Battery recycling?

I think its a toxic waste issue nothing to do with the energy. Heavy metals and nasty chemicals. Brian

In message , Mike Tomlinson writes

Good question. I'm no zealot, but do try to do my bit with all sorts of stuff, but do wonder partly whether the whole thing is worthwhile, and partly how much of the stuff I carefully segregate ends up in a hole in the ground anyway.

Recycling in general is good for my conscience if I don't think about it to much.

In message , Graeme writes

Or even too much.

Yes, I believe this is the case. NiCDs are particularly nasty, even if their numbers are dropping.

Even with a good old mix of battery types, there are a well defined set of chemicals and processing can be developed to cope with those much more safely than losing them in landfill or incineration, even if nothing is actually recycled.

Something that /can/ be reused is ink jet cartridges. Some places collect them and charities get £1 for each one from companies that refill them and sell them for £10 or so.

Sometimes it's not clear whether they are refilled or disposed of: Dell used to provide reply paid envelopes for the return of their cartridges, but obviously they are going to bin them to take them out of circulation.

I recycle ours

Of course cadmium isn't a heavy metal...

...just poisonous.

Indeed. What would idiots such as those working at the Centre for Nephrology, University College London Medical School, Springer Publications, or the US National Library of Medicine know, as compared with an undoubted expert such as yourself ?

Time for another essay from you, methinks. " Why everyone else except me is always wrong "

michael adams

...

AIUI the motive behind the EU Battery Directive was not so much "recycle" as "keep the nasty stuff out of landfill and incinerators". And I've used the bins for mine 'cos (a) it's easy (there's one in our local library), and (b) the EU set targets and could impose fines if they are not met - and they'd come out of my tax money.

Profit to fat cats seems to be a large aim too.

NT

Lots of cadmium in solar PV panels. In about 20 years time harry might have a nasty shock when his panels are ready for renewal. By then they may have been designated toxic waste, like asbestos, and the disposal costs by the inevitable licensed contractor might wipe out much of his profits from FIT.

I surely hope so.

You can hear it now: "but nobody knows how to deal with the waste!"

En el artículo , Andrew escribió:

Horrendous pollution in the region of China where the panels are made.

And there's been speculation in the past that the panels are energy- negative, i.e. they need more energy to produce than they save. Of course, greenies like harry can't or won't see the full picture.

I do here at uninversity as we get through quite a few AA AAA PP3s mostly alkaline .

The normal test for viable renewables in terms of energy payback is if they will generate more than 7 times the energy used in their production, transport, and installation, and eventual removal and disposal.

In the UK, this is not obvious. The industry had been claiming they did based only on production energy usage, but it's far less obvious, and certainly marginal, if they are viable considering their total energy footprint. Even if they are, the cost of that marginal +ve output is astronomic, which is why solar voltaic only works with substantial subsidies in the UK (and also in most other locations where the sun and weather are much more favourable that it is here).

To put it more pithily: because the FIT crooks are thieving from the rest of us. It is, or course, legalised banditry (a US import), but banditry none the less.

There are various definitions; cadmium is slightly less dense than copper. One criterion is > 5 gm/cc (Wikipedia)