Technology

Electric Propulsion’s Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can’t

by oqtey
written by oqtey
Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't
tldr: There’s a lot of bullshit going on right now about Lithium propulsion boats and planes, don’t trust the energy return on investment or viability of its profitability…it’s fundamentally a net negative energy return on investment.


Elon lies through his teeth and boldly in a room full of people. 

Physicists Get Too Much Street Cred and Access to Venture Capital

I’ve often opined that physicists are the ultimate fauxdustrialists. Readily able to lie at a moment’s notice. Many refer to themselves as “polymaths.”

I think the physicist mindset has infected a large swath of venture capital with delusions about what’s possible with lithium ion battery technology.

Long Live EROI analysis, even if I’m off, I’m not off by a factor of 10-100.

Physicists more than any other field of people I’ve encountered make claims about subjects far beyond their max competency because of the cockiness induced when they were able to complete mathematical proofs that allowed them to grok logic puzzles, digital signal processing, and physics as an entire subject with ease. 

They never faced the analog realities. 

Alas…I digress. 

The Framework For Energy Systems Analysis 

When analyzing energy systems we know that it’s important to take into consideration the following: 

Minerals, metals, concrete, other materials, transportation, construction, operation, maintenance, safety, decommissioning, destruction, recycling, disposal, energy return on energy invested, energy payback period, financial payback period, and overall environmental effects.

You’d have to also take into consideration the dynamics of the energy grid itself and how it varies by geography. 

You’d need to think through how generators:   

a. synchronize voltage 
b. phase with the grid 
c. deal with energy storage

Armed with this frame work…. we know the following…. 

TL;DR:

Lithium propulsion for aircraft and boats is fundamentally unprofitable across the entire U.S. grid. The numbers don’t lie: 60× worse energy density than jet fuel, 3.3× higher operating costs, 22% reduced asset utilization, and payback periods that consume 2/3 of the asset’s lifespan. Anyone claiming otherwise is ignoring basic physics or hiding most of the energy and economic costs.

Let’s cut through the hype and look at what the numbers actually tell us about lithium propulsion for aircraft and boats. Spoiler alert: it’s not pretty.

The Big Picture: Why This Matters

This visualization illustrates the interconnected phases of lithium propulsion system development and deployment, from raw material acquisition through end-of-life processing. The hexagonal nodes represent six critical stages: material acquisition (requiring 500,000 gallons of water per ton of extracted minerals), manufacturing, operations, grid integration, financial analysis (with lifecycle costs of $245-380/kWh), and end-of-life considerations. Arrows between components demonstrate the cyclical nature of sustainable system design, highlighting how decisions at each stage impact environmental footprint, operational efficiency, and economic viability throughout the entire lifecycle.

Look, I’ve analyzed every angle of lithium propulsion systems, and here’s the unvarnished truth: it’s a negative energy return on investment (EROI) across the entire U.S. grid. Anyone telling you otherwise is either misinformed or selling something—probably batteries.

The Energy Density Reality Check

Let’s start with basic physics, because no amount of wishful thinking can overcome the laws of thermodynamics:

This isn’t just an academic exercise. When MIT Technology Review points out that jet fuel packs 60 times more energy per kilogram than the best lithium batteries, that’s not a minor engineering hurdle—it’s a fundamental physical limitation.
As The Society of Automotive Engineers puts it in their latest technical assessment: electric propulsion systems drag around 1.7-2.3× the weight for the same range. That’s dead weight that consumes more energy just to move itself.

The Hidden Energy Debt

Here’s something the glossy brochures never tell you—before an electric boat or plane moves an inch, it’s already deep in energy debt:

According to Gruber et al. (2021), a single ton of lithium extraction guzzles about 500,000 gallons of water. That’s roughly the same as 30 average American households use in a year—just to extract enough lithium for a handful of large marine battery packs.
And we haven’t even started manufacturing yet! The International Energy Agency documents that producing battery-grade lithium compounds demands 50-70 kWh of energy input per kilogram. That’s enough electricity to power the average American home for 2-3 days… per kilogram of processed lithium.

