Lead-Acid can be recycled up to a point, but at some point they
are done. Today, as best I know, they just get tossed at that point.
NiCad has the problem having Cadmium in them - another not very nice
I doubt LiIon have the energy density for a car, but perhaps they've
come far enough to do that too. In any case, you do have some
problem with the remaining Li when things are done.
The point is that all engineering is the art of tradeoff. There
is no free lunch in science just as there is none in economics
(or personal relationships or work or ...). This doesn't stop
the chowderheaded environmentalist fanatics from finding magic
solutions (to often ill formed or even bogus problems) on some
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
The Chevy Volt (Electric car) scheduled for late 2010 release will use a
LiIon battery pack (currently under extensive testing). The battery pack has
a expected life of 10 years and a battery cost of $10,000. The car has a
40-50 mile range (under the typical work day commute) with a onboard gas
powered generator for a overall 600 mile range.... The car is a interesting
concept that if successful will likely turn the auto industry on its ear.
Tim really needs to get out from under his rock once in a while.
Lithium ion has very high energy density, which is why they are being
used in laptops and other applications where a lot of power is needed
in a small space. Meanwhile, you can lease a fuel-cell Honda right
now, today, and drive it home (assuming that they haven't already
leased them all out).
As for "a problem with the remaining Li", I'd like to see a statement
from a reputable source (read something other than Tim's bunghole) of
the nature of that "problem".
The whole car gets tossed at some point. Lead/Nickel/Cadmium in
the car may be the most critical disposal recycling issue.
The nickel; batteries in question appear to be Nickel-Zinc, not nicad.
The nickel is still an issue, but not as bad as cadmium or lead.
You can recycle it into thermonuclear weapons.
Lead, cadmium, and nickel are toxic heavy metals that
biomultiply in the food chain. Lithium is a 1-A metal, a
nutrient, an essential trace mineral. Of course you could
OD on it and chronic exposure to much higher than normal
levels in your diet would cause long term health problems
but it is huge improvement over the others. Low levels
of lithium contamination in the environment are about
as damaging as low level contamination with sodium,
potassium or calcium. The anion would probably merit
My point is that facts matter.
Expressing concern over something that is not
happening, or concerns about disposal of a benign
material used to replace a very toxic one is not
condusive to a constructive discussion.
Let the industry shut down one of the refineries for maintenance and see
what happens. Look at Texas right now. The industry down there is almost
completely off line due to IKE. Prices are going through the roof.
Supply almost exactly equals demand with little for storage.
IMO, it was an easy sale. Bush made such a mess of things I think the
Republicans figure they can't win this time around no matter what, so let
McCain have his 15 minutes of fame. Why waste a "good" candidate?
As much as I dislike Hillary, I figured she'd be the front runner. So did
she and she let Obama get too good a start.
I think Hillary would be the Dems nominee if georgeous John Edwards
hadn't sucked up enough votes from her to let BO sneak through.
There's a good reason BO didn't pick Hil for veep as there isn't a
government paid position of food taster.
As far as I can see, it was the survival of one old white guy with old
white guy ideas over a bunch of other old white guys with old white
SFWIW, I qualify as one of those old white guys, so save you're knee
jerk responses to "old white guy"
The republican party has allowed itself to be taken over by a group of
hard line radicals whose only modus operandi seems to be confortation.
If nothing else, the last 8 years have proven the fallacy of that
It has also caused me to distance myself from them even though I've
been a registered Republican most of my voting life.
As much as I am convinced that Hillary is truly dedicated to the
issues she supports, especially the social issues, she failed to
recognise the sense of unrest at the grass roots level that is taking
place in the country.
The majority of the people have been screwed into the wall without
vasoline or even a kiss and they are ticked.
And yes, I'm one of them.
She failed to translate out of the last centuries politics and it cost
It takes time to implement a plan.
Prices dropped during 2000, stabilized during 2001 and began
rising in 2002.
Interestingly, the price of refined petroleum products began
rising as soon as Bush/Cheney took orifice, as if the companies
anticipated the rise in crude prices:
They have started to go down now,
with the Democrats still controlling the Congress.
Half of the continental shelf is currently open for exploration
and extraction, and has been for years. I don't see why the
Petroleum would be more inclined to explore an drill in the
remaining half. I suppose that would open up the market
for speculation, an 'industry' that neither produces nor
contributes anything value.
Carter had one. But he never sold even his own party on
it. That's because it was a long term plan, planning for the
next generation. Which, BTW, IMHO is the only sort of plan
that could work without major political/social. economic
Now that I mentioned his name, probably one or more persons
will feel obliged to tell us they think he was a terrible President,
but for completely different reasons, thus distracting the reader
from considering where we might be had we followed his lead
on energy issues.
Note the word above, "drastically". Even using your link, there were a
number of world events that drove the price of crude up, but not as
drastically as we've seen in the past 2 years.
Again, from your link, refined prices started going up in 1999 *before*
Bush and Cheney were even elected or for that matter nominated, are you
saying that the market was prescient? The prices didn't start rising until
The information in your link stops at 2006. This is the first year that
prices have played with $4 per gallon levels. The fact that prices are
coming down right now is due to a couple of factors 1) the summer driving
season is ending and prices traditionally come down following that event,
and 2) the market could not sustain the levels of price that were seen
throughout the summer. Even so, gas prices are still at their highest
levels ever following the post-summer season.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Well that depends on what standard you have for 'drastic'.
When I look at that plot it shows the prices dropping
throughout 2001. I sort of inferred that changes
post-2001 were independent of the ups and downs
that preceded it.
But maybe you should look at the plot from 1869
to 2004. Then you could give the Republicans credit
for the drastic drop that started around 1869 and
then point to the rise from 1979 -81 and blame
today's prices on Carter.
Let's keep it simple for you Fred. Were gasoline prices at or above $4
per gallon before or after the 2006 election?
But Fred, in the paragraph above to which I was responding, you asserted
that the price of refined petroleum products began rising as soon as
Bush/Cheney took office, "as if the companies anticipated the rise in crude
prices". IIRC, they took office in 2001, now you are asserting that the
plot shows the prices dropping throughout 2001. Prices started rising
after 2001 due some rather significant world events.
... and it is comments like these with which you have attained the title
of master debater.
/I'm done, I've got better things to do with my time.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
What you people forget in your criticisms is that things i.e. gas prices
didn't go down the pooper until the democrats took control of both houses of
Congress. Why don't you liberals admit that??? Since they took control
everything has stalled and went down the drain. The democratic controlled
Congress now has less that a ten percent approval rating. Are you liberals
proud of that record? The lowest approval rating in history.
Sure. And half of the continental shelf is, and has been open
to drilling for years, and most of that is not being utilized.
I see no reason to believe that opening up the remaining half
would lead to more drilling. It would lead to more speculation
I have offered to explain the causative link to you, so long as
we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a
That offer still stands.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.