The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[LP]

Guess what is becoming the next big environmental issue, with a push to restrict / limit resource consumption to be floated at the next COP meeting?

Environmental damage from the production of batteries!

What will that mean long term for the use of EVs or Home Solar Batteries?

Functionally, we need a new battery technology and quickly, perhaps even faster than we need more renewable energy! Lithium mining is a disaster, and battery production is one of the dirtiest industries on the planet, perhaps even dirtier than the fossil fuel industries it replaces. Ignore those posters showing lab like pristine conditions with efficient machinery pumping out mass produced batteries by the metre. That lab is the con, the last shiny stage of the process at best, what they don't show you is the filthy bucket chemistry and sweat shop conditions used to refine and prepare the raw materials.

Even though lithium is abundant, naturally occurring lithium of the required quality is very rare. For example Australia is one of the worlds richest lithium sources,  but the vast bulk of the lithium mined in Australia has to be greatly enriched before it can be used, much like we have to reprocess and enrich uranium and pretty much any other materials we mine. Guess what, like our Iron Ore and Aluminium much of which is no longer refined here, we ship it offshore in bunker fuel burning antifouling coated biohazard bulk barges for refining elsewhere!

None of that you will find the Uber Green TBL investor report, just a little accounting oversight, we can put the revised numbers in later via are mailout!

And those tailings, yes the evil word again which describes mining waste, can be reprocessed to produce all sorts of ancillary raw materials, but they aren't in much the same way tailings from other mining operations aren't reprocessed. Sure, they are selling the fact that they can, but what they omit from the marketing blurb is that they don't, they don't because it's expensive and inefficient to reprocess tailings when you can go somewhere else and get what you need from a rich vein. And much like refining or reprocessing uranium, the further you get through the process the bigger the problem becomes with the residual.

The stuff left behind from battery production is truly toxic as is pretty much any other form of mass industrial waste.

But luckily we've got a border policy, that waste and the toxic environment and atmosphere it creates will just have to stay in China, because we won't give it a VISA!

Best Regards,
Your Loving Nimby!

[Thryleon]

I generally agree that this seems a bit round about way to achieve greener energy for a net break even with different pollutants, but the one thing that battery and electricity and solar has over oil and petrol based technology, is the ability to power stuff in outer space.  I reckon thats the real push behind the technology going mainstream because we arent going to setup bases on the moon and mars without solar and batteries unless we go nuclear and even then you need water which isnt an abundant source.

[LP]

I generally agree that this seems a bit round about way to achieve greener energy for a net break even with different pollutants, but the one thing that battery and electricity and solar has over oil and petrol based technology, is the ability to power stuff in outer space.  I reckon thats the real push behind the technology going mainstream because we aren't going to setup bases on the moon and mars without solar and batteries unless we go nuclear and even then you need water which isn't an abundant source.

Actually, I had thought similar that SolarPV was the way of the future for local space.

But just last week I read that there are a whole bunch of upcoming NASA / ESA launches that are going the in the opposite direction and reverting to nuclear batteries known as Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators(RTG). Apparently heat management (heating and cooling) is a big issue that consumes a lot of energy, which rules out SolarPV because the surface area needed exceeds the launch capability for a single vehicle on many rockets. The various Space Stations are unique because they were built in stages from multiple launches.

In the past RTGs were reserved for big projects, because they took up a lot of space, were heavily built and very expensive, but apparently the new generation of devices is lighter, smaller and cheaper and also longer lasting!

RTGs don't fail if they collect too much dust!

Some of this is being driven by the realisation that if they had been equipped with better power sources(aka Not SolarPV) many of the recent Mars missions would have lasted decades like Voyager I and II. One of the recent missions had a few failed experiments simply because the project ran out of energy budget before it had succeeded, or failed because it was consuming too much energy to get it working so they shut it down.

[Thryleon]

Actually, I had thought similar that SolarPV was the way of the future for local space.

But just last week I read that there are a whole bunch of upcoming NASA / ESA launches that are going the in the opposite direction and reverting to nuclear batteries known as Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators(RTG). Apparently heat management (heating and cooling) is a big issue that consumes a lot of energy, which rules out SolarPV because the surface area needed exceeds the launch capability for a single vehicle on many rockets. The various Space Stations are unique because they were built in stages from multiple launches.

In the past RTGs were reserved for big projects, because they took up a lot of space, were heavily built and very expensive, but apparently the new generation of devices is lighter, smaller and cheaper and also longer lasting!

RTGs don't fail if they collect too much dust!

Some of this is being driven by the realisation that if they had been equipped with better power sources(aka Not SolarPV) many of the recent Mars missions would have lasted decades like Voyager I and II. One of the recent missions had a few failed experiments simply because the project ran out of energy budget before it had succeeded, or failed because it was consuming too much energy to get it working so they shut it down.

the mars missions all exceeded expectations and were extended.

The dust on the panel was a hindrance, but not so bad that it caused any mission to end early for the rovers.

