Used Batteries - what will happen?
10-20-2018, 07:41 AM
#31
Rennlist Member
Then what is Nissan doing? That’s an existing process and costs seem reasonable? I’m confused you say it can’t work but it is working now.
and again billions and millions of years of earth climate data which is scientific consensus has very very little to do with what the next 200 years will do to humanity and if we need to curb emissions - that data is irrelevant because humanity wasn’t part of it.
Simple question groundhog - do you believe we need to curb emissions? Yes or no?
and again billions and millions of years of earth climate data which is scientific consensus has very very little to do with what the next 200 years will do to humanity and if we need to curb emissions - that data is irrelevant because humanity wasn’t part of it.
Simple question groundhog - do you believe we need to curb emissions? Yes or no?
10-20-2018, 08:36 AM
#32
That is refurbishment of a battery and electronics attached to the battery, not recycling of a battery - ultimately separators, anodes, cathodes and electrolyte break down.
Yes I do believe we need to curb emissions.
Hubris.
Yes I do believe we need to curb emissions.
Hubris.
Last edited by groundhog; 10-20-2018 at 08:55 AM.
10-20-2018, 09:18 AM
#33
Rennlist Member
Emissions need reduction - check - well at least on that we are in agreement.
And Nissan is effectively refurbishing batteries at a reasonable cost - which means they aren't just gong to end up in a land fill - which is the original topic of this tread - we've already proven they don't have to end up in a land fill.
and the good news is - we actually know how to recycle batteries - it's just expensive/difficult to do so - vs. not knowing how to do it - I'll take knowing how to do something and then working cost and complexity over not knowing how to do something or it's physically impossible.
We for example can not effectively contain emissions from ICE engines which cause emissions which are a problem.
We do know how to recycle batteries, it's just difficult/expensive, but it can be done - whether or not we as a society decide to engage in the activity is a separate conversation. but it can be done, so there does not have to be a landfill problem if we choose to go down that path.
so the scientist/optimist/engineer in me thinks this is good thing, batteries do not have to be a problem
the cynic/pragmatist/old-fart in me knows that we tend to avoid doing complex/expensive things if there is an easier solution (like ignoring it in a land fill)
but batteries do not inherently require going to a landfill - so we can as a society make sure that does not happen - but we'll probably choose not to do so. I'll still postulate that a whole bunch of discharged batteries sitting around "on shelves" in some storage location is a way better problem at EOL after years (12-20 years) of service vs. the daily toxic emissions of driving a 1-28% efficient ICE engine, which also has a toxic EOL disposal problem…pick your poison - I'll pick the battery because it doesn't have to run on fossil fuel for it's useful life span, and in many cases already does not (electricity generated by renewables).
And Nissan is effectively refurbishing batteries at a reasonable cost - which means they aren't just gong to end up in a land fill - which is the original topic of this tread - we've already proven they don't have to end up in a land fill.
and the good news is - we actually know how to recycle batteries - it's just expensive/difficult to do so - vs. not knowing how to do it - I'll take knowing how to do something and then working cost and complexity over not knowing how to do something or it's physically impossible.
We for example can not effectively contain emissions from ICE engines which cause emissions which are a problem.
We do know how to recycle batteries, it's just difficult/expensive, but it can be done - whether or not we as a society decide to engage in the activity is a separate conversation. but it can be done, so there does not have to be a landfill problem if we choose to go down that path.
so the scientist/optimist/engineer in me thinks this is good thing, batteries do not have to be a problem
the cynic/pragmatist/old-fart in me knows that we tend to avoid doing complex/expensive things if there is an easier solution (like ignoring it in a land fill)
but batteries do not inherently require going to a landfill - so we can as a society make sure that does not happen - but we'll probably choose not to do so. I'll still postulate that a whole bunch of discharged batteries sitting around "on shelves" in some storage location is a way better problem at EOL after years (12-20 years) of service vs. the daily toxic emissions of driving a 1-28% efficient ICE engine, which also has a toxic EOL disposal problem…pick your poison - I'll pick the battery because it doesn't have to run on fossil fuel for it's useful life span, and in many cases already does not (electricity generated by renewables).
