Electric Car Batteries Might Be Worth Recycling, But Bus Batteries Aren't Yet (arstechnica.com) 57
A reader shares a report from Ars Technica: Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University published a paper in Nature Sustainability this week that looks at the emissions and economic costs associated with recycling automotive batteries. They specifically addressed batteries with three types of cathode chemistry: nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), and iron phosphate (LFP). The first two cathode chemistries are common in passenger vehicles, and LFP is common in buses (bus maker BYD uses LFP batteries, for example). Since the packaging of batteries is important to the recycling method, cylindrical batteries (the types of cells that Tesla makes) are compared to pouch cell batteries in the analysis. The researchers also compared recycling methods. These include pyrometallurgical recycling (exposing the valuable parts of the battery to high temperatures and then recovering those metals as alloys), hydrometallurgical recycling (leaching valuable metals from batteries and separating the desired metals from the resulting solution), and "direct cathode recycling," where the battery's cathode is retained as-is, but new lithium is added in such a way that the battery regains its original performance.
Ultimately, LFP-cathode batteries were not able to avoid additional emissions under any recycling circumstances. The iron materials used in those bus batteries are already efficient to mine, the paper notes. This results "in a smaller GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions offset from the recovered materials that is insufficient to offset the energy and GHG emissions associated with the recycling processes considered." For now, new bus batteries seem to be cheaper and better for the environment than recycled bus batteries. The story is more complicated for electric passenger vehicle batteries, however. For both NMC and NCA cells, hydrometallurgical and direct cathode removal recycling methods do result in a reduction of GHG emissions, but only recycling via direct cathode removal with pouch cells shows a statistically significant reduction in emissions.
Ultimately, LFP-cathode batteries were not able to avoid additional emissions under any recycling circumstances. The iron materials used in those bus batteries are already efficient to mine, the paper notes. This results "in a smaller GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions offset from the recovered materials that is insufficient to offset the energy and GHG emissions associated with the recycling processes considered." For now, new bus batteries seem to be cheaper and better for the environment than recycled bus batteries. The story is more complicated for electric passenger vehicle batteries, however. For both NMC and NCA cells, hydrometallurgical and direct cathode removal recycling methods do result in a reduction of GHG emissions, but only recycling via direct cathode removal with pouch cells shows a statistically significant reduction in emissions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Poor form, dude.
It's a dick move to not respect pseudonyms, and post identifiable information about people here. The fact that it's legal or possible or anyone could do it does not detract from that.
This is slashdot not twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Rei made no attempt to shield her identity. I didn't do any hacking to unmask her. Just a wild guess that the "Rei" who posts about Teslas is the same as the KarenRei who posts frequently on a Tesla-related forum.
That assumes that my guess that "Rei" on /. is the same as KarenRei in the Model 3 Owner's forum is actually correct. I have no information on this.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problems with people linking my /. account to other logins on the internet that use "Whoever57", and post on similar topics.
Had I posted elsewhere as "Whoever57" and put a photo of myself and more information, linking to that would be OK, but I haven't.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, you really are an asshole.
No, fucker, publish your name, like you did Rei's. The fact her handle was slightly similar to her real name is not an excuse either to publish her's or treat it as different from you outing yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't do any hacking to unmask her.
Oh wow! You didn't do something literally illegal. Have a cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
"guy"?
https://model3ownersclub.com/m... [model3ownersclub.com]
Not cool at all. Don't be a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bold of you to criticise someone for daring to know something that has been discussed on a Tesla forum. I mean what kind of a weirdo has a conversation online anyway?
Ultracapacitors? (Score:1)
Anyone have data on using ultracapacitors in place of batteries? I know they store less energy per volume, but AFAIK they will last much longer, and maybe on a bus or truck where there's more room, it would pay off in the long run?
limited application (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you so much for the info. Very interesting. A friend of mine has a Bolt and he gets maybe 240 miles on a charge. I'm thinking you could pack more ultracapacitors in here and there, maybe 30-50% more, and still get decent range, and be much better off in the long run when other Bolt owners are facing battery replacement.
I admit I don't know how much longer ultracapacitors would last versus any present battery technology, but my hunch is it would be significant.
Another advantage is the ultracapacitor
Re: (Score:1)
And thanks again. I just did some quick research and calculations and your number of 4x seems right. So they'll take up more space, or you just deal with shorter trips, but faster charging when/where high energy chargers are available. But they'll weigh less, or maybe about the same based on energy storage.
Capacitors will probably cost 4x too, but again, pay for themselves in the long run. And much less of a fire problem, maybe zero.
I gotta do more research and maths.
I have a van I want to electrify. H
Reuse before recycling (Score:5, Interesting)
A 100 kWh battery that is has reached 80% capacity due to having a few hundred thousand miles of use would be an awesome used purchase for the 80 kWh version of the same vehicle. When it drops to 80% of what that vehicle expects, send it on to a utility storage operation that uses acres of space and doesn't care as much about power density.
