The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: joemandadman189 on February 01, 2022, 09:57:17 PM
-
I have seen several posts lately about preserving the environment and the big push to renewable energy and electric cars. For the record, i am for all of these things. Nature should be preserved and enhanced where able to reduce the impacts of climate change and for preservations sake and sourcing energy from renewable sources, at grid scale, should continue to be developed along with a transition to alternative energies for automobiles. On the flip side, the world needs metals and other materials to maintain our way of life and foster the transition to clean energy. Recycling and mining are the only ways to get the lithium and cobalt for batteries among all the other metals needed for thousands of other products. I work in the mining industry. I get to to use my skills and abilities to design facilities that protect the environment and provide value to our clients. There is a saying in our industry, "If you can't grow it, you have to mine it". I am not trying to kick the bee's nest, just want to point out that green energy and electric cars will need massive amounts of metals like lithium, copper, and cobalt among others. There can be an environmental cost to mining, but mining provides a vital service. Often old mines are being reopened and as part of that process any environmental issues are being abated as part of the permitting process. Just something i have been thinking about for a while and wanted to put out in the ether.
-
I pay attention to this space.
The IEA finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900% and 700%, respectively, by 2040. The world doesn’t have the capacity to meet such demand. - WSJ: Opinion: Biden’s Not-So-Clean Energy Transition (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282)
The United States has enough reserves of lithium, copper and other metals to build millions of its own electric vehicles (EVs), but rising opposition to new mines may force the country to rely on imports and delay efforts to electrify the nation's automobiles. - Reuters: U.S. faces tough choices in 2022 on mines for electric-vehicle metals (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-faces-tough-choices-2022-mines-electric-vehicle-metals-2021-12-22/)
This is one of the reasons I don't want tax dollars going to EV subsidies. I'd much rather see carbon taxes, transit, and bicycles.
-
There are something like 65 million new vehicles made each year. No way there's enough raw material to convert them all to EVs with hundreds of miles of range, and then also supply batteries for phones, laptops, lawn mowers, cordless tools, toys, etc.
People want to spend their way out of this, by buying more environmentally friendly options when in reality the only way out is to reduce consumption.
-
It would be good to have a war on car and on our way of life. But the car and the way of life would quickly win.
As to mining - sure, there is no way around it. Even if sanity somehow prevails, and we move away from personal clowncars, we'll need to build wind, solar, storage, buses/trains, and so on a massive scale.
-
...in reality the only way out is to reduce consumption.
I agree entirely.
-
This is an interesting topic for sure because most/all green energy technology requires a lot of mining. I think it's important to think about the impacts and scale of the impacts.
Converting to green energy is meant to reduce GHG and CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent the entire globe warming creating potentially catastrophic disruptions in climates, ocean currents, mass extinctions, etc. Mining, on the other hand, is disastrous to small localized areas where the mines are located, causing potentially extinction or loss of biodiversity in that specific area but not elsewhere. A mine in northern Russia isn't impacting the biodiversity of Mexico. So, the way i think about it is that it's kind of an ends justify the means situation. Given our current technology, and that there is no social movement to dramatically change our way of life in any meaningful way and isn't going to happen, to reduce the chance of catastrophic global warming we must destroy localized areas to mine more raw materials. It's a tradeoff for sure.
-
...in reality the only way out is to reduce consumption.
I agree entirely.
Yep. That involves real change though - which most people have very clearly rejected as unreasonable and a non-starter.
-
Materials scarcity is a big input for materials scientists working in cleantech (such as myself). There are massive efforts underway to develop solar and battery systems that don't rely on rare or difficult to source materials. Of course, there's no guarantee of success. I'm skeptical that we can invent our way out of the problem, but maybe we can at least buy ourselves more time to shift the culture. I don't know what else to do, in any case.
-
Materials scarcity is a big input for materials scientists working in cleantech (such as myself). There are massive efforts underway to develop solar and battery systems that don't rely on rare or difficult to source materials. Of course, there's no guarantee of success. I'm skeptical that we can invent our way out of the problem, but maybe we can at least buy ourselves more time to shift the culture. I don't know what else to do, in any case.
As a fellow materials scientist, I think it's *probable* that we will find solutions that are "workable"(that is to say, a battery with enough energy density to be usable in an EV, minus a lot of the heavy/scarce metals). It's less clear to me that we will find solutions that are ideal(i.e. a battery that is simultaneously heavy-metal-free, more energy-dense than what exists today, and cheap to manufacture) within a reasonable time horizon.
Realistically, I think we need an "all of the above" strategy, which includes:
-Migrating the power grid to the cleanest fuels possible (Hydro+wind+solar+Nuclear+ natural gas for the remainder)
-Using the best possible fossil fuel options for bridge fuels (natural gas) while we clean up power generation
-Moving as much of non-power-plant combustion to be electric driven by clean power generation
-Reusing/recycling as much of various critical resources (see: batteries) as possible
If we can sufficiently clean up the power grid, then energy storage becomes the primary problem, and things such as synthetic fuels and hydrogen become viable options if you've got the clean energy to power the process.
That, or we throw a few trillion dollars at a fusion power moonshot.
-
As a fellow materials scientist, I think it's *probable* that we will find solutions that are "workable"(that is to say, a battery with enough energy density to be usable in an EV, minus a lot of the heavy/scarce metals). It's less clear to me that we will find solutions that are ideal(i.e. a battery that is simultaneously heavy-metal-free, more energy-dense than what exists today, and cheap to manufacture) within a reasonable time horizon.
Realistically, I think we need an "all of the above" strategy, which includes:
-Migrating the power grid to the cleanest fuels possible (Hydro+wind+solar+Nuclear+ natural gas for the remainder)
-Using the best possible fossil fuel options for bridge fuels (natural gas) while we clean up power generation
-Moving as much of non-power-plant combustion to be electric driven by clean power generation
-Reusing/recycling as much of various critical resources (see: batteries) as possible
If we can sufficiently clean up the power grid, then energy storage becomes the primary problem, and things such as synthetic fuels and hydrogen become viable options if you've got the clean energy to power the process.
That, or we throw a few trillion dollars at a fusion power moonshot.
I agreed with all that. In addition to that technical work, I think we also need to do the work to shift our culture and our economy to be less materialistic, consumerist, and growth-driven, or we'll just keep growing past our solutions.
-
This is an interesting topic for sure because most/all green energy technology requires a lot of mining. I think it's important to think about the impacts and scale of the impacts.
Converting to green energy is meant to reduce GHG and CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent the entire globe warming creating potentially catastrophic disruptions in climates, ocean currents, mass extinctions, etc. Mining, on the other hand, is disastrous to small localized areas where the mines are located, causing potentially extinction or loss of biodiversity in that specific area but not elsewhere. A mine in northern Russia isn't impacting the biodiversity of Mexico. So, the way i think about it is that it's kind of an ends justify the means situation. Given our current technology, and that there is no social movement to dramatically change our way of life in any meaningful way and isn't going to happen, to reduce the chance of catastrophic global warming we must destroy localized areas to mine more raw materials. It's a tradeoff for sure.
It's definitely a trade off. One that seems like society doens't want to make, "they" want electric cars and no new mines.
Any new mine highly likely won't be disastrous to the area, but changes to the landscape will occur. Mine permitting takes several years at a minimum often extending much longer for complicated or contentious sites. Now a days, designs implement the best available technologies to reduce impacts, including reclamation designs and bonds. Unfortunately, prior to the mid 1970, in the USA, mining companies had no liability to reclaim existing mines and often didn't resulting in sites that are now being cleaned up by the EPA and local state entities. These legacy sites and their environmental impacts may drive perception of many still today.
-
That's a good point, however many mining companies are not USA companies and may not have the same regulations. Regardless, mining is definitely a necessity to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. It's kind of the least worst of the options.
-
Every time there's a disruptive tech, people say stuff along the line of 'we'll never be able to do that at scale, there's XYZ problems'. And then the change happens anyway. That's because people look at the past and assume that the future will more or less follow it. But it doesn't.
