this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
5279 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Batteries have infinite energy now? No storage issues due to electrical surges, heat, cold, or anything else that makes batteries sub optimal? While seemingly by magic, mining rare earth minerals spreads its environmental impact over 10-15 years of the lifetime of the battery with 0 negative impact to the area the mine is located?

Oh wait... None of that is true so I guess you can try again.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Batteries have an environmental impact, but so does fracking for natural gas. You have the impact up front making a battery, but charging it with renewables does not have continued environmental impact. But if you use gas, you’re going to have to use an awful lot of it over that time period to offset the clean power you’re able to use when you have a battery. And that gas has a very high environmental impact, continually, over that entire time period.

I didn’t say batteries have NO impact, but they have less impact than continually mining and burning fossil fuels.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The fact that you believe renewable energy sources have no environmental impact demonstrates to me the need to no longer speak with you. My brain can take only so much ignorance and green washing is my line today.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Ok. Have a nice day.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They are using a strawman and trying to claim victory. They are not arguing in good faith.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I think you’re right.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

mining rare earth minerals

Are you under the impression that we use NMC batteries for grid energy storage?? LOL

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

Are you under the impression that we use NMC batteries for grid energy storage?? LOL

Sure is weird how you think you are owning me here while ignoring the fact that all batteries have an environmental impact and Lithium is one of the worst when it comes to battery components that are incredibly costly to the environments where it is mined, which is the main component in batteries used for grid storage.

"LOL"

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sodium batteries require very little rare earths in comparison to lithium batteries.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It really is too bad about the weak life cycle, poor charge/discharge rate, and incredibly low voltage that begin the story of "Why don't we just use sodium ion batteries?" and place it directly in the "tragedy" section of the book store.

[–] andyburke@fedia.io 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why are people so mad that batteries are better than dead dinosaur farts? What is the weird obsession with burning ooze and gasses from mother earth? We have better options?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why are people so mad that batteries are better than dead dinosaur farts? What is the weird obsession with burning ooze and gasses from mother earth? We have better options?

Does it hurt being this ignorant or is it truly as blissful as they say?

The fact that you don't understand battery materials are pulled from the ground in much the same way that oil and gas is speaks volumes about value of your opinions.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it's gone.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, is "infinitely recyclable". Literally defies physics.

Lets also not forget that oil is recyclable.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you're such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I'm not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

No, nothing can be recycled to infinite. It is asinine to even attempt to assert that.

But since you’re such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery?

Recycling Lithium batteries recovers approximately 20-96% of materials. This means best case scenario, which is not the norm in battery recycling, every time a battery is recycled 4% of the materials are lost.

Doesn't take a math genius to see how quickly finite resources dry up with a 4% loss every single time a batteries life ends.

I’m not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I hope the simple math and explaination I used is understandable to you, but I am not expecting much.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Like I thought, you're misunderstanding what you're reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that's not because they aren't recoverable, that's because it's not currently financially feasible to recover at all.

And that's just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren't great at reading either. So I'll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Like I thought, you’re misunderstanding what you’re reading.

Like I thought, you have nothing meaningful to say. I won't waste further time with you.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

What? You're the one claiming that various metals aren't infinitely recyclable.

It's true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn't really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I'm just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn't need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it's useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you're being downvoted.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can't get over this. We're talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you're talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that's what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that's it's my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago

The information I've seen regarding deep discharge life-cycle for sodium ion is that the latest tech is actually extremely good, at least according to this. I don't see how the lower voltage is a problem, since for grid situations you'll have transformers anyway, and the batteries can just be hooked up in series to increase the voltage.

They use abundant materials, will be much cheaper than lithium ion, don't need to be actively cooled, and massively lessen the risk of rupture and fires.

The low density per unit of weight isn't relevant for grid storage, so they seem pretty ideal.