and further exploration will be required to determine the extent and economic viability of individual deposits.

The work is part of USGS’s ongoing mandate to assess domestic mineral resources and improve understanding of critical mineral supply potential in the U.S.

“USGS mineral science is the leading edge in the effort to restore America’s mineral independence by mapping our nation’s mineral resources,” said Mamula. “Everything else follows on the science: permitting reform and other policy changes to support investment in clean, responsible mining to 21st century standards, and mining workforce training for new American jobs.”

America is sitting on a lithium bonanza, from Arkansas brines to Appalachian pegmatites, but those world‑class reserves will mean little if Washington, D.C., and eco-activist bureaucrats keep strangling responsible mining with red tape.

We need to use this report as an opportunity to restore real mineral independence at home and end our dangerous reliance on Beijing for “white gold.”

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 16 votes
Article Rating
182 Comments
mleskovarsocalrrcom
May 2, 2026 6:14 am

A country doesn’t have to be ‘isolationist’ to provide for itself. Just smart. Queue the activists that feel it’s OK for another country, but not their own, to reap the benefits of their natural resources.

Ronald Stein
May 2, 2026 6:15 am

America is sitting on a lithium bonanza, BUT America has labor laws and environmental laws, that poorer developing countries do not have.

Inside the Congo cobalt mines that exploit children. The SKY NEWS 6-minute video 

  is confirmation of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations” that describes the humanity atrocities among folks with yellow, brown, and black skin, and the environmental degradation occurring in developing countries so that the wealthy countries can go green. 
 

Reply to  Ronald Stein
May 2, 2026 9:06 am

Not saying child labor is a good thing Ronald, but the reality is that those families can starve to death without the artisanal mining income. So great care must be taken by those who “outlaw” those jobs by having programs in place that replace family incomes. The mining companies will just purchase a skidsteer if the “law” won’t allow them to hire 10 human diggers. Beneficial for equipment manufacturers … /s

Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 2, 2026 12:14 pm

KevinM
Reply to  DMacKenzie
May 2, 2026 12:25 pm

So if the kids can’t work in the mines, their parents…

Bryan A
Reply to  KevinM
May 3, 2026 7:30 pm

If their parents do more non-ore materials need to be removed to accommodate the larger adult frame in the narrow mine passages. Kids fit in tighter spaces which makes the material more valuable.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
May 2, 2026 12:15 pm

What would be “exploitation” in a technologically advanced country where children are encouraged to get secondary and post-secondary education by delaying their entry into the labor market, becomes a strategy for survival where access to even primary education is restricted and there are few ways to earn money to feed a family. One should not judge another culture based on their own culture as an appropriate standard.

Children, who have small hands, sharp, near-focusing eye-sight and are closer to the ground than adults, have an advantage for tasks such as picking up pebble-sized pieces of ore such as columbite-tantalite or cobaltite/smaltite and does not require the strength of an adult. It keeps the children occupied and in the presence of adults, who if not actually their parents, act like surrogate parents, particularly when there might be dangerous animals around.

If you want to improve the nutrition and treatment of children your time would be better spent to remove corruption and the influence of War Lords, and increase the opportunity for education. I’d be convinced of your moral authority to criticize other cultures if you volunteered to teach in the country and transfer your knowledge of technology to the populace. Otherwise, I’d be inclined to write you off as an arrogant ‘Karen’ trying to tell other people how to live their lives.

KevinM
Reply to  Ronald Stein
May 2, 2026 2:32 pm

It’s an existential threat!
Well, maybe not _that_ existential.

May 2, 2026 6:18 am

The Dept of the Interior and the EPA need to approve mining locations on turbo.

Reply to  buckeyebob
May 2, 2026 6:37 am

“turbo”? Slang that someone with a WWII DOB isn’t savvy enough to use regularly?

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 6:44 am

What is your problem you dolt?

Reply to  buckeyebob
May 2, 2026 8:52 am

With respect to mining locations, what does “turbo” mean? Google AI Says:

In the context of mining, “turbo” is most commonly used in technical or specialized settings rather than as a general geographic term for a location. Its meaning typically falls into the following categories:1. Equipment and Infrastructure At many physical mine sites, “turbo” refers to critical machinery used to maintain operations and safety: Turbo Blowers: These are high-speed centrifugal air-moving devices used in mine ventilation systems to provide breathable air and remove hazardous gases like methane or carbon monoxide.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 4:15 pm

In this context, I think it was pretty clear he was referring to the permitting process. Let me be a little clearer: Speeding up the permitting process.

MarkW
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
May 4, 2026 1:16 pm

One person’s slang, is another person’s “Say what?”.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 2:25 pm

It’s pretty clear from common vernacular that it refers to putting something in “overdrive”, or high speed, meaning, make it a priority and speed it up…

May 2, 2026 6:29 am

USGS says Appalachia has enough lithium to replace 

328 years of U.S. imports at last year’s level.

Not 327 and not 329 but 328 Years. Jesus! How ’bout “Over 325 years” 

OK besides that, the “You can’t put lithium battery fires out” issue needs to be
solved first. CA’s Moss Landing battery farm has caught fire four times so far.  

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 7:22 am

The fact that these incidents occured in California, the most government regulated locale on the planet, is not a coincidence. Sacramento is essentially a Niagara Falls of regulatory control. Simple logic would point to the necessity to review the regulatory structure under which the two Moss Landing facilities were built.

