Those who want to learn more about lead poisoning from lead-acid battery recycling and what to do about it should subscribe to Hugo Smith's fantastic Substack:
"Many American environmentalists want to shift to a 100 percent renewable grid while also persuading residents of the northeastern United States to switch to heat pumps. Building a stable, winter-peaking electricity system based on solar panels at the latitude of Massachusetts carries specific challenges that simply aren’t relevant in many African countries."
Every movement has its nuts and I'm sure some environmentalists in MA would like to base the grid on solar, but the environmentalists in MA actually making policy are advocating for a 60% clean grid by 2030 and an 80% clean grid by 2050.
So no, not a 100% renewable grid anytime soon. MA law doesn't target a generation mix, but policy-makers believe they'll need about as much offshore wind as they need solar to realistically get to that 80% number (particularly due to winter loads). MA is actively signing contracts to help get gigawatts of offshore wind built. They're also working to secure lots of Canadian hydro for balancing. To round that out, the MA House of Representatives recently passed a comprehensive energy affordability and energy strategy bill (H 5151) that overturns the ban on nuclear power in MA (nuclear is around 20% of ISO-NE generation). Governor Healy's 2025 plan calls for the state to explore “cutting-edge nuclear technologies” and to reduce barriers to deploying advanced nuclear approaches.
So no, MA environmentalists are not planning to base the grid on solar power as Matt's comment above suggests. The MA plan is to get to 80% clean by 2050 using a mix of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear, balanced with up to 20% natural gas.
What is the target of this message? Is it like a give well style effective altruism campaign?
Like found myself nodding along and you end with this is tractable but unless this is written for African governments of state I’m not sure what people are supposed to do with this Information given how popular humanitarian aid programs are these days.
He's platforming the idea and bringing it to light. Then he argues for why we should care. That's his role in slow boring of hard boards. He's trying to start convincing people this is an idea they should be aware of and view as something worth addressing.
That's exactly right! I think this is the exactly the sort of topic that if it was covered in a traditional news outlet, would be dry and probably not generate many clicks. But because Matt has a built in rep as a good explainer of these sort of issues, I think automatically generates more interest.
Are most articles written for anyone? Obviously it would be good if Trump was a Slow Boring subscriber and he was acting on them but he probably isn't and most of the readers can't do anything policy wise.
I guess the target is me, because I found it interesting to be informed of a problem in the world I was unaware, potential solutions, and its connection to the changing technological and economic landscape. And I pay to read interesting things!
I'm not at all sure lithium-based batteries are better. Lithium is toxic, although less so than lead, and there's more fire risk. It seems like a big push to make lead-acid battery recycling cheaper than free would be the ideal solution, and in overall terms not that expensive.
(I have a brother-in-law from Kenya, and building solar power systems on his family's houses is one of the things he sends money for/does when he goes home. Having a refrigerator, running water, and a cell phone makes a massive difference not just to convenience but to health, and a few solar panels and a couple car batteries can do that.)
Lead-acid battery recycling is already cheaper than free: it’s super profitable. The problem is that when not done safely, it results in a lot of lead pollution and lead poisoning. See this NYT piece for a chilling account of some factories that I've seen firsthand:
Great question! Nobody's answered this definitively. I ran some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on what I know about the factories that I have visited in Nigeria, and it seems like the comparatively safer recyclers are about 6% less cost-efficient than the unsafe recyclers. This translates to about a $4 increase in the cost of lead-acid batteries for consumers in the U.S. or any other country that imports lead from Nigeria.
I think even backing away a hair from this, the problem is ~*~living in a society~*~.
I am completely talking out of my butt here, but I don't get the impression that there is a serious recurring problem ensuring that actors in developed nations recycle their lead-acid batteries. It's such a no-brainer from every direction. But to some extent this depends on some basic state capacity, and an undergirding belief among the population in the general legitimacy of the state. Otherwise it really is every man for himself, and bad outcomes ensue in all kinds of areas.
Most of the weight of lead acid batteries is lead. Most of the weight of lithium ion batteries is not lithium, but graphite, which is harmless. Lithium ion batteries are much less toxic.
Lithium-based batteries are more efficient and last much, much longer. The less recycling, the better. The only problem with them is that they are expensive even for first-world households.
My granular expertise is minimal, but I majored in chemistry (not philosophy); as a former neuroscientist with hobbyist's interest in lead toxicity, I want to add my 2 cents worth:
1. Lead is indeed bad.
2. US pollution standards tend to be excessive. In a context of perfect health, many are reasonable for our fabulously wealthy country, but sort of silly/borderline counterproductive for desperately poor countries.
