Lithium Ion Batteries a Growing Source of PFAS Pollution, Study Finds (phys.org) 87
"Nature recently published an open-access article (not paywalled) that studies the lifecycle of lithium-ion batteries once they are manufactured," writes Slashdot reader NoWayNoShapeNoForm. "The study is a 'cradle-to-grave' look at these batteries and certain chemicals that they contain. The University researchers that authored the study found that the electrolytes and polymers inside lithium-ion batteries contain a class of PFAS known as bis-FASI chemicals. PFAS chemicals are internationally recognized pollutants, yet they are found in consumer and industrial processes, such as non-stick coatings, surfactants, and film-forming foams. PFAS chemicals have been found in windmill coatings, semiconductors, solar collectors, and photovoltaic cells." Phys.org reports: Texas Tech University's Jennifer Guelfo was part of a research team that found the use of a novel sub-class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) in lithium ion batteries is a growing source of pollution in air and water. Testing by the research team further found these PFAS, called bis-perfluoroalkyl sulfonimides (bis-FASIs), demonstrate environmental persistence and ecotoxicity comparable to older notorious compounds like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The researchers sampled air, water, snow, soil and sediment near manufacturing plants in Minnesota, Kentucky, Belgium and France. The bis-FASI concentrations in these samples were commonly at very high levels. Data also suggested air emissions of bis-FASIs may facilitate long-range transport, meaning areas far from manufacturing sites may be affected as well. Analysis of several municipal landfills in the southeastern U.S. indicated these compounds can also enter the environment through disposal of products, including lithium ion batteries.
Toxicity testing demonstrated concentrations of bis-FASIs similar to those found at the sampling sites can change behavior and fundamental energy metabolic processes of aquatic organisms. Bis-FASI toxicity has not yet been studied in humans, though other, more well-studied PFAS are linked to cancer, infertility and other serious health harms. Treatability testing showed bis-FASIs did not break down during oxidation, which has also been observed for other PFAS. However, data showed concentrations of bis-FASIs in water could be reduced using granular activated carbon and ion exchange, methods already used to remove PFAS from drinking water. "Our results reveal a dilemma associated with manufacturing, disposal, and recycling of clean energy infrastructure," said Guelfo, an associate professor of environmental engineering in the Edward E. Whitacre Jr. College of Engineering. "Slashing carbon dioxide emissions with innovations like electric cars is critical, but it shouldn't come with the side effect of increasing PFAS pollution. We need to facilitate technologies, manufacturing controls and recycling solutions that can fight the climate crisis without releasing highly recalcitrant pollutants."
Toxicity testing demonstrated concentrations of bis-FASIs similar to those found at the sampling sites can change behavior and fundamental energy metabolic processes of aquatic organisms. Bis-FASI toxicity has not yet been studied in humans, though other, more well-studied PFAS are linked to cancer, infertility and other serious health harms. Treatability testing showed bis-FASIs did not break down during oxidation, which has also been observed for other PFAS. However, data showed concentrations of bis-FASIs in water could be reduced using granular activated carbon and ion exchange, methods already used to remove PFAS from drinking water. "Our results reveal a dilemma associated with manufacturing, disposal, and recycling of clean energy infrastructure," said Guelfo, an associate professor of environmental engineering in the Edward E. Whitacre Jr. College of Engineering. "Slashing carbon dioxide emissions with innovations like electric cars is critical, but it shouldn't come with the side effect of increasing PFAS pollution. We need to facilitate technologies, manufacturing controls and recycling solutions that can fight the climate crisis without releasing highly recalcitrant pollutants."
Some people are never happy. (Score:1)
Create low quality products that rapidly contribute to more waste? They'd moan all day. Create things that last? They're not happy either. Seriously, get a grip and device what you really want. You can't have both.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not happy either. Seriously, get a grip and device what you really want. You can't have both.
This is why they sue the fossil fuel companies [slashdot.org], and not the actual users of fossil fuels.
Next step: sue the batteries makers too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sue the fossil fuel companies and not the actual users of fossil fuels.
It makes sense though. The fossil fuel companies knew about the bad impacts of their products in the 1960s and covered it up. If we had begun the renewable transformation much more seriously two decades earlier then it's very likely that China and India's growth could have been driven by renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. All the extra damage that has caused should be paid for by people who profited from or continue to profit from fossil fuels. Just simple adult liability for the decisions made.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense though. The fossil fuel companies knew about the bad impacts of their products in the 1960s
And the people who were burning the coal and oil were shocked, shocked, that the resulting plumes of smoke had "bad impacts?"
Re:Some people are never happy. (Score:5, Informative)
It's very simple, although you want this to be complicated.
Every oil company willfully spread statements they knew to not be true in order to sell their product.
This is called fraud.
Why are you pro-fraud?
Re: (Score:1)
The effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on global warming have been known for decades, with scientific studies from the early 20th century discussing it.
People didn't care because they knew the consequences wouldn't affect them. They prioritized their immediate comfort over the future of the next generations.
If you want to talk about fraud, let's begin with your anti-nuclear stance. For over 50 years, a mix of nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro power has proven capable of decarbonizing an electricity gri
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to talk about fraud, let's begin with your anti-nuclear stance.
SAFE, CLEAN AND TOO CHEAP TO METER.
Whoops, all of those things turned out to be lies. For profit. Which, again, is fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Some people are never happy. (Score:2)
Only cradle to grave measurements matter.
You are not using those.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your metric is cradle to grave than there's no carbon free energy source whatsoever.
That's right! NOW you're getting it!
Hydro doesn't count.
In fact, the bigger it is, the worse it is!
Nor does wind or solar.
AHA! But that's my point, isn't it? The more the mix shifts towards wind and solar and electric vehicles (including mining equipment) the lower the carbon production is for everything. So the obvious answers are to increase storage and also create processes which can sustain intermittency so you don't need as much storage. Instead of making hay while the sun shines, you make steel and aluminum and glass then — and not only
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if this is true, and I'm extremely skeptical that it is, it's a bullshit comparison and you know it.
You don't even know what I know, you certainly don't get to tell me what I know.
The comparison is between what's currently being used for BASE LOAD power.
yawn [energypost.eu]
Now I know what YOU know... jack
Re: (Score:2)
SAFE, CLEAN AND TOO CHEAP TO METER.
You still haven't answered the question that I keep asking over and over. You do know that not answering a question is an answer in itself, right? What are you so ashamed of when talking about Germany's energy policy? I will ask again, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to actually address my statement.
For over 50 years, a mix of nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro power has proven capable of decarbonizing an electricity grid (just look at France). So why do you support Germany's policy of burning coal
Re: (Score:2)
You still haven't answered the question that I keep asking over and over. You do know that not answering a question is an answer in itself, right?
Yes, and the answer is "Go fuck yourself, I don't work for you."
What are you so ashamed of when talking about Germany's energy policy?
Were you born stupid, or is this the result of too much fart-sniffing?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your answer. It speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
If it does that, then why are you still whining at me?
Re: (Score:2)
Please, keep entertaining me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
France, with the world's largest share of electricity generated by nuclear power, can't produce enough electricity for its own monthly needs for at least 2 months of every year. [rte-france.com] And from 2005-2022 (18 years), France was a net annual exporter to Belgium/Germany 11 times, and a net importer 7 times. So France's grid is dirtier than it appears, and Germany's is clean
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to spin the cleanest grid in the world (that didn't just luck into a shitload of hydro) as bad really, really hard here, but your own sources don't actually support what you're saying.
France, with the world's largest share of electricity generated by nuclear power, can't produce enough electricity for its own monthly needs for at least 2 months of every year.
Not true. Here's a year, among many, where every single month is a net export: https://i.imgur.com/GuGnooX.pn... [imgur.com]
And from 2005-2022 (18 years), France was a net annual exporter to Belgium/Germany 11 times, and a net importer 7 times. So France's grid is dirtier than it appears, and Germany's is cleaner than it appears.
Why are you focusing only on Belgium/Germany? France is connected to the rest of the European grid and has been a massive net exporter of clean energy for all but one year: https://i.imgur.com/aygSfi6. [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I meant that between France and Belgium/Germany, France has imported electricity for at least 2 months of every year, including 2019 [imgur.com].
Because the post [slashdot.org] that I am responding to d
Re: (Score:2)
I meant that between France and Belgium/Germany, France has imported electricity for at least 2 months of every year, including 2019 [imgur.com].
You mean: France imported electricity from Belgium and Germany for two months in 2019. While I didn't check the other years, I'll trust your word on this. Regardless, France was still a net exporter when considering its other neighbors.
The reason is straightforward: Germany needs to offload its solar and wind electricity, which sometimes leads to negative prices during the day. From France's perspective, and given their ability to perform load-following with nuclear plants, it makes sense to purchase this l
Re: (Score:1)
People didn't care because they knew the consequences wouldn't affect them. They prioritized their immediate comfort over the future of the next generations.
I think it's precious when people today criticize our ancestors who were OK with the consequences of heavy fossil fuel use. Prior, most of us were crapping in holes, lugging pails of water from a creek/well with no purification and watching our infants die as a result of the unsanitary conditions . Or, expending enormous amounts of finite time/energy to feed/tend a fire to keep from freezing. I have actually lived almost like this for a month at a time in my youth and it was an enjoyable break but I always
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense though. The fossil fuel companies knew about the bad impacts of their products in the 1960s and covered it up.
Yeah, much like with tobacco, knowing about the danger but not doing anything is what will screw them over.
The same is true with PFAS now though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Some people are never happy. (Score:2)
(Ethanol) works in the car you drive today (unless you drive a BEV) and, done properly, can be carbon negative
It doesn't. Engines that can run on pure ethanol have to be designed as such from the start, and if you want to use a significant amount mixed with regular fuel you'll need an engine remap at the very least. E85 and such arenâ(TM)t suitable for older cars either but let's disregard those. 50% isn't going to work in anything without modifying the engine and some ancillary parts.
That's to say nothing of ethanol being increasingly hygroscopic the higher the concentration. The more water there is in your f
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't.
Actually, it does. Because of the Brazilian market, cars these days are already designed to work on both gasoline and E100 (flex fuel). The design changes largely revolve around coating the gas tank, fuel lines and exhaust lines so the ethanol doesn't react with them. The water issues with ethanol have, again, been resolved by Brazil. If you pull into a gas station there, there are two pumps: one that sells gasoline and the other sells E100. You pick whichever is cheaper. Go check out the Brazilian Ethanol
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly where do you think that the land to grow that extra sugarcane comes from? Hint: it rhymes with "blainblorest".
You can't ignore land use displacement. You're taking an area that is currently storing a HUGE amount of carbon and replacing it with land that's barely storing any carbon. And it takes a LOT of land to power even a single car. Its like 2+ orders of magnitude less land efficient than solar + EVs, and that assumes that the solar is instead of crops, rather than on roofs, over parking lots,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Sugarcane is more efficient than sugar beets
2) There's not some vast swathes of unused tropical farmland. Same issue that palm oil has. And when you're talking about "food for fuel", it *absolutely* takes vast swathes of land.
3) Other agricultural products, including sugar beets, still face land displacement issues (replacing large store
Re: (Score:2)
1) Sugarcane is more efficient than sugar beets
And? Sugar beets are still 4x the efficiency of corn.
2) There's not some vast swathes of unused tropical farmland. Same issue that palm oil has. And when you're talking about "food for fuel", it *absolutely* takes vast swathes of land.
3) Other agricultural products, including sugar beets, still face land displacement issues (replacing large stores of natural carbon with fields that contain little carbon), just not as much as sugarcane.
And? The Dakotas grow a lot of wheat and a few other crops. This continues into Canada. Much of the wheat grown go towards cattle feed. Ethanol corn can feed the cows instead. Sugarcane grows in both tropical and subtropical climates. See also much of southern Florida which gets a ton of rain.
You're propopsing to grow them at staggering scale (because providing fuel requires staggering scale - and less efficient fuel crops, even more scale) - in a desert.
Uhm, you do know that the Sahara desert is about the same size of the US, right, with much of it completely barren? You know there are plants that are well adapted t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, powering an EV takes on average about 2kW of panels. Tiny.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't.
Actually, it does. Because of the Brazilian market, cars these days are already designed to work on both gasoline and E100 (flex fuel). The design changes
As far as I understand, the current engines can work on ethanol. In principle. However, I do remember reading, that while your car will run on pure ethanol, but we should not be doing this. The life span of your car will dramatically be reduced due to the entire car infrastructure was not developed to handle ethanol as a solvent. Gaskets, hoses and pipes will dissolve, melt, corrode many times faster.