Either way space will need a mix of tech because irrespective of what power source we go with, only the sun exists everywhere.

Even if you went nuclear initially you'd want a backup solar in case of failure.

[Mav]

Vanadium redox flow batteries can provide cheap, large-scale grid energy storage. Here's how they work, abc.net.au.

A New ‘Glue’ Could Make Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Cheaper—And Less Toxic, Forbes.

[LP]

Vanadium redox flow batteries can provide cheap, large-scale grid energy storage. Here's how they work, abc.net.au.

A New ‘Glue’ Could Make Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Cheaper—And Less Toxic, Forbes.

Good links.

It's not lost on me and it's quite bizarre that it takes a foreign investor to gain any traction on an Australia invention, I see it happen over and over again, locals get zero interest from the Feds or local Venture Capitalists, so the ideas get sold off to foreigners who commercialise it making a killing.

Flow batteries are a very serious option for buildings and homes, and should be receiving far more attention than Elon Musks rare element highly marketed and expensive(read profitable) alternatives. I read a while back that the basic installation hardware is everlasting in a flow battery and doesn't wear out, and you can change the electrodes and electrolyte as easy as Fish'n'Chip shop changes oil.

(Personally, I think LAVO is the way to go for homes and domestic vehicle charging, anyone old enough to remember The Heater man knows why!)

The lithium battery glue although a great idea is a trivial issue, the big problem for lithium ion isn't breaking the batteries down physically, it's reprocessing the ingredients that have become oxides or carbides. FWIW, the very same is now being done for cellphone assemblies, the glue can be "programmed to fall apart" under the right conditions. But let's not get too excited about the glue, and using sodium hydroxide to trigger the laminate to crumble isn't really an environmentally sweet solution to the problem, but it'll be easier and cheaper because it's basically paint stripper something that is already mass produced very very cheaply, but not so easy to dispose of in bulk!

[Mav]

As the article says, though, the inventors of the flow batteries were 20 years too early. The application for the patent was filed in 1986 and would have run out in 2001 before storage was much of an issue. Until solar panels and renewable energy became popular, supply was regular given coal-fired power plants. That’s the thing about renewable power. Developing the technology couldn’t be done in a linear planned fashion. Some parts of the system are developed before they can be used or before they can lead to an identifiable benefit.

An example of that is the electric vehicle market. When the electricity that would recharge them was generated by burning coal or gas, the argument was that there was no point electrifying cars as the pollution was merely shifted from 1 place to another. That led to minimal investment in creating electric vehicles and recharging stations. Now there is cleaner energy available, we’re playing catch up in those areas.

That’s why I’m not so persuaded by arguments based on existing technology. The developments cited in those 2 articles are merely 2 of many being evaluated now. What will be available in 2030 will be light years ahead of what currently exists. And we need to develop infrastructure to take advantage of it rather than saying, “There are issues with current technology, so let’s put it on the back burner until all those issues are resolved”. On the other hand, nuclear fission and fossil fuels are mature markets with much less scope for improvement. Clean coal is a joke and they should stop trying to make fetch happen. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is intriguing.

[LP]

The big recent advances in flow batteries are related to the electrolyte, the fundamental technology hasn't changed much but the electrolyte in the original days was a problem as it deteriorated quickly, a few dozens of recharges and it had to be replaced. The modern electrolytes can potentially last decades. Also the anodes and cathodes have improved, but not as much as the electrolyte.

Hydrogen fuel cells, even combined with Fusion or Fission not just renewables, are a real zero carbon winner. You produce the hydrogen when there is heaps of energy to spare, and regenerate electricity on demand when needed. You can distribute hydrogen through existing channels, pipelines, bulk carriers, gas bottles, etc., etc., or you can even make it onsite from local renewables and let it charge your car overnight or even refill a hydrogen car directly from the reserve. It fits with Fusion or Fission because both technologies need base load, you can make hydrogen 24x7 even when there is no grid demand, in much the same way fission plants get paired up with desalination plants.

(It's really a no brainer for Oz as the driest continent on the planet, and one of the richest in uranium, to use fission for base load, we can make all the fresh water we need and all the relatively cheap electricity, it's that simple! Eventually we will replace the fission with fusion, but we will still need to pair fusion with a base load probably  desalination plant, because most of the current fusion projects get the fuel from seawater, as a by-product of desalination.)

[Mav]

The recent frantic search for the tiny capsule of radioactive material lost during transport fills me with great confidence over nuclear fission.  :o

And until hydrogen is generated using renewables rather than burning coal and making vague promises that there’ll be effective carbon capture at some stage this century, I’ll have my concerns.

[kruddler]

The recent frantic search for the tiny capsule of radioactive material lost during transport fills me with great confidence over nuclear fission.  :o

A drop in the ocean
vs
Continual, consistent deterioration of air quality, ozone layer and a potentially (if not already) irreversable runaway greenhouse scenario.

Its like the frog in the pan. Turn it up slow enough and it will stay there until its cooked!