5 ms·

It’s crazy how actually terrible lithium-ion battery are for the environment while portrayed as green. From production to charging with usually fossil energy. N

by Eikon 5y ago

It’s crazy how actually terrible lithium-ion battery are for the environment while portrayed as green. From production to charging with usually fossil energy. Not even speaking of hazards like shown in this article.

dna_polymerase 5y ago
> From production to charging with usually fossil energy. That's not the fault of lithium-ion battery. Also, I think it is interesting that all of a sudden people care about the production of lithium and paint it as particularly detrimental to the environment when in fact they accept the same realities in every other resource they are using. Almost like they follow a stupid agenda propagated by a dying industry. Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't care about lithium production and it's effect on the environment. But things are improving drastically and the arguments I hear against lithium are always the same talking points the ICE-industry used to take on Tesla.
- foerbert 5y ago
  On the one hand I tend to agree that many environmental consequences are really not appreciated and that lithium tends to get an unusually high amount of attention in comparison, but I also think maybe that's actually reasonable and a good thing. The reason I think that might be the case is because lithium-ion batteries seem to be on track to become pretty ubiquitous. It probably won't ever be equivalent to oil products, but it'll probably get far closer than most things. Yet it's still relatively early days. We're not at the point where fundamental change is impossible. We're increasingly aware of all the problems with oil-products, but... not so much is happening about it. They are so fundamental to everything that major changes are exceedingly difficult and expensive. With lithium-ion batteries we aren't there yet, but we're getting closer every day. If we put an outsized amount of attention on the problems now, we have a better shot at actually fixing them, as bigger changes are more feasible now than they ever will be in the future.
  - afarrell 5y ago
    The concern is, what actions result from the attention to the problem? If the action is "start a 7-year process to research solutions to solve them" -- great! If the action is "block lithium mining" then that environmental policy will be as effective as San Francisco housing policy.
kiryin 5y ago
This is an important issue. It's baffling to me how greenwashed everything electric is, despite almost universally having major problems in either manufacturing materials or waste products. But environmentalism is just a business these days, I don't know why I ever expected anything different. The solution to the harm inflicted upon the environment by humanity isn't some new feat of technology or invention, it's downshifting. In every field, not just in individual's private lives.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  if you talk about preserving energy, reducing consumption and using social and cultural means to reduce the impact on the planet these days you're pretty much immediately labeled as some kind of anti-growth luddite, in particular by the 'green tech' crowd, looking at Ramez Naam among others. VC's, 'entrepreneurs' and green energy journalism seems to have a vested interest to in a sense consume 'green innovation' rather than just treating it as technology.
  - kjksf 5y ago
    I don't have problems with people advocating reducing consumption to reduce the impact on the planet. Personally I think it's about as effective as telling people to not watch porn but you do you and advocate away. It's harmless. I do have problems with people who argue against transitioning to 100% renewable energy with this argument. That's actively harmful. You won't actually convince anyone but it plays into the hands of anti-EV, pro fossil fuel interests. The likes of BP that spill a fuck ton of oil into the ocean and we just shrug it off. And then they go "but mining lithium is harmful" (which it isn't, at least not more harmful than mining gigatons of coal or fracking gas). The problem with your position is a total lack of perspective of what's harmful to the planet and what can realistically be done about it.
    - afarrell 5y ago
      The problem is that many forum-commentators don't know how to craft policy that avoids figuratively trying to "boil the ocean".
ezzaf 5y ago
I'm the case of this specific battery, it's been being built specifically because there's generally a surplus of cheap renewables in Victoria when the sun is shining. This energy can be sold back into the market during the evening at a much higher price, pushing out coal, gas and hydro generation. It's also expecting to make a lot of revenue from frequency control which is a critical service in a grid relying more on renewables. So yes this battery is going to be very effective at reducing carbon emissions in Victoria. As a similar battery did in South Australia.
- simondotau 5y ago
  It can also substantially reduce the need to burn fossil fuels in gas-fired "peaking" power plants.
simondotau 5y ago
The reason why lithium batteries are portrayed as green is because they are a necessary enabling technology for most forms of non-fossil energy. Without them, a transition to renewably-sourced energy is impractical—arguably impossible. The dirtiest part of lithium batteries is cobalt, which is being substantially reduced (or removed entirely) from lithium battery chemistries. Lithium itself is an abundant resource and is not especially dirty, at least when compared to many other raw materials. And there are prospects for future mines being much cleaner than in the past. With sufficient investment, lithium batteries can be highly recyclable and it's feasible that within a couple of decades, nearly all the materials in new battery production could be recycled. And would be recycled because it would be cheaper (and thus more lucrative) than mining from earth.
- abalone 5y ago
  What’s your source on recyclability optimism? Otherwise it sounds hand-wavy. Recyclability is very bad right now.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Optimism comes from scientific first principles, economic fundamentals, and an awareness that THE #1 most fully recycled mass-produced product on the planet are vehicular lead acid batteries. Approximately 90% of batteries sold end up in the hands of recyclers, who are able to recycle 99% of their contents. Once there's a strong pipeline of electric cars headed for wreckers, the scale is there for recycling to be significantly more profitable than mining raw materials. The scale isn't there right now because most battery packs pulled from vehicles (wrecks, end-of-life, etc) are still highly valuable intact. Companies like Redwood Materials are scaling up in preparation for this future. (Non-vehicle lithium batteries are likely too small, too fiddily, too difficult to build a supply chain for that recycling to be economical on their own. But once the pipeline is there, adding all the small batteries to it would be a no-brainer.)
    - abalone 5y ago
      Strong words, but you didn’t cite any sources. What are the “scientific first principles” that support your claim? Lead acid batteries are entirely different materials and chemistry, e.g. lead retains its quality through secondary smelting.[1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0921344994900469 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/092134...