How many scientific and engineering decisions were preempted by California regulations?

How many design issues were ‘solved’, not by knowledgeable engineers and scientists, but rather by Sacramento regulatory agencies?

Are the Moss Landing fires analogous to what happened when a California regulator interfered with the LAFD as they tried to extinguish an arsonist set fire? (The still smoldering fire was later whipped up by Santa Ana winds leading to the Palisades fire.)

Reply to  isthatright
May 2, 2026 8:00 am

“The fact that these incidents occured in California, the most government regulated locale on the planet, is not a coincidence.”

Are you serious in implying that Li-ion battery fires don’t also occur in US states that have less government regulation than California?

Who knew of this cause-and-effect relationship? /sarc

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 9:03 am

Organizations that must comply with government regulations spend scarce resources in that endeavor. So whatever might have been spent on the CEO’s Private Jet is now spent on making sure all the employees have the correct average skin color. Was that a ridiculous analogy? Of course it was, but I’m sure you got the point.

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 11:00 am

Slow down and re-read the post you are responding to. This time with the intention of understanding it.

Not once did he say or imply that Li-ion fires don’t happen in other states.
He was pointing out the futility of those who think that massive amounts of regulations make us safer.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 11:14 am

Oh.

Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2026 5:12 pm

“He was pointing out the futility of those who think that massive amounts of regulations make us safer.”

OK, but what then is the logic for isthatright stating that lithium battery fires in California “is not a coincidence”? Since you know what he was pointing out, please explain, if you can.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 7:36 am

Ah, the sophistry. Divert from the article to incite a flame war so you can claim debating points to further inflate your ego.

Word of advice, everyone. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 12:25 pm

Even “Over 325 years” is probably more precise than is warranted. I’d suggest that “over 300 years” would be more appropriate.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 4:53 pm

The value 300 is ambiguous because it leaves you guessing as to how many significant digits are you implying. It could be 1, 2 or 3. The reader just doesn’t know.

3 centuries is a bit better, and if you are of a scientific bent 3 x 10^2 also works.

Reply to  MarkW
May 3, 2026 6:03 am

300 has one significant digit. In scientific terms that implies 300 ±50. To the general public, your use of “centuries” is probably better.

KevinM
Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 12:32 pm

Also implies knowledge of both supply and demand. What if flying moon cars needed to be made of lithium panels starting in the year 2217 – much more lithium needed. What if lithium batteries turn into strontium batteries instead – no more lithium needed.

MarkW
Reply to  KevinM
May 4, 2026 1:20 pm

Just hope they don’t leave those flying moon cars out in the rain.

Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 6:31 am

That is all well and fine, but they had best consider the very real possibility that demand for EVs, which was never a market-based one but rather one based on a false ideology will be dropping in the coming years.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 7:26 am

they had best consider that demand for EVs, will be dropping.

____________________________________________________________________
My son has a hybrid and so does the spouse, my daughter has an all electric. As I drive around town I see lots and lots of Teslas only because they are distinctive. I assume just like my family, not everyone gets a Tesla. Me? I want a small plugin hybrid. So far they don’t make the configuration I want in a plugin.

Anyway, you should get used to the fact that electric cars are here to stay.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 7:48 am

Wrong. Without government support, demand would be practically non-existent. Don’t look now but, the CAGW ideology supporting EVs is foundering on the rocks of Truth and Reality.

gyan1
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 10:42 am

“CAGW ideology supporting EVs is foundering on the rocks of Truth and Reality.”

True but the technology will advance to become competitive if solid state batteries achieve economies of scale. Restraint of trade is the only thing that can prevent this from happening.

Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 4:04 pm

True Maybe, but the technology will advance to become competitive if solid state batteries car-size small nuclear reactors achieve economies of scale. But Restraint of trade is isn’t the only thing that can prevent this from happening.

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 4:57 pm

Mr. Fusion

MarkW
Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 4:58 pm

It’s always possible that this time they will be able to make solid state batteries work.

KevinM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 12:46 pm

Does BC believe Tesla will go out of business with the subsidies removed?

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 7:50 am

sure, there will be some- but they won’t take over the industry- only what people desire without getting subsidies and tax breaks

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 9:16 am

I don’t desire all the computer bullshit that are requirements in today’s cars. “Ding ding ding Check the back seat!” And the 18 buttons on the steering wheel 19 if you count the horn. Nobody wants that crap.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 11:00 am

I still have my Toyota Tacoma I bought in 2004. None of that stuff- and I have to turn a handle to raise and lower the windows- imagine that! I don’t like windows that are controlled by buttons- I think it’s dangerous.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 12:41 pm

Yes, I have contemplated what would happen if I were to go off the road and end up in a river or canal and the battery and/or the window motors shorted out.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 11:03 am

Because you don’t want it, you assume nobody wants it.
Interesting.

jvcstone
Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 11:46 am

should there for be options, not mandated equipment.–I agree that there is just too much BS on the latest generation vehicles, so, I too choose to keep my 06 matrix and 09 f-150 going strong. Secondary benefit–no monthly obligation to the bank.

KevinM
Reply to  jvcstone
May 2, 2026 12:48 pm

We might not be the manufacturer’s target demographic anymore.

