Comments
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.
WinterMudo t1_j6jmnkn wrote
Sure, but when crops start to fail can we eat these delicious minerals?
Surur OP t1_j6joutj wrote
It's called precision fermentation and it tastes like chicken, though we can't really be sure of that.
VitaminPb t1_j6jz269 wrote
Have you ever noticed everything tastes like chicken? Maybe that’s because the machines don’t know what they tasted like so they make it all taste the same.
Surur OP t1_j6jzgh2 wrote
You know, it always reminds me of Tasty Wheat.
Proof_Camp4327 t1_j6lbhiu wrote
Where's my spoon?
Dic3dCarrots t1_j6m0x2z wrote
It was too big
Safe_Indication_6829 t1_j6kyxco wrote
So you just grow protein in an algae vat and then filter it out and eat it? I'd love to know more
MikeTheGamer2 t1_j6ln9kt wrote
"Fish, and plankton. And sea greens, and protein from the sea. It's all here, ready. Fresh as harvest day."
Surur OP t1_j6m0n69 wrote
PortsFarmer t1_j6jyrvk wrote
That's funny because humans are actually a great source of rare-earth elements, particularly in regions where they are abundant in the soil, as we tend to accumulate them over a lifetime and they serve little biological function.
WinterMudo t1_j6jzdvp wrote
So you are saying we can eat the rich and process the leftovers for rare earth elements? Sounds like a win win to me
Safe_Indication_6829 t1_j6kz6w6 wrote
Oh wow. So does that mean I can sell my dead body for profit? Can I extract them from myself while alive?
SirionAUT t1_j6m72kp wrote
Soylent solar, brb trademarking.
Grand-Mix-870 t1_j6k93pk wrote
Vertical farming, cricket flour, worm castings and cricket frass as fertilizer, hydroponic so no soil and only water needed and it's recycled, eliminate flood style watering and replace with drip irrigation for tree fruits and nuts. Solar flex windows on farm buildings to power grow lighting and pumps.
Allow nature to reclaim vast expanses of farmland over time and reestablish the Biodiversity hundreds of years of farming and pesticides has destroyed.
Dramatically reduce the beef, pork, poultry industry in order to reduce water consumption and slow the destruction of rainforests and other biomes in order to create pastureland. (I am not a vegetarian)
Promote alternative meats with creative marketing to reduce social stigmas.
STOP FUCKING PROMOTING "WILD CAUGHT FISH" as a goddamn marketing tool and only sell farm raised. Change the wording to "LOCALLY HARVESTED" and let the oceans rebuild.
Pigeons, rodents, insects. "Wild trapped game bird," pigeon is delicious. It's all dark meat and pest companies killing millions and dumping them in the trash. As an example I worked for a pest management company in Seattle. On one single building downtown I had 4 live catch traps, emptied every other day. I removed 15-30 per trap every service. All year long. I alone had over 70 traps placed with similar numbers. This does not include the other 2 people who worked bird jobs.
Seagulls are also a viable source of meat that tastes delicious and are easy to trap. Seagulls will enter a cage with a yellow ribbon in it and a mirror.
Mice. Hell yes, mice. Ground Mickey meat. Mice don't require a water source for up to 4 weeks as they extract water from their food. They reach maturity between 4-7 weeks and reproduce every 19 days up to 20 pups. A lactating female ray can raise up to 35 mice at a time. So upon weaning, mice can reach maturity with minimal water and feed prior to being harvested.
Roaches. They are everywhere. I'd change the name from cockroach to baconbug though. Then use them for protein, flour, literally anything.
This got too long. Lots of options. Post history has info on crickets vs wheat.
And your celiac would be unaffected as crickets are gluten free.
GMO is not bad. Modified crops have provided food for millions of people by adapting plants to survive colder temperatures and higher elevations. Its a good thing.
When you choose a mate you are choosing attributes you like and would like to see in your offspring. A genetically modified / combination of the two of you.
Do you think there have always been hundreds of varieties of every fruit? Or do you think adaptation/evolution/hybridization over time gives us so many goddamn tomatoes?
ItsAConspiracy t1_j6kqcnu wrote
Selling just farm-raised fish doesn't do it. A lot of them are fed smaller fish that was wild-caught. Sardines in some areas are overfished for this exact reason. On the other hand Alaska salmon is all wild-caught and they limit the catch enough to keep the population sustainable (though there's not near enough to meet the global demand for salmon that way).
Catfish farming in the US is great, and same for mollusks.
Grand-Mix-870 t1_j6lld7f wrote
Upvoted because you make valid points.
However, fish don't have to fed other fish. Once again, there might be a solution in the mass farming of insects and worms.
I am not a biologist, but I have been fishing. The species I was after seemed to really enjoy creepy crawlers.
I'm almost positive we could make fish flake out of hard shelled insects.
guave06 t1_j6kfoza wrote
I’m not eating cockroaches no matter what and I sure as hell hope my descendants don’t have to resort to that.
ItsAConspiracy t1_j6kprq0 wrote
Good, more baconbugs for the rest of us.
[deleted] t1_j6llm6b wrote
[removed]
Grand-Mix-870 t1_j6lncn4 wrote
If you eat bread or anything with flour you are eating roaches/flour beetles/grain beetles/meal moths/and more. They are ground up (milled) bleached, and shipped.
Most mills fumigate their facility twice a year. Some of them are over 100 years old and still have wooden parts.
You're already eating them. You're just ignorant to it.
Every insect type has a maximum number of heads/parts/eggs allowed per kg of packaged product. It is not just concentration of insect contamination.
For example you can have up to 33 drosophila eggs, 88 heads, and a percentage of parts I currently don't recall per kg of raisins. Since the eggs are fumigated they are food safe as they will not hatch. That is one species. There are similar numbers per pest.
That being said, a single rodent striated hair will fail an entire pallet. That pallet gets opened and redistributed to the line and repackaged, just like the product shoveled off the floor.
Your food is clean and safe. Obviously. You've been eating it a long time. Being grossed out about eating bugs is just silky since you've been doing it your whole life.
Technically, you have a bunch living in your eyebrows and pores.
Buy a usb microscope and look!
If you really want a treat use it to look at your tap water!
guave06 t1_j6o2feq wrote
Lol I’m not freaking out about some cross contamination. Chewing into a cockroach corpse is just out of the question for me but to each their own
Fuzzycolombo t1_j6nfaho wrote
Very unique ideas, but unless faced with actual starvation, there is no way the masses will accept eating crickets and roaches as opposed to the continuation of animal farming.
Seriously, how do you propose to have people change lifelong behaviors and attitudes towards cows/chickens/insects in order to have people eat bugs instead of cows?
Poultry also have the lowest footprint of all the animals we typically consume. It would be far easier and net positive to have people consume more birds and lower cows and pigs then to switch people over to roaches and crickets.
Lastly, by and far, energy for industry generated through coal plants is the biggest contributor to climate change. Tackling that makes the biggest dent.
Grand-Mix-870 t1_j6on9t2 wrote
I am not disagreeing with you nor am I claiming to have a diagram for actionable change. I just feel the possibility is there and now seems like a time where it might be viable.
The masses are more susceptible to influence from exterior sources than ever. Social media has given rise to megaphones on even the stupidest mouths.
Utilize this for positive change as opposed to criticizing its existence.
If a pussy scented candle can gain traction through "goop", better choices for food can become a hot trend too.
Crickets taste better than Kale.
HoneydewInMyAss t1_j6muolg wrote
Lol, rich people will pay to do/eat awful things BECAUSE they're awful.
Like when they pay to hunt wild elephants, or buy blood diamonds even though lab-made diamonds are actually stronger and more pure.
