Mass balance and economic study of a treatment chain for nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements recovery from Ni-MH batteries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this project is to develop and evaluate the economic performance of a complete process for recovering nickel, cobalt, and rare earths (REEs) from nickel metal hydride (Ni-MH) battery waste. The main elements contained in the battery powder are Ni (523 g/kg), La (58 g/kg), Co (39 g/kg), Zn (21 g/kg), Nd (19 g/kg), Sm (19 g/kg) and Ce (14 g/kg). Metal leaching was carried out with 2 M sulfuric acid, solubilising 100% of Ni, 93% of Co and 94% of REEs. Rare earths were precipitated with NaOH, then purified after resolubilization in nitric acid. Solvent extraction with bis(2-ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid (D2EHPA) followed by bis(2,4,4-trimethylpentyl) phosphinic acid (Cyanex 272) was used to separate Ni and Co. At the end of the process, REEs, nickel, and cobalt were recovered as oxides after precipitation as oxalates. The REE, nickel and cobalt oxides obtained have purities of 97.6%, 97.2% and 93.2% respectively. A techno-economic study was carried out using SuperPro Designer software. In this scenario, plant capacity was set at 1.0 t of used battery powder per hour for an operating period of 8 h/d and 250 days per year. The total investment was estimated at $26.9 million, with a payback period of 1.58 years. For a 15-year life, the net present value of this project is estimated at $95.9 million, with an interest rate of 7%. The internal rate of return is estimated at 46.1%, which is considered acceptable and economically viable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it