[RD] The US Environmental Protection Agency

[onejayhawk]

No problem. We can rely on regulation from the EPA to address this issue.

It is certainly EPA's province. They would probably even admit it.

Surely there is no good reason for battery toxins to enter the water supply. If for no other reason than these metals are really valuable, and it has to be easier to get them from old batteries than the soil. I can see AA batteries ending up in landfill, but surely not Priuse batteries?

Reclamation is never 100%. The byproducts and wastes of reclamation are quite toxic.

*shrug* I don't know the details. I do know that J would like to get rid of or render impotent the main agency tasked with preventing that stuff from happening, so for him to complain about it is a nice bit of bad faith.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
Will Rogers

If you had paid attention, you would "know" that I a leery of Pruitt and his red tape scissors. To some degree it was necessary. The EPA had become unresponsive to its duties. Wait times for rulings and permits were supposed to be in weeks not years. I defend his position that climate change is not his job. This sort of thing, industrial wastes and handling of toxic material, is exactly his job. He has not proven he is willing to do it.

J

 

[Samson]

Tell that to the water supply.

Reclamation is never 100%. The byproducts and wastes of reclamation are quite toxic.

So your point was that when these batteries are recycled, some toxins end up in the water supply? Is this really a problem compared to say AA batteries ending up in landfill?

 

[Perfection]

IIRC there's a lot of toxic metals in the batteries. At least, that was/is true of Priuses.

Primary batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles are typically NiMH or Lithium Ion, neither of which are toxic. It's the NiCad batteries that are toxic, I don't know of any manufacturer who uses them or has used them in a major production model.

Do note that most hybrids and electric vehicles have smaller secondary lead-acid batteries but they're not much different to the ones found in fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

edit: there are some vehicles that do use lead-acid as primaries but those are generally 90s prototypes (like the GM EV1) or low cost EVs that don't travel at highway speeds

 

[Zkribbler]

thank you, Perfection. That's some useful info!

 

[onejayhawk]

Primary batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles are typically NiMH or Lithium Ion, neither of which are toxic. It's the NiCad batteries that are toxic, I don't know of any manufacturer who uses them or has used them in a major production model.

Do note that most hybrids and electric vehicles have smaller secondary lead-acid batteries but they're not much different to the ones found in fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

edit: there are some vehicles that do use lead-acid as primaries but those are generally 90s prototypes (like the GM EV1) or low cost EVs that don't travel at highway speeds

Not toxic is a severe overstatement. It is true that they are less dangerous than lead and much less dangerous than cadmium, but this is not something you want in a general use landfill.

We will get a good electric car we figure out how to make fuel cells safe and affordable.

J

 

[Perfection]

Not toxic is a severe overstatement. It is true that they are less dangerous than lead and much less dangerous than cadmium, but this is not something you want in a general use landfill.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how nontoxic they are. My understanding is the legislation for special disposal are mostly because damaged lithium ion batteries pose a fire risk not because they are particularly toxic, but I could be shown wrong.

We will get a good electric car we figure out how to make fuel cells safe and affordable.

J

I don't see why having to recycle Lithium Ion batteries would be a major issue with the technology in a vehicle application. We can assume relatively high recycling compliance. Tesla makes good cars.

 

[Lexicus]

Primary batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles are typically NiMH or Lithium Ion, neither of which are toxic. It's the NiCad batteries that are toxic, I don't know of any manufacturer who uses them or has used them in a major production model.

I could be entirely wrong. It might have been that toxic stuff was released during the manufacture of the batteries; after some Googling it seems like that's closer to accurate.

I don't see why having to recycle Lithium Ion batteries would be a major issue with the technology in a vehicle application. We can assume relatively high recycling compliance. Tesla makes good cars.

The issue there would be where the materials and components for manufacturing the car come from. And the answer is often countries (well okay, I mainly have China in mind) that are, to put it lightly, not concerned about this sort of thing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah it's the production of lithium batteries that is the bigger pollution problem than their disposal. However, given how expensive they are at scale I imagine recycling of the batteries will be a huge factor as we electrify the global fleet which will offset some of the environmental burden.

Plus, they last about a decade (and that number will rise) so producing one set that is used for that long is a much smaller environmental impact that drilling, refining, transporting and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels everyday.


Fuel cell vehicles are not able to compete with electric vehicles now or ever unless there is a sea change in hydrogen production and storage such that it becomes a net energy-positive endeavor (it's now very much a net negative - it takes more energy to make a tank of H2 than you get back out of it) or if absolutely massive investments are made by governments in all new H2 infrastructure. Electric vehicles are much more efficient overall and a lot of the basic infrastructure is in place already. Almost anyone with access to a plug at home or work can replace their commuter cars with electric vehicles right now. You can't do that with Hydrogen vehicles.

