# Battery Emissions



## Zadien (Apr 9, 2011)

ok, so doing some more reasearch on EV's I noticed batteries emit carbon dioxide, when they heat up. Similar to ICE gas emissions. Also when they must be thrown out it is hard to recycle them, and dispose of them. How heavy do those factors way to a ICE emission?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

LiFePO4 batteries don't emit anything, they are sealed. Recycling of car-sized cells is just getting started, mostly because there haven't been many to recycle. Just about everything in the cell is recyclable though. Its a matter of economics on when recycling gets scaled up.


----------



## Zadien (Apr 9, 2011)

and what about the led acid batteries? Because those are more budget friendly. Lithium costs a big amount compared to led acid.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Lead-acid has been recycled for a very long time now, the lead and plastic are melted down and reused and the acid in them has its own handling processes. The lead is the most valuable part and the reason why there is a $5 core charge most of the time if you don't return a lead-acid battery when you buy one, the companies that get the cores back make money off of the scrap.


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

I've never heard or read that lead-acid batteries emit carbon-dioxide when they heat up. When they are charged they can emit hydrogen and oxygen... but not CO2.

Most lead-acid batteries are recycled. Between 1997 and 2001, according to http://www.batterycouncil.org/LeadAcidBatteries/BatteryRecycling/tabid/71/Default.aspx, 97% of the lead in batteries was recycled.

Considering there's less known reserves of lead in the world than lithium... and lead is toxic, while lithium is not... it makes sense that the lithium in batteries will be recycled, as well.

I'd lay odds that you won't see a mass-produced lead-acid EV hit the market. Its performance level would not be viable for the masses.


----------



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

Zadien said:


> ok, so doing some more reasearch on EV's I noticed batteries emit *carbon dioxide*, when they heat up. Similar to ICE gas emissions. Also when they must be thrown out it is hard to recycle them, and dispose of them. How heavy do those factors way to a ICE emission?


And that is an issue why? Carbon dioxide is part of the cycle of life, it does NOT affect any layer of the Earth's atmosphere.

Will this conspiracy theory surrounding CO2 ever die?


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

TheAtomicAss said:


> And that is an issue why? Carbon dioxide is part of the cycle of life, it does NOT affect any layer of the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Will this conspiracy theory surrounding CO2 ever die?


Carbon dioxide is part of your cycle of life. Why don't you lock yourself in a sealed room with a bunch of dry ice in it? 

Quantity matters. Alike most republicans, I feel you see things only in black and white. 

With the below image, I'm not saying burning fossil will cause such elevated levels of CO2. Just trying to point out that your argument of something being natural so it can't possibly cause any harm is ridiculously flawed. I'm not saying I can prove global climate change, but to dismiss it because of such an argument is just silly.


----------



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

icec0o1 said:


> Carbon dioxide is part of your cycle of life. Why don't you lock yourself in a sealed room with a bunch of dry ice in it?


Give me enough plants and I'll take you up on that.  



icec0o1 said:


> Quantity matters. Alike most republicans, I feel you see things only in black and white.


Yes, and you'll see elevated levels in a city, with or without cars. And I'm an anarchist, thank you. 



icec0o1 said:


> With the below image, I'm not saying burning fossil will cause such elevated levels of CO2. Just trying to point out that your argument of something being natural so it can't possibly cause any harm is ridiculously flawed. I'm not saying I can prove global climate change, but to dismiss it because of such an argument is just silly.


And like *everything* natural, (water? food? oxygen?) too much will kill you.

As for dismissing it, I've always held it to be false, simply based upon all the clamor being situated around CO2, (they could have picked CO at the very least, to make it seem a little less obviously false) and ClimateGate proves it. To deny what the chief "scientists" on global warming actually say in private e-mails (hint: they seem more concerned with destroying the careers and reputations of "climate change skeptics", falsifying data, etc. than with actual "climate change") beggars belief.

Climate change is a religion. 

Now if you wanted to talk about the other crap coming out of a typical tailpipe and it's effects on health in concentrated areas (cities), you'd find me much more receptive.


----------



## icec0o1 (Sep 3, 2009)

TheAtomicAss said:


> Give me enough plants and I'll take you up on that.


You do realize plants absorb carbon dioxide very slowly and dry ice sublimes within a few hours? 



> Yes, and you'll see elevated levels in a city, with or without cars. And I'm an anarchist, thank you.


I see you missed my point. 



> And like *everything* natural, (water? food? oxygen?) too much will kill you.


Too much water will kill you as it'll strip away all of your body's minerals. But too much food is hardly going to kill you. At worst it'll make you throw up daily and give you diabetes in a few years. And I see you really are just blabbering because you can breath 100% oxygen for the rest of your life if you want to. 