10-20-2018, 12:51 PM
#34
Earl Colby Pottinger (Tesla and Bollinger fan)
10-20-2018, 01:20 PM
#35
Former Vendor
At this point no one is arguing that EV cars are going away anytime soon. No one is also arguing that recycling the batteries isn't a nasty process. One constant here is that many technological hurdles have been overcome through continuous improvement over time - and economies of scale should bring the cost of recycling down for everyone.
So here's my big question:
Since Tesla wants to be the king of battery production, I wonder if the issue of recycling has been addressed with his gigafactory. If you are going to build a 5.5 million square foot building to build batteries, are you going to use some of that space to recycle the batteries that you are producing? Seems like a good idea to me to keep it all in the same space - all the equipment and chemicals are already there. Seems like it's also a good idea to get the other car companies producing EV vehicles to get on board also. Much of the environmental hurdles, and development costs, should be overcome by trying to get all of the production and recycling in as close to one spot as you can.
Just think of a marketing boost it would be for not only Tesla (they could use it!), but Chevy, Ford, Tesla, Mercedes, Audi, BMW....EVERYONE to tell their buyers that they are all working together as a CO-OP in one spot to figure out the best way to deal with the environmental issues and to advance the technology.
So here's my big question:
Since Tesla wants to be the king of battery production, I wonder if the issue of recycling has been addressed with his gigafactory. If you are going to build a 5.5 million square foot building to build batteries, are you going to use some of that space to recycle the batteries that you are producing? Seems like a good idea to me to keep it all in the same space - all the equipment and chemicals are already there. Seems like it's also a good idea to get the other car companies producing EV vehicles to get on board also. Much of the environmental hurdles, and development costs, should be overcome by trying to get all of the production and recycling in as close to one spot as you can.
Just think of a marketing boost it would be for not only Tesla (they could use it!), but Chevy, Ford, Tesla, Mercedes, Audi, BMW....EVERYONE to tell their buyers that they are all working together as a CO-OP in one spot to figure out the best way to deal with the environmental issues and to advance the technology.
10-20-2018, 06:04 PM
#36
I'm not sure I've really figured out what groudhog thinks... He enjoys arguing and contrarian positions even when he largely agrees. Of course he also has a strong vested interest in believing that continued exploitation of natural resources is a good thing.
True. But can you agree that a return to those concentrations would create higher temperatures with the associated consequences?
Seems like a different way to say the same thing- atmospheric CO2 concentration is a problem. Correct? I'd also not single the US and China out- per capita countries like Australia are more than pulling their own weight as well.
Also true. The "earth" will be fine. It's humanity that will be trouble with continued sea-level rise. Agree?
Yes, but only fractionally. This is where your background doesn't serve you as well as if you'd taken engineering, so I'm not sure if you're just being contrarian or really don't understand. On an ICE car a lighter weight helps a lot, as it lets you use a smaller, more efficient engine for the same performance. On an EV the impact is fractional, mainly hitting rolling resistance which is a fraction of the power required.
I suspect you do actually believe in human caused global warming, etc. Correct?
I suspect you do actually believe in human caused global warming, etc. Correct?
10-20-2018, 06:48 PM
#37
Where did you get the x-axis for that graph? Heritage Foundation? Funny how slope can change, when you compress and elongate your time series. Warped data for your warped point. That's a fact, too.
If it's cheaper to buy a new battery, than recycle an old one, more will end up in landfills. It's not like the life-cycle pollution of battery powered cars is anywhere near gas. Of all the economic propositions for mitigating where the earth is headed, doing a better job with battery recycling makes up the small "do-able" stuff.
10-20-2018, 10:25 PM
#39
It's called a log - normal graph - the log axis is used so one can display a large amount of data. In this case the log axis is time.
The warming trend started roughly 12,000 years ago - why?
This is not a question of politics its a question of fact.
The warming trend started roughly 12,000 years ago - why?
This is not a question of politics its a question of fact.
Last edited by groundhog; 10-20-2018 at 11:03 PM.
