Catalyst for debate
In reply to the letter ‘Controversy continues’ (25 March), I would like to set some facts straight.
The writer is correct that cobalt is used in the petrochemical industry for the desulphurisation of fuels. Thanks to catalysts containing low concentrations of cobalt (3-4%), fuels have become cleaner, and emissions of conventional cars have been massively reduced over the past few decades as a result.
By definition, a catalyst isn’t consumed in a chemical reaction, so the writer can rest assured that no cobalt will end up in the fuel. The implication that conventional cars emit cobalt is therefore incorrect.
Catalytic converters are fitted in the exhaust pipe to convert the pollutants in the exhaust gas to less polluting emissions. This tech is now so advanced that a car (the Mercedesbenz C-class) has achieved a 10-star Euro Green NCAP Clean Air rating, putting it on par with a Tesla.
I’m sure the writer will also be relieved to hear, contrary to his belief, that catalysts are recycled to reclaim the precious metals, like palladium and platinum. In fact, more platinum is sourced from these recycling routes than is mined in South Africa.
The claim that EV batteries are recyclable is correct, but the global capacity for this is nowhere near enough to handle the expected growth in the next decade. This is a concern but, with the end-of-life of EVS still some 10-15 years away, there’s time to address the issue.
The writer’s logic around hydrogen fuel cell vehicles isn’t based on any science; especially the comparison with airships is out of place. The difference between hydrogen in an airship and a car is that the hydrogen is compressed to liquid in a tank.
Any leaks of this pressured tank do indeed present a danger of hydrogen burns and explosions as there is immediate contact with air. This is one challenge the industry is tackling to provide safe hydrogen vehicles as an alternative mode of transport.
Leon Arts
Via email