> As for dismissing it, I've always held it to be false, simply based upon all the clamor being situated around CO2, (they could have picked CO at the very least, to make it seem a little less obviously false) and ClimateGate proves it. To deny what the chief "scientists" on global warming actually say in private e-mails (hint: they seem more concerned with destroying the careers and reputations of "climate change skeptics", falsifying data, etc. than with actual "climate change") beggars belief.
> 
> Climate change is a religion.


So you judge a scientific claim by the amount of "clamor" for and against that subject? You have absolutely no desire to look at at least some data provided by the scientists? Or do you think you're not smart enough to tell whether they fabricated it or if it's real. 

I just don't get how people think sometimes. There are plenty of subjects I'm not interested enough in to research but I'm conscious enough to then not make a biased opinion on them. To judge the truth of a subject by the action of a few people is down right retarded. If you believed something to be true, you yourself might do or act a certain way to convince others of its truth if it pertains to the well being of your family/neighborhood/city/country/world. For some people to say that climate change will increase the strength of hurracanes tremendously is stupid and a huge exaggeration, but it has no effect on whether climate change is true or not. You can think those people are hyperbolic, and sure there are some scientists who fabricate data to get more funding, but that still can't have any pros or cons on the real topic. Only FACTS can have an effect in the discussion. 

If you tell me the ice caps have expanded in the past 3 years, you'll have a good foothold. If you tell me you think global warming is a hoax because Al Gore is promoting it for his own benefit, I'll laugh at you because even if it was true (which it is), it tells you absolutely nothing about the subject itself and it's false logic to think that it does.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

CO2 levels are higher than they have been in all of human history. At the same time we are rapidly releasing carbon that has been locked out of the ecosystem for millions of years. There couldn't possibly be any connection...


----------



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

icec0o1 said:


> You do realize plants absorb carbon dioxide very slowly and dry ice sublimes within a few hours?


Which is why I said "enough plants". I'm fine with being locked in an arboretum with a few large cubes of dry ice... But in a dry ice locker with plants stacked on the ice? No.  



icec0o1 said:


> Too much water will kill you as it'll strip away all of your body's minerals. But too much food is hardly going to kill you. At worst it'll make you throw up daily and give you diabetes in a few years. And I see you really are just blabbering because you can breath 100% oxygen for the rest of your life if you want to.


It'd be a short life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity



icec0o1 said:


> So you judge a scientific claim by the amount of "clamor" for and against that subject? You have absolutely no desire to look at at least some data provided by the scientists? Or do you think you're not smart enough to tell whether they fabricated it or if it's real.


My initial reaction to the news stories and media hype exclusively. It's the sell that pegs my bullshit meter. If you say the ozone is being destroyed because of this, this, and that working in concert, it's more believable at first blush. But all I've ever heard, from any media source talking about the subject, is CO2 this, and CO2 that. It's double-think.



icec0o1 said:


> I just don't get how people think sometimes. There are plenty of subjects I'm not interested enough in to research but I'm conscious enough to then not make a biased opinion on them. To judge the truth of a subject by the action of a few people is down right retarded. If you believed something to be true, you yourself might do or act a certain way to convince others of its truth if it pertains to the well being of your family/neighborhood/city/country/world. For some people to say that climate change will increase the strength of hurracanes tremendously is stupid and a huge exaggeration, but it has no effect on whether climate change is true or not. You can think those people are hyperbolic, and sure there are some scientists who fabricate data to get more funding, but that still can't have any pros or cons on the real topic. Only FACTS can have an effect in the discussion.


I'm not going to claim I've looked at an extensive array of data, but whatever I've gleaned from any source in favor of global warming has errors in it. Not innocent errors, not minor errors, MAJOR errors. The data will not compile to anything resembling the graphs put forth by Al Gore and his ilk. The hockey stick cannot be recreated from the data. I lend my ear to those who want to make the world better, but when they tell me the sky is falling, I tell Chicken Little to shut his beak. 

In addition to all of this, how much hotter was the earth before the extinction of the dinosaurs? (I don't have a number off the top of my head)



icec0o1 said:


> If you tell me the ice caps have expanded in the past 3 years, you'll have a good foothold. If you tell me you think global warming is a hoax because Al Gore is promoting it for his own benefit, I'll laugh at you because even if it was true (which it is), it tells you absolutely nothing about the subject itself and it's false logic to think that it does.


Al Gore aside, CRU and it's ilk are mostly government-funded. I am always suspicious of ANY government-funded research that produces results which prompt governments to tax.

I take a comprehensive view here. I'm not dismissing the data simply because I have a bone to pick with the authors and solicitors thereof, I'm dismissing the data because it is junk.

The fact that the authors and solicitors are NOT taking constructive criticism of their data and and methods to heart, and are instead bent upon coming to a fixed conclusion irrespective of what the data actually says, and manipulating the data to fit their conclusion (per their words), AND are government funded, raises the hair on the back of my neck.


