Technical Papers and Discussions - Lithium - Laboratory Preparation of Lithium Metal by Vacuum Metallurgy (Metals Tech., June 1947, TP 2179)

As this paper is written, the only method for the commercial production of lithium metal is by the fusion electrolysis of LiC1-KC1 mixtures, as first proposed by Gunkz.2 The details of the industrial process have not been made public hut Osborg8 stated that an efficiency of more than 90 pct is obtained with a lithium metal recovery above 95 pct and that the metal is 99.5 pct pure. Pletenev9 gave a power consumption of 66 kw-hr per kilogram of lithium metal produced with a salt consumption of 9 kg of LiCl and 0.4 kg of KCI. Pletenev's figures indicate a somewhat lower recovery than that given by Osborg. In a recent report on' German lithium plants, Motock7 gives figures that are also less favorable than those reported by Osborg. At the German plants the lithium recovery in electrolysis was only 83.4 pct, with a power consumption of 140 kw-hr per kilogram of lithium. The metal averaged only 97 pct pure, with sodium and potassium as the chief impurities. The presence of SO2, SO3, SiO2, Ba, Ca, and appreciable amounts of Na and Fe2O3 were especially disturbing in the electrolysis, and it was necessary to run the cell for some time to eliminate most of these impurities and condition the bath. It may be noted here that most of these impurities do not interfere with a thermal reduction process. These facts show that the present method of producing lithium is fairly efficient and would suggest that other methods could not compete. However, fusion electrolysis has certain drawbacks, such as the necessity of supplying costly, low-voltage direct current and of collecting and processing the anodic chlorine if it is not to be wasted. An even greater disadvantage is that lithium chloride must be used for an electrolyte. It is one of the most expensive salts of lithium, since it cannot be produced in anhydrous form by precipitation from aqueous solution, as is done with LiF or Li2CO3. The reduction of lithium by a vacuum process similar to the ferrosilicon method for the production of magnesium would have certain advantages. Small units such as Pidgeon retorts, would give flexibility of production to meet demand, and a small plant would require moderate capital outlay. There is a possibility of using idle Government-owned magnesium plants for such purposes. The raw materials needed for vacuum thermal reduction would not have to be extremely pure, Director, with respect to the iron and calcium Content. This paper describes a series of experiments to determine the effectiveness of various agents for the reduction of lithium compounds. The investigation is part of a program of vacuum metallurgy con-