Slashdot Mirror
Electric Car Batteries Might Be Worth Recycling, But Bus Batteries Aren't Yet (arstechnica.com)
Iwastheone shares a report from Ars Technica: Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University published a paper in Nature Sustainability this week that looks at the emissions and economic costs associated with recycling automotive batteries. They specifically addressed batteries with three types of cathode chemistry: nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), and iron phosphate (LFP). The first two cathode chemistries are common in passenger vehicles, and LFP is common in buses (bus maker BYD uses LFP batteries, for example). Since the packaging of batteries is important to the recycling method, cylindrical batteries (the types of cells that Tesla makes) are compared to pouch cell batteries in the analysis. The researchers also compared recycling methods. These include pyrometallurgical recycling (exposing the valuable parts of the battery to high temperatures and then recovering those metals as alloys), hydrometallurgical recycling (leaching valuable metals from batteries and separating the desired metals from the resulting solution), and "direct cathode recycling," where the battery's cathode is retained as-is, but new lithium is added in such a way that the battery regains its original performance.
Ultimately, LFP-cathode batteries were not able to avoid additional emissions under any recycling circumstances. The iron materials used in those bus batteries are already efficient to mine, the paper notes. This results "in a smaller GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions offset from the recovered materials that is insufficient to offset the energy and GHG emissions associated with the recycling processes considered." For now, new bus batteries seem to be cheaper and better for the environment than recycled bus batteries. The story is more complicated for electric passenger vehicle batteries, however. For both NMC and NCA cells, hydrometallurgical and direct cathode removal recycling methods do result in a reduction of GHG emissions, but only recycling via direct cathode removal with pouch cells shows a statistically significant reduction in emissions.
Ultimately, LFP-cathode batteries were not able to avoid additional emissions under any recycling circumstances. The iron materials used in those bus batteries are already efficient to mine, the paper notes. This results "in a smaller GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions offset from the recovered materials that is insufficient to offset the energy and GHG emissions associated with the recycling processes considered." For now, new bus batteries seem to be cheaper and better for the environment than recycled bus batteries. The story is more complicated for electric passenger vehicle batteries, however. For both NMC and NCA cells, hydrometallurgical and direct cathode removal recycling methods do result in a reduction of GHG emissions, but only recycling via direct cathode removal with pouch cells shows a statistically significant reduction in emissions.
Oh well maybe he can give us a tell all soon on it
Anyone have data on using ultracapacitors in place of batteries? I know they store less energy per volume, but AFAIK they will last much longer, and maybe on a bus or truck where there's more room, it would pay off in the long run?
The batteries have to be recycled. The technology will catch up over time and soon make it worth it. We have to start somewhere!
8====D
A 100 kWh battery that is has reached 80% capacity due to having a few hundred thousand miles of use would be an awesome used purchase for the 80 kWh version of the same vehicle. When it drops to 80% of what that vehicle expects, send it on to a utility storage operation that uses acres of space and doesn't care as much about power density.
Using this approach, vehicle batteries might not have 9-lives, but they should have three or four.
There is already a market for used battery packs. As the volume of used packs available reaches thousands, entrepreneurs will come along and realize they could build racks and control systems ready made to accept Tesla (for example) battery packs, purchase 1,000 used 100 kWh packs, and deploy an 80 MWh utility backup system for a fraction of the cost of one using brand new batteries. This will push the recycling problem way back.
They are very nice for for example a subway which moves to the next station where it can charge again. But if you want the same range as lithium-ion batteries, you need to pack 4 times as much of them. While a subway can handle such a weight, for a bus or truck, there are more limitations to the weight of it. Also, the pricing is not as attractive as lithium-ion batteries.
What about those?
There are a lot of lithium battery -ode designs. Reuse first. A 50kWH pack can run at half capacity for a while until all the important stuff gives out. I take worn out IMR batteries (3AH, 15A continuous draw) from vaping and reuse them for flashlights. It's like a nursing home for them.