Me personally? I think we're in the middle of a transition from energy scarcity (and the associated miser mindsets that reality entails) to energy abundance. In the next couple of decades we will be inundated with literally more energy than we know what to do with.
I'll give a small example (I haven't done any of these things yet, but eventually I will)... I buy an electric car. Then I put up solar panels on my roof, sufficient to power all my electrical usage and also power up my vehicle. And since the sun might not be out all the time, I also install some backup batteries for 5 to 7 days. OK, so pretty much all my energy needs are covered, and it's all done on a local system that's basically self-sustaining.
The entire idea of 'conserving energy' becomes literally meaningless. Because I produce all the energy I consume, plus more. And that can be repeated in most areas.
Hell, it's already possible here in CO with Xcel Energy for us to go online to their website and select "I want all the energy I use to be sourced from Solar/Wind". It's a bit more $ to do it, but my point is that it's already possible.
The other thing I would point out is around battery tech. Ever since it because clear that batteries will be an integral part of the future, the pace of innovation has increased substantially. And it's this, the PACE of innovation, that will solve that particular problem.
-
The other elephant in the green room is cement. You need it to make concrete. But its production is a huge greenhouse gas producer.
Back to mining. . . . .
-
The other elephant in the green room is cement. You need it to make concrete. But its production is a huge greenhouse gas producer.
Back to mining. . . . .
Back to mining, cement requires sand. Not only that it requires sand with specific physical properties. We get it by mining, and we are starting to run low.
-
The other elephant in the green room is cement. You need it to make concrete. But its production is a huge greenhouse gas producer.
Back to mining. . . . .
Back to mining, cement requires sand. Not only that it requires sand with specific physical properties. We get it by mining, and we are starting to run low.
Concrete needs cement, sand and aggregate, and aggregate needs specific physical properties also. some aggregate, or small stones, can cause the concrete to flake or spall. other stone isnt "strong" enough, i remember back in college we mixed our own concrete tubes to be crushed in a press to see how strong it was (think PSI rating) and our sample broke through several stones as well as the concrete sand mixture.
-
The other elephant in the green room is cement. You need it to make concrete. But its production is a huge greenhouse gas producer.
Back to mining. . . . .
Back to mining, cement requires sand. Not only that it requires sand with specific physical properties. We get it by mining, and we are starting to run low.
True, but we heard a lot these same "we're running out" for gas and oil for a long time, all of which turned out to be quite wrong.
One other thing that's happening that I think people aren't factoring in is that population growth is slowing and will hit zero growth in the next couple of decades, and may even start to actually decline after that. We already have a model of what that looks like on a small/local scale with Japan. We'll probably seem something similar at the global level in the not too distant future. Which means that consumption it not an unlimited open graph, but rather it will peak and then decline to match the overall population pattern.
-
Back to mining, cement requires sand. Not only that it requires sand with specific physical properties. We get it by mining, and we are starting to run low.
We're really not running out of construction-suitable sand. The issues with the sand supply are supply chain related, not due to low reserves. Now, there are environmental impacts to mining sand that are very real, and I'm fully on board with the idea that we should track and regulate sand mining more than we do. But we won't run out.
-
Every time there's a disruptive tech, people say stuff along the line of 'we'll never be able to do that at scale, there's XYZ problems'. And then the change happens anyway. That's because people look at the past and assume that the future will more or less follow it. But it doesn't.
Me personally? I think we're in the middle of a transition from energy scarcity (and the associated miser mindsets that reality entails) to energy abundance. In the next couple of decades we will be inundated with literally more energy than we know what to do with.
I'll give a small example (I haven't done any of these things yet, but eventually I will)... I buy an electric car. Then I put up solar panels on my roof, sufficient to power all my electrical usage and also power up my vehicle. And since the sun might not be out all the time, I also install some backup batteries for 5 to 7 days. OK, so pretty much all my energy needs are covered, and it's all done on a local system that's basically self-sustaining.
The entire idea of 'conserving energy' becomes literally meaningless. Because I produce all the energy I consume, plus more. And that can be repeated in most areas.
Hell, it's already possible here in CO with Xcel Energy for us to go online to their website and select "I want all the energy I use to be sourced from Solar/Wind". It's a bit more $ to do it, but my point is that it's already possible.
The other thing I would point out is around battery tech. Ever since it because clear that batteries will be an integral part of the future, the pace of innovation has increased substantially. And it's this, the PACE of innovation, that will solve that particular problem.
If we're going to rely on photovoltaics, there are materials scarcity issues and environmental impact issues that start to matter as the scale of deployment increases. Awesome as photovoltaics are, there are a lot of material resources that go into their production, and they are not infinitely scalable. Yes, we might solve all of those issues with technological breakthroughs. I hope we do, but I'm uncomfortable relying on that.
The story is similar for wind and other green energy sources, but those aren't my field. Nuclear may end up being a genuinely different story.
-
Every time there's a disruptive tech, people say stuff along the line of 'we'll never be able to do that at scale, there's XYZ problems'. And then the change happens anyway. That's because people look at the past and assume that the future will more or less follow it. But it doesn't.
Me personally? I think we're in the middle of a transition from energy scarcity (and the associated miser mindsets that reality entails) to energy abundance. In the next couple of decades we will be inundated with literally more energy than we know what to do with.
I'll give a small example (I haven't done any of these things yet, but eventually I will)... I buy an electric car. Then I put up solar panels on my roof, sufficient to power all my electrical usage and also power up my vehicle. And since the sun might not be out all the time, I also install some backup batteries for 5 to 7 days. OK, so pretty much all my energy needs are covered, and it's all done on a local system that's basically self-sustaining.
The entire idea of 'conserving energy' becomes literally meaningless. Because I produce all the energy I consume, plus more. And that can be repeated in most areas.
Hell, it's already possible here in CO with Xcel Energy for us to go online to their website and select "I want all the energy I use to be sourced from Solar/Wind". It's a bit more $ to do it, but my point is that it's already possible.
The other thing I would point out is around battery tech. Ever since it because clear that batteries will be an integral part of the future, the pace of innovation has increased substantially. And it's this, the PACE of innovation, that will solve that particular problem.
i agree with you, i think we will have innovative and disruptive technologies. Implementing them at scale for all will be the challenge, and providing all the raw inputs (metals and other materials) will come at a cost.
One disruptive technology i am hoping becomes a reality is space mining. Colorado School of Mines has a space mining program. The whole concept is in its infancy but could revolutionize how the Earth sources materials and even manufactures items. I think there was a Japanese mission that collected a sample of an asteroid, which is a great start. The Expanse is a fun show on Amazon that shows what could be possible.
-
Back to mining, cement requires sand. Not only that it requires sand with specific physical properties. We get it by mining, and we are starting to run low.
We're really not running out of construction-suitable sand. The issues with the sand supply are supply chain related, not due to low reserves. Now, there are environmental impacts to mining sand that are very real, and I'm fully on board with the idea that we should track and regulate sand mining more than we do. But we won't run out.
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
-
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
I agree that we should (and need to) look at sand mining operations in the context of other land uses and environmental impact. But I just want to make the point that it's a very different case than oil. Oil gets more expensive because we have to move on to harder-to-extract oil. There is an abundance of just-as-easy to extract sand. We are not going to run out of cheap construction sand, unless we increase the cost artificially through new regulations.
-
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
I agree that we should (and need to) look at sand mining operations in the context of other land uses and environmental impact. But I just want to make the point that it's a very different case than oil. Oil gets more expensive because we have to move on to harder-to-extract oil. There is an abundance of just-as-easy to extract sand. We are not going to run out of cheap construction sand, unless we increase the cost artificially through new regulations.
I would love to see some good data on the issue, but the above article states that "the demand for that material is so intense that around the world, riverbeds and beaches are being stripped bare, and farmlands and forests torn up to get at the precious grains." Surely farmland sand is more expensive to extract than riverbed sand?
-
Back to mining, cement requires sand. Not only that it requires sand with specific physical properties. We get it by mining, and we are starting to run low.
We're really not running out of construction-suitable sand. The issues with the sand supply are supply chain related, not due to low reserves. Now, there are environmental impacts to mining sand that are very real, and I'm fully on board with the idea that we should track and regulate sand mining more than we do. But we won't run out.
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
Right, but the thing is this - in the old days, if I used oil to heat my house, or gas to run my car, what happens when I ran out of gas or oil? Right, I needed to buy more. A constant re-supply was needed. But with solar that's no longer true. Once you have added your up front costs (including environmental costs), then you are done. The only thing I see as 'disposable' and needing to be replaced would be the batteries. But even now they are talking about being able to run the EV's up to a million miles. Think about that. And we're still early days. It only gets cheaper and faster and longer lasting from here. So yes, I agree, there are 'scale up' costs associated with the initial transition, but after that, the amount of ongoing materials input needed to keep the system going will be far lower than our current setup.
Which is why I talk about 'energy abundance'. Once we're transitioned over, we will literally have more energy than we know what to do with. We'll transition away from a paradigm of scarcity and toward a paradigm of abundance.
Here's another small example. Gas stations. Right now, if you want to build out a gas station, the costs and planning and resources needed to do it are pretty big. You have to dig up the ground, install the underground reservoirs, make them safe, then build out the gas pumps and roof and then the mini-mart store, etc.... But with EV's, you don't need any of that. In fact, you can just add charging stations to the parking lot of an existing business. Like a restaurant, they can add some charging stations to their lot, and then customers can charge while inside eating. The customer wins because it's convenient, and the restaurant wins because they can make a few more dollars off you during your visit.
The nice thing is that with the electrical grid we have, most of the infrastructure needed is already in place.
Here's what I think will happen with batteries. The same thing that happened with solar panels. I remember 20 years ago when everyone said "solar is too expensive, we'll never be able to make solar at scale for cheap". Lest anyone forget, here's what actually happened to those assumptions:
(http://avc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/solar-cost-trends.png)
Here's something else to think about - solar has gotten so cheap, it's ALREADY the cheapest option for building out new capacity for electrical companies.
(https://i.insider.com/5af0a65e19ee8624008b498d?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Does anyone think batteries are really going to be fundamentally different? I don't. And if you do, maybe you need another shot from the optimism gun of MMM fame!
-
I was talking about this with a friend yesterday.
My take is that burning carbon is an emergency that threatens human life on earth while environmental (and social) degradation due to mining practices isn't currently on track to exterminate most species of life on the planet.
So let's address the bigger problem first and let's address it in anyway possible (considering how stupid we are). Mining lithium and cobalt and the others at an increased pace is bound to result in some large negative consequences, but I still think we need to stop burning oil and coal at the cost of those other consequences. I have a similar take on the need for increased use of nuclear power.
Of course, since I am here, I personally am going to also reduce consumption as much as I can, in a consistently un-comfortable way (but not too uncomfortable), that also allows me to achieve financial independence.
-
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
I agree that we should (and need to) look at sand mining operations in the context of other land uses and environmental impact. But I just want to make the point that it's a very different case than oil. Oil gets more expensive because we have to move on to harder-to-extract oil. There is an abundance of just-as-easy to extract sand. We are not going to run out of cheap construction sand, unless we increase the cost artificially through new regulations.
I would love to see some good data on the issue, but the above article states that "the demand for that material is so intense that around the world, riverbeds and beaches are being stripped bare, and farmlands and forests torn up to get at the precious grains." Surely farmland sand is more expensive to extract than riverbed sand?
The article gives an example: "The result: acres of farmlands and forests in rural Wisconsin, which happens to have a lot of those precious sands, are being torn up." It's true that a bunch of (almost 100) sand mines opened in Wisconsin from 2010-2015 to feed the fracking boom. At the peak of the sand mining boom in Wisconsin, there were 33,517 permitted acres of sand mines (p 19 of 1st linked below). Compare this to Wisconsin's 14.3 million farmland acres (2nd link) and the total land devoted to mining was 0.23% of the land being used for agricultural (and many of the mine acres weren't being farmed, so they aren't lost agricultural land). And at this time, Wisconsin was the number one producer of sand in the States.
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/eia/documents/ismsa/ismsa.pdf
https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Publications/WIAgStatistics.aspx
-
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
I agree that we should (and need to) look at sand mining operations in the context of other land uses and environmental impact. But I just want to make the point that it's a very different case than oil. Oil gets more expensive because we have to move on to harder-to-extract oil. There is an abundance of just-as-easy to extract sand. We are not going to run out of cheap construction sand, unless we increase the cost artificially through new regulations.
I would love to see some good data on the issue, but the above article states that "the demand for that material is so intense that around the world, riverbeds and beaches are being stripped bare, and farmlands and forests torn up to get at the precious grains." Surely farmland sand is more expensive to extract than riverbed sand?
The article gives an example: "The result: acres of farmlands and forests in rural Wisconsin, which happens to have a lot of those precious sands, are being torn up." It's true that a bunch of (almost 100) sand mines opened in Wisconsin from 2010-2015 to feed the fracking boom. At the peak of the sand mining boom in Wisconsin, there were 33,517 permitted acres of sand mines (p 19 of 1st linked below). Compare this to Wisconsin's 14.3 million farmland acres (2nd link) and the total land devoted to mining was 0.23% of the land being used for agricultural (and many of the mine acres weren't being farmed, so they aren't lost agricultural land). And at this time, Wisconsin was the number one producer of sand in the States.
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/eia/documents/ismsa/ismsa.pdf
https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Publications/WIAgStatistics.aspx
I look at large sand deposits as excellent water aquifers. Where I am the sand and gravel aquifers produce the highest yield and best quality water. Around me a fantastic glacial deposit of sand is being actively mined by dozens of small construction companies, much of it gets spread on the gravel roads in the winter. Someday not too far in the future we will have removed natural high quality drinking water treatment and storage in exchange for concrete and gravel roads.
Now I reminded of the extractive costs of mining - pulling the resources meant for everyone of all generations and using them up for the presently rich.
-
If any of these green ideas are ever going to take hold, they also need to be cost competitive within reason, government incentives dollars should not be necessary. It's pretty silly not to use the cheaper, easy to acquire resources like coal, nat gas and nuke to provide our power needs.
To date, I think most of the initiative has been pretty much politically driven to line the pocketbooks of those in power. It's hard for the average person to buy into replacing their perfectly reliable, not too expensive gasoline automobile and trade it in for an expensive tiny EV car that has limited travel range. Meanwhile, those in power pushing the agenda are going place to place in private jets and a fleet of limos.
Personal automobiles are probably peanuts in the grand scheme of fuel consumption and pollution, when you consider how much is consumed by aircraft, ocean going vessels, heavy trucks, mining, farming and construction equipment, etc.
-
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
I agree that we should (and need to) look at sand mining operations in the context of other land uses and environmental impact. But I just want to make the point that it's a very different case than oil. Oil gets more expensive because we have to move on to harder-to-extract oil. There is an abundance of just-as-easy to extract sand. We are not going to run out of cheap construction sand, unless we increase the cost artificially through new regulations.
I would love to see some good data on the issue, but the above article states that "the demand for that material is so intense that around the world, riverbeds and beaches are being stripped bare, and farmlands and forests torn up to get at the precious grains." Surely farmland sand is more expensive to extract than riverbed sand?
The article gives an example: "The result: acres of farmlands and forests in rural Wisconsin, which happens to have a lot of those precious sands, are being torn up." It's true that a bunch of (almost 100) sand mines opened in Wisconsin from 2010-2015 to feed the fracking boom. At the peak of the sand mining boom in Wisconsin, there were 33,517 permitted acres of sand mines (p 19 of 1st linked below). Compare this to Wisconsin's 14.3 million farmland acres (2nd link) and the total land devoted to mining was 0.23% of the land being used for agricultural (and many of the mine acres weren't being farmed, so they aren't lost agricultural land). And at this time, Wisconsin was the number one producer of sand in the States.
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/eia/documents/ismsa/ismsa.pdf
https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Publications/WIAgStatistics.aspx
I look at large sand deposits as excellent water aquifers. Where I am the sand and gravel aquifers produce the highest yield and best quality water. Around me a fantastic glacial deposit of sand is being actively mined by dozens of small construction companies, much of it gets spread on the gravel roads in the winter. Someday not too far in the future we will have removed natural high quality drinking water treatment and storage in exchange for concrete and gravel roads.
Now I reminded of the extractive costs of mining - pulling the resources meant for everyone of all generations and using them up for the presently rich.
I completely agree with these concerns. I'm not advocating for the sand minds in any way, just emphasizing that those deposits are there and readily accessible.
-
In some sense we will never run out of construction sand because it renews on a human timeline, but only at a finite rate. But once we start tearing up farmland to get the sand out, well, we need farmland more than ever with climate change:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand
Along those lines we will never run out of oil, but we've already run out of all the $1/barrel production cost oil. Deep-water wells can cost $90/barrel to extract. We are used to cheap construction sand, and one day that won't be something that we can rely on. The same goes for frack sand.
I agree that we should (and need to) look at sand mining operations in the context of other land uses and environmental impact. But I just want to make the point that it's a very different case than oil. Oil gets more expensive because we have to move on to harder-to-extract oil. There is an abundance of just-as-easy to extract sand. We are not going to run out of cheap construction sand, unless we increase the cost artificially through new regulations.
I would love to see some good data on the issue, but the above article states that "the demand for that material is so intense that around the world, riverbeds and beaches are being stripped bare, and farmlands and forests torn up to get at the precious grains." Surely farmland sand is more expensive to extract than riverbed sand?
Oregon actually has a fair amount of river bank sand and gravel dredging/mining. Back in the day i processed bathymetric surveys to determine the "resource" quantity for some clients out there
-
I have seen several posts lately about preserving the environment and the big push to renewable energy and electric cars. For the record, i am for all of these things. Nature should be preserved and enhanced where able to reduce the impacts of climate change and for preservations sake and sourcing energy from renewable sources, at grid scale, should continue to be developed along with a transition to alternative energies for automobiles. On the flip side, the world needs metals and other materials to maintain our way of life and foster the transition to clean energy. Recycling and mining are the only ways to get the lithium and cobalt for batteries among all the other metals needed for thousands of other products. I work in the mining industry. I get to to use my skills and abilities to design facilities that protect the environment and provide value to our clients. There is a saying in our industry, "If you can't grow it, you have to mine it". I am not trying to kick the bee's nest, just want to point out that green energy and electric cars will need massive amounts of metals like lithium, copper, and cobalt among others. There can be an environmental cost to mining, but mining provides a vital service. Often old mines are being reopened and as part of that process any environmental issues are being abated as part of the permitting process. Just something i have been thinking about for a while and wanted to put out in the ether.
I agree with you - everything comes at a cost. Not sure how much of the “rare-earth” metals will be needed in future iterations of batteries. Current lithium iron phosphate batteries have around 100-150Wh of energy per kg, and lithium is about 4% of that weight (7/156). A 20kWh battery will have about 8-12kg of lithium in it. That should power most houses overnight. We currently mine about 80 million kg per year, so would have enough for 6-10 million batteries x 20 kWh= 120-200 GWh of storage per year. For the US, we need 6000 GWh for a zero-carbon economy. We use about 20% of all energy, so 30,000 GWh are needed. At current mining rates that’ll take 1.5-2 centuries minimum (of course we use lithium for other things too). If we double it, that goal is more realistic. If we had 80% renewable, the needs drop by half (75-100 years at current capacity).
Source for storage needs is the NREL: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/01/21/six-terawatt-hours-of-energy-storage-needed-for-zero-carbon/
I don’t think we will get to zero carbon in this century. It seems an unrealistic goal. But 80% renewable and 20% nuclear seems doable. We would need to use most of the world’s known lithium reserves to get there, assuming this was the only viable chemistry (it isn’t). Also this assumes no use of pumped hydro, compressed air, etc for storage. This also assumes no gains in energy efficiency in any field (also unlikely). The flip side is assuming no total increase in energy use (also unlikely given population growth).
-
Don't forget to account for the additional energy costs that the climate change we've already baked into our future will incur.
-
A few things to consider.
1. You have to compare material mining to the alternative, not nothing. What's worse for the environment mining minerals that are infinitely recyclable or drilling and fracking for oil and gas that's burnt up and not recyclable.
2. Battery material mix is changing. Cobalt is being engineered out of high performance batteries. Iron is playing a larger role as LFP batteries continue to improve and volumes keep scaling up, reducing pressure on nickel mining.
3. Copper is being engineered out of electric car (both motors and wiring) and instead being replaced with easier to scale materials (aluminum).
So to sum up. It's a bit of short term environmental pain that's significantly better than the alternative right now, with a long term win of creating a 99% efficient circular economy thanks to recycling.
-
1. You have to compare material mining to the alternative, not nothing. What's worse for the environment mining minerals that are infinitely recyclable or drilling and fracking for oil and gas that's burnt up and not recyclable.
But you need to compare these to the other alternatives like building less cars, building less roads, and driving less miles.
-
1. You have to compare material mining to the alternative, not nothing. What's worse for the environment mining minerals that are infinitely recyclable or drilling and fracking for oil and gas that's burnt up and not recyclable.
But you need to compare these to the other alternatives like building less cars, building less roads, and driving less miles.
Sure, that would be great if everyone would consume less and would be ideal, but it's not realistic. Our entire society is built on continually increased consumption and growth and there's no real, serious, social movement to change that. That would be incredibly disruptive to how our society currently works. We need to continue to encourage it and help people try to consume less as best we can, but we need to plan for it to not actually happen.
-
One thing to keep in mind with regards to electric power: People expect the utility to always provide 100% of the power demanded, under any circumstances. That means that utility companies have to be able to generate (or buy) that much power, day or night, rain or shine, wind or no wind. That means that even if they build wind and solar farms, they still must have enough fossil fuel plants on standby to meet demand for those cloudy, calm days (and nights). Unless the generation cost is sufficiently cheaper via solar and wind (vs fossil fuels) to offset the additional capital cost, the utility's costs (and therefore consumers') go up.
The same effect applies when people put up solar panels on their home, except even worse--the homeowner is now getting all the cost savings of solar, while the utility is still expected to provide 100% of the power when required. That's why California, Hawaii, and Florida are now wrestling with a showdown between utilities and residential solar
Storage, specifically grid-scale, long-term storage, would get us about 99% of the way there. But that's a really hard nut to crack.
Solar generation might be the cheapest to build out, as @Tyson says, on a dollars-per-watt basis. The problem is that 100MW of solar panels may only generate 600MWh on a sunny day, while a 100MW fossil fuel-fired plant can generate 2400MWh per day. So even if a solar installation is 15% cheaper than a natural gas power plant, it'll produce 75% less energy (and revenue).
-
1. You have to compare material mining to the alternative, not nothing. What's worse for the environment mining minerals that are infinitely recyclable or drilling and fracking for oil and gas that's burnt up and not recyclable.
But you need to compare these to the other alternatives like building less cars, building less roads, and driving less miles.
Sure, that would be great if everyone would consume less and would be ideal, but it's not realistic. Our entire society is built on continually increased consumption and growth and there's no real, serious, social movement to change that. That would be incredibly disruptive to how our society currently works. We need to continue to encourage it and help people try to consume less as best we can, but we need to plan for it to not actually happen.
Even if people don't voluntarily stop consuming, consumption will naturally start to fall once we hit peak population and the we see population decline. Won't be super-fast, but it is happening:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
Most economic growth is driven by population growth. So what happens to the economy when population growth stops (and even reverses)? That will also be very disruptive.