MarkW
Reply to  jvcstone
May 2, 2026 5:01 pm

The problem is that it is cheaper to make one model with lots of standard equipment than it is to make lots of models with lots of choices. The car companies go with what most people want.
If most people did not want all the gizmos, then the auto maker that made cheap cars without the gizmos would gain market share.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 12:37 pm

Speaking of which, I received a notice on my laptop last night that my Windows 10 OS license will expire in 30 days. It can’t be upgraded to Windows 11. Therefore, I’ll probably have to experiment with a Linux distro’ before my desktop becomes unavailable after October. I’m just thankful that cars don’t have operating licenses that expire unexpectedly in the middle of a vacation or on the way to the hospital.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 1:29 pm

I’ll probably have to experiment with a Linux distro

I switched to “Kubuntu” a couple years ago and have had practically no problems. It’s similar enough to Windows that there was almost no learning curve too. Just make sure you have/get compatible hardware (it’s picky about some things like graphic and network cards)

Reply to  Tony_G
May 2, 2026 8:36 pm

Thanks for the recommendation. It has been 25 years since I last tried using Linux. From what I have read, it has matured a lot since then.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 8:11 am

“I assume just like my family, not everyone gets a Tesla.”

Good assumption!

As of early 2025, Tesla EVs (all types, all model years) made up just 0.6–0.7% of the ~292 million total of all U.S. passenger vehicles on the road.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 12:30 pm

And Internal combustion engines are probably here to stay also, particularly in rural areas where there aren’t recharging stations conveniently available.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
May 2, 2026 4:57 pm

Electric cars never went away. I had an acquaintance in college who converted a Volkswagen Beetle to eclectic using lead acid batteries.
Electrics will go back to what they have been since the invention of the starter motor, niche market toys.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Steve Case
May 4, 2026 7:38 am

Electric cars have been here for decades. I drove an electric golf cart back in the early 1980s. Niche technology.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 7:28 am

EVs are only one use for lithium. You very likely wrote your comment using a device with a lithium ion battery.

Reply to  isthatright
May 2, 2026 7:51 am

But the lithium in that device is virtually trivial compared to the lithium in an EV.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 11:04 am

There are a lot more laptops out there than there are electric vehicles.
There are also a lot more cell phones than there are EVS.
There are a lot more battery powered hand tools than there are EVs, and many of those hand tools have more than one battery.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 11:12 am

Yuh, but the battery in an EV weighs a great deal more than those other items- and given the fact that so many states are demanding that all cars sold in their states be EVs by some near future date, it could be a problem finding enough lithium- but hopefully Trump will beat down the green new deal.

KevinM
Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 12:50 pm

“As of 2019–2021 estimates, there are over 2 billion personal computers (including desktops and laptops) in use globally.”

“As of 2025–2026, there are approximately 1.47 to 1.64 billion cars, trucks, and buses in use worldwide.”

“While there is no exact, real-time count of every individual battery hand tool on Earth, the market for cordless power tools is immense, with hundreds of millions, likely billions, of units currently in use. “

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 12:56 pm

I think JZ wins again on the idea that IF you collected the same lithium in all the computers and tools THEN you would not be able to build an all electric car fleet. I could try to find ‘What percentage could be electric’ but that would need too many assumptions.

MarkW
Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 5:22 pm

Last time I was a Sam’s, they had a battery display with enough lithium batteries to power a sub-compact EV.

MarkW
Reply to  KevinM
May 4, 2026 1:23 pm

You have done an excellent job of refuting a claim that I never made.

KevinM
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2026 7:17 pm

Yeah got carried away by ideas.Sorry.

Bryan A
Reply to  KevinM
May 3, 2026 8:31 pm

If 2,000,000,000 laptops converted their batteries to EV use there would be enough battery material to produce about 150,000 Teslas

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
May 3, 2026 8:27 pm

One Tesla EV battery pack contains enough lithium to make 1500 laptop batteries or up to 10,000 cell phone bateries. While 1 Mega pack Battery contains enough lithium to make 500,000 cell phone batteries

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 11:16 am

There are also a fair number of electric bikes, scooters and such.
A lot of AA and AAA cells seem to be lithium these days as well.
Do they still make C and D cell batteries anymore?
I can’t recall the last time I saw a lantern battery (F cell?)

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 11:23 am

I don’t know why people buy electric bikes. I’m 76 and can still bike 40 miles if I feel like it, up and down hills here in Wokeachusetts. I’d much rather ride a bike that I have to peddle. I suppose those out of shape want an electric bike. I’ll respond to that by saying, get in shape! I see young adults riding electric bikes in my neighborhood. Seems like it’s just another status symbol.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 5:04 pm

I don’t know either, but buy them they do.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 4, 2026 1:25 pm

You can also look around your house for all the battery powered do-hickeys and gizmos.
Remote for everything from the TV to lights and fans.
Cordless keyboards and mice.
Hearing aids and flashlights.
Small, but they add up.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  isthatright
May 2, 2026 8:11 am

EVs are a big part of the use, as are things I didn’t even mention, such as backup batteries to support “Renewables”. Those too will be going away. The point being, demand for lithium will be dropping pretty significantly in coming years.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 11:13 am

lithium- a flash in the pan- no pun intended 🙂

KevinM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 12:59 pm

The enormous stranded battery asset in Southern Australia used an Iron chemistry instead of Lithium.

gyan1
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 10:36 am

“consider the very real possibility that demand for EVs, which was never a market-based one but rather one based on a false ideology will be dropping in the coming years.”