3. Like other toxins, lead doesn't jump out of a garbage dump and attack you. It has to get into you to cause harm. The main routes are airborne (leaded gasoline, smokestacks) and oral (e.g. dust particles in your kitchen from smoke and paint, lead in your pipes, contaminated spices and medicines, etc.)
Accordingly, while lead batteries are a problem, the practical issues relate to safer forms of disposal and recycling, and US-level rules are unreasonable for impoverished countries.
Probably cheaper and maybe safer to give them money to recycle lead-acid batteries properly (basically, filter the exhaust gas so it doesn't spread lead everywhere.). This is a solved problem - the US recycles lead-acid batteries routinely.
It's a technical problem based on development economics I know nothing about. My guess is that current resources are so limited that lead-acid batteries are the way to go for now, but if so, more thought needs to be put into the final part of the cycle.
Lead is bad, but my impression is that the new consensus is that the idea of the risks of lead that most people had a few years ago were overhyped. It isn't that significant in terms of health or education impacts.
I think it's plausible that the specific claims about lead exposure in the post war era in the US, especially in connection to violence, were over hyped. I don't think the problems of lead as a neurotoxin or the level of lead pollution in poor counties has ever been over hyped.
I have not seen anything to indicate this. People may be counseled to leave lead paint in place if it is in good condition because it is not dangerous if it isn't flaking or dusty, and the removal process can lead to risk, but otherwise it is still seen as a danger. It just isn't much of a danger in the US because we have taken a lot of steps to remediate the problem. The Mayo Clinic still sees it as serious: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lead-poisoning/symptoms-causes/syc-20354717
Did the whole iron core giga batteries thing go bust? They're not efficient in terms of physical footprint but it seemed promising in terms of economics.
Suppose we agree that money for different batteries or better recycling is the solution here, and that money needs to come from richer countries like us. How do people here feel about the (1) faintly patronizing whiff and (2) enforcement challenges of directing money to causes that (for understandable reasons) don’t attract market support in the targeted countries themselves? I’m not talking about investing to overcome entry barriers, or anti-malaria drugs —that’s feels philosophically easier. This situation feels more like we’re saying “we wish you knew more or cared more so until then we’re going to do for you.”
I don't mean to minimize the risks of lead poisoning and I don't see this is a complete non-issue, but as best as I can tell, this paper may be overblowing the risk somewhat, given more recent deployment trends.
Apparently, a lot of the lead acid getting deployed up to now was in very small systems in the $50-200 price range that use second-hand lead acid batteries. I'm not sure how often new lead acid batteries get spec'd in for these deployments, especially with larger sized systems.
Table 1 in the article compares upfront cost per kwh for each chemistry, but that table ignores usable capacity and only compares battery stated capacity. In order to get 10 kwh of usable capacity, you need about 12 kwh of lithium versus about 20 kwh of lead acid because lead acid doesn't support the depth of discharge that lithium ion supports. Once you adjust system cost for this reality, upfront costs for lithium ion are roughly the same as lead acid today, with lithium ion costs are declining rapidly. Also, as the table shows, lifetime LCOS for lithium Ion is already much lower than lead acid.
So imo, this is mostly just a supply chain lag as the market catches up to the new pricing realities. Within a few years, I'd guess there will be no new lead acid batteries deployed because the economics (even upfront costs) are so much worse than lithium ion.
Those who want to learn more about lead poisoning from lead-acid battery recycling and what to do about it should subscribe to Hugo Smith's fantastic Substack:
https://leadbatteries.substack.com
There are a few organizations that are working on this, including the Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Initiative and the Partnership for Battery Action:
https://www.labrecyclinginitiative.com
https://globaldevincubator.org/initiative/partnership-for-battery-action-pb-action
Thank you. I came to the comments to ask this question, and you have already answered it!
"Many American environmentalists want to shift to a 100 percent renewable grid while also persuading residents of the northeastern United States to switch to heat pumps. Building a stable, winter-peaking electricity system based on solar panels at the latitude of Massachusetts carries specific challenges that simply aren’t relevant in many African countries."
Every movement has its nuts and I'm sure some environmentalists in MA would like to base the grid on solar, but the environmentalists in MA actually making policy are advocating for a 60% clean grid by 2030 and an 80% clean grid by 2050.