-
1. You have to compare material mining to the alternative, not nothing. What's worse for the environment mining minerals that are infinitely recyclable or drilling and fracking for oil and gas that's burnt up and not recyclable.
But you need to compare these to the other alternatives like building less cars, building less roads, and driving less miles.
Sure, that would be great if everyone would consume less and would be ideal, but it's not realistic. Our entire society is built on continually increased consumption and growth and there's no real, serious, social movement to change that. That would be incredibly disruptive to how our society currently works. We need to continue to encourage it and help people try to consume less as best we can, but we need to plan for it to not actually happen.
Even if people don't voluntarily stop consuming, consumption will naturally start to fall once we hit peak population and the we see population decline. Won't be super-fast, but it is happening:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
That ignores the developing economies where everyone wants to live like an American. Everyone wants their own car. If we get to that point it's game over, that isn't even a controversial statement.
-
1. You have to compare material mining to the alternative, not nothing. What's worse for the environment mining minerals that are infinitely recyclable or drilling and fracking for oil and gas that's burnt up and not recyclable.
But you need to compare these to the other alternatives like building less cars, building less roads, and driving less miles.
Sure, that would be great if everyone would consume less and would be ideal, but it's not realistic. Our entire society is built on continually increased consumption and growth and there's no real, serious, social movement to change that. That would be incredibly disruptive to how our society currently works. We need to continue to encourage it and help people try to consume less as best we can, but we need to plan for it to not actually happen.
Even if people don't voluntarily stop consuming, consumption will naturally start to fall once we hit peak population and the we see population decline. Won't be super-fast, but it is happening:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
That ignores the developing economies where everyone wants to live like an American. Everyone wants their own car. If we get to that point it's game over, that isn't even a controversial statement.
That assumes that the newly developed countries will all be massive coal/oil/gas users. But it looks like many of them will be pivoting to renewables at an even faster rate than the 'developed' countries are. Hell, look at the sheer number of pure EV's that have been sold in China in last year. Absolutely dwarfs the sales in the US or Europe. Which makes sense as the US and Europe already have a very large, highly built out oil/gas/coal infrastructure that needs to be decommissioned as part of the EV and renewable change. China is basically getting to skip that step and go straight to the more green options.
You saw the same thing happen in South Korea when they were building out their telephone infrastructure. They were actually able to get extremely good mobile networks installed because they didn't have any pre-existing copper land line infrastructure designed for land-line calling that they had to hack, unlike the US and Europe, who had to contend with backward compatibility for mobile networks and landlines.
Very often it's easier to just build out new tech from scratch instead of trying to retrofit stuff in to existing systems. Which is why I predict these developing countries will leap-frog the US and Europe when it comes to going fully renewable.
-
One thing to keep in mind with regards to electric power: People expect the utility to always provide 100% of the power demanded, under any circumstances. That means that utility companies have to be able to generate (or buy) that much power, day or night, rain or shine, wind or no wind. That means that even if they build wind and solar farms, they still must have enough fossil fuel plants on standby to meet demand for those cloudy, calm days (and nights). Unless the generation cost is sufficiently cheaper via solar and wind (vs fossil fuels) to offset the additional capital cost, the utility's costs (and therefore consumers') go up.
The same effect applies when people put up solar panels on their home, except even worse--the homeowner is now getting all the cost savings of solar, while the utility is still expected to provide 100% of the power when required. That's why California, Hawaii, and Florida are now wrestling with a showdown between utilities and residential solar
Storage, specifically grid-scale, long-term storage, would get us about 99% of the way there. But that's a really hard nut to crack.
That's partially true but there is more to it. Electricity consumption in the US has been pretty flat a couple decades and even declining in recent years. So when say, a new wind installation goes in, it typically is replacing existing fossil fuel sources. In other words, you just use the existing coal plant less than you did before. You don't have to build a new coal plant to match the new wind plant.
Storage is indeed a tough nut to crack but it is getting easier quickly. In some locations Solar PV plus battery storage is already cheaper than peak natural gas. So you charge the batteries during the day, and the release the energy late afternoon and evening when the demand is highest. And some utilities are beginning to install batteries that are charged by the grid, and not tied to any specific project, renewable or not. That means storage is getting cheap. If batteries continue to drop in price at something like the same rate they have over the past decade, storage will become cheaper than fossil fuels outside of peak hours as well sometime in the not too distance future.
-
That assumes that the newly developed countries will all be massive coal/oil/gas users. But it looks like many of them will be pivoting to renewables at an even faster rate than the 'developed' countries are. Hell, look at the sheer number of pure EV's that have been sold in China in last year. Absolutely dwarfs the sales in the US or Europe. Which makes sense as the US and Europe already have a very large, highly built out oil/gas/coal infrastructure that needs to be decommissioned as part of the EV and renewable change. China is basically getting to skip that step and go straight to the more green options.
1. That ignores all the coal that China is burning to provide the electricity.
2. Have you done the math on mineral extraction to buy half the world population an EV? I'd love to see that study.
-
That assumes that the newly developed countries will all be massive coal/oil/gas users. But it looks like many of them will be pivoting to renewables at an even faster rate than the 'developed' countries are. Hell, look at the sheer number of pure EV's that have been sold in China in last year. Absolutely dwarfs the sales in the US or Europe. Which makes sense as the US and Europe already have a very large, highly built out oil/gas/coal infrastructure that needs to be decommissioned as part of the EV and renewable change. China is basically getting to skip that step and go straight to the more green options.
1. That ignores all the coal that China is burning to provide the electricity.
2. Have you done the math on mineral extraction to buy half the world population an EV? I'd love to see that study.
1. Yes, current state and will change over time. And at an accelerated rate vs the US & Europe.
2. So what? Changing things is hard and costly. But it still needs to change.
-
So what? Changing things is hard and costly. But it still needs to change.
So, why is the change that we need a car in every driveway and a stroad to every store?
-
Solar generation might be the cheapest to build out, as @Tyson says, on a dollars-per-watt basis. The problem is that 100MW of solar panels may only generate 600MWh on a sunny day, while a 100MW fossil fuel-fired plant can generate 2400MWh per day. So even if a solar installation is 15% cheaper than a natural gas power plant, it'll produce 75% less energy (and revenue).
Price carbon emissions, that's the fairest way to see which technology comes on top. Methane, too.
-
One thing to keep in mind with regards to electric power: People expect the utility to always provide 100% of the power demanded, under any circumstances. That means that utility companies have to be able to generate (or buy) that much power, day or night, rain or shine, wind or no wind. That means that even if they build wind and solar farms, they still must have enough fossil fuel plants on standby to meet demand for those cloudy, calm days (and nights). Unless the generation cost is sufficiently cheaper via solar and wind (vs fossil fuels) to offset the additional capital cost, the utility's costs (and therefore consumers') go up.
The same effect applies when people put up solar panels on their home, except even worse--the homeowner is now getting all the cost savings of solar, while the utility is still expected to provide 100% of the power when required. That's why California, Hawaii, and Florida are now wrestling with a showdown between utilities and residential solar
Storage, specifically grid-scale, long-term storage, would get us about 99% of the way there. But that's a really hard nut to crack.
That's partially true but there is more to it. Electricity consumption in the US has been pretty flat a couple decades and even declining in recent years. So when say, a new wind installation goes in, it typically is replacing existing fossil fuel sources. In other words, you just use the existing coal plant less than you did before. You don't have to build a new coal plant to match the new wind plant.
Storage is indeed a tough nut to crack but it is getting easier quickly. In some locations Solar PV plus battery storage is already cheaper than peak natural gas. So you charge the batteries during the day, and the release the energy late afternoon and evening when the demand is highest. And some utilities are beginning to install batteries that are charged by the grid, and not tied to any specific project, renewable or not. That means storage is getting cheap. If batteries continue to drop in price at something like the same rate they have over the past decade, storage will become cheaper than fossil fuels outside of peak hours as well sometime in the not too distance future.