Sales will be weak for years because people who bought them to save the planet and don’t travel long distances all own them so the market is saturated.

When solid state batteries achieve economies of scale EV’s will replace ICE’s if rapid charger infrastructure is deployed. 2030 is when they are expected to be viable.

Ideology will have nothing to do with it at that point because they will fully charge in 5 minutes and have a 500 mile range. Not having to do oil changes or deal with smelly gas is an advantage.

Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 11:14 am

lots of ifs— and if people like and want them, which most don’t

gyan1
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 5, 2026 9:02 am

“and if people like and want them, which most don’t”

Everyone I know who owns an EV loves them. They don’t work for most because of the range limitations and long charging times. Solid State batteries will eliminate those problems.

Reply to  gyan1
May 5, 2026 1:43 pm

Will solid state batteries make EVs price competitive with ICE vehicles? Because if not they’re not going to take over the market. I wonder how many of the EV owners would be disappointed to find out the power for their EVs is often not green at all- so if that’s part of their satisfaction, don’t burst their happy bubble. You’ll break their hearts if they find out that they are polluting the air with ungreen energy.

gyan1
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 5, 2026 10:23 pm

“Will solid state batteries make EVs price competitive with ICE vehicles?”

If economies of scale can be achieved yes. Many people I know who own EV’s think they are already cheaper than ICE’s because power here is cheap and maintenance is less. Especially with gas prices right now.

“I wonder how many of the EV owners would be disappointed to find out the power for their EVs is often not green at all- “

Probably a significant percentage! Being clueless virtue signalers who don’t live in the real world they probably wouldn’t accept the facts.

Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 2:47 am

“Many people I know who own EV’s think they are already cheaper than ICE’s…”

Please inform them that if they didn’t get subsidies and/or tax breaks for those EVs, they wouldn’t be cheaper. They’ll probably be plugging their ears as you say that- as they don’t want to be welfare queens.

gyan1
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 6, 2026 10:18 am

“Please inform them that if they didn’t get subsidies and/or tax breaks for those EVs, they wouldn’t be cheaper.”

They see them as being cheaper life of use not original purchase because they don’t have to buy gas or do maintenence.

Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 11:16 am

I like my electric chainsaw for light work on my 1 acre- and my next lawnmower will be electric- and I’m not even likely to buy another car at my age- but if I did, it wouldn’t be an EV. Oil changes? What, a few times/year? Not a big deal. Smelly gas? it doesn’t really smell any more compared to leaded gas.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 12:46 pm

Speaking of “staying in shape,” I still purposely use a push mower, albeit I have a relatively small front yard and let the back area stay wild.

KevinM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 1:04 pm

IF your yard is less than about 1/3 acre THEN I think you’ll like an electric lawnmower. Mine is small and light and has not had any tech problems – got it at a Home Depot.

gyan1
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 5, 2026 9:07 am

I got a battery powered chainsaw last year to take care of a large tree that went down on my property. I was amazed how 80 amps zipped through it.

Reply to  gyan1
May 5, 2026 1:44 pm

I love my electric chainsaw. Had gas saws for decades. The electric is much better unless you cut trees for a living.

KevinM
Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 1:02 pm

What is a ‘solid state battery’? The nearest thing I can think of is an EDLC supercapacitor but physics wont allow those to drive a human-sized car for long.

gyan1
Reply to  KevinM
May 5, 2026 9:13 am

A solid-state battery is a type of battery that uses a solid electrolyte to conduct ions between electrodes. They are expected to have 500+ mile ranges and fully charge in 5 minutes. 2030 for commercial production expected.

Denis
Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 1:38 pm

“When solid state batteries achieve economies of scale EV’s will replace ICE’s if rapid charger infrastructure is deployed.” Perhaps, perhaps not, but for sure only if there is a source of electricity to charge them. Batteries do not make electricity.

Reply to  Denis
May 2, 2026 4:19 pm

“. . . batteries achieve economies of scale . . . if rapid charger infrastructure is deployed.”

Those may not be mutually compatible.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 10:42 am

Have you seen what’s happening because of the Iran war?

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 2, 2026 11:08 am

Very little, and temporary.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 4:30 pm

“Very little, and temporary.”

From Google’s AI bot:

“U.S. gasoline prices have risen approximately 40% to 47% since the conflict with Iran began on February 28, 2026, with the national average reaching over $4.30 per gallon by late April. This surge, driven by energy market disruptions, has driven up diesel prices even faster and added significant costs to households.”

There is no reliable estimate for when tanker shipments of oil through the Strait of Hormuz will be back to pre-war levels.

“Very little”? . . . like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

“Temporary”? . . . like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Bryan A
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 3, 2026 8:37 pm

It did what NO “throw orange powder on pool tables or throw tomato soup on priceless art” Just Stop Oil protest could ever do to reduce Oil Usage

Reply to  Bryan A
May 4, 2026 7:28 am

Interesting perspective, and I don’t disagree!

So, is the US war with Iran, net, a “good” thing or a “bad” thing?

Bryan A
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 10:25 am

It’s simply a matter of perspective. If you want Higher Energy Prices and thereby a reduced energy usage then…

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 1:27 pm

I don’t know where you live, but prices have not gone up near that much where I live. They have also started back down and will continue to do so as Iran’s teeth continue to be removed.

Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2026 4:59 pm

.

Reply to  MarkW
May 7, 2026 5:02 pm

“They have also started back down and will continue to do so . . .”

Reality check for you from https://gasprices.aaa.com/national-average-rises-25-cents-for-second-straight-week/ :

(see attached screen grab)

AAA_050726
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 2, 2026 2:15 pm

Yes, many countries are waking up to the fact that they need to use their own fossil fuels if they have them.

Bryan A
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 3, 2026 8:33 pm

What does the war in Iran have to do with the price of onions in Bangkok?

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 11:02 am

There are still a lot of lithium batteries in things like power tools.

KevinM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 2, 2026 12:37 pm

China and golf carts?

JTraynor
May 2, 2026 6:53 am

The democrats will never let that lithium be mined unless those paying democrats stand to profit. The hard core environmentalists will oppose anything that helps anyone but themselves.

Just say “not in my backyard” if you want to know the future of lithium mining. And those states are full of democrat backyards.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  JTraynor
May 2, 2026 9:30 am

Mineral properties take fifteen to twenty years from initial identification and site exploration to eventual production.

Knowing that sooner or later within the next twenty years, a Democrat will occupy the Oval Office, no mining company executive would or should consider spending serious money on site development and on mining operations pre-production work for any proposed new surface mine in the US.

There is just too much chance the whole investment will become stranded when anti-mining Democrats eventually return to power in Washington DC.

Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 2, 2026 12:55 pm

Much of the pegmatite lithium exists as spodumene in waste-rock dumps. It has already been blasted and reduced to a size that is haulable. Therefore, minimal infrastructure needs to be developed and there are at least primitive roads existing. That should shorten the time for permitting, if it isn’t outright blocked or deliberately ‘slow walked.’ In the meantime, while excavating the waste-rock dumps, producers can explore for and develop new sources.

KevinM
Reply to  Beta Blocker
May 2, 2026 1:06 pm

Risk premium

Rud Istvan
May 2, 2026 7:10 am

It always pays to did a little deeper. Producing lithium from brine (Arkansas Smackover formation) costs about half of producing lithium from hard rock pegmatite spodumene (western Maine). So this USGS report is mostly ‘much ado about nothing’.
Nevermind that large scale lithium demand for EVs and grid scale batteries is unlike to emerge as some anticipate.

2hotel9
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 2, 2026 7:27 am

It serves to force environtards to put their focus on “protecting” their precious northeast states so Arkansas can become the world leader in lithium production, and world leader in putting environtards in prison, from which they can be moved to manual labor in lithium processing facilities as part of their restitution for damaging America all these years.

Reply to  2hotel9
May 2, 2026 7:54 am

The environtards do run the state enviro agencies in the Northeast. I’ve been interacting with them for half a century in my private sector forestry work. I could write a book on them. I once had a state “service forester” tell me that an old logging rut that was filled with water during the snow melt in the spring was a wetland. When I expressed displeasure with that- she told me, “I have a masters degree in wetland studies”. Duh….

2hotel9
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 9:19 am

Had much the same with a PADEP idiot here a few years ago. And another example, farmer friend had 10 tons of lime dropped beside a small stream in late winter for field prep, DEPtard wanted to fine him for it till her supervisor arrived and LOUDLY explained to her that putting lime in creeks/streams is how THEY clean up mine runoff. We didn’t see her in Butler/Armstrong/Clarion county area again.

Denis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 2, 2026 1:51 pm

But what’s in a name? My home town is on a lake with two lobes, one sort-of deep and one very shallow (10ish or less feet.) Both lobes are gathering silt but the shallow lobe supports lots and lots of lake weeds to the increasing point of choking off boats in many areas. What to do? The states solution is to declare the lower lobe a wetland and do nothing.

atticman
Reply to  Denis
May 3, 2026 2:56 am

Well, bureaucrats always take the easy way out…

MarkW
Reply to  atticman
May 4, 2026 1:29 pm

Most people do, it’s just that bureaucrats can get away with it.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 2, 2026 9:11 am

Thanks Rud. My 40 years past minerology class memory was struggling with what the main pegmatite lithium silicate is. Anyway, I’m surprised hardrock mining of lithium is even a thing – are there other products?

Reply to  Randle Dewees
May 2, 2026 1:09 pm

Besides spodumene and pectalite, there are some lithium phosphates and mica (lepidolite) but using them would probably require a different processing stream and probably wouldn’t be worth the effort because they are typically rarer than the lithium silicates.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 8:02 pm

lepidolite! Thanks Clyde.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 8:06 pm

One of my geo classmates loved to say that mineral name – spodumene. We were climbers too, and when he was having a hard time on a pitch, he’d call down that he was “spodulating”.

Reply to  Randle Dewees
May 2, 2026 8:42 pm

Something that isn’t well-known is that there is a mine in South Dakota where individual crystals of spodumene reached the size of a school bus. It simplifies obtaining high-purity material when one can work with single crystals that just have to be hauled off to a crusher.

jvcstone
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 2, 2026 11:56 am

I was wondering just how energy intensive getting said lithium out of those pegmatites would be. Probably not very cost effective,

KevinM
Reply to  jvcstone
May 2, 2026 1:17 pm

“Canada’s aluminum industry is heavily powered by renewable hydroelectricity, concentrated in Quebec and British Columbia, allowing for some of the lowest-carbon aluminum production globally.”

New England states import a lot of Canadian hydro power (or they did 25 years ago). If you point was that getting lithium out of rocks is a crappy use for the electrons, then yeah I’d agree. If your point was that getting lithium out of rocks creates more polution than it avoids, then… yeah I’d agree with that too. However someone has a handwaving argument that they’re processing rocks with hydro instead of nat gas and that the process can be made carbon neutral. Then you have to get into ‘fungible resources’ and ‘opportunity cost’ and everyone goes home and watches Netflix.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 2, 2026 12:59 pm

Rud, do you have a source for your cost estimate? Hardrock mining is energy intensive, but initially, producers would probably be using existing smaller, loose rock that only needs to be sorted, crushed, and transported.

May 2, 2026 7:47 am

Well, if the world gives up on the cult of ruinable energy we won’t need so much lithium for those gigantic battery systems to store energy from the ruinables and for EVs.

May 2, 2026 7:49 am

From Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, as quoted in the above article:

“Thanks to world-leading mineral science, permitting reform and renewed investment in domestic mining, @POTUS has reclaimed America’s mineral independence.”

Wow, I was unaware that President Trump was taking time to improve mineral science and “renew investment in domestic mining” with regard to the northern Appalachian mountain range. I thought he had other, higher priorities issues to attend to.

Talk about “sucking up to the boss”!

gyan1
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 10:55 am

“Wow, I was unaware that President Trump was taking time to improve mineral science and “renew investment in domestic mining” with regard to the northern Appalachian mountain range.”

Thanks for admitting your ignorance! A major platform in the Trump administration is to unlock the domestic mineral wealth and resources tied up by environmental obstructionists.

Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 11:44 am

“A major platform in the Trump administration is to unlock the domestic mineral wealth and resources tied up by environmental obstructionists.”

Really???

According to Google’s AI bot, here are the facts related to Trump’s 2024 election “platform planks”:

“The Trump 2024 election campaign, driven by the ‘Agenda 47’ platform and the 2024 Republican Party platform, focused on ‘America First’ policies aimed at sealing the southern border, conducting massive deportations, ending inflation, creating energy dominance, and expanding presidential authority. The platform emphasized massive tax cuts, protectionist tariffs, ending, and reversing environmental regulations.

Key platform pillars included:
Border Security and Immigration: Sealing the border, stopping the “migrant invasion,” and executing the largest domestic deportation operation in US history.
Economy and Tax Policy: Ending inflation, lowering taxes, making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, eliminating taxes on tips and overtime wages, and imposing high tariffs on foreign goods.
Energy and Environment: Increasing fossil fuel production to make the US the dominant energy producer, cutting regulations, and reversing Biden-era environmental policies.
Foreign Policy: Ending the war in Ukraine, restoring peace, and reducing reliance on international coalitions (America First).
Government and Social Issues: Reducing federal spending, dismantling federal “weaponization,” removing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives, and restricting transgender rights.
Education and Healthcare: Promoting school choice, pulling funding from schools promoting “gender transition,” and protecting Medicare/Social Security while aiming for pro-growth economic policies.

The platform was described as populist and nationalist, with significant emphasis on strengthening the executive branch of government.”

I don’t find any mention of “unlocking domestic mineral wealth and resources tied up by environmental obstructionists”. But then again, who can really trust the accuracy of AI bots? /sarc

Now, you were saying something about “ignorance” . . .

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 12:48 pm

who can really trust the accuracy of AI bots? /sarc

Why the sarc? According to AI itself, the hallucination rate is 20-30%.

Reply to  Tony_G
May 2, 2026 4:56 pm

On any even remotely controversial question, always ask your AI to “give a principled critique of your first answer and include working links.”
I usually add “and don’t use wikipedia”.
You will be surprised at how often the first answer was misleading.

Reply to  Tony_G
May 2, 2026 5:34 pm

“According to AI itself, the hallucination rate is 20-30%.”

That would be . . . ummmm . . . quite a bit better than the average hallucination rate in humans. 😉

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 7:44 am

Speaking for yourself, of course.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 9:17 am

I wouldn’t take anything at face value from a source that admits to being wrong 25% of the time, human or not.

Reply to  Tony_G
May 6, 2026 1:28 pm

Hmmm . . .

How about a source that is wrong 24% of the time?

How about wrong 10% of the time?

How about 2% of the time?

And finally, what is your definition of “face value” under such probabilities?

ROTFL.

KevinM
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 1:23 pm

I use the Google and Wikipedia resources for all sorts of fact checks. They’re great for things like “how many cars are there” but terrible for things like “Is a politician doing a good job?”

Example (from today!):
“There is no official diagnosis of dementia for President Biden, and the White House has definitively denied that he has Alzheimer’s or any dementia-related illness. Concerns about his cognitive abilities and aging, including reported instances of memory loss, have been raised by critics, though supporters and some doctors have noted his ability to engage in complex, unscripted events and his “fit for duty””

Google also refused to complete “does joe biden have dimenti” by adding one ‘a’ to the end.

(for fun I’m going to try the exact search for Ronald Reagan… I bet it autocompletes!)

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 1:27 pm

Yes Google autocompleted for ‘the other side’. Contrast the tone of the answer:
“Yes, Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive form of dementia, in November 1994, five years after leaving office. While the diagnosis was public in 1994, speculation exists about whether early signs appeared while he was in office (1981-1989), with his son stating he showed signs in his first term.”

