Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Surur OP t1_j6kq82g wrote

Reply to comment by 12threefall in Study: Enough minerals to fuel green energy shift -"The analysis is robust and this study debunks those (running out of minerals) concerns" by Surur

This study does not address batteries, making your comment off-topic.

−21

12threefall t1_j6ktova wrote

How the study defines reserves is very important and likely not obvious unless you are interested in mining (directly or indirectly). There is uncertainty in the definition when you start forward projecting.

Anyhow, nickel is in study you linked. Also there are more elements in the table I mention. If you're interested in the green energy shift and the study in that article, it's highly relevant.

The article mentions batteries three times as a point of curiosity that has not been touched on by the study (lithium). "[...] mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that’s what the team will do next".

15

Surur OP t1_j6m0e5k wrote

> mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that’s what the team will do next

Exactly, so I have no idea why you are wasting my time.

−10

12threefall t1_j6mrhfc wrote

You wrote seven sentences concerning lithium and EV cars (batteries) to another commenter here four hours before I made my initial comment. The two sentences I've courted from you say plenty. Xx

6

Kleanish t1_j6nplke wrote

Did this study only use what is feasible to mine today? And not take in effect “tomorrow”?

You would think at this point we would have enough data on innovation, especially in the field of mining and extraction, to forecast the feasibility number’s growth.

2

12threefall t1_j6ob4p6 wrote

I would have to reread it closely, sorry. If you're asking about Manberg and Stenqvist, I think they forecast demand. Not sure about innovation - given they cite the USGS and their definition of reserves (mentioned some comments up) I would guess not, or that if they do they then had to explain their assumptions on it somewhat.

I don't know much/anything about forecasting. With napkin logic I see reserves defined by USGS as conservative, as market demand drives technological development making uneconomical deposits economical. Reminds me of rare-earth elements. They are not rare, it's just the economical deposits of them which are currently. Think there is a study on the boom in studies of rare-earth-elements lol.

Tangentially, I didn't even check to see if the reserves are global (I assumed it). Geopolitics is a concern for projections that I don't think was factored in. In the west there's an emergence of the term 'critical minerals'; a sort of linguistic reaction you might have when you see an economic powerhouse controlling supply of something you want.

Sorry I can't be more help. If you have an undying passion on the matter and can't get access to the study/studies let me know.

1