Hi Prime1, what I am saying is nothing new or groundbreaking it is common knowledge that chemical purification of graphite is environmentally harmful be it in China or in the US or anywhere. Of course you could minimize the environmental and health impact by spending more money (capex and opex) in order to deal with Acids handling and waste. Could zero impact on health and environment be achieved using chemical purification of graphite and at a reasonable cost? I am no expert on the subject, and that wasent my main argument.
As I explained, my main argument is that :
"there is an alternative to chemical purification of graphite and that is thermal purification" the fact that this more environmentally sound solution does exist in the first place and is moreover commercially viable would render the permitting process of acid leaching graphite operations a much more difficult process. Why regulators in developed countries would allow the permitting of this risky chemical process and not require instead the operators to use the less environmentally harmful thermal process ? that is IMO a legitimate concern.
I provided you with a quote of Asbury Carbon CEO stating that his company refuses to buy chemically purified graphite. I could imagine that Apple or Tesla or whatever customer of battery anodes may require the supply chain of graphite to be respectful to environment.
this is another quote from an SGS engineer interview related to this subject :
https://investorintel.com/sectors/t...or-needs-to-know-about-investing-in-graphite/
TD: So any type of natural flake graphite can be made into ultra high purity, but if it’s not a reasonable grade to begin with, it’s very expensive to do.
OP: Correct, at least based on my current experience with over a dozen graphite projects. However, there is no standard definition for “ultra high purity”. The concentration and type of impurities will differ between different deposits and a purified graphite concentrate from one deposit may be suitable for a specific ultra high-purity application, while another is not. But it is still an expensive process and
the hydrofluoric acid route has a significant health & safety and environmental concern. That’s why the caustic bake is, at least from a health and safety point of view, less problematic.
TD: Caustic bake sounds like the most advantageous and cost effective of the three methods for achieving ultra high purity, is that correct?
OP: Well, it’s one route. You would not likely go with hydrofluoric in a commercial process if you can avoid it. Electro-thermal purification is carried out on a commercial scale – so that’s certainly an option too. It essentially comes down to how the graphite behaves and economics.
(20min delay)