THEREALCABEZAGRANDE t1_j6jrais wrote
Sure, raw numbers there's enough. How accessible are they though? What is the environmental impact of obtaining them? Take lithium. If we strip it from seawater, there's all the lithium we could ever conceivably need. But it's a very energy intensive process to strip it from seawater with very poor yield and it will have a large and unknown effect on the sealife in the area from which the lithium is processed from the water. So sure, there's enough material there to make the switch. But can we continue indefinitely thereafter? Will the effects of those continuances be worse than just keeping on using hydrocarbon energy sources? Still unknown. This is a straw man.
Surur OP t1_j6jsa6g wrote
Lithium is a pretty good example. Known reserves have doubled over the last 10 years, and known reserves can already meet all anticipated EV demand, up to 2 billion cars.
However, with the sky-high lithium price stimulating mining and exploration, that will only increase.
Lithium is often extracted from useless salt flats, but you mention sea water. Interestingly there are some thoughts of extracting lithium from waste brine from desalination, which already has to deal with disposing of concentrated salt water.
> Will the effects of those continuances be worse than just keeping on using hydrocarbon energy sources?
This is a very bizarre idea. Would local pollution from mining be worse than a worldwide climate disaster? I will have to think about that long and hard.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j6jwseo wrote
Also, with the advancement of Iron-Oxide batteries, which can replace all known storage for large green energy at 1/10th the cost -- that will take a lot of the demand off of Lithium-ion. It's now going to be the better option for portable equipment. NOT heavy duty and large scale equipment.
We should be spending more on R&D and we will reap those rewards. To imagine that green energy is going to out-compete all the other traditional sources when we haven't even spent a fraction of the money on the infrastructure and research as we have with fossil fuels and nuclear was a pipe dream. But, we actually got there and the pipe dream is real.
We are already past cost per watt on Nuclear. Even though so many stood in our way and said it wasn't possible. Imagine what we could do if people weren't getting paid so much to stand in the way of progress.
WinterTires t1_j6mc96d wrote
Mining uses something like 10% of global energy. Do you know how much diesel those trucks run?
And, again, the economics of it all matter. If the cost of materials crushes everyone, the EV revolution isn't going to happen. When demand exceeds supply in commodities, the price can go parabolic. Bringing on new supply is nightmarish. To use lithium as an example, do you know Thacker Pass?
Surur OP t1_j6mdswc wrote
> If the cost of materials crushes everyone, the EV revolution isn't going to happen.
It simply gives an incentive to develop alternatives e.g. Sodium batteries.
Either way I don't think you need to worry about things that are above your pay grade.
THEREALCABEZAGRANDE t1_j6jug77 wrote
Because lithium is necessary for many basic biological processes in most sea flora and fauna, and the mass redistribution of it in seawater will have large and unknown effects. And known reserves that are suitable for use in high quality batteries have not even close to doubled. Some high quality lithium currently being used for other applications such as lubricants could be shifted to the large reserves of crap lithium we've found, but it isn't nearly enough. And you know how lithium is primarily mined right? Strip leech mining, which has a huge negative environmental impact. All in service of a battery technology that's an order of magnitude less efficient than it needs to be to actually supplant internal combustion in most use cases.
Surur OP t1_j6jyslz wrote
> Because lithium is necessary for many basic biological processes in most sea flora and fauna, and the mass redistribution of it in seawater will have large and unknown effects.
This sounds like hocus-pocus. Lets be serious lol.
> And known reserves that are suitable for use in high quality batteries have not even close to doubled. Some high quality lithium currently being used for other applications such as lubricants could be shifted to the large reserves of crap lithium we've found, but it isn't nearly enough.
After its mined and purified, lithium is lithium. There is no such thing as "high-quality lithium" It's not the drugs you are currently smoking.
> And you know how lithium is primarily mined right? Strip leech mining, which has a huge negative environmental impact.
This is not even close to true. The majority of lithium is from South America, where evaporative separation is used.
> All in service of a battery technology that's an order of magnitude less efficient than it needs to be to actually supplant internal combustion in most use cases.
The biggest WTF from a long list. EVs are at least twice as efficient as gas cars.
Prophayne_ t1_j6kcnl5 wrote
This isn't my argument I am just gonna back him up a little on the two things you seem inconvinced of for sure.
There is more I'm worried about than fish dependency on lithium as current studies (though there are few) show that most sea life, biologically anyway, have a little too much in them currently, mostly around the brain, but too little in the muscles. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32882547/
The real issue (that we currently know of for sure) with solving lithium from the ocean is noise pollution, which sea life is extremely, extremely sensitive to. I'm not going to provide a source for that, watch fish die at your own leisure. I don't vibe with it. (You've honestly probably already seen a few videos on here anyway)
Now mining and quality of the metal. That one you are the big wrong on. Melting it down doesn't make it "pure", and without what would be an expensive and dirty process to chemically drop the lithium out to claim it on its own (like you mentioned with the layer added on to desalination) you'd get a loss in quality for each step you shortcut for cost savings and efficiency. There is absolutely a standard of quality we use for every metal for every job. We will not use steel borne from pig iron to construct a skyscraper for instance (atleast you really really shouldnt), and lithium is a spicy metal, a lot more can go wrong with that if you don't do it the right degree within x% of contaminates.
You both are right. Lithium is by no means exceptionally rare, but it's going to take a lot of money, care, consideration, and time to do correctly. Most people riding the electric trend hard refuse for time to be allowed, most people against the ev trend would refuse to give it money, care, and consideration.
Again, no sides taken, I just like to hit hot steel with a hammer and make things and have dropped lithium out of a few different solutions via electrolysis.
WinterTires t1_j6mcety wrote
Time mismatch is killer. +10 years to build a mine, ironically because of environmental regulations.
[deleted] t1_j6m36iq wrote
[removed]
Surur OP t1_j6m3avn wrote
Look, you are obviously an uninformed dinosaur lol.
Truth_is_Liberal t1_j6k94fp wrote
That's not unknown at all. We know the effects from global climate change are even financially worse than the pollution from mining rare earth metals. The human cost difference is astounding. In case your seeming love of hydrocarbons indicates a certain political preference, I urge you to go look up even the most conservative financial impacts of climate change.
I will say this though: it is becoming abundantly clear that we cannot simply replace every car, truck, bus, etc with a lithium-ion powered one. We need to continue to invest in parallel battery tech, especially for grid-level storage. We definitely don't want those two market segments competing for lithium. Supercapacitors can also greatly reduce our need for battery storage in the same cars.
THEREALCABEZAGRANDE t1_j6m1wj9 wrote
I mean that we cannot replace hydrocarbons. With our current level of tech or even near term the ONLY transportation sectors that we can even begin to impact will be commuter vehicle and short trip commercial. Long distance ground transport is still far out of reach, to say nothing of oceanic shipping. And that yes, rare earth mining and alternative energy production will have just as many negative effects as the use of hydrocarbons, just different ones.
CriticalUnit t1_j6m5ev1 wrote
> I mean that we cannot replace hydrocarbons
Of course not. they are a non-renewable energy source.
We can stop using them though by phasing in the next generation during our energy transition. Some applications will be easy, others more difficult. Not only can we, but we have to for our own survival. (not to mention in the long run it will be cheaper)
Truth_is_Liberal t1_j6mligv wrote
Actually most of what you claimed was difficult is actually easy. Ships have a bunch of green tech on the way, since they all figured out slow was more efficient anyway. They'll just go at the same speed, but with different powerplants.
Plus, even electric cars (which aren't my fave idea) already have reasonable ranges now with today's tech. Give it five more years for us to figure out expansions and replacement upgrades.
You realize that the weight of batteries or a green power source is negligible to a ship or a train right?
You want to talk about difficult? Help figure out electric airplanes. They already exist, but they're currently only practical for short haul flights. That's still an amazing savings in costs, maintenance, and environmental damage. It's just not ready for transatlantic flights yet.
WinterTires t1_j6mbutg wrote
Total strawman. The question was never the total reserves but the economics of getting them and the time to approvals.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments