this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
447 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
66353 readers
4321 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone tell me why this isn't feasible.
Because externalities of lithium extraction like using aquifers for evaporation ponds and the pollution from the leftover brine aren't included in the cost of new lithium production, thus making less environmentally impactful methods of recovery too expensive to justify.
There's always a catch.
Note that this is not a catch with this recycling process (necessarily, anyway; the article doesn't get into too many specifics) but rather an end-run to make lithium mining and refining appear less awful than it actually is.
Mining new lithium may be "cheaper" in raw dollars and cents provided only you don't include the environmental impact or the costs of dealing with the same as a line item on the invoice.
So do I undertand you correctly it's just an "eventuality option simulation" to lower the environmental footprint?
Like for example the listed WLTP* Kw/h / fuel consumption of cars in perfect (lab)conditions which never exist?
*Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure
It's probably not cheaper than just shooting orphans for sport.
Shooting orphans? In this economy?