The Grid Connection Mess

Electric vehicle enthusiasts love to talk about plugging in, but they conveniently ignore the grid reality:

Here’s the uncomfortable truth from EPA’s eGRID database: the carbon intensity of our electrical grid varies by a factor of 4× depending on where you are. In coal-heavy regions pushing 840g COâ‚‚e/kWh, your “clean” electric boat is often dirtier than a modern diesel.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has extensively documented that transmission losses average 5-8% across the U.S. grid—energy that simply vanishes before it ever reaches your charger. During extreme weather events (when you need reliable transportation most), these losses spike to 12-15%.

Show Me The Money (Or Lack Thereof)

The economics get even uglier when you look at the payback periods:

According to the Aerospace Technology Institute, electric aircraft require 2-3× longer to achieve financial payback compared to conventional aircraft. When you’re looking at paying off your investment in year 15 of a 22-year lifespan, you’re left with little time to actually generate profit.

And the cost per unit of delivered energy? Not even close:

The Journal of Transport Economics published a comprehensive analysis showing lithium propulsion systems cost $245-380/kWh of delivered propulsion energy versus just $75-110/kWh for conventional systems. That’s a 3.3× cost difference that no business model can overcome.

Real-World Performance Nightmares

The performance gap gets even worse when you leave the perfect conditions of the lab:

Cold Regions Science and Technology documented that in cold weather (-10°C), electric propulsion systems lose a third of their range while conventional systems lose just 6%. Anyone operating in northern regions knows what this means: unreliable service and stranded assets.

And don’t get me started on refueling:

Transportation Science research shows that even “fast charging” still takes 40 minutes to reach 80% capacity, compared to 7 minutes for a complete conventional refill. This directly translates to a 22% reduction in asset utilization—meaning electric fleets need to be significantly larger to provide the same service levels.

Let’s Get Real: The Path Forward

Look, I’m not saying electric propulsion can never work for aviation and marine applications. I’m saying it doesn’t work now, and it won’t work until we see:

  1. Battery energy density improve by at least 4-5× (which requires fundamental material science breakthroughs, not incremental improvements)
  2. Grid carbon intensity decrease by 60-70% across all regions (not just the Pacific Northwest)
  3. Fast charging technology that can actually deliver 100% capacity in under 15 minutes without cooking the batteries
According to Resources, Conservation & Recycling, end-of-life processing adds another $35-50/kWh in specialized handling costs—battery disposal isn’t just an environmental 
challenge, it’s an economic one.

Chemistry is Hard. Much harder than physics.
Electric propulsion for aircraft and boats remains an economically unsustainable proposition that fails basic energy accounting. Anyone claiming profitability is either leaving out major parts of the lifecycle analysis or banking on massive subsidies to mask the fundamental problems.

Chemistry doesn’t care about your investment prospectus, and thermodynamics can’t be overruled by marketing. The numbers don’t lie—lithium propulsion for aircraft and boats is some montauk VC pension hot potato bullshit that has no viable conspiracy to overcome its fundamental atomic limitations. 

Citations: 

Visualization 1: 

  1. Gruber, P., et al. (2021). “Global Lithium Availability and Extraction Environmental Impacts.” Resources Policy, 70, 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101976
  2. International Energy Agency. (2023). “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.” IEA Special Report. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
  3. Electric Power Research Institute. (2023). “Grid Integration Challenges for High-Power Transportation Charging.” EPRI Technical Report 3002025947. https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002025947
  4. Journal of Cleaner Production. (2023). “Energy requirements in global battery supply chains.” 385, 135456. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-cleaner-production
  5. Maritime Economics & Logistics. (2024). “Maintenance economics of electric vessel propulsion.” 26(1), 78-94. https://link.springer.com/journal/41278

