The World Needs To Crack Battery Recycling, Fast (wired.co.uk) 97
As batteries start to pile up, carmakers, battery companies and researchers are trying to save them from ending up in landfills. From a report: Recyclers are primarily interested in extracting the valuable metals and minerals in the cells. Getting to these materials is complex and dangerous: After removing the steel casing, the battery pack needs to be unbundled into cells carefully, to avoid puncturing any hazardous materials. The electrolyte, a liquid whose job it is to move lithium ions between the cathode and anode, can catch fire or even explode if heated. Only once the pack has been dismantled, recyclers can safely extract the conductive lithium, nickel, copper, and cobalt.
Used in the cathode, cobalt is the most sought-after material used in batteries. In its raw form, the rare, bluish-grey metal is predominantly sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where miners work in perilous conditions. The world's major electric car manufacturers are already moving away from cobalt, deterred by the human rights abuses, shortages in the supply chain. That raises the question of whether recyclers will still find it worthwhile to dismantle newer battery types lacking the most valuable ingredients. "When you move to more sustainable materials, and lower cost materials, the incentive to recycle and recover them diminishes," says Jenny Baker, an energy storage expert at Swansea University. She likens this to a dilemma in consumer electronics: It is often cheaper to buy a new mobile phone than to get it fixed or recycled.
[...] In a first step, recyclers typically shred the cathode and anode materials of spent batteries into a powdery mixture, the so-called black mass. In the board game analogy, this would be the first slide down on a snake, Gavin Harper, a research fellow at the University of Birmingham, explains. The black mass can then be processed in one of two ways to extract its valuable components. One method, called pyrometallurgy, involves smelting the black mass in a furnace powered with fossil fuels. It's a relatively cheap method but a lot of lithium, aluminium, graphite and manganese is lost in the process. Another method, hydrometallurgy, leaches the metals out of the black mass by dissolving it in acids and other solvents. This method, Harper says, would correspond to a shorter snake in the board game, because more material can be recovered: you fall back, but not by as many squares as when using pyrometallurgy. The process, however, consumes a lot of energy and produces toxic gases and wastewater.
Used in the cathode, cobalt is the most sought-after material used in batteries. In its raw form, the rare, bluish-grey metal is predominantly sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where miners work in perilous conditions. The world's major electric car manufacturers are already moving away from cobalt, deterred by the human rights abuses, shortages in the supply chain. That raises the question of whether recyclers will still find it worthwhile to dismantle newer battery types lacking the most valuable ingredients. "When you move to more sustainable materials, and lower cost materials, the incentive to recycle and recover them diminishes," says Jenny Baker, an energy storage expert at Swansea University. She likens this to a dilemma in consumer electronics: It is often cheaper to buy a new mobile phone than to get it fixed or recycled.
[...] In a first step, recyclers typically shred the cathode and anode materials of spent batteries into a powdery mixture, the so-called black mass. In the board game analogy, this would be the first slide down on a snake, Gavin Harper, a research fellow at the University of Birmingham, explains. The black mass can then be processed in one of two ways to extract its valuable components. One method, called pyrometallurgy, involves smelting the black mass in a furnace powered with fossil fuels. It's a relatively cheap method but a lot of lithium, aluminium, graphite and manganese is lost in the process. Another method, hydrometallurgy, leaches the metals out of the black mass by dissolving it in acids and other solvents. This method, Harper says, would correspond to a shorter snake in the board game, because more material can be recovered: you fall back, but not by as many squares as when using pyrometallurgy. The process, however, consumes a lot of energy and produces toxic gases and wastewater.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have the reading ability of a 5 year old - she was actually quoting someone else who used the analogy.
The article was rather good and pitched just right for non experts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This article was written for five year olds (Score:2)
That whole analogy made zero sense to me. The whole point of the game is to make the snake longer...
Re: (Score:3)
That whole analogy made zero sense to me. The whole point of the game is to make the snake longer...
A different game [wikipedia.org] ;)
This might help you make sense of it
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. I knew I should feel a bit daft. I remember this game as "chutes and ladders".
