Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "The political sabotage of nuclear power" video.

@gzoechi Very valid question, but also NOT a straight forward answer because it depends on the battery type. ceticum's original statement just said "batteries are very toxic to the soil" NOT sodium batteries. Its a vague and ambiguous comment typical of social media clowns who just type vague crap they think is smart. So here's a couple of points: 1) the lead in lead acid batteries is toxic. Also the acid isn't good for anything other than being used as an acid. This is why the disposal of lead-acid batteries has always been problematic. 2) the cadmium in Nickel-Cadmium batteries is a heavy metal and is toxic. 3) the sodium in sodium batteries can be incredibly dangerous in its raw metallic form because of how reactive it is BUT once in solution or a compound like it is in salt water its reasonably harmless unless you ingest a lot of it. 4) Lithium like sodium is also highly reactive in is raw metallic form and dangerous to handle but like sodium once in solution or in a compound like a salt then its like sodium reasonably harmless. That's the problem with vague blanket statements. Nobody knows WTF your talking about unless you explain it. FYI - I'm an engineer and I see this in STEM related commentary all the time.
2
@gzoechi That's a good summation of the problem. I keep seeing tech story after tech story and the people speaking are journalists, economists, people in the street and ANYBODY else who is NOT an engineer. Its infuriating to watch them make mistake after mistake.
2
@bobmister250 Actually so far very little (almost zero) lithium is recycled from lithium-ion batteries. That's one of the major issues that needs to be overcome because right now there's just NOT ENOUGH Lithium in known reserves to do 1/3rd of the cars on the planet let alone the trucks, motor cycles, mobile phones, laptops and all the other things we use Lithium-Ion batteries. Don't be fooled by the claims there's plenty. You can only go by what's in known reserves. Almost any pile of dirt on the planet has a few atoms of anything. To make a give deposit worth mining it has to be above a certain level that makes mining practical. That's what we call known reserves, which are the deposits that have been shown to have viable amounts to mine.
1
@nomdeguerre7265 Yes they are all EPR 2s of which 2 are now running (1 in France and 1 in Finland) with 2 under construction in Britain (Hinkley Point C). The ones in France and Finland took 17-18 years each to build but they were also the first 2 on the new design. The ones in Britain started in 2018 and are expected to be running by 2028 (10 years). They have a design lifetime of 70 years, which on one hand is a huge bonus to the end users because the incredible cost to build gets spread out over a long time. On the downside that time frame makes them impossible for anyone in the private sector to build. The Brits have made a ridiculous blunder because they are trapped by the ideology of free market economists who claim that the government MUST NOT invest in anything because the private sector does everything better. The problem with that ideology is that when there is no viable business case for the private sector NOTHING happens. The actual investors in Hinckley Point are the French and Chinese governments through a couple of corporations that are 100% owned by the French & Chinese governments. The basic rule on investment is 1 in 2 out, as in for every dollar that goes in you have to get 2 out. The first dollar out recovers the investment and the second is the profit. With really long projects it can be 1 in 3 out, 4 out, 5 out,.... depending on the time frame. So the British people via their energy bills will end up returning over those 70 years a giant pile of money. In fact it will be enough money to cover the costs of several of the reactors (up to 14 EPR 2s) the French are building. That's also the answer to deathgun3110's question on the costs.
1
@deathgun3110 see the answer I gave nomdegure it covers his comment and your question.
1
@bobmister250 Buddy sorry if I am an engineer who knows his stuff and your just another clown repeating ignorance. FIRST I work as an industrial control system engineer and spent over a decade in the auto industry before moving to the mining industry where I've been for most of the last 20 years. So please don't try and tell me what I do and don't know about manufacturing cars and mining minerals when all you're doing it repeating other people's talking points. 1) NOBODY is recycling Lithium batteries because compared to digging new lithium out of the ground its not economical. Recycling cars does NOT mean recycling all of it. We don't recycle the paint, the plastics, the cloth trims or many other parts to cars. 2) Of course GM is buying into Lithium reserves because there's NOT ENOUGH Lithium in the known reserves. There's only 28 million tones in the reserves according to the US Geological Survey and we need over 94 million tons to replace the 1.5 Billion cars in the world with EVs if they use a similar amount to what Tesla S uses. So if you want to either restrict what your competitors can access or simply make sure you can make cars the of course you buy into the reserves. 3) You like so many others DO NOT understand the difference between reserves and resources. Go look at the Wikipedia page for Lithium and scroll down to "Production." You'll see where I get the 28 million from at the bottom of the table. That column with resources it what people think is there NOT what can be actually mined and extracted. Resources are what people can actually get. The figures for the Salton Sea fall under the category of RESOURCE not reserve. If that changes and the companies involved can actually develop the means to extract the Lithium form the Salton then it would be a massive step in the right direction, but from the figures I have seen it would only double the Lithium reserve when we need to at least Triple it. 4) THE SINGLE BIGGEST BREAK THORUGH that has to be made is NEW battery chemistry. We either have to make Lithium batteries that are better or use another chemistry. I know there's a lot of effort in that area with things like Sodium instead of Lithium as well as liquid battery systems like the Sadoway battery. The Sadoway uses liquid layers of magnesium and antimony separated by a layer of molten salt. BUT the Sadoway battery is only good for stationary applications but then that would free up Lithium for automotive. 5) Don't try an explain engineering subjects to an engineer when you aren't an engineer.
1