Premium
Clean Recycling of Lead‐Acid Batteries for Electric Vehicles: A Reply to Socolow and Thomas
Author(s) -
Lave Lester B.,
Hendrickson Chris T.,
McMichael Francis C.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1162/jiec.1997.1.2.33
Subject(s) - lead–acid battery , lead (geology) , battery (electricity) , harm , business , risk analysis (engineering) , environmental economics , environmental science , natural resource economics , economics , law , political science , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , geomorphology , geology
Summary This article is stimulated by the analysis of Socolow and Thomas in the first issue of this journal. Our work showed that a lead‐acid battery‐powered electric vehicle (Ev) would result in more lead being discharged into the environment than a comparable car burning leaded gasoline. Five hundred thousand EVs would lead to a 20% increase in lead use in the United States, and presumably a comparable 20% increase in lead discharges. The Socolow‐Thomas analysis asserts: (I) choosing not to pursue technology that uses toxic materials will unduly constrain the research and development (R&D) in advanced vehicles and limit the options likely to emerge from that research; (2) we do not do a full risk assessment of the lead discharges from lead smelting, battery making and recycling; and (3) in response to regulation the industry might devise a “clean recycling” system. We doubt the wisdom of increasing R&D on lead batteries because introducing large quantities of lead into cars will pose health risks. The possibility of clean recycling in the future is not an adequate basis for mandating EVs. Proponents of EVs should prove there is no harm to the environment Regulators should not require EVs until there is a reasonable showing of environmental benefit and that the requirement is cost‐effective in reducing ozone.