So no, not a 100% renewable grid anytime soon. MA law doesn't target a generation mix, but policy-makers believe they'll need about as much offshore wind as they need solar to realistically get to that 80% number (particularly due to winter loads). MA is actively signing contracts to help get gigawatts of offshore wind built. They're also working to secure lots of Canadian hydro for balancing. To round that out, the MA House of Representatives recently passed a comprehensive energy affordability and energy strategy bill (H 5151) that overturns the ban on nuclear power in MA (nuclear is around 20% of ISO-NE generation). Governor Healy's 2025 plan calls for the state to explore “cutting-edge nuclear technologies” and to reduce barriers to deploying advanced nuclear approaches.
So no, MA environmentalists are not planning to base the grid on solar power as Matt's comment above suggests. The MA plan is to get to 80% clean by 2050 using a mix of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear, balanced with up to 20% natural gas.
What is the target of this message? Is it like a give well style effective altruism campaign?
Like found myself nodding along and you end with this is tractable but unless this is written for African governments of state I’m not sure what people are supposed to do with this Information given how popular humanitarian aid programs are these days.
He's platforming the idea and bringing it to light. Then he argues for why we should care. That's his role in slow boring of hard boards. He's trying to start convincing people this is an idea they should be aware of and view as something worth addressing.
That's exactly right! I think this is the exactly the sort of topic that if it was covered in a traditional news outlet, would be dry and probably not generate many clicks. But because Matt has a built in rep as a good explainer of these sort of issues, I think automatically generates more interest.
Also it seems possible that some African people will read this and tell others about it.
Are most articles written for anyone? Obviously it would be good if Trump was a Slow Boring subscriber and he was acting on them but he probably isn't and most of the readers can't do anything policy wise.
Somebody should buy Trump a gift subscription. Potential for a high bang for your buck in solving problems in the world.
I’m not confident he can read medium or long form prose.
Unfortunately I don't have his personal email. I suspect if he DMed Matt he could get a free subscription.
What about posting them in the comments setion of Truth Social?
I guess the target is me, because I found it interesting to be informed of a problem in the world I was unaware, potential solutions, and its connection to the changing technological and economic landscape. And I pay to read interesting things!
I'm not at all sure lithium-based batteries are better. Lithium is toxic, although less so than lead, and there's more fire risk. It seems like a big push to make lead-acid battery recycling cheaper than free would be the ideal solution, and in overall terms not that expensive.
(I have a brother-in-law from Kenya, and building solar power systems on his family's houses is one of the things he sends money for/does when he goes home. Having a refrigerator, running water, and a cell phone makes a massive difference not just to convenience but to health, and a few solar panels and a couple car batteries can do that.)
Lead-acid battery recycling is already cheaper than free: it’s super profitable. The problem is that when not done safely, it results in a lot of lead pollution and lead poisoning. See this NYT piece for a chilling account of some factories that I've seen firsthand:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/world/africa/lead-battery-recycling-pollution-cars.html
I agree that lithium isn’t perfect, but it's certainly better than lead.
How much would you need to subsidize safe battery recycling for it to be cheaper/more profitable than unsafe recycling?
Great question! Nobody's answered this definitively. I ran some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on what I know about the factories that I have visited in Nigeria, and it seems like the comparatively safer recyclers are about 6% less cost-efficient than the unsafe recyclers. This translates to about a $4 increase in the cost of lead-acid batteries for consumers in the U.S. or any other country that imports lead from Nigeria.
I think the hard part is compliance.
I think even backing away a hair from this, the problem is ~*~living in a society~*~.
I am completely talking out of my butt here, but I don't get the impression that there is a serious recurring problem ensuring that actors in developed nations recycle their lead-acid batteries. It's such a no-brainer from every direction. But to some extent this depends on some basic state capacity, and an undergirding belief among the population in the general legitimacy of the state. Otherwise it really is every man for himself, and bad outcomes ensue in all kinds of areas.
Most of the weight of lead acid batteries is lead. Most of the weight of lithium ion batteries is not lithium, but graphite, which is harmless. Lithium ion batteries are much less toxic.
Lithium-based batteries are more efficient and last much, much longer. The less recycling, the better. The only problem with them is that they are expensive even for first-world households.
I thought they were also very toxic if they caught fire?
It's a rare material where you say "uh oh, this is toxic when ablaze". Usually the primary problem is "ablaze".
It seems like there is satisfaction in the putting down of solar power. Not better than grid power, leads to lead poisoning.
My granular expertise is minimal, but I majored in chemistry (not philosophy); as a former neuroscientist with hobbyist's interest in lead toxicity, I want to add my 2 cents worth:
1. Lead is indeed bad.
2. US pollution standards tend to be excessive. In a context of perfect health, many are reasonable for our fabulously wealthy country, but sort of silly/borderline counterproductive for desperately poor countries.
