It'd be nice if researchers compared the impact on environment of disposing of the batteries (toxic metals, chemicals, other components) with the impact on the environment of the truck burning fossil fuels. In the end, what's the net benefit? Maybe it's great, I don't know. I feel we're getting a very one-sided assessment, though.
These are old talking points from the fossil fuel industry. The batteries themselves will be recycled to recover their valuable minerals. The process will certainly require care to avoid localized pollution. Compare that with burning fossil fuels- baked into their design is emission of heat trapping gasses which systemically affect the entire planet. It’s clear we need to stop burning fossil fuels lest we overheat the earth.
Worst case scenario we dig up more lithium. I'm convinced the Nickel and Cobalt will be recycled. Lithium is a small percentage of total mass, 1-3%, and is abundant in the earth's crust. Maybe 5-10kg of lithium in a pack. Compare that to 40-80kg of petroleum every time I fill the tank.
That's what's called a life cycle assessment and these are standard in products like this for a long time. If they came out negatively, you can be damn sure that the fossil fuel industry would make us know.
OP is asking about the environment impact of manufacturing this.
Like the whole supply chain for these trailers produce CO2 for each trailer it outputs.
I had a similar thought as my city replaced 500,000 curb side recycling bins because of the color. How many years of my personal environmental savings did that operation cost? They had people flown in from the other side of the country for months just to offload the bins from the trailers.
At what point does the second and third order side effects action offset the benefits.
