5 ms·

Just make sure we don't make same mistakes again, ending with a lot of non-recyclable non-reusable obsolete batteries no one cares about and wants 50 years late

Just make sure we don't make same mistakes again, ending with a lot of non-recyclable non-reusable obsolete batteries no one cares about and wants 50 years later. The last thing we need is a dumpster full of toxic waste... all in name of green and "renewable" energy generation!

ausbah 8y ago
>The last thing we need is a dumpster full of toxic waste... all in name of green and "renewable" energy generation! that reminds me more of pushes to bring back nuclear power
- justtopost 8y ago
  A tiny bit of spent fuel, and billions of toxic and unrecyclable cells are far different problems.
  - lukeschlather 8y ago
    Both the spent fuel and the cells are totally recyclable (where recyclable means transforming them into some amount of inert nontoxic stuff and some amount of useful stuff.) I would bet that recycling spent fuel rods is more expensive than recycling spent chemical batteries. Also, the spent batteries, while toxic, don't require 24x7 armed security. Also the spent fuel recycling process potentially increases the need to secure the resultant materials, depending on what you're doing.
- RandomInteger4 8y ago
  In what way does it remind you of pushes to bring back nuclear power? Can you elaborate? Genuinely curious.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  If you had any idea how much nuclear power you can generate before you've filled a single dumpster with spent fuel...
  - trickstra 8y ago
    are you including the exclusion zone around the radioactive waste?
    - xyzzyz 8y ago
      The “exclusion zone” around the radioactive waste is either a few dozen feet to the surface of the water pool, or less than a feet of a container wall.
      - tchaffee 8y ago
        From memory, the exclusion zones around Fukushima and Chernobyl are somewhat larger. Humans err. And always will.
        BurningFrog 8y ago
        The willful ignorance here is not worth trying to disentangle.
        tchaffee 8y ago
        Neither is your willful ignorance. See how little that adds to a discussion? Either make the effort, or don't bother to comment.
m463 8y ago
But isn't our current power infrastructure just pumping the toxic waste into the air (pseudo) invisibly? For example, the reason we have smog laws is because we can see the results. I suspect if burning gasoline pumped low-level radioactivity into the air invisibly (like coal does), then smog laws wouldn't have taken off years ago. At least lithium battery waste stays put.
trickstra 8y ago
Agreed, that's why I'm more interested and excited about carbon-carbon batteries. Li-ion is the ugly wart on the face of green renewable technologies, we are just tolerating it for now because we don't have anything better yet. I hope it doesn't stay there
swebs 8y ago
>non-recyclable non-reusable obsolete batteries Which type of battery is that?
7952 8y ago
A container full of a large quantity of identical batteries is ideal for the recycling industry in comparison to other industries.

ausbah 8y ago

>The last thing we need is a dumpster full of toxic waste... all in name of green and "renewable" energy generation! that reminds me more of pushes to bring back nuclear power

justtopost 8y ago
A tiny bit of spent fuel, and billions of toxic and unrecyclable cells are far different problems.
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  Both the spent fuel and the cells are totally recyclable (where recyclable means transforming them into some amount of inert nontoxic stuff and some amount of useful stuff.) I would bet that recycling spent fuel rods is more expensive than recycling spent chemical batteries. Also, the spent batteries, while toxic, don't require 24x7 armed security. Also the spent fuel recycling process potentially increases the need to secure the resultant materials, depending on what you're doing.
RandomInteger4 8y ago
In what way does it remind you of pushes to bring back nuclear power? Can you elaborate? Genuinely curious.
BurningFrog 8y ago
If you had any idea how much nuclear power you can generate before you've filled a single dumpster with spent fuel...
- trickstra 8y ago
  are you including the exclusion zone around the radioactive waste?
  - xyzzyz 8y ago
    The “exclusion zone” around the radioactive waste is either a few dozen feet to the surface of the water pool, or less than a feet of a container wall.
    - tchaffee 8y ago
      From memory, the exclusion zones around Fukushima and Chernobyl are somewhat larger. Humans err. And always will.
      - BurningFrog 8y ago
        The willful ignorance here is not worth trying to disentangle.
        tchaffee 8y ago
        Neither is your willful ignorance. See how little that adds to a discussion? Either make the effort, or don't bother to comment.

m463 8y ago

But isn't our current power infrastructure just pumping the toxic waste into the air (pseudo) invisibly? For example, the reason we have smog laws is because we can see the results. I suspect if burning gasoline pumped low-level radioactivity into the air invisibly (like coal does), then smog laws wouldn't have taken off years ago. At least lithium battery waste stays put.

trickstra 8y ago

Agreed, that's why I'm more interested and excited about carbon-carbon batteries. Li-ion is the ugly wart on the face of green renewable technologies, we are just tolerating it for now because we don't have anything better yet. I hope it doesn't stay there

swebs 8y ago

>non-recyclable non-reusable obsolete batteries Which type of battery is that?

7952 8y ago

A container full of a large quantity of identical batteries is ideal for the recycling industry in comparison to other industries.