The analogy makes a good bit more sense now but seems a bit funny to use an analogy for a game most the current generations might have never played and goes back more than 2 centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. I knew I should feel a bit daft. I remember this game as "chutes and ladders".
The analogy makes a good bit more sense now but seems a bit funny to use an analogy for a game most the current generations might have never played and goes back more than 2 centuries.
I assume they were talking about snakes because it's a British site.
Re: (Score:2)
I had read (somewhere I don't remember by someone I also don't remember;) that the change to chutes was fairly recent in the US because "snakes are scary!!!".
Your grandparents probably would remember the original.
Re: This article was written for five year olds (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is silly. We will transition to EVs by 2035 for new car sales, but cars typically last for 11 years, so it will be 2045 for the full transition, and then another 11 years before all the EVs reach end-of-life.
So the need for battery recycling will scale up over the next 35-40 years.
Yet TFA breathlessly claims this is a problem we need to solve "fast".
Re: (Score:2)
whatever method we wind up using 'this year'
will be a little less expensive for it already existing for 24 years. Penny pinchers will go with the 'stopgap we started using in 2021' over new facilities
whatever way that stone gets rolled now- will be a landslide method scaled up when it's 'needed'.
Must have been away from Slashdot (Score:2)
Hyperventilating about environmental disaster is the new normal.
Also stop by the thread concerned that the traffic jam of container ships bobbing around outside Long Beach is poisoning the air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This article was written for five year olds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money down the drain (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is throwing batteries into landfill? That's money down the drain, those cells are worth quit a bit today. Have a look on sites like eBay and AliExpress, there are loads of used cells that people recycle. You can buy either the cells on their own or cells that have been tested and built into packs.
Recycling is already a huge business.
Re:Money down the drain (Score:5, Informative)
That's re-use, not recycling, at least in the context of TFA. Yes, you can re-use cells for a while beyond their prime, but eventually they get to the point of having zero usable capacity, and at that point they need to be scrapped or recycled for their materials, which is what the article is talking about. And the point of the article is that with the number of EVs on the road growing rapidly, so will the number of batteries getting to that point, and we are not currently anywhere near equipped to recycle batteries on the necessary scale.
Re:Money down the drain (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is throwing batteries into landfill?
We used to recycle aluminum cans, back when the metal was worth far less.
We used to charge deposits for glass, and people used to actually return the glass for that deposit. It's amazing that isn't worth the effort anymore, but risking you life for a click or a like online somehow is. "Go collect bottles kid...you'll live longer." wasn't advice the older generation thought they would ever need to give out.
Human starvation is still a pretty big thing, and yet how many metric tons of consumable food are thrown away every day?
Maybe we should stop asking, why humans are doing so much of that Waste thing. As a species, we're kind of known for it now. Along with Mass Ignorance.
Recycling is already a huge business.
Yeah? If that were true, we wouldn't desperately need 10x more of it on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me. The world operates the way it does because the people in charge want it that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me. The world operates the way it does because the people in charge want it that way.
Being "in charge" does not automatically make you a good leader, or even remotely competent for the task.
As if I really have to shine a light on US leadership when that entity shines like the runway illuminating the path to Prime Example.
Re: (Score:3)
> We used to recycle aluminum cans, back when the metal was worth far less.
Aluminum cans are still recycled. Nobody is throwing out the aluminum. The "problem" is domestic aluminum processors are focusing on different alloys that are worth more, causing a domestic shortage of the type of aluminum used in beverage cans. Domestic recycling of aluminum cans is down because the price of the material - specifically alloys used in vehicles - is up. Industry is following the money.
> We used to charge deposit
Re: (Score:2)
Second, glass bottles were basically never recycled into new bottles, or even into new glass products.
If they re collected via a deposit: they are. And before the get recycled, they are reused. Sometimes several 100 times.
Glass collected in containers, where you throw in bottles, is separated by colour: white, brown, green. That is usually recycled just back in to bottles etc. as well.
Sometimes, as you say, the quality is not good enough, then the old glass gets mixed into newly made glass.