10-21-2018, 12:03 AM
#40
Yes, but only fractionally. This is where your background doesn't serve you as well as if you'd taken engineering, so I'm not sure if you're just being contrarian or really don't understand. On an ICE car a lighter weight helps a lot, as it lets you use a smaller, more efficient engine for the same performance. On an EV the impact is fractional, mainly hitting rolling resistance which is a fraction of the power required.
Heres a worked example (i'll flick over to imperial units to ease translation). A car travelling at 70 mph (mass 3000lbs) will require 20.38HP to maintain its speed, the component due to aero is 15.9HP and the component due to rolling resistance is 4.48HP. A car with a mass of 5000lbs will require 25.25HP to maintain its speed, the component due to aero is 15.9HP and the component due to rolling resistance is 9.3HP. In both cases I have assumed the same frontal area and drag. I have corrected for rolling resistance on the heavier car.
Now, that illustrates your point to some degree - however, heavier cars have larger frontal areas and often a higher CD - so lets do the same calcs accounting for these variables. I will reduce the frontal area of the smaller car and decrease the CD. The 3000 lb car travelling at 70mph will now require 18.5HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 14HP will be required to overcome aero and 4.48HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance. The 5000lb car travelling at 70mph will require 29.2HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 19.8HP will be required to overcome aero and 9.33HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance.
Thus, the thesis remains the same heavier cars require more energy to accelerate to a set speed and require more power (joules per second - energy per second) to maintain speed. However, your point is well taken
Mankind has had a terrible impact on the environment - extinction, land destruction and degradation, climate. This is largely due to unchecked population growth and the knock effect this has. Are humans having an impact on climate - yes.
Last edited by groundhog; 10-21-2018 at 12:18 AM.
10-21-2018, 12:41 AM
#41
I just got back from Chile talking to your competition. Copper, Lithium, Cobalt etc mining. Massive expansion and recovery efficiency improvement plans. It's going to be interesting.
Last edited by Petevb; 10-21-2018 at 02:53 AM.
10-21-2018, 12:47 AM
#42
Track Day
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Guelph
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a strong vested interest in the production of batteries for EVs
Agreed - however, the earth is not a static entity - its dynamic and in a constant state of flux. It is the hubris of mankind that thinks it can lock it down.
Unfortunately its not a per capita issue - its a sovereign issue. Australia accounts for 1.5% of emissions, approx 15% of which are attributable to agriculture (we feed a lot of people in the Asia). The US and China dominate global emissions ~ 50%.
Agree in part - the first world will be fine, the third world won't be. Ultimately its a question of policy settings and inter-regional cooperation - as it currently stands, global governments of all persuasions haven't a clue and even less of a clue in terms of how to cooperate.
Car A accelerates from 5mph to 50mph, this requires 247kJ; Car B accelerates from 5mph to 50mph, this requires 494kJ - the mass of car A is 1000kg and the mass of car B is 2000kg. Rolling resistance is a reasonable issue upto around 30mph to 40mph where drag takes over. Maintaining speed, say at 60mph (lets move to power as we are considering time) - if both cars have the same sectional area and drag, at constant speed there will be a small difference in HP (joules per second) required to maintain the constant speed as you suggest.
Heres a worked example (i'll flick over to imperial units to ease translation). A car travelling at 70 mph (mass 3000lbs) will require 20.38HP to maintain its speed, the component due to aero is 15.9HP and the component due to rolling resistance is 4.48HP. A car with a mass of 5000lbs will require 25.25HP to maintain its speed, the component due to aero is 15.9HP and the component due to rolling resistance is 9.3HP. In both cases I have assumed the same frontal area and drag. I have corrected for rolling resistance on the heavier car.
Now, that illustrates your point to some degree - however, heavier cars have larger frontal areas and often a higher CD - so lets do the same calcs accounting for these variables. I will reduce the frontal area of the smaller car and decrease the CD. The 3000 lb car travelling at 70mph will now require 18.5HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 14HP will be required to overcome aero and 4.48HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance. The 5000lb car travelling at 70mph will require 29.2HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 19.8HP will be required to overcome aero and 9.33HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance.
Thus, the thesis remains the same heavier cars require more energy to accelerate to a set speed and require more power (joules per second - energy per second) to maintain speed. However, your point is well taken
Mankind has had a terrible impact on the environment - extinction, land destruction and degradation, climate. This is largely due to unchecked population growth and the knock effect this has. Are humans having an impact on climate - yes.
Agreed - however, the earth is not a static entity - its dynamic and in a constant state of flux. It is the hubris of mankind that thinks it can lock it down.
Unfortunately its not a per capita issue - its a sovereign issue. Australia accounts for 1.5% of emissions, approx 15% of which are attributable to agriculture (we feed a lot of people in the Asia). The US and China dominate global emissions ~ 50%.
Agree in part - the first world will be fine, the third world won't be. Ultimately its a question of policy settings and inter-regional cooperation - as it currently stands, global governments of all persuasions haven't a clue and even less of a clue in terms of how to cooperate.
Car A accelerates from 5mph to 50mph, this requires 247kJ; Car B accelerates from 5mph to 50mph, this requires 494kJ - the mass of car A is 1000kg and the mass of car B is 2000kg. Rolling resistance is a reasonable issue upto around 30mph to 40mph where drag takes over. Maintaining speed, say at 60mph (lets move to power as we are considering time) - if both cars have the same sectional area and drag, at constant speed there will be a small difference in HP (joules per second) required to maintain the constant speed as you suggest.
Heres a worked example (i'll flick over to imperial units to ease translation). A car travelling at 70 mph (mass 3000lbs) will require 20.38HP to maintain its speed, the component due to aero is 15.9HP and the component due to rolling resistance is 4.48HP. A car with a mass of 5000lbs will require 25.25HP to maintain its speed, the component due to aero is 15.9HP and the component due to rolling resistance is 9.3HP. In both cases I have assumed the same frontal area and drag. I have corrected for rolling resistance on the heavier car.
Now, that illustrates your point to some degree - however, heavier cars have larger frontal areas and often a higher CD - so lets do the same calcs accounting for these variables. I will reduce the frontal area of the smaller car and decrease the CD. The 3000 lb car travelling at 70mph will now require 18.5HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 14HP will be required to overcome aero and 4.48HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance. The 5000lb car travelling at 70mph will require 29.2HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 19.8HP will be required to overcome aero and 9.33HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance.
Thus, the thesis remains the same heavier cars require more energy to accelerate to a set speed and require more power (joules per second - energy per second) to maintain speed. However, your point is well taken
Mankind has had a terrible impact on the environment - extinction, land destruction and degradation, climate. This is largely due to unchecked population growth and the knock effect this has. Are humans having an impact on climate - yes.
For the energy thing the numbers may be correct HOWEVER it would be more complete to also consider the efficiency of the input energy conversion. Since a gasoline engine in a passenger car is maybe 25% thermal efficiency (and likely closer to 20%) it will need significantly more input energy in a gas engine vs an electric system that even when you consider efficiencies in charging/discharging and motor drive will be around 80%. Taking this into account a gas car (even being significantly lighter) needs a lot more input energy.
As for the waste issue- IF the EV is charged using non CO2 sourced electricity (Hydro, Nuclear etc.) then over 100K miles if has a few hundred pounds of batteries to be taken care of (untrue because batteries should last a lot longer but let's use it). In comparison a gas car has pumped 40 thousand-ish pounds of waste CO2 into the air (assuming ethanol blend and 30mpg). Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
10-21-2018, 12:47 AM
#43
Rennlist Member
"Now, that illustrates your point to some degree - however, heavier cars have larger frontal areas and often a higher CD - so lets do the same calcs accounting for these variables. I will reduce the frontal area of the smaller car and decrease the CD. The 3000 lb car travelling at 70mph will now require 18.5HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 14HP will be required to overcome aero and 4.48HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance. The 5000lb car travelling at 70mph will require 29.2HP to maintain its speed (70mph) of which 19.8HP will be required to overcome aero and 9.33HP will be required to overcome rolling resistance."
so now that we've established that hte difference is fractional - and heavier EV's are quickly becoming an thing of the past (the model 3 is no heavier than it's BMW counterpart the 340 xi) - we then have to consider the conversation rate of "fuel" to "power" - the "heavier" EV converts it's fuel (the battery) at a 90% efficiency, vs. the ICE which converts it's fuel (fossil fuel) at 1-28%…in the case of most EV's to date however they have equal or less frontal area and lower CD…so how much energy does it take form the source to move the ICE car vs. the "heavier" EV car…the 3x efficiency difference makes a big difference, and even when the power for the EV comes from a natural gas power plant the total energy consumed skews heavily in the EV's favor because it's more efficient end to end...
so now that I know you're just a contrarian - we can adjust our approach.
I agree that 3rd world will have a worse time with climate change than 1st world, but even 1st world will have a hard time when you consider several things
1. no one likes being displaced, and. a lot of first world countries have major infrastructure and population in the "way" of sea rise - this will be expensive
2. 3rd world people will "migrate" when their environment become un-inhabitable - and as we know people don't like strangers (refugees) coming into their countries - yes new areas will open up and be habitable due to warming, but those areas will be across some political boundary which will cause serious problem when the people attempt to occupy that area…
it's going to cause problems - mostly due to the politics of people occupying new locations and having to abandon old locations - the earth will be fine - but humanities occupation of the earth will have to change and change is going to cause massive economic, political and social strife - fighting global warming (or attempting to fight it) is actually the ultimate act of selfishness - in that we don't want to have to face the issue of having to help our fellow man relocate…as they are ejected from their historical homelands due to climate change.
so now that we've established that hte difference is fractional - and heavier EV's are quickly becoming an thing of the past (the model 3 is no heavier than it's BMW counterpart the 340 xi) - we then have to consider the conversation rate of "fuel" to "power" - the "heavier" EV converts it's fuel (the battery) at a 90% efficiency, vs. the ICE which converts it's fuel (fossil fuel) at 1-28%…in the case of most EV's to date however they have equal or less frontal area and lower CD…so how much energy does it take form the source to move the ICE car vs. the "heavier" EV car…the 3x efficiency difference makes a big difference, and even when the power for the EV comes from a natural gas power plant the total energy consumed skews heavily in the EV's favor because it's more efficient end to end...
so now that I know you're just a contrarian - we can adjust our approach.
I agree that 3rd world will have a worse time with climate change than 1st world, but even 1st world will have a hard time when you consider several things
1. no one likes being displaced, and. a lot of first world countries have major infrastructure and population in the "way" of sea rise - this will be expensive
2. 3rd world people will "migrate" when their environment become un-inhabitable - and as we know people don't like strangers (refugees) coming into their countries - yes new areas will open up and be habitable due to warming, but those areas will be across some political boundary which will cause serious problem when the people attempt to occupy that area…
it's going to cause problems - mostly due to the politics of people occupying new locations and having to abandon old locations - the earth will be fine - but humanities occupation of the earth will have to change and change is going to cause massive economic, political and social strife - fighting global warming (or attempting to fight it) is actually the ultimate act of selfishness - in that we don't want to have to face the issue of having to help our fellow man relocate…as they are ejected from their historical homelands due to climate change.
10-21-2018, 03:28 AM
#44
Burning Brakes
JB Straubels take on battery recycling (and a business opportunity): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/tesl...ds-nevada.html
10-21-2018, 03:40 PM
#45
Batteries
If it's cheaper to buy a new battery, than recycle an old one, more will end up in landfills. It's not like the life-cycle pollution of battery powered cars is anywhere near gas. Of all the economic propositions for mitigating where the earth is headed, doing a better job with battery recycling makes up the small "do-able" stuff.
And as already pointed out, aside from the cells all the other materials in in the power pack are ALREADY valuable materials and will be stripped out first. Second, all the claims about limited Lithium and Cobalt supplies then says that recycling the cell contents is already worth doing.
Simply put - One set of claims from the anti-EVs can not be true as another set of claims made by the same people.
Example, Cobalt is rare and expensive to mine vs No-one will recycle Cobalt from batteries even if it is hundred time more concentrated than the raw ore.
Example: EV Batteries will fill land fill vs No-one is buying battery modules at over thousand dollars an unit.
Only problem they are! So their claims do not even match reality.
Earl Colby Pottinger (Tesla and Bollinger fan)