A new, efficient method enables 100% of the aluminum and 98% of the lithium from spent car batteries to be recovered and recycled while minimizing the loss of valuable raw materials.
New Recipe for Efficient, Environmentally Friendly Battery Recycling / A new method enables 100% of the aluminum and 98% of the lithium from spent car batteries to be recovered and recycled.::A new, efficient method enables 100% of the aluminum and 98% of the lithium from spent car batteries to be recovered and recycled while minimizing the loss of valuable raw materials.
I don’t really believe in those of articles. Many of them exaggerate things, if they weren’t we had cured aids, cancer a decade ago, we are running on clean and renewable energy. I see a lot of articles like that but years after nothing have really changed and our situation is much worse.
We do have a lot of really cool technologies that could revolutionize how we generate power, clean water, and generally live.
But they are expensive, so they don’t get done.
We could have been running the world off of nuclear reactors for the last 60 years, but they’re more expensive than coal and gas, so we haven’t.
We could also have potentially had a giant solar array in orbit that beamed power down to the planet, which would have been built in the 80s and 90s. But we got the space shuttle instead, because it was cheaper and more feasible. Now the space shuttle was awesome, but it’s competing project was truly a leap ahead in space flight.
There are a few people that, according to blood panels, have been cured of HIV. But it’s a very expensive and painful procedure, as it involves a bone marrow transplant from a person that is genetically immune to HIV and is a match for the person that has HIV.
The technology is occasionally there, but it’s just so impractical to implement it at scale that it never happens.
We’ve known how to very effectively recycle batteries for a long time now, it’s just been far cheaper to mine new materials than to recycle existing ones
This article unfortunately doesn’t really go into the economics of this process
I mean I agree we need to reduce usage even more than we need to recycle, but it’s falling for the Nirvana fallacy to ignore the fact that recycling improvements still have enormous potential to help reduce the environmental impact.
The world doesn’t run on fallacies. It runs on human attention. If everyone is sharing and posting about one thing then they aren’t sharing and posting about another. There’s only so much time in a day
When did this all or nothing way of thinking start in American culture? Has it always been like this and I’m just now noticing it, or is it much more prevalent now because it’s a side effect of a lack of critical thinking skills
But you said there was a presupposition to recycling INSTEAD of reuse. They aren’t exclusive. You can rightly say “I wish we talked more about reduction instead of recycling” but there was no presupposition.
We are trying to reduce usage as well, it’s just not as obvious.
Like sure, if you wanna say no more cars, it’s not happening at that level, but all the chemistry improvements that increase the efficiency of the batteries is still a reduction.
We’ve reduced our need for Cobalt, some battery chemistries don’t even use it anymore.
I think we’re still settling in on what is the ideal range of a car for cost vs range, but we’ll reach a point where an increase in performance leads to a reduction in cells used.
Solid state batteries will be a huge jump on that front sometime in the next decade probably.
I’m still baffled by the quantity of non rechargeable replaceable batteries out there. I have an automatic soap dispenser, it uses rechargable AA. But you know there are people out there still buying single use ones and swapping them multiple times a year.
Yeah and that’s all fair. I just wish people cared enough to make the more effective method the primary one is all. No one really talks about or discusses reduction we’re always hearing and learning about recycling
And also, if you think planet earth is going to all agree to stop having road transport and get rid of any battery devices, you’re living in a fantasy world - batteries are needed, and they should be reused and recycled.
Cheaper or carbon efficient (or both)? The problem we’ve run into is that the cheapest solution (therefore most profitable) has been our go-to solution. In the short term at least, reducing our carbon emissions will be expensive.
Reminds me of the great ‘Helium’ crisis that poofed out of existence once MSM realized that half the comments in every article were like ‘No, it’s just never been worth to capture it from fracking’ lmfao.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Its already being done in Canada https://youtu.be/H85oUBsvBN8?feature=shared
this would be insane because battery waste is a serious issue atm
I don’t really believe in those of articles. Many of them exaggerate things, if they weren’t we had cured aids, cancer a decade ago, we are running on clean and renewable energy. I see a lot of articles like that but years after nothing have really changed and our situation is much worse.
We do have a lot of really cool technologies that could revolutionize how we generate power, clean water, and generally live.
But they are expensive, so they don’t get done.
We could have been running the world off of nuclear reactors for the last 60 years, but they’re more expensive than coal and gas, so we haven’t.
We could also have potentially had a giant solar array in orbit that beamed power down to the planet, which would have been built in the 80s and 90s. But we got the space shuttle instead, because it was cheaper and more feasible. Now the space shuttle was awesome, but it’s competing project was truly a leap ahead in space flight.
There are a few people that, according to blood panels, have been cured of HIV. But it’s a very expensive and painful procedure, as it involves a bone marrow transplant from a person that is genetically immune to HIV and is a match for the person that has HIV.
The technology is occasionally there, but it’s just so impractical to implement it at scale that it never happens.
We’ve known how to very effectively recycle batteries for a long time now, it’s just been far cheaper to mine new materials than to recycle existing ones
This article unfortunately doesn’t really go into the economics of this process
I also like how posts like this presupose we want to recycle instead of REDUCE usage
These are not exclusive.
And yet we never hear about one of them
I mean I agree we need to reduce usage even more than we need to recycle, but it’s falling for the Nirvana fallacy to ignore the fact that recycling improvements still have enormous potential to help reduce the environmental impact.
The world doesn’t run on fallacies. It runs on human attention. If everyone is sharing and posting about one thing then they aren’t sharing and posting about another. There’s only so much time in a day
When did this all or nothing way of thinking start in American culture? Has it always been like this and I’m just now noticing it, or is it much more prevalent now because it’s a side effect of a lack of critical thinking skills
But you said there was a presupposition to recycling INSTEAD of reuse. They aren’t exclusive. You can rightly say “I wish we talked more about reduction instead of recycling” but there was no presupposition.
We are trying to reduce usage as well, it’s just not as obvious.
Like sure, if you wanna say no more cars, it’s not happening at that level, but all the chemistry improvements that increase the efficiency of the batteries is still a reduction.
We’ve reduced our need for Cobalt, some battery chemistries don’t even use it anymore.
I think we’re still settling in on what is the ideal range of a car for cost vs range, but we’ll reach a point where an increase in performance leads to a reduction in cells used.
Solid state batteries will be a huge jump on that front sometime in the next decade probably.
I’m still baffled by the quantity of non rechargeable replaceable batteries out there. I have an automatic soap dispenser, it uses rechargable AA. But you know there are people out there still buying single use ones and swapping them multiple times a year.
Yeah and that’s all fair. I just wish people cared enough to make the more effective method the primary one is all. No one really talks about or discusses reduction we’re always hearing and learning about recycling
I’m close to exclusively using rechargeables, but some items simply can’t get enough voltage.
No they don’t.
And also, if you think planet earth is going to all agree to stop having road transport and get rid of any battery devices, you’re living in a fantasy world - batteries are needed, and they should be reused and recycled.
Cheaper or carbon efficient (or both)? The problem we’ve run into is that the cheapest solution (therefore most profitable) has been our go-to solution. In the short term at least, reducing our carbon emissions will be expensive.
Reminds me of the great ‘Helium’ crisis that poofed out of existence once MSM realized that half the comments in every article were like ‘No, it’s just never been worth to capture it from fracking’ lmfao.
Sounds awesome. That means that whoever makes new batteries is going to buy it out from under them and then bury it in a safe somewhere.