Surur OP t1_j6jnhpm wrote
The world has enough rare earth minerals and other critical raw materials to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy to produce electricity and limit global warming, according to a new study that counters concerns about the supply of such minerals.
With a push to get more electricity from solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, some people have worried that there won’t be enough key minerals to make the decarbonization switch.
A team of scientists looked at the materials — many not often mined heavily in the past — and 20 different power sources. They calculated supplies and pollution from mining if green power surged to meet global goals to cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from fossil fuel.
Much more mining is needed, but there are enough minerals to go around and drilling for them will not significantly worsen warming, the study in Friday’s scientific journal Joule concluded.
“Decarbonization is going to be big and messy, but at the same time we can do it,” said study co-author Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the tech company Stripe and Berkeley Earth. “I’m not worried we’re going to run out of these materials.”
There will be short supplies. For example, dysprosium is a mineral used for magnets in wind turbines and a big push for cleaner electricity would require three times as much dysprosium as currently produced, the paper said. But there’s more than 12 times as much dysprosium in reserves than would be needed in that clean energy push.
Another close call is tellurium, which is used in industrial solar farms and where there may be only slightly more estimated resources than what would be required in a big green push. But Hausfather said there are substitutions available in all these materials’ cases.
“There are enough materials in reserves. The analysis is robust and this study debunks those (running out of minerals) concerns,” said Daniel Ibarra, an environment professor at Brown University, who wasn’t part of the study but looks at lithium shortages. But he said production capacity has to grow for some “key metals” and one issue is how fast can it grow.
Another concern is whether the mining will add more heat-trapping carbon emissions to the atmosphere. It will, maybe as much as 10 billion metric tons, which is one-quarter of the annual global carbon emissions, Hausfather said. Renewables require more materials per energy output than fossil fuels because they are more decentralized, he said.
But the increase in carbon pollution from more mining will be more than offset by a huge reduction in pollution from heavy carbon emitting fossil fuels, Hausfeather said.
Rare earth minerals, also called rare earth elements, actually aren’t that rare. The U.S. Geological Survey describes them as a “relatively abundant.” They’re essential for the strong magnets necessary for wind turbines; they also show up in smartphones, computer displays and LED light bulbs. This new study looks at not only those elements but 17 different raw materials required to make electricity that include some downright common resources such as steel, cement and glass.
While much of the global concern about raw materials for decarbonization has to do with batteries and transportation, especially electric cars that rely on lithium for batteries, this study doesn’t look at that.
Looking at mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that’s what the team will do next, Hausfather said. The power sector is still about one-third to half of the resource issue, he said.
The full study can be read here and here is a very accessible twitter thread by one of the authors.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j6jw3t3 wrote
It's so good to have YET ANOTHER talking point of the naysayers crushed.
[deleted] t1_j6kgs3v wrote
[deleted]
Turnipsia t1_j6kmrys wrote
Ah yes, Iron and air batteries stealing all our resources. Only 5 percent of the earth's crust is iron making it our 4th most abundant resource. We'll run out of iron in the next few billion of years better watch out!
Personally I'd be more worried about agriculture than battery tech, battery tech has gotten much more affordable and much more efficient with non precious metals. I've seen sodium-ion batteries as well which sodium is our 6th most abundant resource.
So far I've only heard of lithium creating toxic soil but if you can link proof of other battery technology creating toxic soil please inform me. Anyway I think our battery technology hopefully should get good enough to move away from lithium in consumer products. We are already seeing promising breakthroughs with battery technology in the last decade using abundant resources instead.
Surur OP t1_j6kif4w wrote
Is this based on any information, or do you suck this stuff from your "source"?
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j6kk8f7 wrote
Probably a Russian site dedicated towards influencing people to end their lives.
Yes, oil companies do invest now in green tech because they want to diversify. But he’s got a supercharged “there is no hope” attitude.
Codydw12 t1_j6kyyub wrote
Been seeing a lot of that kind of doomerism on here. I suppose some people want the end of the world
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j6n6aaz wrote
That's always been an aspect of the Evangelicals. Well at least since the Reagan Republicans took control of them and infiltrated their leadership. I don't think it's a coincidence most of the leaders end up snorting coke of a young boy prostitutes back.
But it's creeping in a lot of corners -- and there is nothing better to create a great consumer than the concept that tomorrow doesn't matter. That's the message they fight tooth and nail to throw at anyone trying to fix transit or pushing for the Green New Deal.
Once you strip away all the excuses NOT to put all our efforts into Solar and Wind, they to got "bUT NoTHinG cAn BE dONe!!!!" Very hedonistic and materialistic outlooks for people who might tell you to get right with Jesus. Or Putin. These days, it's really hard to tell what path the weak-minded have taken, they all seem to have the same destination.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j6kjwph wrote
Oh you must be sure much fun at parties.
/s
mistsoalar t1_j6l2o1u wrote
>The full study can be read here and here is a very accessible twitter thread by one of the authors.
>
>https://twitter.com/wang_seaver/status/1619043659927937024
His twitter thread is so well summarized and answered some of my questions/concerns.
ImarvinS t1_j6ncs09 wrote
oroechimaru t1_j6kl6wd wrote
Also amysr, abml, sxoof etc each having prototypes that can recycle 99-99.9% of the materials helps long term as well
If we as humanity have several solid state batteries succeed, this also extends longevity 2-100x depending on comparing tech
Both will help
Along with lower end batteries with alluminum or graphene (or even high quality) can help save rare metal consumption
Less explosive evs helps too
Tech_AllBodies t1_j6m40z6 wrote
> Also amysr, abml, sxoof etc each having prototypes that can recycle 99-99.9% of the materials helps long term as well
And these are above-and-beyond what's really needed, just shows how far we can go with efficiency with battery and EV tech.
People like Redwood Materials are already doing ~95% recovery at large scale.
> Along with lower end batteries with alluminum or graphene (or even high quality) can help save rare metal consumption
Also just "boring" ones that are already here, like Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) and Sodium Ion.
CriticalUnit t1_j6m52xm wrote
> But Hausfather said there are substitutions available in all these materials’ cases.
This is one of the most important aspects the chicken littles always seem to forget
SoylentRox t1_j6m6i16 wrote
Yep. For batteries, sodium for lithium. LFP doesn't require any nickel or cobalt. Some motor designs are just as efficient with zero rare earth magnets. Aluminum for the heavy copper cables in an EV.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments