We've known how to very effectively recycle batteries for a long time now, it's just been far cheaper to mine new materials than to recycle existing ones
This article unfortunately doesn't really go into the economics of this process
Cheaper or carbon efficient (or both)? The problem we've run into is that the cheapest solution (therefore most profitable) has been our go-to solution. In the short term at least, reducing our carbon emissions will be expensive.
Reminds me of the great 'Helium' crisis that poofed out of existence once MSM realized that half the comments in every article were like 'No, it's just never been worth to capture it from fracking' lmfao.
Really feels like we should figure out the recycling angle on a thing as an intrinsic part of the design phase…
It actually is. I think the DoD required it at some point, it became apparent with destabilizing aging explosives and nuclear power and weapons that it was vital, as well as dismantling anything that the enemy could gain knowledge from.
However, like most good things, it's rarely implemented where it's not required.
DoD calls it life cycle engineering, and it's basically standard for anything but software. Problem is that corporations aren't required to do anything like that.
Perhaps with this new technology it will no longer be necessary for the "Empire" aka USA to stage a coup d'état in a poor country in Latin America to steal its lithium. No, capitalism doesn't work this way coups are much easier cheaper and faster.
Its already being done in Canada https://youtu.be/H85oUBsvBN8?feature=shared
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/H85oUBsvBN8?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Sounds awesome. That means that whoever makes new batteries is going to buy it out from under them and then bury it in a safe somewhere.
this would be insane because battery waste is a serious issue atm
I don't really believe in those of articles. Many of them exaggerate things, if they weren't we had cured aids, cancer a decade ago, we are running on clean and renewable energy. I see a lot of articles like that but years after nothing have really changed and our situation is much worse.
We do have a lot of really cool technologies that could revolutionize how we generate power, clean water, and generally live.
But they are expensive, so they don’t get done.
We could have been running the world off of nuclear reactors for the last 60 years, but they’re more expensive than coal and gas, so we haven’t.
We could also have potentially had a giant solar array in orbit that beamed power down to the planet, which would have been built in the 80s and 90s. But we got the space shuttle instead, because it was cheaper and more feasible. Now the space shuttle was awesome, but it’s competing project was truly a leap ahead in space flight.
There are a few people that, according to blood panels, have been cured of HIV. But it’s a very expensive and painful procedure, as it involves a bone marrow transplant from a person that is genetically immune to HIV and is a match for the person that has HIV.
The technology is occasionally there, but it’s just so impractical to implement it at scale that it never happens.
Let it cook
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