by Eikon 5y ago

dna_polymerase 5y ago

> From production to charging with usually fossil energy. That's not the fault of lithium-ion battery. Also, I think it is interesting that all of a sudden people care about the production of lithium and paint it as particularly detrimental to the environment when in fact they accept the same realities in every other resource they are using. Almost like they follow a stupid agenda propagated by a dying industry. Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't care about lithium production and it's effect on the environment. But things are improving drastically and the arguments I hear against lithium are always the same talking points the ICE-industry used to take on Tesla.

foerbert 5y ago
On the one hand I tend to agree that many environmental consequences are really not appreciated and that lithium tends to get an unusually high amount of attention in comparison, but I also think maybe that's actually reasonable and a good thing. The reason I think that might be the case is because lithium-ion batteries seem to be on track to become pretty ubiquitous. It probably won't ever be equivalent to oil products, but it'll probably get far closer than most things. Yet it's still relatively early days. We're not at the point where fundamental change is impossible. We're increasingly aware of all the problems with oil-products, but... not so much is happening about it. They are so fundamental to everything that major changes are exceedingly difficult and expensive. With lithium-ion batteries we aren't there yet, but we're getting closer every day. If we put an outsized amount of attention on the problems now, we have a better shot at actually fixing them, as bigger changes are more feasible now than they ever will be in the future.
- afarrell 5y ago
  The concern is, what actions result from the attention to the problem? If the action is "start a 7-year process to research solutions to solve them" -- great! If the action is "block lithium mining" then that environmental policy will be as effective as San Francisco housing policy.

kiryin 5y ago

This is an important issue. It's baffling to me how greenwashed everything electric is, despite almost universally having major problems in either manufacturing materials or waste products. But environmentalism is just a business these days, I don't know why I ever expected anything different. The solution to the harm inflicted upon the environment by humanity isn't some new feat of technology or invention, it's downshifting. In every field, not just in individual's private lives.

Barrin92 5y ago
if you talk about preserving energy, reducing consumption and using social and cultural means to reduce the impact on the planet these days you're pretty much immediately labeled as some kind of anti-growth luddite, in particular by the 'green tech' crowd, looking at Ramez Naam among others. VC's, 'entrepreneurs' and green energy journalism seems to have a vested interest to in a sense consume 'green innovation' rather than just treating it as technology.
- kjksf 5y ago
  I don't have problems with people advocating reducing consumption to reduce the impact on the planet. Personally I think it's about as effective as telling people to not watch porn but you do you and advocate away. It's harmless. I do have problems with people who argue against transitioning to 100% renewable energy with this argument. That's actively harmful. You won't actually convince anyone but it plays into the hands of anti-EV, pro fossil fuel interests. The likes of BP that spill a fuck ton of oil into the ocean and we just shrug it off. And then they go "but mining lithium is harmful" (which it isn't, at least not more harmful than mining gigatons of coal or fracking gas). The problem with your position is a total lack of perspective of what's harmful to the planet and what can realistically be done about it.
  - afarrell 5y ago
    The problem is that many forum-commentators don't know how to craft policy that avoids figuratively trying to "boil the ocean".

ezzaf 5y ago

I'm the case of this specific battery, it's been being built specifically because there's generally a surplus of cheap renewables in Victoria when the sun is shining. This energy can be sold back into the market during the evening at a much higher price, pushing out coal, gas and hydro generation. It's also expecting to make a lot of revenue from frequency control which is a critical service in a grid relying more on renewables. So yes this battery is going to be very effective at reducing carbon emissions in Victoria. As a similar battery did in South Australia.

simondotau 5y ago
It can also substantially reduce the need to burn fossil fuels in gas-fired "peaking" power plants.

simondotau 5y ago

The reason why lithium batteries are portrayed as green is because they are a necessary enabling technology for most forms of non-fossil energy. Without them, a transition to renewably-sourced energy is impractical—arguably impossible. The dirtiest part of lithium batteries is cobalt, which is being substantially reduced (or removed entirely) from lithium battery chemistries. Lithium itself is an abundant resource and is not especially dirty, at least when compared to many other raw materials. And there are prospects for future mines being much cleaner than in the past. With sufficient investment, lithium batteries can be highly recyclable and it's feasible that within a couple of decades, nearly all the materials in new battery production could be recycled. And would be recycled because it would be cheaper (and thus more lucrative) than mining from earth.

abalone 5y ago
What’s your source on recyclability optimism? Otherwise it sounds hand-wavy. Recyclability is very bad right now.
- simondotau 5y ago
  Optimism comes from scientific first principles, economic fundamentals, and an awareness that THE #1 most fully recycled mass-produced product on the planet are vehicular lead acid batteries. Approximately 90% of batteries sold end up in the hands of recyclers, who are able to recycle 99% of their contents. Once there's a strong pipeline of electric cars headed for wreckers, the scale is there for recycling to be significantly more profitable than mining raw materials. The scale isn't there right now because most battery packs pulled from vehicles (wrecks, end-of-life, etc) are still highly valuable intact. Companies like Redwood Materials are scaling up in preparation for this future. (Non-vehicle lithium batteries are likely too small, too fiddily, too difficult to build a supply chain for that recycling to be economical on their own. But once the pipeline is there, adding all the small batteries to it would be a no-brainer.)
  - abalone 5y ago
    Strong words, but you didn’t cite any sources. What are the “scientific first principles” that support your claim? Lead acid batteries are entirely different materials and chemistry, e.g. lead retains its quality through secondary smelting.[1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0921344994900469 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/092134...