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 1:29 pm

Point of this Googling: We should all know that an AI contains the social and political leanings of the corporation that made it.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  KevinM
May 4, 2026 7:45 am

And the Internet.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 2:18 pm

 and reversing Biden-era environmental policies.”

Seems Googoo agrees with gyan1.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 7:44 am

Google AI. LOL

gyan1
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 5, 2026 9:21 am

“Now, you were saying something about “ignorance” . . .”

Yes, what you exemplify!

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at enhancing domestic mineral production. The key components of this order include:

  • Expedited Permitting: The order mandates that agencies compile lists of mineral production projects that have submitted applications for permits, facilitating faster reviews and approvals.
  • Access to Federal Lands: It prioritizes mineral production activities on federal lands that contain critical mineral deposits.
  • Mobilization of Investments: The order encourages public and private investments in mineral production, including the establishment of a dedicated critical minerals fund through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
  • Use of the Defense Production Act: This act will be invoked to expand domestic mineral production capacity, treating mineral production as a national security priority.
Reply to  gyan1
May 6, 2026 1:29 pm

Simple: an executive order is not a “major platform”.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 1:13 pm

You have to remember that the mainstream media is loath to write anything that would put Trump in a good light. If they can ignore it, they will. You only know what the media is telling you.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 4:43 pm

“You only know what the media is telling you.”

Is WUWT part of “the media”?

Is the Bible part of “the media”?

Were my parents part of “the media”?

Were my teachers from grade school through graduate school part of “the media”?

Should I wait for the answers to these questions to come from “the media” instead of you?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 5:46 pm

Yeah, I know . . . difficult-to-answer questions, eh?

Far easier to just throw in a downvote and walk away.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 8:47 pm

I did introduce my remark with “mainstream.” Obviously, you don’t give a lot of credence to my remark. Can I assume that you prefer what the mainstream media tells you?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 2, 2026 8:49 pm

Actually, I didn’t walk away and I didn’t give you a down-vote — initially. Thanks for reminding me.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 3, 2026 8:25 am

“Thanks for reminding me.”

Uhhhh . . . you sure that was me, and not the media?

Remember, “You only know what the media is telling you.”

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 1:34 pm

I’m still waiting for you to say something intelligent.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2026 1:31 pm

Would you recognize it if you saw it?

How about if it bit you in the, um, posterior?

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 1:33 pm

Your post was so stupid, it was self-refuting.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2026 1:37 pm

If it was self-refuting, then it was arguing the other side, but it couldn’t be self-refuting because then it is actually arguing both sides, but if it is arguing both sides there is nothing left to refute in which case it is meaningless to refer to it refuting anything in the first place which in turn means the phrase “self-refuting” is so stupid.

Bryan A
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 3, 2026 8:44 pm

Many of them were definitely part of the Big Green Industrial Media Complex.
Big Green Industry sucking down government subsidy dollars
Big Green Idiotology taught in schools
Big Green Idiotology being pushed by Liberal Media outlets
Big Green Energy given preferential treatment over reliable sources

MarkW
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 4, 2026 1:33 pm

None of those things are part of the media, and nothing in your post addresses, much less refutes the point Clyde made.

Reply to  MarkW
May 6, 2026 1:53 pm

Please pay attention: in responding to Clyde Spencer above, I only asked five, relatively simple questions.

It may be hard for you to understand, but those questions did not “address” anything?

Nevertheless, I do welcome YOU addressing my questions.

strativarius
May 2, 2026 7:53 am

I would imagine all those EVs, bikes and scooters etc that have spontaneously combusted will need replacing.

Harry Durham
May 2, 2026 8:09 am

Maybe I missed it, but where are the error estimates on this model-derived projection?

The way the ‘estimated’ deposit sizes were reached implies there were a whole raft of assumptions made during the process.

Given the current administration’s policies, there should be plans mentioned about where and when test holes will be drilled or shafts dug, etc., to put some reality to the MODELS!!

Surely we have had enough failed predictions from models not to treat such ‘analyses’ with a grain, or block, or railcar’s worth of salt until at least PART of the predictions has some facts against which they can be compared?

Reply to  Harry Durham
May 2, 2026 1:19 pm

I would envision waste-rock dumps at existing known pegmatites would be utilized first. If there is then still a need, and it can be demonstrated that new mines would be economically justified, geophysical exploration would look for pegmatites not exposed at the surface, and then drilled to confirm before opening up new deposits that would be more expensive and and take longer to permit.

Harry Durham
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 2:40 pm

At the least. Then expanded to potential other sites, until there was a statistically valid network into which the model could be fit and verified or invalidated.

The point was that there was no mention of any test or sample exploration.

Going back to my Freshman year in Engineering (60 yrs ago, so it’s not new, nor is it obsolete), it was drummed into our dense, non-receptive heads that math and models were simplified versions of reality, and to NEVER, EVER trust an unverified model of ANYTHING, no matter how simple.

ferdberple
May 2, 2026 8:49 am

Lithium Cache Could Power U.S.

Nope. Lithium is not an energy source.

2hotel9
Reply to  ferdberple
May 2, 2026 9:21 am

Ya know, at times you come off as a complete idiot. This is one of them.

Bryan A
Reply to  2hotel9
May 3, 2026 8:47 pm

Here’s a mirror for you
comment image

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 3, 2026 8:49 pm

Lithium isn’t an energy source. It doesn’t produce energy at all. It’s a chemical way to store/release energy, but that energy still needs to be produced from a generation source. You don’t get it from lithium.
Lithium is a fuel tank and not a fuel.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bryan A
May 4, 2026 3:46 am

So, you are admitting you are posting as ferdberple. That’s cute. How many times did you vote for Kamala?

Bryan A
Reply to  2hotel9
May 4, 2026 10:28 am

Kamala? Are you serious?? I wouldn’t vote for Kamala (with or without Tampon Tim) if She were the Only candidate running unopposed. Especially if.she.were.running against a Chimp. The Chimp would be the front-runner especially during the debate process.
Kamala? Yeah right…get a grip!

2hotel9
Reply to  Bryan A
May 5, 2026 3:39 am

So why you running a sockpuppet? Only Kamala voting Democrat sh*tbags do that.

Reply to  ferdberple
May 2, 2026 1:20 pm

It could be if used in a thermonuclear reactor.

Curious George
May 2, 2026 8:59 am

Lithium does not power anything. We use it to store electrical energy. It is a bonanza today – until someone invents a better battery. Or a better fuel cell.

Allen Pettee
Reply to  Curious George
May 2, 2026 9:35 am

Exactly. WUWT should change the title of the article.

Bryan A
Reply to  Allen Pettee
May 3, 2026 8:55 pm

WUWT didn’t write the article or the title and so shouldn’t change it from the original authors intent. It’s directly from “Legal Insurrection”

gyan1
Reply to  Curious George
May 2, 2026 10:58 am

“Lithium does not power anything. We use it to store electrical energy.” -to power things…

Reply to  gyan1
May 2, 2026 2:21 pm

But the original energy has to come from somewhere else.

gyan1
Reply to  bnice2000
May 5, 2026 9:25 am

“But the original energy has to come from somewhere else.”

Obviously. The claim that lithium doesn’t “power anything” is not accurate.

Bryan A
Reply to  gyan1
May 3, 2026 8:56 pm

Ayup… it’s a fuel tank and not fuel.

gyan1
Reply to  Bryan A
May 5, 2026 9:29 am

Fuel “powers” things as do batteries. The case around them doesn’t fuel anything just life a fuel tank. The claim that lithium doesn’t “power anything” is not accurate.

May 2, 2026 11:42 am

USDS [sic] Director Ned Mamula notes that the US was the dominant world producer of lithium three decades ago.

There is no mention of the well-known pegmatites in South Dakota, which has recently experienced a claim-staking outbreak, or the pegmatites in southern California and the Rocky Mountains states. Clearly, the USGS estimates are a lower-bound.

KevinM
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 2, 2026 1:35 pm

Checking a periodic table … Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, … It’s only number 3! Surely when ‘we’ get fusion power going, Lithium production will be too cheap to meter.

MarkW
Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 5:17 pm

From what I have read very little lithium comes from fusion. From those articles, the lithium atom is too fragile and quickly breaks down in the harsh environments where fusion is taking place. Most lithium comes from neutron induced fission of heavier atoms in galactic clouds.

KevinM
Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2026 8:24 pm

Awwww. I should have checked. Oh well.

Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 9:02 pm

Lithium has been proposed as a fuel because it creates tritium when bombarded with neutrons. The tritium is then fused with deuterium for the actual energy production. Of course, it has yet to be shown that the lithium –> deuterium/tritium reaction can be controlled and sustained.

PHerb
May 2, 2026 12:16 pm

Even if all of the limitations on lithium battery safety and cost were resolved, I can’t see the people of New England, or the “Research Triangle” of North Carolina, allowing their states to be exploited for the resource. The Puritans may have left centuries ago, but the purity of the environmentalist cannot be betrayed. South Carolina and the West, it’s up to you.

KevinM
May 2, 2026 12:23 pm

Headline: “Appalachia Lithium Cache Could Power U.S. for Centuries”

Lithium is not fuel for generating power. i’m sure at least 3 other people will make the same comment below.

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
May 2, 2026 1:46 pm

Whew. Just made it. Three was the number.

Old Mike
May 2, 2026 1:12 pm

Lithium doesn’t produce power.

Denis
May 2, 2026 1:27 pm

Just how can lithium, foreign or domestic, “power the US for centuries?” Yes, lithium is flammable so might support some kind of steam generator for a day, a week, but coal or gas would do it better and much much longer.

ResourceGuy
May 2, 2026 1:36 pm

Such resource assessments by the USGS are general and do not consider the costs of processing crystalline rocks or pilot plant level issues for brines. Their value estimate of a trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan isn’t any better for economic and engineering assessment, in addition to omitting country risk and regulatory/legal risk in the US. You have to start somewhere is the usual crutch for justifying the time and expense. But then who actually considers costs anyway.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 2, 2026 9:06 pm

Processing brines is not cost-free, even if solar power is used to concentrate the brines. That is why I asked Rud if he could provide a citation for the cost ratios of extracting lithium from silicates versus brines.

Petey Bird
May 3, 2026 8:05 am

I am not against mining. It is necessary.
I was not aware that lithium is an energy source.

Bryan A
May 3, 2026 7:26 pm

Lithium can’t “Power” anything. It doesn’t produce energy only the Chemical reaction that allows for the storage of Electrons in DC format for later use. Something else must do the heavy lifting of actually creating (generating) energy