----------



## Zadien (Apr 9, 2011)

ok well we all drive ev's here for atleast a similar reason doing with something that turns into gas or costs gas or saves gas. I must be mistaken on the co2. What is it they emit then? I drive a hatch back and I know I have to have my batteries sealed so fumes may escape. If its toxic to me its toxic to the earth.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Lead acid batteries vent hydrogen while charging. Hydrogen is odorless and not injurious to life, except that it is flammable in with as little as 4% concentration in air. 

It aggressively rises and diffuses through many substances. Many home carbon monoxide detectors will report the presence of hydrogen (showing as a carbon monoxide reading.)


----------



## algea07 (Oct 1, 2010)

TheAtomicAss said:


> In addition to all of this, how much hotter was the earth before the extinction of the dinosaurs? (I don't have a number off the top of my head)


yeah and?
there are lots of things that affect the climate, and scientist the people that have studied for years and know what they talking about, have decided CO2 is to blame.
it's not like they saw the earth was warming and decided it was us, they looked at the earths orbit, it wasn't that. they looked at the output of the sun, it wasn't that. they looked at the CO2 in the atmosphere and they decided it was the culprit.

i'm not an expert. and i wouldn't tell a surgeon, or an engineer how to do their job what makes you think you can tell a climate scientist how to do theirs. 

if it's not CO2 why is the earth warming?


----------



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

Zadien said:


> If its toxic to me its toxic to the earth.


Not always. Remember that everything on this Earth, came from this Earth. (given the exception of cosmic dust and meteors)


----------



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

algea07 said:


> it's not like they saw the earth was warming and decided it was us, they looked at the earths orbit, it wasn't that. they looked at the output of the sun, it wasn't that. they looked at the CO2 in the atmosphere and they decided it was the culprit.


And sun-spot activity has absolutely no effect whatsoever on Earth's climate. Right. 



algea07 said:


> i'm not an expert. and i wouldn't tell a surgeon, or an engineer how to do their job what makes you think you can tell a climate scientist how to do theirs.


I would, if I saw a brain surgeon operating on someone's foot. "Hey, you're working on the wrong end!"



algea07 said:


> if it's not CO2 why is the earth warming?


Too many people have it in their head that Earth's weather is a constant. It's not. It cycles, and it goes in much longer cycles than we have data for. 2,000 years? Try 12,000.

Riddle me this: If CO2 is heavier than both Oxygen and Nitrogen (which it is), then how does it reach the Ozone layer to begin with?


----------



## algea07 (Oct 1, 2010)

TheAtomicAss said:


> And sun-spot activity has absolutely no effect whatsoever on Earth's climate. Right.


yes believe it or not there are meny very expensive satellites measuring the sun s output and they know that its is not changing in relation the temperature on earth. for the record it more or less follows an eleven year cycle, at the moment it is at the low end of its output.

just because you can overlay a graph of sun spot activity over a graph of temperature and they look similar, which they don't any more and haven't since 2009, doesn't mean they are related. CO2* IS* a greenhouse gas you cannot argue that, increasing CO2 *will *increase the temperature, you can only argue to what degree. *please explain how sun spots increase the earths temperature?* you cant because there is no evidence to suggest that they can.



TheAtomicAss said:


> I would, if I saw a brain surgeon operating on someone's foot. "Hey, you're working on the wrong end!"


well the moment a climate scientist starts talking about something other then the climate we know who to call



TheAtomicAss said:


> Too many people have it in their head that Earth's weather is a constant. It's not. It cycles, and it goes in much longer cycles than we have data for. 2,000 years? Try 12,000.


i already said that i am fully aware that the climate changes naturally. I said in my last post that those causes have been looked into, and the Earths orbit or any one of the many other causes of climate change are not resposible for what we are seeing now.




TheAtomicAss said:


> Riddle me this: If CO2 is heavier than both Oxygen and Nitrogen (which it is), then how does it reach the Ozone layer to begin with?


i laughed a little when a saw this, and i'm not sure about the best way to rebut, but here is a few.

- the same reason we don't all choke to death on a thick layer of CO2 that has sunk to just above sea level, or suffocate due to all the oxygen that has floated to the upper atmosphere.

- the ozone layer is made up of O2, O3 and plain oxygen, O3 is heavier then CO2

and finally 
- we are talking about the greenhouse effect, not ozone depletion. they are completely different things.


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

Your dealing with someone who thinks climate change is a religion. You can not argue rationally with someone who thinks that the empirical data of science and faith are the same thing. It is a waste of time.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

I think you guys should take this to the climate change debate thread in chit chat.

On the subject of the original post. When you damage lithium cells by over charging/discharging they can release CO2 when you start breaking down the electrolyte as it's got an organic(carbon) component to it. It just doesn't release a meaningful amount.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Since most of the conversation is over a year old, I don't think it needs to be taken anywhere.


----------