After they exhaust all the charge cycles, then they go to the recycle bin.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
Poor form, dude.
It's a dick move to not respect pseudonyms, and post identifiable information about people here. The fact that it's legal or possible or anyone could do it does not detract from that.
This is slashdot not twitter.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's bold of you to criticise someone for daring to know something that has been discussed on a Tesla forum. I mean what kind of a weirdo has a conversation online anyway?
Wit trolley no batteries no needed, or really smaller ones, you can get away with lead acid ones. It's a mature tecnology and is well suited for public transportation
Fuck Off APK
by solving one problem, it seems we've just created another...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Gah! The paper itself is paywalled.There's some supplemental data that teases how they considered different energy grids - how much CO2 is produced during recycling is strongly dependent on the CO2 released generating the energy for the process. I'm glad they properly considered that, and it's not a terrible spread; US average, RFCM (Michigan, which is the third of fourth worst grid in the US), and NWPP (Northwest continental US, fourth or fifth cleanest in the US).
But my question is not fully answered... what if the recycling process exclusively used energy sources of negligible CO2 emissions? In other words, how green could it be?
=Smidge=
As a professional electronics recycler, here's the big secret about battery recycling. The original device (car, bus) requires that a battery be pulled when it reaches a certain inefficiency threshhold - say less than 50% recharge. But those uses are for a very tight spec, maintaining speed on the road and getting from point A to 150km away at Point B. In economics, most of the large batteries never make it to the recycler, because there are plenty of savvy Tech Sector people in emerging markets, who resell the batteries to a use (e.g. backup lights for solar panels) that is more forgiving. If the battery on the solar panel saves enough energy to keep the lights on all night, that's actually pretty inefficient when you go to bed.
Of course, if you are an original battery manufacturer, you look at that kind of like Lexmark and HP looked at ink cartridge reuse. The "gray market" disputes are between legitimate added value reuse, and the risk that an unscrupulous subcontractor repackages the used under50% battery in shiny box to sell as a counterfeit. Expect Planned Obsolescence to tell you how poor children at African dumps are buying the batteries. This Recycling Story gets told over and over again, and the fight in the backroom is always over "market cannibalization" vs "counterfeiting".
Gently reply
When was Slashdot ever in favor of encouraging mental illness in others?
In this case, Rei made no attempt to shield her identity. I didn't do any hacking to unmask her. Just a wild guess that the "Rei" who posts about Teslas is the same as the KarenRei who posts frequently on a Tesla-related forum.
That assumes that my guess that "Rei" on /. is the same as KarenRei in the Model 3 Owner's forum is actually correct. I have no information on this.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I'm sure you'll have no problems with publishing your own name, right?
You fucking dick.
Anyone on the internet can create a false identity to appear more reputable. It's quite effective, as you yourself have shown.
I have no problems with people linking my /. account to other logins on the internet that use "Whoever57", and post on similar topics.
Had I posted elsewhere as "Whoever57" and put a photo of myself and more information, linking to that would be OK, but I haven't.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
SO ECO!!
I cant wait for all the old Teslas to start exploding in a couple more years...
Preach it brother. You all say it's ok for google and Facebook to do it. Besides they publicly gave our that information. Also I find this funny as shit. All the shilling he does and the first post I see is this:
Hello from Texas. We just got back from Iceland. What a great place. How did you get a Model 3 over there???
KarenRei
KarenRei I'm still waiting on mine!
It's bold of you to trust random people online. We call them strangers. And we take what they say at face value.
Wow, you really are an asshole.
No, fucker, publish your name, like you did Rei's. The fact her handle was slightly similar to her real name is not an excuse either to publish her's or treat it as different from you outing yourself.
I didn't do any hacking to unmask her.
Oh wow! You didn't do something literally illegal. Have a cookie.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"guy"?
https://model3ownersclub.com/m...
Not cool at all. Don't be a dick.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You know what the Slashdot Effect means, right?
You've set someone up for harassment for no fucking good reason. And you're not even sure if both people are the same.
Which, either way, is not cool.