UCSD professor devises way to recycle lithium-ion batteries
The promise of a global electric vehicle transformation has a looming problem.
The cathodes in the lithium-ion batteries typically used in electric vehicles, or EVs, are made of metal oxides that contain cobalt, a metal found in finite supplies and concentrated in one of the globe’s more precarious countries.
But an assistant professor at the University of California San Diego says he has developed a way to recycle used cathodes from spent lithium-ion batteries and restore them to the point that they work as good as new.
“Yes, it can work effectively,” said Zheng Chen, a 31-year-old who works as a nano-engineer at the Sustainable Power and Energy Center at the Jacobs School of Engineering.
Read more: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-battery-recycling-20180316-story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2018, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)
Listen, CallMeCrazy - and I might - right this fucking minute the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at 410 ppm, after being just at 385 ppm ten years ago.
Maybe this graph doesn't mean much to air heads worshiping that bullshit billionaire Musk living on the public dole, but it means something to people called "environmentalists""
In the year 2000, investments in that consumer crap, solar and wind, began reaching all time highs, and we've now squandered, in the last ten years over 2 trillion dollars on that crap, as reported by cheerleaders for this mine driven nightmare:
This information is here, in the UNEP Frankfurt School Report, issued each year: GLOBAL TRENDS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT 2017
We spent this money on these dangerous fantasies on a planet where over 2 billion people lack access even to primitive sanitary conditions.
This fantasy is not even remotely connected with what I personally regard as liberal values.
The delusional horseshit that mining cadmium and lanthanides in China for so called "renewable energy," - which is not actually renewable nor remotely clean - actually recalls Burke's famous admonition: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
If one were to open a science book - or simply go to websites about the rate of carbon dioxide accumulations in the atmosphere - one might understand how useless so called "renewable energy" is.
Unfortunately, people would rather repeat pablum, left and right, rather than do what must be done to show a shred of decency to future generations.
That won't happen though. We'll keep sticking cotton in our ears and chanting "solar and wind is (sic) taking off all over the world."
Bullshit. They didn't work. They aren't working. They won't work. It's trash thinking, a waste of money and resources, and a crime against all future generations.
Have a nice weekend.
Again, from 2000-2016, the entire recorded 21st century thus far, it was the fastest growing source of energy on this planet.
From 2000-2016, natural gas consumption on this planet grew by 39.19 exajoules to a total of 125.9 exajoules out of 576 exajoules, a 45.2% increase.
From 2000-2016, oil consumption on this planet grew by 30.1 exajoules to a total of 183.7 exajoules out of 576 exajoules, a 19.6% increase.
From 2000-2016, coal consumption on this planet grew by 60.4 exajoules to a total of 157.2 exajoules out of 576 exajoules, a 62.5% increase.
In "percent talk," the talk used by so called "renewable energy" advocates to obscure the uselessness of so called "renewable energy," coal easily outstripped both natural gas and oil in terms of increases. I would hardly characterize this data as a statement as a confirmation of the oft repeated "coal is dying" remark which is not even remotely close to being true.
Speaking of "percent talk" from 2000-2016, so called "renewable energy grew by 6.9 exajoules to a total of 9.4 exajoules out of 576 exajoules, a 275% increase.
This data is here, authored by the International Energy Agency's scientists and economists:
IEA 2017 World Energy Outlook, Table 2.2 page 79 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)
And speaking of being misleading, the World Energy Outlook obviates why advocates of the failed and absurdly expensive so called "renewable energy" scam like to discuss in "percent talk." In absolute terms so called "renewable energy" is trivial, not worth the resources squandered on it. The continual use of "percent" talk by its advocates is equivalent to announcing that a guy with $2.10 who increases his wealth to $9.40 is the equivalent of Bill Gates increasing his wealth by 20%, a figure which would be in the tens of billions of dollars.
There is, I would say, a pretty big difference in absolute terms in increasing one's wealth by say, six dollars and thirty cents and increasing one's wealth by 20 billion dollars. One of these two scenarios is extremely unlikely to have one end up with one's picture on the cover of Forbes.
Now we might ask where the growth in coal is taking place, because there are billions of people on this planet who live on less than $10/day. We have a very provincial myopia in this country and don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world, notably the third, and the second, world. But that's where the coal is being burned, at the cost to health of full human beings about whom we couldn't care less, because we're cutting coal use because of our ability to frack like madmen having total disregard for all future generations of Americans.
The place where the coal is being burned is in Asia largely, and the death toll there is enormous as a result, not even counting the health effects of the stuff mined there (with an energy cost associated with the mining in addition to the toxicology involved) to satiate our desire for many of us in the Western world to smugly declare ourselves "green" by buying into to the so called "renewable energy" scam.
Take a look at this graphic, from Nature showing where people die most frequently from air pollution.
Nature: China's annual air pollution deaths now stand at 1.4 million per year.
The death of coal, which is greatly exaggerated, is definitely a desirable outcome, but declaring victory over it now is simply an announcement that we don't have to do anything at all about it; it will just go away.
This is crazy. Coal won't go away, unless we unilaterally declare that because we're allegedly all going to buy idiotic Tesla electric cars from crony capitalist Elon Musk, people living in Hyderabad, or in Lagos, or in Tianjin, or any other of these huge cities about which we know nothing at all in the United States - 10's of millions of people - will be denied to power to run 60 watt lightbulbs a few hours a night.
There is only one viable option to replace coal, and that is the most maligned source of energy on this planet, despite being the safest and most sustainable source of energy on this planet: Nuclear energy.
In terms of human poverty and nuclear energy, Nobel Peace Laureate Mohammed El Baradei spoke eloquently about it:
Mohammed El Baradei on Nigeria
Like most Nobel Peace Laureates, El Baradei has been ignored.
Nuclear energy, which was the fastest growing source of air pollution free energy in the more intelligent 20th century is still producing basically what it was producing in the year 2000, a little over 28 exajoules of primary energy. The stupidity of this outcome will mark our generation as one of the most ignorant generations of all time. If we had trillions of dollars to spend on fighting dangerous fossil fuels, nuclear energy would have been a far more efficient and safer thing on which to spend it.
And by the way, I'm not interested in nuclear energy to fuel Musk's ridiculous car for his fellow billionaires and millionaires. I want it to do what it clearly can do in technically feasible terms: Eliminate human poverty.
Have a nice Sunday afternoon.