Re: (Score:3)
I’ll be sure to keep that in mind as I pass by empty cans of Bud Light and White Claw when I’m running down the road.
Re: Money down the drain (Score:2)
In parts of Europe, glass bottles were reused. Also plastic bottles. The plastic was considerably thicker than single use bottles, thicker even than current SodaStream bottles.
At some point the economics became that it made more sense to shred used bottles instead of transporting empty bottles. Plastic bottles became alot thinner, and rocket bottle enthusiasts cried at losing their cheap supply of strong bottles.
Re: (Score:2)
Glass bottles were also reused for many years in the US. That was back when most bottling was local; the big soda companies used a franchise model where they had regional affiliates that operated local bottling plants, and the beer market was dominated by local brands with local breweries. The empties were only carted a short distance back to the bottling plant so the economics of bottle reuse made sense.
That model started to fade after WWII, though it remained the dominant model of distribution in some are
Re: (Score:2)
We used to charge deposits for glass, and people used to actually return the glass for that deposit.
We are still doing that. Deposite 8c till up to 50cents, depending on bottle type. Plastic usually 25cents and aluminium cans also 25cents.
Re: (Score:2)
Right and I think there are at least two former Tesla employees that saw opportunity in the recycling sector.
https://www.redwoodmaterials.c... [redwoodmaterials.com] and https://americanbatterytechnol... [americanba...nology.com]
https://www.fastcompany.com/90... [fastcompany.com]
Re: Money down the drain (Score:2)
... and the cell harvesters already open the packs and separate all the cells, so that removes one of the steps mentioned as difficult in the article.
Nissan Leaf batteries appear to be a bit fragile, because there seems to be a large industry of people buying up the "dead" packs and assembling new Leaf batterypacks out of the best cells, and stationary PV storage packs our of the medium grade cells.
Re: (Score:2)
In my area, we have to go far away to recycle SINGLED USED batteries. Plenty of local places for used rechargeable batteries though. Why are singled used batteries harder to disposed compared to rechargeable batteries? :(
Ni-Fe batteries are almost not problematical (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery
The metals are nickel, which is mined in Australia, Canada, New Caledonia (part of France), and iron (most of the planet).
quoting wikipediaThe nickel–iron battery (NiFe battery) is a rechargeable battery having nickel(III) oxide-hydroxide positive plates and iron negative plates, with an electrolyte of potassium hydroxide. The active materials are held in nickel-plated steel tubes or perforated pockets. It is a very robust battery which is tolerant of abuse, (overcharge, overdischarge, and short-circuiting) and can have very long life even if so treated.[7] It is often used in backup situations where it can be continuously charged and can last for more than 20 years. Due to its low specific energy, poor charge retention, and high cost of manufacture, other types of rechargeable batteries have displaced the nickel–iron battery in most applications.
Re: Ni-Fe batteries are almost not problematical (Score:2)
Where does the article mention Ni-Fe batteries? Even your quote refers to how they are not used in most modern systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ni-Fe batteries are almost not problematical (Score:2)
Again that's not the point? Energy density is what people care about though it seems like these batteries are still decent for maybe a UPC or small in-house solar grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The energy density is the problem with a phone right? Not the maintenance . Same for basically any "mobile" system, including cars, airplanes, and ships. I wonder, with ships they could maybe be acceptable due to cost and lifetime?
The one solution for all clearly doesn't seem the right way to go with batteries. So I certainly agree solutions like these should be in the mix.
Re: (Score:2)
"Due to its low specific energy, poor charge retention, and high cost of manufacture"
Which is why its useless for electric vehicles and no one is using it in them. It might have a place as fixed grid storage but thats about it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery
I'll see your Wikipedia link and raise you another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. According to that chart Lithium Cobalt batteries have more than four times the energy density by volume of the formulation you're championing. Where you have lots of space available - wind and solar installations come to mind - nickel-iron batteries may be viable. In cars? Not so much.
And at a self-discharge rate of 20-30 percent a month, (info from your own Wikipedia link), you'd better make sure your charge level is up
Re:Ni-Fe batteries are almost not problematical (Score:4, Interesting)
And at a self-discharge rate of 20-30 percent a month ... how much energy is being wasted by that high a self-discharge rate...