You may be right that it may not be necessary to build new fossil fuel plants. However, they still need to be maintained, have a finite lifecycle (i.e. will eventually need to be replaced), and likely still have loans/investors to be repaid. The principle still applies.
I'm as excited as most people about solar getting cheaper. If "cheaper than peak natural gas" is a new thing, that's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't mean that it's a gamechanger quite yet.
Price carbon emissions, that's the fairest way to see which technology comes on top. Methane, too.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. "Make the Rams play with only 10 players on Sunday, that's the fairest way to see which team comes on top."
-
So what? Changing things is hard and costly. But it still needs to change.
So, why is the change that we need a car in every driveway and a stroad to every store?
Stroads, are you a "Not Just Bikes" watcher? If so, nice - I love that channel.
Look, I've constructed my life to have as small a footprint as possible. I've always pushed to work 100% from home, ride my bike every where I can, minimize consumption, etc.... I've done this because it helps me save money at the same time as it helps the planet by lowering my consumption.
But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale. The good news is that we won't have to. Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere. And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7? If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time? It doesn't. It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. "Make the Rams play with only 10 players on Sunday, that's the fairest way to see which team comes on top."
Now imagine a game where Rams are tearing up the playing field, and Steelers don't.
In case the analogy doesn't click: the climate change is real and caused by humans, primarily via burning of fossil fuels. That imposes costs on the society. It's only fair that polluters pay those costs.
-
Price carbon emissions, that's the fairest way to see which technology comes on top. Methane, too.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. "Make the Rams play with only 10 players on Sunday, that's the fairest way to see which team comes on top."
What could possibly be fairer than a market based solution?
-
So what? Changing things is hard and costly. But it still needs to change.
So, why is the change that we need a car in every driveway and a stroad to every store?
Stroads, are you a "Not Just Bikes" watcher? If so, nice - I love that channel.
Yup, but I'm more of an insufferable ClimateTown / War on Cars (https://thewaroncars.org/) kind of guy.
But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale. The good news is that we won't have to. Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere. And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7? If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time? It doesn't. It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.
It seems silly to me to think that building a bunch of electric cars is a solution that will scale to the planet. For fun I did some quick math. According to the internet the total known cobalt reserves are 7.1 million tonnes (https://www.statista.com/statistics/264930/global-cobalt-reserves/). According to Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1) it takes approximately 14kg cobalt to make one EV battery. So, assuming that you want to use every last ounce of know cobalt reserves for EV batteries (not laptops, etc) you would have:
7.1 million metric tonnes = 7,100,000 tonnes
7,100,000 tonnes = 7,100,000,000 kg
7,100,000,000/14 = 507,142,857 EV batteries
So, we can mine every last drop of cobalt that we know about and get enough for 507 million EVs with none left over for anything else. Please do correct me if I screwed up in the math somewhere.
EDITed to add - for what it's worth LiFePO4 doesn't need cobalt and might work well for grid storage.
-
So what? Changing things is hard and costly. But it still needs to change.
So, why is the change that we need a car in every driveway and a stroad to every store?
Stroads, are you a "Not Just Bikes" watcher? If so, nice - I love that channel.
Yup, but I'm more of an insufferable ClimateTown / War on Cars (https://thewaroncars.org/) kind of guy.
But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale. The good news is that we won't have to. Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere. And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7? If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time? It doesn't. It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.
It seems silly to me to think that building a bunch of electric cars is a solution that will scale to the planet. For fun I did some quick math. According to the internet the total known cobalt reserves are 7.1 million tonnes (https://www.statista.com/statistics/264930/global-cobalt-reserves/). According to Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1) it takes approximately 14kg cobalt to make one EV battery. So, assuming that you want to use every last ounce of know cobalt reserves for EV batteries (not laptops, etc) you would have:
7.1 million metric tonnes = 7,100,000 tonnes
7,100,000 tonnes = 7,100,000,000 kg
7,100,000,000/14 = 507,142,857 EV batteries
So, we can mine every last drop of cobalt that we know about and get enough for 507 million EVs with none left over for anything else. Please do correct me if I screwed up in the math somewhere.
EDITed to add - for what it's worth LiFePO4 doesn't need cobalt and might work well for grid storage.
You're forgetting that the rate of innovation is what will solve pretty much all of these issues. Even now, during early days, we're developing solutions, by creating batteries that don't use cobalt (and not nickel either):
https://www.chargecccv.com/
And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption. Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically. Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier. That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.
-
And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption. Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically. Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier. That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.
I read Our Final Warning by Mark Lynas, I'm not at all convinced. The richest countries use 13x the natural resources of the poorest (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-12/) (per capita). Furthermore, they do it by extracting those resources from the poor ones. US progressives hate exploiting poor brown people, unless they get a Tesla out of it. Unless the developing countries slaughter a bunch of their kids raising up poor countries to be on the level of rich countries will not work. The decrease in population will come too late. I do love a good reference to the 2nd world though, you don't see that much now with the USSR gone. We need to be pushing 1st world living standards down to 2nd world, but good luck getting any politician ever to run on that platform.
But you are right about one thing: the earth will eventually find homeostasis. The earth doesn't care if half of the population starves to death because we ruin a bunch of top-soil.
-
And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption. Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically. Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier. That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.
I read Our Final Warning by Mark Lynas, I'm not at all convinced. The richest countries use 13x the natural resources of the poorest (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-12/) (per capita). Furthermore, they do it by extracting those resources from the poor ones. US progressives hate exploiting poor brown people, unless they get a Tesla out of it. Unless the developing countries slaughter a bunch of their kids raising up poor countries to be on the level of rich countries will not work. The decrease in population will come too late. I do love a good reference to the 2nd world though, you don't see that much now with the USSR gone. We need to be pushing 1st world living standards down to 2nd world, but good luck getting any politician ever to run on that platform.
But you are right about one thing: the earth will eventually find homeostasis. The earth doesn't care if half of the population starves to death because we ruin a bunch of top-soil.
It seems as though your mind is set against any idea of hope for change for the better. To me, first we have to get off fossil fuels, that's the most urgent change needed. Once we do that, then the next biggest problem is population growth because if we keep growing then it's very difficult to come up with clever solution to unlimited growth. But like I said, it's a problem that's taking care of itself.
Re: the fact that there's rich countries and poor countries, well so what? You can see that hunger is down across the world - https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment
And that's going to continue because we're getting more efficient at producing food. And it will start to REALLY drop once we hit negative population growth.
Also, I do think that moving to renewables is the first step toward creating a much better world of the future. It's necessary but not sufficient. However there's a lot of other reasons for hope.
You talk about 'exploiting' but in fact it's just trade. Rich countries pay the developing world for things that they own. What those 'exploited' countries do with that money is up to them. Looking at what's happened in China and India over the last 20 years, clearly they are moving in the right direction. Things are MUCH better in those 2 countries than it was 20 years ago. And IMO they've also hit a tipping point where their upward momentum will continue and probably at an accelerated rate.
Conversations like this always amuse me. People that say things are so terrible nowadays don't know history. Or if they do, they don't quite understand just how brutally bad life was in the past. This is by far the best time to be alive and not just for the rich countries.
I could show you a lot more data that proves my point, but I doubt the data would be convincing to someone like you (someone with a negativity bias). Which is fine, not everyone needs to be an optimist or hopeful for the future. I know I used to be a lot more pessimistic in the past. But things really are getting better. So I've adapted my world view to accommodate the more recent data. Not everyone will update their beliefs in the face of new information and that's fine.
-
And not only that, but population growth is decreasing rapidly and will start moving into negative growth territory in the next decade or so:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
So we'll see a natural stasis and eventual tapering off of consumption. Here's the very cool part - as populations move from 3rd world status and into 2nd or 1st world status, population rates decrease dramatically. Which has the rather awesome benefit of this - the entire world benefits when poor populations become wealthier. That's pretty awesome and reason for hope and something to celebrate.
