Solar In Poor Countries Is Creating a Huge Lead Hazard (slowboring.com)
- Reference: 0180907156
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/03/04/2238206/solar-in-poor-countries-is-creating-a-huge-lead-hazard
- Source link: https://www.slowboring.com/p/solar-in-poor-countries-is-creating?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=159185&post_id=189392657&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=9bg2k&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
> A [2]new report (PDF) from the Center for Global Development documents that most of [the [3]decentralized solar/battery systems used in poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa] use lead-acid batteries, like Americans use in cars. Lead-acid batteries work for a while and then need to be recycled. If they're recycled safely, that's fine. But in poor countries, most lead-acid batteries are not recycled safely and they become a [4]huge source of toxic lead poisoning . C.G.D. believes that decentralized solar systems are currently generating somewhere between 250,000 and 1.5 million tons of unsafe lead-acid battery waste per year, a number that could grow much higher.
>
> Americans have mostly heard about lead issues in recent years due to the [5]tragic situation in Flint, Michigan . But on the whole, lead exposure via faulty water pipes is a relatively minor issue. Across American history, the biggest culprits for lead exposure have been lead paint and leaded gasoline. Both were phased out decades ago, but old paint chips and lingering lead in soil have remained problems for years, albeit at diminishing rates.
>
> The global situation is quite different and much worse, to the point that in low- and middle-income countries, half of children have blood lead levels above the threshold that would trigger emergency action in the United States. It sounds fantastical to cite numbers this high. But there is credible (albeit somewhat uncertain) research indicating that [6]five million people per year die as a result of lead-induced cardiovascular impairments. And roughly [7]20 percent of the gap in academic achievement between poor and rich countries is due to lead's impact on kids' cognitive development.
The report goes on to note that lead-acid batteries dominate solar storage in poorer countries because they're far cheaper than lithium-ion alternatives. When these lead batteries reach end-of-life, they are often recycled unsafely, creating significant lead pollution.
It's difficult to determine the scale of the problem due to limited data and minimal attention from policymakers, but researchers say it could become massive as solar adoption accelerates. Since safer battery technologies and proper recycling methods already exist, the issue largely stems from cost and lack of regulation. In other words, the problem is solvable if addressed early.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/lead-safe-off-grid-electrification-understanding-issues.pdf
[3] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/12/31/001211/cheap-solar-is-transforming-lives-and-economies-across-africa
[4] https://www.slowboring.com/p/two-visions-of-environmentalism?open=false#%C2%A7theres-a-huge-global-lead-poisoning-problem
[5] https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1198909905/flint-water-lead-poisoning-anniversary-chicago
[6] https://www.cgdev.org/blog/does-lead-exposure-really-kill-five-million-people-year-probably-yes
[7] https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/40/2/229/7734093?login=false#526697740
There are solutions (Score:2)
Adding a "refund" for returning used batteries, like we used to do for cans, would effectively solve the problem. Just make the "refund" big enough (it's not big enough for cans in America anymore).
Re: (Score:3)
> Adding a "refund" for returning used batteries, like we used to do for cans, would effectively solve the problem. Just make the "refund" big enough (it's not big enough for cans in America anymore).
You live somewhere where they don't do a core charge? We still have that here. Last battery I bought had a 10 dollar core charge that got refunded when I dropped off the old battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking sub-Saharan Africa, but that's just based on the summary. I've never been there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's generally how it works in the US now. You pay a "core charge" of $10-15 on top of the price of the battery. You only get that money back if you return the old battery for recycling. The same thing could be done in the 3rd world and those core charges that are not reclaimed could be used for collecting and recycling batteries that turn up "in the wild." I suspect that pot of money would also be an attractive nuisance for corrupt government officials to enrich themselves in the process while provid
Re: (Score:2)
If they are focused on getting batteries, they probably already have shelter and food.
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes the recyclers are not the ones causing most of the issues. You need environmental regulations and enforcement in addition to encouraging the end user to turn them over for recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
> Adding a "refund" for returning used batteries, like we used to do for cans, would effectively solve the problem. Just make the "refund" big enough.
Where does the "refund" money come from? The story is about underdeveloped countries, which are, in general, broke.
If you're going to say "people pay a deposit when they buy batteries," you're proposing to make the batteries more expensive. The people buying the batteries don't have spare money. But the refund will be a convenient incentive for thieves to steal batteries to turn in for the refund.
Re: (Score:2)
> The people buying the batteries don't have spare money.
Very few people have spare money.
> he refund will be a convenient incentive for thieves to steal batteries to turn in for the refund.