Sure, to fully replace ICE's with electrics you'd have to build out a network of fast charging stations but that's not a prerequisite to start the ball rolling on fleet electrification. Creating hydrogen filling stations (and all the other infrastructure to make and distribute it) absolutely is a requirement before that technology can find anything more than a tiny niche market in large cities. Hydrogen fuel cells are a neat sounding concept but they just are not economical. Plus to increase their efficiency you're likely going to pair hydrogen fuel cells with batteries anyways to capture breaking energy so you'd end up having to build up a lot of the electric infrastructure (namely, cheap battery production) to go the hydrogen route anyways.

tl;dr Hydrogen vehicles are not going to replace ICE's

 

[onejayhawk]

tl;dr Hydrogen vehicles are not going to replace ICE's

Nothing is going to replace ICEs in the short term. Longer term, who knows? That's why they call it future tech.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

Nothing is going to replace ICEs in the short term.

Not so fast, J

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/the-2018-ford-mustang-gt-still-has-some-drag-racing-power-in-it

The UK is now on board with not having internal combustion engines. Just like their French neighbors, the BBC reports the British government has intentions of banning fossil fuel-powered vehicles sales by 2040. Both countries are doing it for environmental impact as air quality is worsening in major cities.

But they aren’t the only countries strongly in favor of zero-emission vehicles. Norway is the world leader of electric car sales and is planning to be free of internal combustion engines by 2025. China and Germany aren’t far behind

 

[Arakhor]

2040 is still laughably in the future, but at least it's a start.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not so fast, J

https://www.powernationtv.com/post/the-2018-ford-mustang-gt-still-has-some-drag-racing-power-in-it

2040 is still laughably in the future, but at least it's a start.

Agreed. Maybe-in-a-generation is not short term.

That said, Non-ICE areas in urban centers is much closer than a general ban, particularly in Europe.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nothing is going to replace ICEs in the short term. Longer term, who knows? That's why they call it future tech.

J

Every new technology starts off frighteningly slow as societal inertia fights it. Then it's adopted at exponentially faster speed as the inertia breaks. This and self driving cars won't be any different.

 

[onejayhawk]

Every new technology starts off frighteningly slow as societal inertia fights it. Then it's adopted at exponentially faster speed as the inertia breaks. This and self driving cars won't be any different.

Oh no. Not a Market Forces argument.

J

 

[Zkribbler]

2040 is still laughably in the future, but at least it's a start.

That's true. By then we'll have commercially economical fusion power.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh no. Not a Market Forces argument.

J

Is that supposed to be irony or something? You think because I'm left leaning that I don't believe in market forces? To the contrary - I do believe in market forces. They are a powerful agent for change. Whether that change is good or bad really comes down to how a society chooses to harness them. That's where you and I diverge on this train of thought.

But don't mistake our difference on the matter for ignorance on my part.

 

[onejayhawk]

Is that supposed to be irony or something? You think because I'm left leaning that I don't believe in market forces? To the contrary - I do believe in market forces. They are a powerful agent for change. Whether that change is good or bad really comes down to how a society chooses to harness them. That's where you and I diverge on this train of thought.

But don't mistake our difference on the matter for ignorance on my part.

Sorry. I did not mean to touch a nerve. However, there is an inherent irony in using market logic in a green position. The idea that corporations are inherently evil and the cause of all environmental problems is almost a meme.

J

 

[Borachio]

2040 is still laughably in the future, but at least it's a start.

Good grief! It really isn't.

It's...(counts on fingers)...less than 23 years away.

That, believe me, will vanish in a flash.

I have some underpants that are older than that.

(I actually haven't. At least, none that haven't been consigned to the rag bin ages ago. But I do have some favoured jumpers that old.)

Mind you, if you're pointing out that something substantial needs doing about the global climate change long before then, I agree.

 

[Lexicus]

The idea that corporations are inherently evil and the cause of all environmental problems is almost a meme.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, considering that corporations are essentially the antithesis of "market forces."

 

[Perfection]

Sorry. I did not mean to touch a nerve. However, there is an inherent irony in using market logic in a green position. The idea that corporations are inherently evil and the cause of all environmental problems is almost a meme.

J

I'm sorry that environmentalists don't comport to your stereotype. I will endeavour to act more 1 dimensional in the future so you may better make fun of us.