this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
453 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58108 readers
4981 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

New Recipe for Efficient, Environmentally Friendly Battery Recycling / A new method enables 100% of the aluminum and 98% of the lithium from spent car batteries to be recovered and recycled.::A new, efficient method enables 100% of the aluminum and 98% of the lithium from spent car batteries to be recovered and recycled while minimizing the loss of valuable raw materials.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 72 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Really feels like we should figure out the recycling angle on a thing as an intrinsic part of the design phase

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[–] Zdvarko@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

this would be insane because battery waste is a serious issue atm

[–] Sprokes@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

Let it cook