For the past decade, lithium has been hailed as “white oil,” powering the electric vehicle (EV) revolution.
For Zimbabwe, sitting on one of Africa’s largest hard-rock lithium reserves (e.g., Bikita, Arcadia, Sabi Star), this has been a golden opportunity.
However, a quiet but powerful shift is happening in laboratories and factories in China, Europe, and the USA: sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) are maturing rapidly.
This has caused anxiety in mining circles: Will sodium replace lithium and crash our market?
The short answer is no. The long answer is more nuanced. Lithium and sodium are not fighting a war to the death; they are splitting the future market into two complementary roles.
Based on 2026 industry data, here is the objective truth about where both technologies stand.
Keep Reading
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
Part 1: The great divide – strengths and weaknesses
To understand the future, we must compare five critical factors.
1. Cost and resource security (where sodium wins)
· Sodium (Na): Ubiquitous. Salt is in seawater and rocks everywhere. It costs roughly USS$115–230 per tonne. No nation can monopolise it.
· Lithium (Li): Rare and expensive. As of May 2026, prices remain high (approx. US$19,000+ per ton of碳酸锂). Supply chains are concentrated (Australia, Chile, China).
· Takeaway: For applications where cost is king, sodium has a structural advantage.
2. Energy density (where lithium dominates)
· Lithium: High-density (LFP: 205 Wh/kg; NMC: 250-300 Wh/kg). This means a lighter battery for longer driving range (600km+).
· Sodium: Lower density (currently 160-175 Wh/kg). However, top brands like CATL have achieved 500km range for EVs.
· Takeaway: Lithium will rule long-distance EVs, airplanes, and high-end electronics. Sodium is sufficient for city cars (A00 class) and buses.
3. Safety and cold weather (sodium's surprise advantage)
· Sodium: Excellent. Can be transported at 0 Volts (safer). Performs well at -40°C (90% capacity retained). Very low fire risk.
· Lithium: Requires complex battery management systems (BMS). Needs heaters in winter. Risk of thermal runaway (fire) if damaged.
· Takeaway: For cold climates (Canada, Russia, Northern China) or high-safety needs (school buses, grid storage), sodium is becoming preferable.
4. Charging speed and lifespan
· Charging: Sodium charges faster (5C rate – 0-80% in ~12 minutes) due to better ion mobility.
· Lifespan: Sodium can reach 20 000 cycles (ideal for solar farms). LFP lithium averages 5 000-10 000 cycles.
· Takeaway: Sodium will dominate grid energy storage (solar/wind backup) because it lasts 20+ years daily.
5. Environmental and recycling cost
· Lithium: High environmental cost. Mining uses large water volumes and leaves tailings. Recycling is profitable (recovering Li, Co, Ni), but complex.
· Sodium: Low environmental impact. Recycling is currently not profitable (value of recovered materials is low), meaning used sodium batteries may pile up initially.
Part 2: The future – coexistence, not extinction (2026-2045)
Here is the realistic market split for the next two decades:
· By 2030 (five years): Lithium remains king (70% market value). Sodium captures low-end EVs, e-scooters, and static storage.
· By 2035 (10 years): Industry forecasts (e.g., Ronbay Technology) predict Sodium 60% vs. Lithium 40% in terms of volume for energy storage. Lithium holds premium EVs.
· By 2045 (20 years): Solid-state lithium will dominate aviation and robotics (ultra-high energy). Sodium will be the standard for grid backup, rural electrification, and budget transport.
Key conclusion: Sodium will not kill lithium. It will take the "cheap and safe" market segment. Lithium will move upmarket into "high-performance" niches. Both grow together.
PART 3: Strategic advice for Zimbabwe
The hard truth: Why local battery nmanufacturing remains a distant dream
Before offering policy advice, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable reality.
The data speaks clearly. According to IRENA's "Global Landscape of Energy Transition Finance 2025" report, US$28.6 billion was invested globally in lithium, cobalt, and nickel extraction and refining in 2024 alone.
Where did that money go? To countries that already dominate the full value chain – China, Australia, Chile, Indonesia. Sub-Saharan Africa, including Zimbabwe, remains largely excluded from refining and advanced processing stages .
Consider the scale of what "local processing" actually requires. A single lithium hydroxide refinery with annual capacity of 20 000 tonnes – the kind of facility that could supply mainstream battery makers – requires approximately US$340 million in capital investment for just the processing infrastructure, plus hundreds of millions more for power, water, logistics, and skilled personnel. And that is merely refining, not yet battery cell manufacturing.