Possibly, in Brazil they did something special to address this, but not everywhere in the world.
Re: Some people are never happy. (Score:2)
As far as I understand, the current engines can work on ethanol. In principle.
For low ethanol concentrations, yes. The ECU will be constantly thinking the engine is knocking and trying to compensate, but it will work albeit at lower efficiency.
However, I do remember reading, that while your car will run on pure ethanol, but we should not be doing this.
Pure ethanol? No, I doubt you could get a standard ICE to run on that.
The life span of your car will dramatically be reduced due to the entire car infrastructure was not developed to handle ethanol as a solvent. Gaskets, hoses and pipes will dissolve, melt, corrode many times faster.
Exactly, but depending on where you live there has been some ethanol added to fuel for some time so this is not as big an issue as it was.
Possibly, in Brazil they did something special to address this, but not everywhere in the world.
This is what the parent doesn't seem to understand. You cannot simply put straight ethanol into a US or European car and expect it to work
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 footprint of a vehicle is overwhelmingly in its operation, not its construction. Construction is "make once, use for two decades", then most of the materials in the vehicle are recycled. By contrast, the average ICE vehicle burns its entire mass in fuel every year. Up in smoke, no recycling.
The gap between CO2 footprints of ICE vehicles and EVs of the same size / class has shrunk dramatically and is barely anything anymore. Check for example pages 60-62 [tesla.com] in the impact report of Tesla (the wo
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read up about about BEVs and their carbon footprint to manufacture. I think you definitely need to look at what a carbon-neutral fuel is. The gist is that a carbon-neutral fuel is created by growing crops that absorb the CO2 that then gets burned off by the engine. The same quantity of generated CO2 is then absorbed again by the next crop. It's a closed cycle. You're not adding any additional CO2 to the environment. The issue has nothing to do with the engine and everything to do with the fuel a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Some people are never happy. (Score:2)
Alternatively, we do a better job at collecting toxic waste. We have a decent system in place for capturing lead acid batteries. Reusing the toxic materials in them is admittedly easier. But that we figure out how to separate them from the waste stream at all is a minor miracle with the sneering attitude people have about environmental issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Eyeroll (Score:5, Interesting)
" PFAS chemicals have been found in windmill coatings, semiconductors, solar collectors, and photovoltaic cells"
Wow, apparently PFAS are only found in cleantech! *eyeroll*
Look, if you don't want to look like you're doing a lazy smear, don't be so obvious about it.
For the record, none of these locations are battery plants. They're plastics plants. For example, the Cottage Grove, Minnesota plant describes itself [3m.com] as producing:
Yes, batteries also contain fluoropolymers. They're not the only things that contain fluoropolymers. :P
Re: (Score:3)
And to be clear, they're not massive users of fluoropolymers.
The vast bulk of cell mass is: graphite (anode), mixed metal oxides or phosphates (cathode), alumium and copper current collector foil, metal casing, and organic carbonate electrolyte. None of these are fluoropolymers. Separator membranes (plastics) are semi-sizable - these are also generally not fluoropolymers (though some may contain some minority of fluoropolymer additives). The binder to the anode and cathode powder actually are generally flu
Re: (Score:3)
And to be clear, they're not massive users of fluoropolymers.
Indeed. Not only do batteries contain a minuscule amount of PFAS compared to the scale of the problem, but the PFAS are not released into the environment during use, recycling, or even landfilling. It's not like we grind them up and toss them in the nearest creek.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only do batteries contain a minuscule amount of PFAS compared to the scale of the problem, but the PFAS are not released into the environment during use, recycling, or even landfilling. It's not like we grind them up and toss them in the nearest creek.
Unfortunately in the case of disposable single-use vapes, this is pretty much what happens, these use NMC Lithium ION - nuts as that sounds - I've literally picked up hundreds of these from the local area. The solution in this case is to ban disposable vapes (or introduce a mandatory significant deposit on them) and the EU and UK are doing this fortunately. Similarly for non-disposable vapes the battery containing parts may need a deposit).
Re: (Score:2)
It's an indictment on our incessant consumerism. Too much money going around.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to portable vapes is to figure out how to refill them, and reuse them until either the heating element dies, or the battery won't hold a charge. You'll get at lest three or four extra uses out of each one, and possibly many, many more. When they don't work anymore for reasons other than consuming the contents, then you've done about all that can be expected. Just be sure to dispose of it like any other battery.