Wealthy people feel entitled to do awful things. It's a disgusting mindset, but we have a disgusting system.
umthondoomkhlulu t1_j6jupm1 wrote
We can eat the rich
WinterMudo t1_j6jva60 wrote
I'd rather not, they have low nutritional value and tend to be toxic
Truth_is_Liberal t1_j6k4lng wrote
Hate makes the meat taste gamey.
12threefall t1_j6kl9ov wrote
I skimmed Manberg & Stenqvist, a study this paper used to reference reserve figures: Manberg & Stenqvist use the US Geological Survey's definition, the amount deemed economical to extract or produce at time of determination, they go on to stress that some reserves will likely need to grow, cobalt and nickel most likely, this is best summed up in Table 4 of their paper.
I'm sure technology will keep marching, forward, certainly market demand, and thus more will become economical to mine, however skim reading Manberg and Stenqvist makes further doubt a claim such as "The analysis is robust and this debunks those (running out of minerals) concerns.
TLDR: a study this paper cites, as part of their definition for mineral reserves, acknowledges uncertainty in the amount of reserves for elements relevant to the green energy shift.
Surur OP t1_j6kq82g wrote
This study does not address batteries, making your comment off-topic.
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j6jw0a7 wrote
It's almost like the people who say "green energy" will never work are wrong about everything.
Zren8989 t1_j6k6keg wrote
Almost like they have some sort of vested interest in maintaining the fossil fuel status quo...truly a conundrum for our time!
gringer t1_j6lsq2f wrote
Sure, there might be enough minerals, but what about vespene gas? That stuff's really rare.
S0M3D1CK t1_j6mcx8d wrote
You must construct additional pylons.
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.
Margincall1975 t1_j6kcfdj wrote
Ok, but what’s the environment impact with digging all these mines. Has any one been paying attention to the cobalt mining going on in the Congo, pretty atrocious.
12threefall t1_j6km1k2 wrote
When you're being propelled down the freeway at 80km/h on your vegan leather seats there's simply no time to be considering the Congo.
(I'm all for vegan leather and 80 km/h, it's just the other bit)
Essembie t1_j6m3053 wrote
If you're doing 80km on a freeway I hate you
Surur OP t1_j6kdvqq wrote
Actually, the Congo does not exist.
UniversalMomentum t1_j6ljgd7 wrote
It helps that you don't vaporize the mineral after you extract it!
[deleted] t1_j6jypo1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6kosdz wrote
[removed]
chubba5000 t1_j6ky21o wrote
Wait, does this mean there’s no longer a future for me in mining asteroids? It was my last hope after ChatGPT took my job as a canine wedding coordinator.
[deleted] t1_j6ljqyd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6llvah wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6mbfuv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6mokhe wrote
[removed]
jj_HeRo t1_j6n47hx wrote
We still need carbon capture.
By the way, glad to see a non AI new in this sub.
Notransgressionallow t1_j6nui9q wrote
I like how they keep thinking you need a 3rd party to help you generate energy. That is the fallacy of the corporate world. Unless they're making money off of it they don't want you to know in about it
chasmoffaith t1_j6lyo2d wrote
Good ole Zeke making sure the system keeps on churning. Regardless of the idiots parroting comments that we will literally run out of a mineral what most intelligent people are trying to argue us that these minerals won't be as accessible. Tar sands vs Saudi oil. In addition the arguments against the green shift is were not going to take our foot off the gas. Degrowth or even pondering these ideas is on the table.
Saewelo1 t1_j6mmiks wrote
Well that's a positive. I didn't think the argument was there was insufficient material, but that there is not currently enough capacity to produce the minerals in quantities large enough and fast enough to meet timeline targets. The last estimate I heard was at best a minimum of another 50 years before cheap renewable energy can be produced.
Smedskjaer t1_j6nkbyh wrote
This again?