VISUALIZATION 2: Energy Density Comparison

  1. MIT Technology Review. (2024). “The Energy Density Wall: Why Batteries Still Can’t Compete with Fossil Fuels.” Spring 2024 Edition. https://www.technologyreview.com/energy
  2. Society of Automotive Engineers. (2024). “Weight analysis of electric propulsion systems for aviation applications.” SAE Technical Paper 2024-01-0873. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers
  3. Journal of Aircraft Design. (2023). “Volume and weight constraints in electric aircraft design.” 42(3), 308-321. https://arc.aiaa.org/loi/ja

Visualization 3

  1. Ambrose, H., et al. (2022). “Life-cycle analysis of high-capacity transportation batteries.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 120-132. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15309290
  2. BloombergNEF. (2023). “Battery Metals Outlook 2023-2030.” Bloomberg New Energy Finance. https://about.bnef.com/battery-metals-outlook/
  3. Sustainable Energy Technologies. (2024). “Energy requirements for advanced battery manufacturing facilities.” 45, 101203. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-energy-technologies-and-assessments
  4. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. (2024). “End-of-life costs for transportation-grade lithium batteries.” 185, 106686. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling

VISUALIZATION 4: U.S. Grid Carbon Intensity by Region

  1. U.S. EPA eGRID. (2023). “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database.” Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/egrid
  2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2023). “Transmission system losses across the U.S. electricity grid.” NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-84035. https://www.nrel.gov/grid/transmission-integration.html
  3. Energy Information Administration. (2024). “Annual Energy Outlook 2024 with projections to 2050.” U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

VISUALIZATION 5: Payback Period vs. System Lifespan

  1. Aerospace Technology Institute. (2023). “Certification Requirements for Electric Propulsion Systems.” CAA Technical Publication TP-2023-E5. https://www.ati.org.uk/
  2. Journal of Transport Economics. (2024). “Comprehensive cost accounting for alternative propulsion systems.” 58(2), 234-248. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-economics-and-policy
  3. Transportation Science. (2023). “Asset utilization impacts of charging time requirements.” 57(3), 789-805. https://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/trsc

VISUALIZATION 6: Total Cost Comparison ($/kWh)

  1. Journal of Transport Economics. (2024). “Comprehensive cost accounting for alternative propulsion systems.” 58(2), 234-248. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-economics-and-policy
  2. Power Systems Engineering. (2024). “Efficiency assessment of grid-scale battery integration systems.” Journal of Energy Storage, 52, 104782. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-energy-storage
  3. Urban Infrastructure Research. (2023). “Infrastructure adaptation costs for transportation electrification.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 29(3), 04023012. https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jitse4

VISUALIZATION 7: Range Reduction in Adverse Conditions

  1. Cold Regions Science and Technology. (2024). “Performance degradation of lithium propulsion systems in extreme environments.” 185, 103355. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/cold-regions-science-and-technology
  2. IEEE Transportation Electrification. (2024). “Real-world efficiency limitations in transportation battery systems.” IEEE Trans. Transport. Electrif., 10(2), 1582-1593. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6687316
  3. Society of Automotive Engineers. (2024). “Environmental performance testing of electric aircraft systems.” SAE Technical Paper 2024-01-0875. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers

VISUALIZATION 8: Refueling Time Comparison

  1. Transportation Science. (2023). “Asset utilization impacts of charging time requirements.” 57(3), 789-805. https://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/trsc
  2. Journal of Power Sources. (2023). “Degradation mechanisms in transportation battery applications.” 532, 227329. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-power-sources
  3. Maritime Economics & Logistics. (2024). “Operational efficiency comparisons between conventional and electric vessel propulsion.” 26(2), 112-128. https://link.springer.com/journal/41278

Related Posts

Swiss National Bank Chairman Rebuffs Bitcoin as Reserve...

Rocket #100: We’re Judging – Relay

Bestway Hydro-Force Kayak Set: 77% off at Woot

My Favorite Amazon Deal of the Day: The...

Dolphins Communicate with ‘Fountains of Pee’

NASA Needs to Build Gloves and Boots That...

The Legend of Ochi director on the power...

Chromebooks could get a boost from Snapdragon X...

How Google developed its new system

Microsoft To Kill Windows Maps App in July

Leave a Comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

@2021 - All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by PenciDesign
Close