This also saves a ton of money. One Fryd disposable costs $40, but the batter to refi
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like we grind them up and toss them in the nearest creek.
Not yet, anyway. Past [nytimes.com] and proposed [eenews.net] initiatives would indicate a trend towards that end.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a chemist here, but I noticed that technically we arent supposed to dispose of a lot of clean tech directly into the trash. This includes LED, CFL, and batteries like Li-ion and NiMH. Yet I would guess 90% of dead products wind up there anyway. There really isnt a convenient way to dump your batteries, old lightbulbs, used motor oil, etc. As long as doing the right thing becomes a tine consuming chore, its going to continue to be an environmental problem. We arent even supposed to throw away old paint w
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Eyeroll (Score:5, Interesting)
> In many cases it is just not possible, for example old windmill blades are just cut up and dumped in a landfill.
Turbine blade waste is comparatively small even as a fraction of composite materials waste. Even so, recycling is a growing field of development. Here's some fairly recent commentary from someone professional in the field on the subject;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
> EV battery recycling, except Tesla that takes back their old batteries, is almost non-existent.
All major EV manufacturers will take used EV battery packs back for recycling, one way or another, because they are required to do so by law almost everywhere. Even if they weren't the value used EV packs represent is far too high to just bury them.
As far as rate of recycling, it's arguably over 90%. That is, more than 90% of EV battery packs available for recycling are recycled. If you get your information from careless searching you'll probably see numbers claiming like 5% or so, but there are several caveats you need to be aware of;
1) Does the data reference all lithium batteries or specifically EV batteries? The fraction of all lithium batteries that are recycled is much lower, owing to factors such as being too small or difficult to economically collect (think most consumer electronics and cell phones with non-replaceable batteries), or being used in intentionally disposable products, or simply never make it into the waste stream one way or another. EV batteries, being large and expensive and requiring professional handling, have a near 100% collection rate.
2) Does the data use total deployed batteries or only those available for recycling? The rate at which EV batteries are produced has skyrocketed in the past decade, far outpacing the rate at which used EV packs are reaching true end-of-life and thus are actually available to be recycled. If an article or paper cites how many EVs are currently on the road/sold and compares that directly to the number of EV batteries recycled, they are doing a type of lie...
3) Do they consider second-life applications at all? And if they do, is that included as recycling or excluded as not available to be recycled? Even when an EV battery is replaced because it no longer has sufficient capacity, or as salvage from a damaged vehicle, they will often be parted out and modules/cells repurposed for other applications rather than going into the waste stream. If you are talking specifically about EV battery recycling, then these should count as "recycled." If talking about lithium batteries in general, then these should count as not available to be recycled.
I've seen a lot of reports and articles that cite low numbers but in almost every case you can trace their sources and their source's sources back to circa 2010 articles, churning the same statistic over and over without providing any more recent data. One or more of the above caveats are also common, though whether that's a problem in the paper itself or the reader's interpretation for failing to read it thoroughly is situational.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
smidge, even if an EV manufacturer is required to take a battery back, who the hell is going to drive 500miles to throw away a battery??? This is how shit finds its way into a landfill and eventually the groundwater. However, my post wasn't so much as EV batteries but the smaller Li-Ion batteries that go into fucking everything. You know, the ones that get killed from leaving plugged in all the time like laptops, Garmin GPS, cell phone batteries, or even Dualshock controllers. Those batteries are often not
Re: (Score:2)
> even if an EV manufacturer is required to take a battery back, who the hell is going to drive 500miles to throw away a battery???
WTF are you talking about? Do you think nobody lives closer than 500 miles to a service center or dealership? You know, the kind of place that would have the tools and expertise required to replace the battery? Then they'd arrange to have the battery shipped to the appropriate facility.
They can (and do) do it with lead acid engine starter batteries, they can do it for EV pack
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> My understanding that current "recycling" process melts batteries into toxic slug and recovers only some specific metals
What you're describing is pyrometallurgical recycling. They grind the batteries into a coarse paste and burn it, then process the gunk left over. It is the least effective and, consequently, least used method. Low material recovery, low cost effectiveness, and high environmental impact. Indeed, only cobalt and nickel are effectively recovered this way.