Honestly, these researchers need industry executives and experts on the team, because the amount was never questioned; it has always been about the costs of extraction. It's both economically expensive, and environmentally damaging. A macroeconomic analysis would have helped them understand that.
[deleted] t1_j6nmbt6 wrote
[deleted]
ialsoagree t1_j6og5bv wrote
I think you are grossly underestimating the raw materials needed for oil extraction, and vastly underestimating the billions of tons of of CO2 fossil fuels generate each year.
As of 2013, Alberta Canada reported that about 30 square miles (77 square kilometers) of land had been dedicated to tailing ponds for tar sand oil extraction.
That's 1 province in 1 country 10 years ago.
And let's be clear here, minerals extracted for green energy are permanently available when accounting for recycling. That tar sand oil is gone the moment you burn it. Want more? Another 30 square miles please...
[deleted] t1_j6oihz4 wrote
[deleted]
ialsoagree t1_j6olqp2 wrote
This is complete nonsense.
We broke a record for earth's fastest rotation in 2022, it was 86399.99841 seconds instead of the "normal" 86400 seconds.
Let's say mining could have a significant effect on the earth's rotation. Let's say 0.5 seconds of change per day would be devastating.
It would require almost 400 MILLION terawatt hours of energy to slow the earth's rotation by 0.5 seconds per day.
If we dedicated 100% of all electrical power in the entire world solely to mining, and 100% of that energy went into slowing the earth, none was lost to heat or inefficiencies, it would take 40,000 years of mining to reach 0.5 seconds of change in earth's rotation.
[deleted] t1_j6on9cr wrote
[deleted]
ialsoagree t1_j6oqg34 wrote
Re: sources for the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
The earth has 2.14 * 10^29 joules of kinetic energy in its rotation.
Reducing that by 0.5 seconds requires:
Fraction of total = 0.5 seconds per day / 86400 seconds per day = 0.00000578703
2.14 * 10^29 joules * 0.00000578703 = 1.24 * 10^24 joules.
1 joule = 1 watt second, so...
1.24 * 10^24 J = 344,007,202 terawatt hours.
Humans produce about 11,037 gigawatt hours of electricity per year, so:
344,007,202 TWh / 11.037 TWh / 1 year = 31,168,542 years
Thank you for asking me to double check my math, I forgot to convert GWh to TWh the first time.
It would take over 31 million years, not 40,000 - I was wrong.
[deleted] t1_j6ot6i4 wrote
[deleted]
ialsoagree t1_j6otzvj wrote
I mean, I did the math to show that mining causing any significant changes in the earth's orbit or rotation is complete nonsense.
It would take millions of years of effort, with all human energy going to this singular purpose, to make even a miniscule change.
Natural processes will dwarf anything humans do to alter the earth's orbit many times over.
If you believe in this mathematically impossible nonsense, there's nothing more to say. I've shown you the numbers. Humans can't alter these things. We just don't have the energy.
[deleted] t1_j6ozfvm wrote
[deleted]
ialsoagree t1_j6p5def wrote
I'm not sure you're understanding me.
Yes, mining effects the rotation of earth.
It will change it by a few nanoseconds. Not enough to impact the environment.
It's not physically possible for us to do more than that. Doing so would require millions of years worth of electricity. See the math above.
[deleted] t1_j6p8gd9 wrote
[deleted]
DrLoaky t1_j6lyuod wrote
They problem is: we can not produce the amount that is necessary. And you can not increase the production of something like copper or cobalt by a factor of two or more in less than 10 years that's just not possible.
giggidy88 t1_j6mt3k6 wrote
Plenty of minerals and plenty of children to mine them, truly a renewable resource.
[deleted] t1_j6lczc7 wrote
[removed]
Puzzleheaded_Air5814 t1_j6lm5qi wrote
Satire or just idiocy. Can’t decide.
[deleted] t1_j6myfqn wrote
[removed]
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.
https://twitter.com/wang_seaver/status/1619043659927937024