>
> Wrong. Batteries are heavy, inefficient, but they are still good
> enough for electric cars. Even old fashioned nickel cadium batteries
> can last 1000 cycles with only a 50% loss of capacity. That means a
> car that started with a 240 miles range would still have 120 mile
> range at 100,000 miles. There are now lithum batteries on the market
> that only lose 2% of their capacity in 1000 cycles. The batteries are
> expensive, but the rest of a car that runs on them is cheap - lowering
> the overall cost, batteries and all to that of normal car if mass
> produced.
>
Is anyone here considering how absolutely toxic cadmium & lithium are?
Cadmium poisoning
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Cadmium poisoning
ICD-10 code:
ICD-9 code: 985.5
Cadmium is one of the few elements that has no constructive purpose in the human body. This element and solutions of its compounds are extremely toxic even in low concentrations, and will bioaccumulate in organisms and ecosystems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_poisoning
Zero constructive purpose in our bodies, or our lives and environment.
Lithium? Well, not only is it seriously toxic (in medical preparations too), but spontaneously combusts when exposed to... air. www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/lithium.htm
How about a battery factory YOUR backyard?
That part of battery technology is the area most likely to be the joykiller, and except for a few forays into mercury/cadmium free batteries (they were crap), the battery industry is progressively more toxic every day.
It's ok, the factories that make them are in 3rd world countries whose leaders would be glad to toxify their nation if the price is right.
Also, what to do with the millions of absolutely deadly toxic spent batteries.
Handle them like nuclear waste? That would be lovely. With the same amount of oversight, I'm sure.
No wishful thinking please, just solutions that can be actualized at a worldwide level within the next ten to thirty years...
So little time.
So few original ideas.
Leigh