this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023

437 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59377 readers

5241 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

437

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[+] tdawg@lemmy.world -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I also like how posts like this presupose we want to recycle instead of REDUCE usage

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These are not exclusive.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And yet we never hear about one of them

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm close to exclusively using rechargeables, but some items simply can't get enough voltage.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Really feels like we should figure out the recycling angle on a thing as an intrinsic part of the design phase…

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It actually is. I think the DoD required it at some point, it became apparent with destabilizing aging explosives and nuclear power and weapons that it was vital, as well as dismantling anything that the enemy could gain knowledge from.

However, like most good things, it's rarely implemented where it's not required.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

DoD calls it life cycle engineering, and it's basically standard for anything but software. Problem is that corporations aren't required to do anything like that.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Perhaps with this new technology it will no longer be necessary for the "Empire" aka USA to stage a coup d'état in a poor country in Latin America to steal its lithium. No, capitalism doesn't work this way coups are much easier cheaper and faster.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Zdvarko@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its already being done in Canada https://youtu.be/H85oUBsvBN8?feature=shared

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 6 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/H85oUBsvBN8?feature=shared

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Let it cook