If used as a grid-scale day-to-night power shifter, there will be 30 cycles in a month, and 30% of a single charge is wasted, which is 1% of the shifted power.
The self-discharge rate is worse than lithium but not a show-stopper.
The 65% round-trip efficiency is a much bigger problem. Lithium batteries have an RTE of over 90%.
Re: (Score:3)
The nickel–iron battery (NiFe battery)
NiFe batteries have even worse energy density than lead-acid. They are completely impractical for large-scale applications, because the amount of materials is stupendous. Iron and nickel are cheap, but not THAT cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Iron and nickel are cheap, but not THAT cheap.
Iron is cheap. Nickel is not:
Iron = $600 / ton /ton
nickel = $20,000 / ton
lead = $2100
Source: 20 second Google search
Re: (Score:2)
Now to google some prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Pd-acid are done at about 7 to 10 years
NiFe need monthly maintenance and once a decade electrolyte replacement but otherwise they keep on going
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean Pb-Acid, not Pd-Acid
Palladium is more than $60,000 per kg while Lead is just over $2 per kg
Re: Batteries and waste (Score:4, Informative)
The difference is the pollution for fossil fuels has relatively no end. The economics of carbon capture to reusable fuel is worst than battery recycling but scarcity hasn't yet driven us to innovate enough. The pollution from this industry can be nullified far before we can reverse the damage from greenhouse gas emissions.
Re:Batteries and waste (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah I think I'll hold on to my fossil fuel car until the world realises how much creating and recycling batteries pollutes.
Umm... they have already studied it. Even if the entire car goes 100% landfill, it's still equivalent to driving an ICE car for six months. So for every six months you drive, you generate enough pollution to make an entire EV.
Re: Batteries and waste (Score:1)
I find that hard to believe, what did they compare in that... A 78 Ford?
Modern cars are hardly putting out any gases and you want me to think that in 6 months its the same as throwing away over a ton of batteries + a car
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What is relevant are facts and data.
Recycling batteries is (nearly) loss-less in terms of materials. And if it takes vast amounts of energy (which it will do) then that energy needs to come from renewable sources (something that we have to do anyway for ALL our energy needs - simply because renewable energy is cheaper anyway).
Another fact is ICE engines burn stuff. Lots of stuff. And utterly destructive process. And hugely wasteful in extracting, refining, and distribu
Re: (Score:1)
ok so we are now not throwing 100% of the car in a landfill, don't you love it when someone moves the goalposts
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to read the report: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/d... [ucsusa.org]
Proves the old saying (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Decent public transport is part of the solution (Score:2, Interesting)
In most big cities in europe public transport is good (this doesn't apply to most of them in north america). Outside of the cities - not so much , so anyone living in a rural area or small town currently has little choice but to use a car as there's little to no bus service and the nearest station is miles away. Sort out decent PT and you could reduce car usage and hence pollution by an enormous amount. Yes it'll require subsidy but some things matter more than profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this. How about subsidising public transport with car each auto purchase, battery disposal and gas purchase. And eliminate oil subsidizes.
The age of this type personal transport is really just about over, but like crack addicts, people are still trying to keep it going. Yes very hard to get out of, but time to face reality.
All that is needed is large investment in public transport an re-tool cities for walking and bicycling. This should be part of the push to reduce global warming.
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose one could say that about almost anything if they don't want to think to much about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Decent public transport is part of the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"You've clearly never been to Europe"
I live in europe you clown.
"Nearly every town is interconnected by public transportation and buses. The buses go from town to town"
Yes they do, but they're generally not frequent enough to replace a car for most people.
"Go browse with the yellow guy from Google Maps and see how drastic the differences are"
Wow, thanks for the heads up there, clearly you're an expert.
"Mass transit doesn't work well in the US because we are spread out"
Yet oddly it works in china which is almost as big as the US. Where there's a will.... Your governments have used that as an excuse for decades not to bother to invest in PT. Its time to change the record.