Hydrometallurgical recycling is t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is the Apple of the automotive world. They do not design their products to be serviced, and replacing individual cells is literally impossible as they are all glued and welded together.
If the video you're referencing is the one I think it is, they replaced an entire module; a packaged group of cells that is a sub-unit of the larger battery pack. It is a solid brick.
The reason they build them this way is twofold: One is cost. If you are building a battery pack with over 7000 cells in it, and you want t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what percentage of EV batteries is Hydrometallurgical recycled?
Also, additional question. I read (can't seem to find the reference now) that many car manufacturers ship returned EV batteries to jurisdictions where it is not illegal to simply dispose of them. Do you count recycled as successfully returned or recycled as successfully processed for material recovery?
What I was able to find is that VW building capacity to recycle their batteries, but the
Re: (Score:2)
1) Does the data reference all lithium batteries or specifically EV batteries? The fraction of all lithium batteries that are recycled is much lower, owing to factors such as being too small or difficult to economically collect (think most consumer electronics and cell phones with non-replaceable batteries), or being used in intentionally disposable products, or simply never make it into the waste stream one way or another. EV batteries, being large and expensive and requiring professional handling, have a near 100% collection rate.
I would caution you to consider the possibility that all statistics about this issue are primarily social phenomena, and only secondarily technological phenomena. It's dangerous to presume social statistics are inherent and will remain constant.
To wit, allow me to modify the final sentence of Point 1 thusly:
"EV batteries, being large and expensive and requiring professional handling - and therefore currently only purchasable by the upper class and the professional middle class who have the wealth to afford
Re: (Score:2)
This is because recycling clean technology (or any technology) is actually quite difficult and often neither economically viable nor environmentally desirable.
Consider a cake made with two eggs. In theory, you could "recycle" the cake to extract the original egg components. However, this process would be much more expensive (both in dollars and energy) than simply buying a new box of eggs from the supermarket.
Smartphone recycling, for instance, primarily involves extracting the few milligrams of gold they c
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eyeroll (Score:5, Insightful)
" PFAS chemicals have been found in windmill coatings, semiconductors, solar collectors, and photovoltaic cells"
Wow, apparently PFAS are only found in cleantech! *eyeroll*
Look, if you don't want to look like you're doing a lazy smear, don't be so obvious about it.
For the record, none of these locations are battery plants. They're plastics plants./p>
I would love to see who funded this report. Odd that it focuses a pinpoint on green technologies.
"Don't feel good about your socialist green technology!" Meanwhile PFAS is used in cosmetics.
And we still put Benzene in gasoline, just for some perspective on how selective our acceptance of nasty chemicals is.
Point is, we do need to look into PFAS, and find substitutes. But pointing the fickle finger of shame at green tech certainly does seem to be a hit piece. It's pretty far down on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
"And we still put Benzene in gasoline,"
Its not "put in", its found in crude oil and comes along for the ride in the refining process. In the EU its limited to 1% (not sure if by vol or weight) which frankly is still way too high.
Re: (Score:2)
"And we still put Benzene in gasoline,"
Its not "put in", its found in crude oil and comes along for the ride in the refining process. In the EU its limited to 1% (not sure if by vol or weight) which frankly is still way too high.
The cracking process removes it if desired. Here in the USA, it is limited to an average of .62 percent. Some people hate alcohol in fuel, but want a high octane, and straight benzene can raise it to 101, and if you are really in need of high octane ethyl benzene can get you to 112 Octane.
Then again, I know a few people who are still pissed off that they removed tetraethyl lead from gasoline. They might have been exposed to too much of it?
Gasoline is a fascinating substance, because it is a constantly
Re: (Score:2)
You must not be talking about butanol, but rather butane. Butanol is a liquid alcohol that has an energy density much closer to that of gasoline than ethanol has. It is the closest thing we have to a drop-in replacement for gasoline, if only it was easier to produce. Most starch-cellulose gets broken down by microbes that produce ethanol. Butanol-emitting microbes exist, but they get out-competed unless a high ethanol level is already present.
Butane, on the other hand, is what's in your Bic lighter. At room
Re: (Score:2)
And we still put Benzene in gasoline, just for some perspective on how selective our acceptance of nasty chemicals is.