Make the refund big enough to encourage returns but not big enough to be worth stealing for.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The people buying the batteries don't have spare money.
> Very few people have spare money.
Especially poor people. Which are the people we're talking about.
Where does the money come from?
What is the point of this article? (Score:3)
Those countries have the power to regulate battery usage and encourage recycling. Why aren't they doing that?
What's the "so what" of this article? I don't think you'll find anyone here who is going to opine that heavy metals pollution is a good thing. How are you going to encourage countries that don't seem to care about the problem to not poison themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
In the beforetimes I suppose such an article could be considered for where to invest foreign aid funds. Nowadays I suppose so long as you translate it into Mandarin it might influence some foreign aid for central Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the author. He writes a lot of crap on behalf of neoliberals, like about how it's okay for workers to die to get maimed in Bangladesh because that gives the factory owner a competitive edge in the free market.
Given that the title is misleading, the issue being lead acid batteries rather than solar, and that LFP batteries out of China are now cheaper per Wh than most lead acid ones, we can safely assume this is just an anti-environmental shill piece that he is hoping will boost fossil fuel usage for hi
It's informative. (Score:2)
> What's the "so what" of this article?
Sometimes it's important to simply be aware that problems exist as there are not obvious answers. By informing readers, you can effectively provide them with a problem that they may have insight and motive to solve.
> How are you going to encourage countries that don't seem to care about the problem to not poison themselves?
If developed nations shift production away lead-acid batteries and toward sodium ion batteries then it will shift the economics (globally) toward the production of manufacturing sodium ion batteries, leaving lead-acid batteries a relic of the past. It's a win-win because lead is still hazardous e
like Americans use in cars (Score:2)
' like Americans use in cars'
glad it's just Americans....
TL:DR (Score:2)
The problem is a lack of proper regulation/enforcement in developing countries, especially with regard to lead. As a result, people in South Asia are poisoning themselves and their land with cheap/profitable "recycling" of lead-acid batteries.
My conclusion is that this situation is a decent argument to push (possibly legislatively) lead-acid battery manufacturers to instead produce sodium ion batteries and that the link to solar power is purely incidental due to existing bad behavior (which is unlikely to b
Give them modern recycling plants (Score:2)
The massive energy needed for low tech dirty recycling methods can never compete with running costs of modern methods.
Once a developing country has sufficient modern plants for their needs, it will simply drive the dirty ones out of business.
Thermopiles (Score:2)
Maybe we should "recycle" radioactive waste (looking at you Cs-137) into sealed thermopiles to send to 3rd world countries to use as power sources. Likely just as safe...
I found this part of the report instructive (Score:1)
Here is the first paragraph of section 3.3 - sounds like there is economic pressure that puts high quality recycling operations out of business and rewards low quality cheaper to implement recycling solutions that cause a lot of pollution and health affects. I'm sure cultural factors are also in play. How to align health concerns with profitability sounds like their challenge. I'm so glad the US got control of this issue a while back and hopefully knowledge can be shared and implemented to keep their renewa
Solar, eh? (Score:2)
"Solar In Poor Countries Is Creating a Huge Lead Hazard"
Good thing we use coal and petroleum to charge our cheap acid batteries; we should be safe from the lead hazard because they said it's solar that's creating the lead hazard.
Is writing proper headlines a lost art?
On the contrary (Score:1)
This probably leads to used car batteries being re-used for solar instead of being scrapped immediately (and scrapping of cars in the 3rd world usually means reusing what they can then chucking the rest in a ditch) the way old tesla car LiOn are used for home power.
Re:On the contrary (Score:4)
So your idea is that lead acid batteries are not a huge source of toxic lead poisoning in Africa, even though the summary and story provide evidence that it is?
Re: (Score:2)
It's an issue, but not really anything to do with solar as the headline claims. It's just the usual pollution issue due to developed nations shipping their used batteries to Africa for "disposal", where they get used for this and quickly die.
There are of course plenty of other pollution issues in those places, for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
several investigations have shown that lots of "recycling" operations in e.g the UK is operated by criminals that don't actually recycle and simply ships everything to Africa while collecting recycle fees from end users / the government.
Re: On the contrary (Score:2)
The problem is the same whether the batteries are used for cars, storage for solar, or storage for unreliable electric grid. But "solar" in the article title gets more clicks.
According to the linked report, the problem is that a great deal of the battery recycling is done by back-yard/garage operations that lose up to half of the lead into the environment. So the government needs to get involved somehow, stop the unregulated small operator recycling, and also do something about the other sources such as lea