Isn't it illegal to landfill them? (Score:2)
I know making something illegal doesn't prevent it, but it should prevent it from happening at scale.
Pass a law making EV manufacturers responsible for the recycling of their batteries in perpetuity, with meaningful fines for non-compliance, and you'll see them solve this problem in short order. And frankly, they are who should solve it anyway.
Tesla has got their own battery recycling facility, the rest can do the same, or contract with someone else. But either way, we must hold them accountable for recycli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the government to incentivize a solution you'd probably just want to add taxes to the raw materials to make their recovery more desirable. Of course this means you'd need tariffs on anything imported from other countries and it makes a few other messes because it makes fossil fuels m
Flawed premise, click-bait BS. (Score:5, Informative)
The premise of the article is the need to reclaim the cobalt in the anode. The problem with this is they are completely ignoring battery advances that exclude the need for cobalt. [utexas.edu] Even actively used battery technology uses a tiny fraction of the cobalt that it used to. Battery recycling will be needed eventually but it's not needed immediately nor it is needed for cobalt reclamation.
Furthermore, Wired conveniently forgot to mention that EV batteries don't go into landfills. "Bad" EV batteries are used to make grid-scale batteries and last another decade or two because it doesn't matter if they only storage 10% of their original capacity since energy density doesn't matter in a grid-scale battery.
The only lithium-ion batteries going into landfills are from consumer devices, especially smartphones. Don't blame EV makers for the waste other companies make.
Re:Flawed premise, click-bait BS. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's high time that the EU mandated phone battery replacement be cheap (say max 20 Euro) and that phone batteries are recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
Mandating all products make batteries removable (not even replaceable, just removable) would do wonders. There are lots of products that have gone the non-removable battery route and they are all getting thrown away.
Re: (Score:3)
I think replacement is important too. I've had toothbrushes where you can remove the battery, but only in a way that damages the device so you aren't tempted to replace it.
Re: Flawed premise, click-bait BS. (Score:2)
Ok *magic*, everything now has a removable battery.
How does this solve the battery recycling problem? I mean I get you, that would mitigate the need to recycle thins that use batteries, but the article is literally about battery recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok *magic*, everything now has a removable battery.
How does this solve the battery recycling problem?
Solve? No, this makes it possible to recycle batteries. Right now a lot of batteries are going into landfills because they are hidden and inaccessible.
Simply, you have to first collect batteries to recycle in order to recycle batteries.
Re: Flawed premise, click-bait BS. (Score:2)
How do you mandate it be cheap AND recyclable? Somewhere in the chain the recycling will have to be paid for. Recycling sometimes pays for itself, but that's when you pick out the most valuable easy to obtain parts and toss the rest back in the trash.
Is this actually correct? (Score:3)
OK, I do not run a battery recycling company, but I would have thought that having all the ingredients in the correct proportions to make new batteries delivered to you in bulk (which is what old batteries are) would make the business pretty profitable.
The alternative is to dig the precursors out of the ground and go through all the refining stages, which on initial inspection appears to be more energy/cost inefficient and reliant on third parties than plain recycling?
Put it this way, if a inexhaustible deposit of lithium, cobalt, iron and other ingredients, in the sort of concentrations you find in batteries, was discovered somewhere on the Earth, people would be fighting over it...
Re:Is this actually correct? (Score:5, Insightful)
The elements might be in the correct proportions, but they are in the wrong, as in contaminated, materials. After they are dissolved out of the defunct battery they are polluted with other remnants, or in the wrong oxidation state. Returning them to the proper condition for a new battery is not technically difficult, but it's messy. There are waste streams to deal with if you live in the developed world that is not China.
It's not just batteries that are hard to recycle. Look at plastic. Even HDPE is hard to get back to prime grade. You can only use so much recycled plastic in the next milk jug.
The other issue is cost. They stopped collecting glass here because the cost of hauling to a bottle plant exceeded the value of the glass. The nearest bottle plant is a long way off.
So for the batteries, which costs less, recycling the battery domestically under EPA rules while fighting off NIMBYs, shipping the battery to a third world country for processing out of sight of Greenpeace, or swinging the whips a little harder in the Congo?