Benzene isn't the only component of gasoline, and from what I recall, nearly all are pretty bad on the toxicity scale. Don't breathe the fumes, and don't use your mouth to start the siphon when you're stealing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htransferring gas.
Re: (Score:2)
And we still put Benzene in gasoline, just for some perspective on how selective our acceptance of nasty chemicals is.
Benzene isn't the only component of gasoline, and from what I recall, nearly all are pretty bad on the toxicity scale. Don't breathe the fumes, and don't use your mouth to start the siphon when you're stealing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htransferring gas.
Every year someone offs themself by aspirating gasoline. Gotta be a hellava way to go.
But yes, Gasoline is a constantly varying mixture, a lot of that variance is based on the winter versus summer to deal with adjusting the vapor pressure of the mix, the desired octane - benzene can give a fair boost to it. Ethanol can give a bit of a kick to the octane as well. But detergents are added, and a few other goodies as well.
For a while, we tried methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an octane boost. But it turn
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a smear. It is a simple statement of fact. Perfluoropolymers are widely used because they are useful. They are chemically stable so they tolerate high temperatures and aggressive chemical environments. The PV supply chain requires vast quantities of them because silicon tetrachloride, trichlorosilane, and all the other compounds along the way are exceedingly reactive because the silicon wants its oxygen back.
If you want to fund a program to find replacements that are less toxic fine, that's a worth
TL;DR - Oops - clean energy isn't clean (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
We should have. Yes. Past tense. It will do nothing to clean up our world at this point. We've already gone past 1.5C, kicking the can down the road another 20 years is not the answer
Let me try to understand your point:
- We have one mix of technologies (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) that has a solid track record of successfully decarbonizing electricity grids.
- On the other hand, there's another mix (solar, wind, hydro) that has only managed to decarbonize grids in very specific countries with ideal geological conditions and smaller populations.
And yet, you label the first solution as "just kicking the can down the road for another 20 years"? Your logic seems to be missing a few pieces t
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you label the first solution as "just kicking the can down the road for another 20 years"? Your logic seems to be missing a few pieces there, doesn't it?
Yes I am. You just are ignoring a major feature of the technology mix. Let me add the missing parts for you:
- We have one mix of technologies (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) that has a solid track record of successfully decarbonizing electricity grids, with the major downside being that we have long approval process to start projects, the inability to build more than a couple at a time, and even when we put full resources into it it takes 2 decades for a project to get built.
- On the other hand, there's anot
Re: (Score:2)
- We have one mix of technologies (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) that has a solid track record of successfully decarbonizing electricity grids, with the major downside being that we have long approval process to start projects, the inability to build more than a couple at a time, and even when we put full resources into it it takes 2 decades for a project to get built.
- On the other hand, there's another mix (solar, wind, -----) that has only managed to decarbonize grids in very specific countries with ideal geological conditions and smaller populations, which can be stood up from zero within 2 years and has current global oversupply in production capacity.
Sounds a bit different now doesn't it.
Yes, it sounds very different. The second solution has yet to show it can decarbonize an electricity grid. It doesn't matter if it takes 2 years to deploy a wind farm (which it does not, but who cares about facts), if that doesn't solve the actual problem. Germany has been deploying solar/wind for the past 30 years, costing them 500+ billion, and yet they only expect to phase out coal in 2035 (11 years from now), and the main reason for that is actually not solar/wind deployment but building new gas plants
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Maybe California should have added "find a safe way to recycle all depleted lithium ion batteries" to the list of problems we should have solved BEFORE mandating the cutover to EV's by 2035?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe most of the problem batteries are from consumer devices, not cars. Repair shops have stricter regulations for car battery disposal.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe most of the problem batteries are from consumer devices, not cars. Repair shops have stricter regulations for car battery disposal.
Car batteries are also great candidates for reuse in fixed-location storage infrastructure. Phone batteries, not so much.
Not only california (Score:1)
You can add the UK and EU to that list too. Lots of cretinous political virtue signalling without examining the long term consequences. It'll be diesel cars all over again in 20 years.
Clean energy... (Score:1)
Now we actually need to go and look what is dirtier, the new "clean energy" or the old "dirty energy".
No, really? (Score:2)
Seriously, I thought this was established long ago.
Next up they will figure out solar panels are harmful and incredibly toxic during manufature and then during disposal, for which no recycling is even possible or viable.