audio-talk

I enjoyed the video. I found myself enthusing to a nephew who.is studying engineering to get into re-cycling. I'll pass this onto him. He still sees petrolhead as being cool.

Otoh, I still don't know where to re-cycle my little domestic lithium and ni-cad batteries. It was a new years resolution to find out and the lock down kinda knocked that on the head...
Till now.

andrew Ivimey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:59 pm Otoh, I still don't know where to re-cycle my little domestic lithium and ni-cad batteries. It was a new years resolution to find out and the lock down kinda knocked that on the head...
Till now.

We recycle our used batteries at our local Lidl supermarket.

Do they take lithium? I've asked at Aldi and Sainsburys and both said they didnt .

Could Aluminium-Air Batteries Be the Future of Electric Vehicles?

The future really has to be anything not requiring rare earth elements, e.g. fuel cells...

Neat video, though I'd love to know how much minimum wage labour they use to strip out the cells, and indeed how the cells are processed back into component elements...

All our batteries go to the local recycling centre or to TLC (as they have a battery recycling point in the local store)

I've still got 3 x 4s and 2 x 5s LiPos on the garden wall waiting to find out where to take them...all of them have lost 1 cell.
I haven't asked at the local tip but I know the supermarkets don't want them.
With the ever increasing restrictions on posting them there ought to be an infrastructure arriving soon.

The future really has to be anything not requiring rare earth elements, e.g. fuel cells...

Why? To quote Wiki

"Despite their name, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful in Earth's crust,"

Also, which elements are you talking about? Most batteries use lithium, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese.

Not checked what is used to make a fuel cell, but I an sure it involves some chemicals as well.

pre65 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:47 pm Could Aluminium-Air Batteries Be the Future of Electric Vehicles?

Well, they are not batteries, but apart from that.

Nick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:16 pm

The future really has to be anything not requiring rare earth elements, e.g. fuel cells...

Why? To quote Wiki

"Despite their name, rare-earth elements are relatively plentiful in Earth's crust,"

Also, which elements are you talking about? Most batteries use lithium, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese.

Not checked what is used to make a fuel cell, but I an sure it involves some chemicals as well.

Everything involves "elements". Everything,

Avoiding so-called rare earth element avoids geopolitical ransom and the environmental damage involved in the mining. Lithium-based batteries are really quite scary if they're in an accident involving water or fire. We have friends who are firefighters and are really worried about being called to an RTA involving vehicles with lithium batteries...

Fuel cells have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 83% but are typically more like 60% - an internal combustion engine is around 25% efficient. A fuel cell can be recharged in just a few minutes.

Granted, you still (currently) need a catalyst, typically platinum deposited on a carrier - a layer a few atoms deep is enough...

Basically, folk like Tesla who have invested big in standard battery technology have, literally, a vested interest in that technology going forward.

There are logistical issues with hydrogen, we all know that, but equally the country-wide network of fast (as opposed to standard) charging points for electric vehicles is very very slow to be rolled out, partly due to the huge cost and partly because of the enormous power requirements of the "super chargers".

Avoiding so-called rare earth element

My point was simple, its been some years since I was in a chemistry lesson, but "rare earth element" has an actual meaning, no need for so-called. And those elements are generally not used in batteries or rare.

I agree there are problems with burning lithium, but I imagine your firefighter friends would be equally unhappy about every car containing a tank of high pressure hydrogen.

Fuel cells have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 83% but are typically more like 60% - an internal combustion engine is around 25% efficient. A fuel cell can be recharged in just a few minutes.

To quote Mercedes "The F1 M08 EQ Power+ power unit reached a thermal efficiency of over 50 percent, making it the one of the most efficient internal combustion engines ever." And to the efficiency of a fuel cell you have to factor in the efficiency of the hydrogen generation.

Nick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:09 pm

Avoiding so-called rare earth element

My point was simple, its been some years since I was in a chemistry lesson, but "rare earth element" has an actual meaning, no need for so-called. And those elements are generally not used in batteries or rare.

I agree there are problems with burning lithium, but I imagine your firefighter friends would be equally unhappy about every car containing a tank of high pressure hydrogen.

Fuel cells have a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 83% but are typically more like 60% - an internal combustion engine is around 25% efficient. A fuel cell can be recharged in just a few minutes.

To quote Mercedes "The F1 M08 EQ Power+ power unit reached a thermal efficiency of over 50 percent, making it the one of the most efficient internal combustion engines ever." And to the efficiency of a fuel cell you have to factor in the efficiency of the hydrogen generation.

I'm sorry? You're quoting figures for an extremely specialised and enormously expensive engine (approx USD 10.5 MILLION each! - https://thesportsrush.com/f1-news-f1-ca ... heir-cars/ and several other places.) - how does that in any way relate to the real world? TYPICAL as in day-to-day internal combustion engines are around 25% efficient. Yeh. I'll put a 10 million dollar 1.6ltr engine in my VW Polo so I can save a few quid on petrol. Oh, hang on... F1 engines use Euro 95 petrol, but a different special mix tuned for each manufacturer's engine. How much would that be a litre? A tad more than £1.22, I suspect...

EDIT: That Mercedes F1 M08 engine burns 100kg of fuel an hour - that equates to about 135 ltrs/hour. But, hey, it's twice as efficient as that USD 2,000 engine so obviously worth 5,000 times as much ! https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/herita ... 08-hybrid/

I put "rare earth" in quotes to emphasise that, as you also pointed out, they aren't rare at all i.e. a misnomer, but the mines that currently produce them are largely in politically sensitive areas. These elements are not used in the batteries, but in the magnets for the motors - currently, they are mostly neodymium with a dash of dysprosium, or more rarely terbium, to raise the permitted operating temperature (pure neodymium magnets lose effectiveness at around 80C).

Hydrogen has problems too, but fuel cells can use a range of reactants. The point is not to big-up a specific fuel cell, or fuel cells in general, but to look to alternatives to traditional batteries... getting the energy density, charging & safety right is key.

I'm sorry? You're quoting figures for an extremely specialised and enormously expensive engine

Trickle down and all that, I was just showing that the 25% wasn’t a thermodynamic limit.

I take your point about the elements needed for the motors, but of course a fuel cell powered vehicle needs just the same motors as a better powered EV.

The future really has to be anything not requiring rare earth elements, e.g. fuel cells...

So in that sense what I originally replied to doesn’t make that much sense if you are talking about the motors.

I am starting to thing a combination of BEV and synthetic fuel may be a way forward.

When planet Theia collided with planet Earth and our Moon was formed.

Something I wish I could have seen.

The man from "new Yorkshire workshop" making a £13K Garrard 301 plinth.