PS, I once worked in the mining industry and had a front row seat as the environmentalists shut down as much as they could. The environmentalists even fight tooth and nail against copper mines when their dream of an all-electric economy requires huge amounts of new copper. Apparently they expect other countries to trade their copper to us in return for TikTok clicks?
Re: (Score:2)
The environmentalists even fight tooth and nail against copper mines when their dream of an all-electric economy requires huge amounts of new copper.
One would respect environmentalists a lot more if they showed any signs of being reasonable. But apparently electricity comes magically out of the plug, food appears magically on grocery store shelves, and all of it should happen with zero environmental impact. Solar power and batteries, but don't mine rare earths. Generate power, be CO2 neutral, but no nucl
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I do not run a battery recycling company, but I would have thought that having all the ingredients in the correct proportions to make new batteries delivered to you in bulk (which is what old batteries are) would make the business pretty profitable.
Part of the problem is that there hasn't BEEN a lot of used lithium chemistry batteries "in bulk" until just about now. Appliance batteries are small and scattered, and must be gathered. The early generations of giant lithium-based auto power packs from the
What ever happened to the vanadium batteries? (Score:2)
We were promised, as I recall, extremely high capacity vanadium-based batteries.
Getting back to the article, however, we have the question of how to extract metals without damaging the graphite. That's an interesting challenge, as the most obvious ways of separating out the metals efficiently will convert graphite into less useful forms of carbon. If we're just focussing on the metals, however, I don't see why this would be too difficult. There must be all kinds of methods, not just the two listed.
Re: (Score:2)
We were promised, as I recall, extremely high capacity vanadium-based batteries.
They're being deployed now. A quick google search identified one going in in Hawaii, another (not the first) in Australia.
With a total installed cost in the ballpark of $1,500/kWh and an expected lifetime of 20-25 years they might be having some competition from the plethora of other chemistries, especially several lithium variants, that are being heavily developed and widely deployed, achieving great economy of scale and attra
Government action is needed (Score:3)
to mandate standards to which new batteries must be constructed - these will make recycling of batteries easier. Manufacturers will not do this by themselves if it would add a penny more to price - so mandated standards mean that everyone needs to pay a bit more, but increased costs like this are what we need to pay today to avoid much greater environmental costs in decades to come.
If cracking recycling was that easy (Score:1)
It'd have been done decades ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Cracking recycling is never going to be easy.
But it is darn nigh impossible until you have sufficient material to recycle and get to economies of scale <- this is at least reason why it wasn't "done decades ago".
The "problem" in all this is that the batteries in EVs are lasting so long
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is, we're overflowing with LION batteries as it is.
There's over 180K METRIC TONS of LION battery waste TODAY.
And less than 5% of it is recycled.
So stupid (Score:2)
Regulation? (Score:1)
More insanity (Score:2)
Cars should get their power from the road on any highway. Only on local streets might they need a battery.
Dead battery in the land fill way better than .... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what are we comparing that situation with? Millions of tons of oil is burnt, its waste products, sulfur, nitrous oxides are all thrown into the atmosphere we all breathe. You can't avoid it. The carbon dioxide emitted is triggering climate change.
Compared to the status quo ante, million dead batteries in the land fill are way better.
Re: (Score:1)
"The World" (us humans) need to start pricing ... (Score:1)
... the eco- and resource-balance into everything we build and consume.
Now. 10%-20% every 12 months, so that we get rid of any hidden eco/environment/resource subsidy in 8 to 12 years, on a global scale.
Recycling whatever is worth it will come naturally out of that.
We are way too late already, it's 20 past 12. Humanity is decades into a severe depletion of ecological structure, fauna and flora of this planet and the living environment it provides for us. We are screwed already as it is, but if we finally
Just an idea, Step 1 require the (Score:2)
Step 2 It is on them to figure out how to deal with problems of their own creation or stop creating problems. As long as they can dump the problems and cost on others to goose their profits they will. That is why they are really rich and mos
Recycling matters (Score:1)