3. Like other toxins, lead doesn't jump out of a garbage dump and attack you. It has to get into you to cause harm. The main routes are airborne (leaded gasoline, smokestacks) and oral (e.g. dust particles in your kitchen from smoke and paint, lead in your pipes, contaminated spices and medicines, etc.)
Accordingly, while lead batteries are a problem, the practical issues relate to safer forms of disposal and recycling, and US-level rules are unreasonable for impoverished countries.
Rules are unreasonable, giving them money so they can afford the lithium-ion ones seems like the right answer?
Probably cheaper and maybe safer to give them money to recycle lead-acid batteries properly (basically, filter the exhaust gas so it doesn't spread lead everywhere.). This is a solved problem - the US recycles lead-acid batteries routinely.
It's a technical problem based on development economics I know nothing about. My guess is that current resources are so limited that lead-acid batteries are the way to go for now, but if so, more thought needs to be put into the final part of the cycle.
Lead is bad, but my impression is that the new consensus is that the idea of the risks of lead that most people had a few years ago were overhyped. It isn't that significant in terms of health or education impacts.
I think it's plausible that the specific claims about lead exposure in the post war era in the US, especially in connection to violence, were over hyped. I don't think the problems of lead as a neurotoxin or the level of lead pollution in poor counties has ever been over hyped.
I have not seen anything to indicate this. People may be counseled to leave lead paint in place if it is in good condition because it is not dangerous if it isn't flaking or dusty, and the removal process can lead to risk, but otherwise it is still seen as a danger. It just isn't much of a danger in the US because we have taken a lot of steps to remediate the problem. The Mayo Clinic still sees it as serious: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lead-poisoning/symptoms-causes/syc-20354717
Just because some Flint activists got over their skis doesn't mean lead isn't incredibly harmful, especially for children.
Did the whole iron core giga batteries thing go bust? They're not efficient in terms of physical footprint but it seemed promising in terms of economics.
I don't think so, Google and Form Energy just announced a $1B deal: https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/26/google-paid-startup-form-energy-1b-for-its-massive-100-hour-battery/
Never heard of this. Is this a thing?
I think this is a reference to "iron-air batteries," which are definitely a thing, but unfortunately somehow don't have a Wikipedia page.
Huh; thanks. I’ll have to ask my pet robots about it.
That was indeed what I was thinking of.
I would simply build nuclear. 😉
NYT had a great investigative piece last year about the recycling of lead car batteries in Nigeria. Some horrific stuff. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/world/africa/lead-poisoning-auto-industry-car-batteries.html
I'm a person experiencing the westernness, but getting ready for a flight. So I get to comment early hooray!
I saw it would just say thank you for bringing to our attention. An important and interesting issue.
Also I feel like i'm getting to experience.How the other side lives. It's so exciting and exhilarating!
Why are young liberals so depressed
Suppose we agree that money for different batteries or better recycling is the solution here, and that money needs to come from richer countries like us. How do people here feel about the (1) faintly patronizing whiff and (2) enforcement challenges of directing money to causes that (for understandable reasons) don’t attract market support in the targeted countries themselves? I’m not talking about investing to overcome entry barriers, or anti-malaria drugs —that’s feels philosophically easier. This situation feels more like we’re saying “we wish you knew more or cared more so until then we’re going to do for you.”
I don't mean to minimize the risks of lead poisoning and I don't see this is a complete non-issue, but as best as I can tell, this paper may be overblowing the risk somewhat, given more recent deployment trends.
Apparently, a lot of the lead acid getting deployed up to now was in very small systems in the $50-200 price range that use second-hand lead acid batteries. I'm not sure how often new lead acid batteries get spec'd in for these deployments, especially with larger sized systems.
Table 1 in the article compares upfront cost per kwh for each chemistry, but that table ignores usable capacity and only compares battery stated capacity. In order to get 10 kwh of usable capacity, you need about 12 kwh of lithium versus about 20 kwh of lead acid because lead acid doesn't support the depth of discharge that lithium ion supports. Once you adjust system cost for this reality, upfront costs for lithium ion are roughly the same as lead acid today, with lithium ion costs are declining rapidly. Also, as the table shows, lifetime LCOS for lithium Ion is already much lower than lead acid.
So imo, this is mostly just a supply chain lag as the market catches up to the new pricing realities. Within a few years, I'd guess there will be no new lead acid batteries deployed because the economics (even upfront costs) are so much worse than lithium ion.