Climate Tech Reporter David Roberts discusses battery recycling with ceo of a company that is working on scaling up a newer fossil fuel free method of melting down and separating battery metals. This method has advantages of not burning up most of the valuables and sending them into the open atmosphere as well as not requiring a constant stream of harsh chemical feed, or having chemical waste.

Today his small scale plant is handling mostly the waste from faulty primary manufacturing, and is looking to scale up in time for the 2030 boom in lithium battery recycling.

  • Dippy@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, the process as described in the link above does infinitely recycle batteries. But I’m not seeing where bio fuels are net negative, they’re net neutral at best

      • Dippy@beehaw.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think it works like that. When you lose energy in an inefficiency, it’s neither deleted from existence nor stored in an inefficiency box, it’s released as heat or chemicals back into the atmosphere. When your internal combustion engine only gets 40% of the energy from combustion turned into moving your vehicle forward, the only thing that means is that you need 2.5x more fuel and emissions than a perfectly efficient system would

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s true for fossil fuels, but not renewables.

          If producing synthetic methane or biofuel pulls 100g of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but the whole process of producing the fuel is only 80% efficient, then you can only burn 80g of carbon dioxide. That’s net negative.

          This is different that the efficiency of the ICE, which of course means the carbon still ends up in the atmosphere.

          • Dippy@beehaw.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            What so 20% of carbon in the production ends up as some kind of slag? That’s a pretty slow way to sequester. For at scale sequestration, I would rather see more permanent and efficient systems.

            I mean, I’m all for capturing the methane given off by farms and landfills anyway and using that to generate what it can, but I don’t think that’s a wise choice to base large segments of the economy on. It could account for maybe a few megawatts of the 200-400 giga watts we need.

            • delirious_owl@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Its a battery. So only to be used in off-peak or as a dense fuel where we havent yet built electric lines above roads to power busses and trains

              • Dippy@beehaw.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Batteries are charged in off peak, but may be used during peak to flatten out the grid and to make up for low solar/wind days

      • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think biofuel is net zero or net negative at all. The production has byproducts (some of which are useful) and the use in cars still produces carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and VOCs. Some of those less than gasoline, most about the same or slightly less, but more when it comes to nitrogen oxides and VOCs. Here is a dense but very informative meta analysis on it.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7735313/