The real barrier, however, is not just capital. It is technology and intellectual property. More than 95% of critical mineral processing to battery grade occurs in China .
The patents, proprietary processes (such as the lime causticization method for lithium hydroxide), and operational know-how are concentrated in the hands of a few global players – CATL, BYD, Ganfeng, Tianqi, Albemarle, SQM.
These companies did not develop their capabilities overnight; they built them over decades, protected by trade secrets and patent walls.
Crucially, no company – Chinese, European, or American – has any strategic incentive to voluntarily transfer its core refining or battery manufacturing technology to a lithium-rich country like Zimbabwe.
Why would they? Doing so would create a future competitor and erode the very margins they currently enjoy from controlling the bottleneck between raw ore and battery-grade material.
This is not cynicism; it is industrial logic. The companies that have invested billions into perfecting hydrometallurgical processes, cathode synthesis, and cell assembly are not aid agencies. They are profit-maximizing enterprises. Their interest in Zimbabwe is securing access to ore, not creating a rival.
What about Zimbabwe's recent policy moves? In early 2026, Zimbabwe announced a ban on raw lithium concentrate exports, mandating local processing .
The government has cited Indonesia's nickel downstreaming success as a model.
However, Zimbabwe's structural constraints are severe: chronic power shortages (mining and processing are electricity-intensive), underdeveloped chemical input supply chains, high inland transport costs, and critically, limited bargaining power vis-à-vis the Chinese companies that dominate local mining operations .
Chinese firms operating in Zimbabwe – Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt, Sinomine Resource Group, Chengxin Lithium – have made some investments. Huayou completed a US$400 million plant to produce lithium sulphate .
Sinomine plans a US$500 million facility at its Bikita mine . These are real, but they remain partial beneficiation (concentrate to intermediate chemical), not full refining to battery-grade lithium hydroxide/carbonate, let alone cell manufacturing.
The gap between Zimbabwean policy aspirations and on-the-ground capability is wide.
As the William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan notes in their 2026 report "From Ore to Opportunity," "value addition" has often become "more aspirational rhetoric than practical reality in policy circles"
Adjusted strategic qdvice: Realistic pathways given the constraints
Accepting this reality does not mean Zimbabwe should do nothing. It means Zimbabwe must be strategically realistic about where value can be captured along a value chain it does not control.
✅ Pathway 1: Secure fair terms in the existing "mine-and-export" model
Since Zimbabwe cannot yet refine at scale, the immediate priority is maximising capture from what is already happening.
Current situation: Chinese companies mine spodumene, produce concentrate, and export it – mostly to China for final refining . Zimbabwe receives royalties and taxes, but the bulk of value addition occurs overseas.
Recommendation:
· Strengthen fiscal terms without killing investment. Implement transparent royalty structures that increase with global lithium prices (windfall taxes on super-profits).
· Mandate local value reporting. Require mining companies to disclose exactly what percentage of value is retained versus exported. Public transparency creates pressure.
· Negotiate infrastructure co-benefits. In exchange for mining rights, require companies to invest in local power generation (solar+storage), roads, or water treatment – assets that remain after the mine is gone.
Why this works: It does not require technology transfer. It simply improves Zimbabwe's bargaining position within the existing extractive framework.
✅ Pathway 2: Aim for "regional refining hub" (not global leader)
Forget competing with China's 95% processing share. Instead, aim for a modest, regionally-focused refining capability serving African markets.
The opportunity: The Faraday Institute's 2024 report "From Minerals to Manufacturing" estimates that integrated lithium refining in Africa could achieve 35-40% cost advantages over Chinese, Canadian, and Australian refiners due to raw material integration . However, this advantage is theoretical without technology access.
Recommendation:
· Pursue joint ventures with technology transfer clauses – not as a gift, but as a condition for long-term mining rights. Some Chinese firms may accept limited technology sharing in exchange for guaranteed ore supply over 20+ years.
· Start with lithium sulphate or hydroxide conversion (one step up from concentrate), not full battery-grade refining. This is technologically simpler and requires less capital.
· Partner with South African initiatives. South Africa's Afrivolt is attempting to build the continent's first gigafactory . Zimbabwe could supply processed material to such regional projects rather than competing with them.
Why this works: It accepts that Zimbabwe will not become a battery manufacturing powerhouse, but positions the country as a value-added supplier within a regional African supply chain – a more achievable goal than global competition.