Using this approach, vehicle batteries might not have 9-lives, but they should have three or four.
There is already a market for used battery packs. As the volume of used packs available reaches thousands, entrepreneurs will come along and realize they could build racks and control systems ready made to accept Tesla (for example) battery packs, purchase 1,000 used 100 kWh packs, and deploy an 80 MWh utility backup system for a fraction of the cost of one using brand new batteries. This will push the recycling problem way back.
Re: (Score:1)
A simple check on EBAY or EV-WEST will show used EV car batteries are still worth big bucks on the market. It will be years before there are enough batteries so worn out that it becomes worthwhile recycling them.
In the meanwhile I am hoping to score 50-80 kWh of batteries to run my country retreat.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, if I lived in a house I'd love to have a stack of LiFePO4 cells as a battery backup, and eventually solar power storage. Never mind if they're at 70-80% of new capacity. They could even be babied by only using 60-80% of their remaining capacity, extending their lifespan massively. The very top and bottom of the charge/discharge curve stands for the bulk of the aging. LiFePO4 cells aren't as energy dense as others, but they don't catch fire even when massively abused.
Re: (Score:2)
100kWh is very small for a bus. 450kWh is not uncommon in China.
The main issue for reuse is that the batteries tend to be shaped and wired for the specific model of bus in question, and it's not trivial to hook them up to anything else. The Battery Management System (BMS) and charging requirements are probably all proprietary and locked behind NDAs. So you either need cooperation from the manufacturer or you have to strip the pack down and extract the cells, then build a new pack.
Sounds like something that
Re:Reuse before recycling (Score:4, Interesting)
The original article is looking in terms of carbon emissions involved in recovering original raw materials. Iron is cheap and plentiful and so its not worth smelting the pouches. Or so it claims. I know steel mills buy huge quantities of scrap iron and melt them along with ore. I assume it would be cheaper to melt the cells than to dig ore out of deep mines.
Re: (Score:2)
" an awesome used purchase for the 80 kWh version of the same vehicle"
Except it would then be hauling 25% more mass in batteries than if it had fresh batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
True. That would cause the battery pack to have a bit less range than a fresh one. However, this works out a bit like buying prewashed versus fresh jeans. The prewashed will fit just as nice after a few washes but the ones that were not prewashed will be too tight.
The loss of capacity in a fresh pack is much faster than in one that has already made it down below 90% or so. The curve flattens out a lot. A 100 kWh battery that is down to 80 kWh due to having moved down to the 80% point in its curve will stay
Re: (Score:2)
When it drops to 80% of what that vehicle expects, send it on to a utility storage operation that uses acres of space and doesn't care as much about power density"
Yes. New York Times had several articles on this in 2010 & 2011. Repurposing EV batteries for energy storage will extend their useful life by 1-2 decades.
Best to reuse and run them down hard (Score:2)
There are a lot of lithium battery -ode designs. Reuse first. A 50kWH pack can run at half capacity for a while until all the important stuff gives out. I take worn out IMR batteries (3AH, 15A continuous draw) from vaping and reuse them for flashlights. It's like a nursing home for them.
After they exhaust all the charge cycles, then they go to the recycle bin.
Trolleybus (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is you need a lot of infrastructure. Poles, wires, grid connections, safety cut-out systems etc. Unlike trains it needs to be in a publicly accessible area too, further complicating maintenance and increasing costs.
sigh (Score:2)
by solving one problem, it seems we've just created another...
Stupid paywalled publication (Score:2)
Gah! The paper itself is paywalled.There's some supplemental data that teases how they considered different energy grids - how much CO2 is produced during recycling is strongly dependent on the CO2 released generating the energy for the process. I'm glad they properly considered that, and it's not a terrible spread; US average, RFCM (Michigan, which is the third of fourth worst grid in the US), and NWPP (Northwest continental US, fourth or fifth cleanest in the US).
But my question is not fully answered... w
The money is in repurposing / reuse (Score:3)
As a professional electronics recycler, here's the big secret about battery recycling. The original device (car, bus) requires that a battery be pulled when it reaches a certain inefficiency threshhold - say less than 50% recharge. But those uses are for a very tight spec, maintaining speed on the road and getting from point A to 150km away at Point B. In economics, most of the large batteries never make it to the recycler, because there are plenty of savvy Tech Sector people in emerging markets, who resell the batteries to a use (e.g. backup lights for solar panels) that is more forgiving. If the battery on the solar panel saves enough energy to keep the lights on all night, that's actually pretty inefficient when you go to bed.
Of course, if you are an original battery manufacturer, you look at that kind of like Lexmark and HP looked at ink cartridge reuse. The "gray market" disputes are between legitimate added value reuse, and the risk that an unscrupulous subcontractor repackages the used under50% battery in shiny box to sell as a counterfeit. Expect Planned Obsolescence to tell you how poor children at African dumps are buying the batteries. This Recycling Story gets told over and over again, and the fight in the backroom is always over "market cannibalization" vs "counterfeiting".