Lithium Mining vs. Direct Lithium Extraction: Which Is Greener?

However, hard rock mining (HRM), brine evaporation (BE), and direct lithium extraction (DLE), the main pathways for lithium production, have significant water, land, and greenhouse gas footprints.¹

This article explores the environmental impacts of different extraction methods and which has the smaller overall environmental footprint as the industry expands.

Download a free copy of this page here!

The Environmental Cost of Conventional Lithium Mining

 In HRM operations, lithium is generally extracted from lithium-bearing ores using conventional methods; the ore is separated from the rock gangue by crushing and processing. Subsequently, hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical processes with significant reagent and energy requirements are used to extract the lithium.^1,2

In lithium evaporation, several large ponds are used to evaporate water and concentrate the lithium present in brines. The need for mineral extraction and leaching, as in HRM, is eliminated in this method because lithium is present in solution.^1,3

However, the large evaporative losses, often in arid environments, and the large areas occupied by ponds pose major environmental impacts. Freshwater is also required to support worker needs and facility operations, preparing chemical reagents, and processing tasks like purifying and washing lithium compounds.^1,3

Both methods can contribute to environmental pressures, including freshwater depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and soil and water contamination. However, the nature and extent of these impacts differ according to the extraction method, local environmental conditions, and operational practices.¹

Can Direct Lithium Extraction Reduce Environmental Impacts?

DLE, an emerging extraction technology, avoids lengthy evaporation processes to extract lithium from brine sources. This approach comprises several emerging chemical processing methods that directly capture lithium from brines, selectively concentrating and extracting lithium.^1,4

These processing methods purify and concentrate lithium without evaporating large amounts of water, thus eliminating the requirement for evaporation ponds to extract lithium from brines. DLE can also offer additional benefits, such as lower water use, more efficient resource utilization, and reduced impurities in the lithium product; however, these depend on the specific technology used and the operating conditions.^1,4

Several existing DLE methods use advanced technologies. Ion exchange and adsorption are the most advanced technologies used for deployment in commercial applications.^1,4

Comparing Lithium Extraction Technologies Through 2040

In a paper published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, researchers compared the impacts of lithium mining and extraction technologies on

natural resources. Specifically, they focused on comparing evaporation pond technology and HRM to DLE technologies.¹

The authors constructed a moderately aggressive DLE, a business-as-usual (BAU), and an aggressive DLE scenario using Benchmark Mineral Intelligence 2024 supply projections. They also estimated the future and current water, land, and carbon dioxide use under the scenarios.¹

Two emerging DLE technologies, ion exchange (Lilac IX) and alumina adsorbents, were evaluated. Findings showed that while the total supply remains the same across BAU and two scenarios in which DLE replaces other technologies through 2040, the relative contribution of technologies varies, allowing more production using DLE over time.¹

DLE Could Reduce Lithium Mining Land Use by Up to 50%

Under BAU, HRM and BE were each projected to require ∼300 km² of additional land by 2040, while DLE’s facility footprint is minimal, with 50 km² added under the BAU model. In scenarios where DLE replaces other technologies, the total land-use footprints were greatly reduced in 2040, particularly in the aggressive DLE scenario.¹

Between now and 2040, the shift towards DLE technologies (moderate/aggressive scenarios) decreases the total land use for lithium extraction by 20–50% compared to a BAU scenario, avoiding 141–381 km² of land conversion.¹

The impacts of land use rely on where lithium extraction happens, with potential conflicts between biodiversity priorities and lithium extraction. For instance, out of the eight countries that account for 90% of the global lithium reserves, four countries, including Chile, China, Australia, and Brazil, feature among the top 10 countries designated as priority areas for biodiversity conservation.¹

Why DLE Does Not Always Mean Lower Water Consumption

Freshwater consumption is projected to be highest for HRM under all scenarios, even when HRM is significantly reduced under the aggressive DLE scenario. However, the total consumption of water declines by 32% between BAU and the aggressive DLE scenario.¹

Using the full range of freshwater values, the sensitivity analysis for the DLE technologies resulted in a higher water use for the adsorbent DLE technology than with any other approach.¹

Specifically, the adsorbent-based DLE consumed 13 times more freshwater than IX DLE, while brine evaporation consumed three times more freshwater than IX DLE.¹

Thus, the use of adsorbent-based technology could entirely reverse water savings from DLE adoption in place of reducing freshwater consumption, which highlights the importance of selecting the proper DLE technology to minimize the impact of lithium production.¹

Certain DLE technologies, particularly those with lower freshwater requirements, could provide an efficient technical approach to lower water consumption in water-scarce but lithium-rich regions like the Lithium Triangle.¹

Could DLE Cut Lithium Production Emissions by 44%?

Carbon dioxide emissions are highest for HRM under all scenarios, even when HRM is substantially reduced under the aggressive DLE scenario. Total carbon dioxide emissions decline by 44% between the BAU and aggressive DLE scenarios.¹

An average electric vehicle (EV) contains about 43 kg of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE), and mining this amount produces approximately one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). Shifting from HRM to DLE could reduce emissions by 82% per unit of LCE.¹

Batteries account for about 25% of an EV’s embodied emissions, while lithium mining accounts for about 25% of battery-embodied emissions. Thus, an 82% reduction in lithium-production emissions could lower the overall embodied emissions of an EV by about 6%.¹

Lithium Production with a Smaller Environmental Footprint

Lithium production can expand with a smaller environmental footprint, but the environmental costs vary substantially by extraction technology. The study showed that higher use of DLE could reduce land use by 20–50% and total water consumption by 32% by 2040 under the aggressive DLE scenario, while carbon dioxide emissions could decline by 44%.

However, these benefits depend on the selected DLE technology, as adsorbent-based DLE uses substantially more freshwater than IX DLE. Thus, as lithium demand grows, technology choices will determine how much additional land, water, and carbon are required to supply the same quantity of lithium.

References and Further Reading

1. Kalies, E. L., et al. (2026). Not all mining is equal: The impact of lithium production technology on land, water, and emissions footprints through 2040. Journal of Cleaner Production, 569. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148714, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652626012552.
2. Gao, T. M., et al. (2023). Lithium extraction from hard rock lithium ores (spodumene, lepidolite, zinnwaldite, petalite): Technology, resources, environment and cost. China Geology, 6(1). DOI: 10.31035/cg2022088, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096519223008601.
3. Vera, M. L., et al. (2023). Environmental impact of direct lithium extraction from brines. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4(3). DOI: 10.1038/s43017-022-00387-5, https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00387-5.
4. Boroumand, Y., & Razmjou, A. (2024). Adsorption-type aluminium-based direct lithium extraction: The effect of heat, salinity and lithium content. Desalination, 577. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2024.117406, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916424001176.