✅ Pathway 3: Use lithium revenues to build enabling infrastructure
The core constraints Zimbabwe faces – power, water, logistics – are not unique to lithium. Solving them benefits the entire economy.
Data point: A 20,000 tpa lithium refinery requires approximately 40-50 MW of reliable power supply (roughly 2-3% of Zimbabwe's current installed capacity). With Zimbabwe's ongoing load-shedding, this is simply not feasible without dedicated power solutions.
Recommendation:
· Mandate that mining companies finance or co-finance dedicated solar+storage plants for their operations. This is already happening elsewhere – in Chile's Atacama, lithium operations run on solar. Zimbabwe has excellent solar resources.
· Use lithium royalty revenues to upgrade the Beitbridge-Harare-Chirundu transport corridor. Lower logistics costs benefit all exporters.
· Invest in technical education. Train chemical engineers, metallurgists, and power system specialists. Even if battery manufacturing does not come to Zimbabwe in 10 years, trained people can work anywhere – and remittances benefit the economy.
Why this works: These are public goods that provide returns regardless of what happens to global battery markets.
✅ Pathway 4: Prepare for the "lithium as a fervice" future – but realistically
Some analysts suggest Zimbabwe should focus on becoming a low-cost supplier of lithium to global markets while building no domestic refining capacity at all – essentially accepting the extractive model but optimizing it for efficiency and tax capture.
This is a legitimate strategic choice. Not every country needs to move up the价值链. Chile, the world's second-largest lithium producer, has only limited domestic refining. It captures value through a well-managed royalty and tax system, not through forced industrialization.
Recommendation:
· Study the Chilean model. Chile's Lithium Strategy (Estrategia Nacional del Litio) maintains state control over resources while contracting private operators for extraction. The state captures value through royalties and retains the right to allocate production quotas.
· Reconsider the raw export ban if it proves unenforceable or drives investment elsewhere. A well-regulated export system with transparent pricing and robust taxation may capture more value than a poorly enforced ban that simply creates smuggling.
Why this works: It aligns with Zimbabwe's actual capabilities rather than aspirational fantasies.
What Zimbabwe should not do
✗ Do not impose unrealistic localization deadlines. Requiring 100% local processing by 2027 when no facilities exist will either drive investment away or create a black market.
✗ Do not assume Chinese investment equals technology transfer. It does not. Chinese companies are rational actors; they will build processing plants in Zimbabwe only if logistics and power costs make it cheaper than shipping concentrate to China. This is possible for intermediate steps (sulphate conversion) but unlikely for full battery-grade refining.
✗ Do not bet on "gigafactory Zimbabwe" in the next decade. Battery cell manufacturing requires ultra-clean rooms, precision humidity control, thousands of trained technicians, and just-in-time supply chains for dozens of components – none of which exist in Zimbabwe or will exist soon.
Conclusion: Strategic patience, not magical thinking
Zimbabwe's lithium is a blessing, but only if managed with clear eyes about global realities. The battery value chain is controlled by a small number of technology-owning firms based thousands of kilometers away. They will not voluntarily share their crown jewels.
This does not mean Zimbabwe cannot benefit. It can:
1. Capture more value through smarter fiscal terms on current mining
2. Build regional refining partnerships rather than going it alone
3. Use lithium revenues to fix infrastructure that benefits all sectors
4. Train its people – human capital is the only asset no one can take away
The goal should not be "become a battery manufacturer." That is a 30-year ambition at minimum. The goal should be steady, realistic, corruption-free extraction with transparent revenue management, plus incremental movement up the value chain where genuinely feasible.
Countries that succeed with resource wealth are not those that try to do everything overnight. They are those that manage expectations honestly, build institutions that last, and capture value at every realistic step – even if the final step remains out of reach.
* Roxette Mikela Pazvakavambwa is an independent commentator focusing on industrial policy, international trade, cultural relations, and macroeconomic strategy.
Selected References:
· IRENA (2025). Global Landscape of Energy Transition Finance 2025
· The Assay (2025). Developing South Africa's Battery Industry
· The Zimbabwe Independent (2026). Resource nationalism: Zimbabwe's lithium export ban vs Indonesia's nickel downstream paradigm
· Faraday Institute (2024). From Minerals to Manufacturing: Africa's Competitiveness in the Global Battery Supply Chain
· WDI, University of Michigan (2026). From Ore to Opportunity
· SingularityHub (2026). Sodium Is Cheap, Abundant, abd Now Powering Batteries That Could Rival Lithium