I read Our Final Warning by Mark Lynas, I'm not at all convinced. The richest countries use 13x the natural resources of the poorest (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-12/) (per capita). Furthermore, they do it by extracting those resources from the poor ones. US progressives hate exploiting poor brown people, unless they get a Tesla out of it. Unless the developing countries slaughter a bunch of their kids raising up poor countries to be on the level of rich countries will not work. The decrease in population will come too late. I do love a good reference to the 2nd world though, you don't see that much now with the USSR gone. We need to be pushing 1st world living standards down to 2nd world, but good luck getting any politician ever to run on that platform.
But you are right about one thing: the earth will eventually find homeostasis. The earth doesn't care if half of the population starves to death because we ruin a bunch of top-soil.
It seems as though your mind is set against any idea of hope for change for the better. To me, first we have to get off fossil fuels, that's the most urgent change needed. Once we do that, then the next biggest problem is population growth because if we keep growing then it's very difficult to come up with clever solution to unlimited growth. But like I said, it's a problem that's taking care of itself.
I was optimistic, until the US pulled out of the Paris agreement and even the countries that are still in it are failing to meet their obligations to poor countries (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02846-3). Biden doesn't have any policies in play that would actually get the USA back on track to hit the Paris goals.
Also, I do think that moving to renewables is the first step toward creating a much better world of the future. It's necessary but not sufficient. However there's a lot of other reasons for hope.
I agree entirely, I just don't know why we have to devote a large percentage of the earths resources to private automobile ownership. I'm unconvinced that it is mathematically possible, I view that as realistic, not pessimistic.
You talk about 'exploiting' but in fact it's just trade. Rich countries pay the developing world for things that they own. What those 'exploited' countries do with that money is up to them. Looking at what's happened in China and India over the last 20 years, clearly they are moving in the right direction. Things are MUCH better in those 2 countries than it was 20 years ago. And IMO they've also hit a tipping point where their upward momentum will continue and probably at an accelerated rate.
I mostly agree with you about poor countries selling their resources, I was just using exploited as short hand for "Urgent action is needed to ensure that current material needs do not lead to over-extraction of resources and further degradation of the environment... The lifestyles of people in the richest nations are heavily dependent on resources extracted from poorer countries" which is what my link to the UN said.
Conversations like this always amuse me. People that say things are so terrible nowadays don't know history. Or if they do, they don't quite understand just how brutally bad life was in the past. This is by far the best time to be alive and not just for the rich countries.
I could show you a lot more data that proves my point, but I doubt the data would be convincing to someone like you (someone with a negativity bias). Which is fine, not everyone needs to be an optimist or hopeful for the future. I know I used to be a lot more pessimistic in the past. But things really are getting better. So I've adapted my world view to accommodate the more recent data. Not everyone will update their beliefs in the face of new information and that's fine.
Conversations like this always amuse me. How good life is today is not an indicator that it is sustainable. If I drain my 401k and max out my credit cards I could live a really really great life, until I couldn't. I'm willing to be optimistic just as soon as I have a reason to be (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions).
-
So we do agree on some things and disagree on others. Which like I said is fine, I'm perfectly OK with that.
I am curious though, what would be some workable, realistic solutions you would advocate for to fix some of these problems? I assume you'll say some variant of 'consume less'. And as you pointed out before, rich countries use a lot more resources than poor countries. So would you advocate that rich countries become poor countries? And if so, how would that actually work?
-
I am curious though, what would be some workable, realistic solutions you would advocate for to fix some of these problems? I assume you'll say some variant of 'consume less'. And as you pointed out before, rich countries use a lot more resources than poor countries. So would you advocate that rich countries become poor countries? And if so, how would that actually work?
I'm a strong advocate for a carbon tax. Just keep cranking it up until we hit our goals. Actually, I was briefly optimistic for the sliver of time where Republicans seemed on board, but now US progressives seem unwilling to tax the poor that way, because poor people like cheap gas too.
-
I am curious though, what would be some workable, realistic solutions you would advocate for to fix some of these problems? I assume you'll say some variant of 'consume less'. And as you pointed out before, rich countries use a lot more resources than poor countries. So would you advocate that rich countries become poor countries? And if so, how would that actually work?
I'm a strong advocate for a carbon tax. Just keep cranking it up until we hit our goals. Actually, I was briefly optimistic for the sliver of time where Republicans seemed on board, but now US progressives seem unwilling to tax the poor that way, because poor people like cheap gas too.
Ah, OK. I also think a carbon tax makes a lot of sense.
-
This happened to pop up in my podcast this morning (full interview here (https://www.marketplace.org/2022/02/10/what-would-it-take-to-reach-net-zero-global-emissions-by-2050/)), McKinsey: The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring (https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring):
Capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems in the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050
would amount to about $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of as much as $3.5 trillion
from today. To put this increase in comparative terms, the $3.5 trillion is approximately equivalent, in 2020, to half of global
corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, and 7 percent of household spending. An additional $1 trillion of today’s
annual spend would, moreover, need to be reallocated from high-emissions to low-emissions assets. Accounting for expected
increases in spending, as incomes and populations grow, as well as for currently legislated transition policies, the required
increase in spending would be lower, but still about $1 trillion. The spending would be front-loaded, rising from 6.8 percent of
GDP today to as much as 8.8 percent of GDP between 2026 and 2030 before falling
You need to give them an email address to download the report.
-
But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale. The good news is that we won't have to. Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere. And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7? If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time? It doesn't. It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.
I haven't read to the end of the tread and someone will probably have something to say about your comment. If not - we will never be able to throw caution to the wind. Pollution from producing energy is one problem. So is industrial waste, plastic waste that apparently never goes away, and resource scarcity.
My family tries to get the last mile out of everything we buy. Hopefully the house air conditioner system will last another 10+ years or until at least when new systems are so efficient that using the old system is reckless and wasteful.
EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.
-
EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.
Yes - but 25+ years of useful life doesn't have to be 25+ years of useful life with one owner. EVs also require much less maintenance - skipping oil changes will do no harm, as there are no oil changes.
But I do agree, we can't EV our way out of the climate crisis, reduced consumption must be a part of the equation. We can reduce it voluntarily, in a managed way - or involuntarily, in a much more chaotic way.
-
EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.
Yes - but 25+ years of useful life doesn't have to be 25+ years of useful life with one owner. EVs also require much less maintenance - skipping oil changes will do no harm, as there are no oil changes.
But I do agree, we can't EV our way out of the climate crisis, reduced consumption must be a part of the equation. We can reduce it voluntarily, in a managed way - or involuntarily, in a much more chaotic way.
I have a greater concern that electric cars will be obsoleted more than they'll wear out. Sure, ICEs have vastly more parts and pieces and fluids and stuff to pump fluids and such. But when something goes wrong, it's easy to buy a brand new part to replace the old. The opposite is true for all the electronics--if one of those fails, you either buy one from the manufacturer (if they still make/stock them) or find one in a junk yard.
Beyond parts support, it doesn't seem to matter whether a car is capable of lasting 25 or even 50 years, because there is a perception that anything older than X years is a death trap because it wasn't designed to meet the perpetually-intensifying crash test standards from IIHS.
-
These other problems with waste are much less urgent than the fact that we are about to burn ourselves up with gas/oil/coal. EV's and renewables seem like the fastest most efficient means to solve that urgent crisis. To me it makes sense to move to the less-bad option than to do nothing.
Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?
-
Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?
I like renewables and EVs, but I also want to see:
1. Road Diets (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/) for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb).
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.
5. Tax the fuck out of cars.
EDITed to add: 6. A ban on plumbing new natural gas lines to residences because the fugitive emissions are huge.
-
These other problems with waste are much less urgent than the fact that we are about to burn ourselves up with gas/oil/coal. EV's and renewables seem like the fastest most efficient means to solve that urgent crisis. To me it makes sense to move to the less-bad option than to do nothing.
Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?
Without solving the energy storage issue, I am concerned that charging down the path of replacing fossil fuels with renewables will plunge us into the situation that California frequently finds itself in--very high electricity rates and occasional rolling blackouts.
-
EVs maybe energy efficient compared to ICE vehicles but they still wear out - and if the past is any indicator - a fair number will wear out from neglect and abuse before they actually wear out. I'm not convinced that the average consumer has any interest in a car that lasts 25+ years anyhow. People seem to get tired of their things before their things are truly beyond repair. Or as I've seen with more than a few individuals - neglect their things so they can justify replacing their things.
Yes - but 25+ years of useful life doesn't have to be 25+ years of useful life with one owner. EVs also require much less maintenance - skipping oil changes will do no harm, as there are no oil changes.
But I do agree, we can't EV our way out of the climate crisis, reduced consumption must be a part of the equation. We can reduce it voluntarily, in a managed way - or involuntarily, in a much more chaotic way.
I have a greater concern that electric cars will be obsoleted more than they'll wear out. Sure, ICEs have vastly more parts and pieces and fluids and stuff to pump fluids and such. But when something goes wrong, it's easy to buy a brand new part to replace the old. The opposite is true for all the electronics--if one of those fails, you either buy one from the manufacturer (if they still make/stock them) or find one in a junk yard.
Beyond parts support, it doesn't seem to matter whether a car is capable of lasting 25 or even 50 years, because there is a perception that anything older than X years is a death trap because it wasn't designed to meet the perpetually-intensifying crash test standards from IIHS.
This is kind of where I am. I have a suspicion that any EV that needs a new battery will be retired.
A used battery is $3500 from a wrecked car for a Nissan Leaf for an example. We live in a country where supposedly a large number of people are challenged to raise $500 on short notice. What happens if the shop says their car needs a $5K battery? Most batteries can be broken down and repaired easily but not without a cost. $75 will buy on Nissan Leaf battery module which would yield 8 cells. Will that price go up or down when demand increases? eBikes retailers have said for years that replacement batteries will drop in cost with time. Not that I have seen. They are either the same price or slightly more in 2022. Fortunately my two bikes continue on for another season with four+ year old batteries.
Also in 2022 gadgets older than a few years do not receive updates for one reason or another. Tracfone tells me my 2019 smart phone needs to be retired because it is not a 5G phone. It is a 4G phone. I checked around and only RedPocket says they offer service in my area.
How many perfectly good computers could be rebuild using free Linux but get recycled instead. I've rejuvenated a dozen or more computers with Linux that had years of life left in them as general purpose computers. The average person doesn't even think about this.
I worry electric cars will exacerbate the e-waste problems.
-
I like renewables and EVs, but I also want to see:
1. Road Diets (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/) for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb).
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.
5. Tax the fuck out of cars.
EDITed to add: 6. A ban on plumbing new natural gas lines to residences because the fugitive emissions are huge.
I'll second that, especially the streetcars. Let's add extensive bike path systems to the list. I'd pedal to work every day if I didn't have to compete with the cars. As it stands, my route (ever busier) is a race with the cars. Racing to get past the next dangerous intersection before the cars crowd me. Empty roads are bearable but with the end of COVID, the roads are busier than ever.
My DW might give riding a bicycle a chance but as it stands, riding a bike on the street scares the daylights out of her.
The average American suburban neighborhood bordered by stroads and franchise shopping and restaurants has no appeal to me and mine. Its part of why we choose to live on the edge of a smaller town. Give me a low traffic village please.
I would like to see people buy and keep their electric cars 15-20 years but people gotta spend, spend, spend. Styles, trends, 2% safer, car magazines and home shows. Too much short term thinking. Now extrapolate that to clothes, houses, cars, phones, computers, furniture, etc.
Obviously not everyone operates like this but some do. I know people IRL who do and the waste drives me crazy.
-
Given some of the concerns about waste raised here, what would be some other, better solutions that are better than switching to renewables and EVs?
I like renewables and EVs, but I also want to see:
1. Road Diets (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/) for all stroads starting tomorrow.
2. A return to Streetcar Suburbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb).
3. The immediate ban of single family zoning across the entire country.
4. The immediate ban on parking minimums across the entire country.
5. Tax the fuck out of cars.
EDITed to add: 6. A ban on plumbing new natural gas lines to residences because the fugitive emissions are huge.
I agree with all of this. The 'car culture' in the US is ridiculous. Now that I know what a stroad is, I can't stop seeing them everywhere I look!
Also, too often people drive way too fast and way too impatient which makes things dangerous for everyone else, especially bikers and pedestrians. The current infrastructure only encourages this type of thoughtless aggressiveness. One thing they've started doing in Denver, that I really like, is putting bike lanes between the street parking spaces and the sidewalks.
I think that banning single family homes is probably not feasible, but I do think that we need to strongly incentivize the sort of mixed use neighborhoods you see in Europe.
Ban parking minimums probably a good idea, or at least get rid of 'parking lots' and force everything into multi-story parking garages. I'd also lean heavily into subsidizing any/all work that can give us robo-taxis. Basically this could let us take what Uber is doing, but to the next level. I've gotten to the point tha I won't drive into downtown if I don't have to, I'd much rather Uber and not have to deal with parking. Having something automated and cheaper would accelerate this type of change in basic driving behavior.
Tax the hell out of cars. Yes. And gas too.
-
I think that banning single family homes is probably not feasible, but I do think that we need to strongly incentivize the sort of mixed use neighborhoods you see in Europe.
I did not mean to ban single family homes, but what Oregon did (https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-single-family-zoning-law-effect-developers/) where local municipalities can no longer create zoning plans where only single family housing is legal. I believe that California has done the same thing (https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-09-17/what-just-happened-with-single-family-zoning-in-california).*
EDITed to add my favorite YouTube video on the subject: The Suburbs Are Bleeding America Dry | Climate Town (feat. Not Just Bikes) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc)
* - but I think it needs to be taken further
-
I'm as excited as most people about solar getting cheaper. If "cheaper than peak natural gas" is a new thing, that's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't mean that it's a gamechanger quite yet.
Solar is far cheaper than peak natural gas. Solar energy is dirt cheap on the industrial scale $0.03 to $0.04 per kwh. That's an all inclusive price including installation, grid connection, financing, maintenance and profit.
-
But it's silly to think that minimizing consumption will work on a large scale. The good news is that we won't have to. Once we are converted to 100% renewables then our consumption is not tied to burning up the atmosphere. And once that is true, then what does it matter if we run the air conditioner 24/7? If we have an EV with 100% renewable charging, what does it matter if we drive everywhere all the time? It doesn't. It's a paradigm shift, and I personally can't wait for it to happen.
Well said. I hate waste, I'd love to see everyone who can bike to work etc etc. But people smarter than me realized you'll transition the world faster by making a better mouse traps that happen to be "green", vs trying to change the world on a societal level.
-
Read recently that zinc-based batteries are making a comeback and may be a substitute for lithium. Energy density is a bit lower, but zinc is much more easily obtained. For stationary use, it seems like a good substitute if it lasts long enough. If this pans out, I think transition to renewable energy will be accelerated.
-
I've been seeing a lot of (silly seeming to me) protests, against lithium mining, against geothermal energy developments, against solar plants in the desert (admittedly roof top solar seems better, as it has no additional externalities at all), against all sorts of things which I don't see a reason for protesting. It seems hypocritical to me. The protesters depend upon the items they protest against, and there aren't alternatives because these are the alternatives. If the last of an endangered species dies in west Xinjiang and no environmentalist notices, does it yet live? Better by far to be upfront about these things. IMO it would be better for the US if we passed a law requiring no net imports of minerals. It would be best if consumers had to face the consequences of their consumption by dealing with the necessary mines, while the economy would get the benefit of mining jobs and economic diversification, and also the shorter supply chains would make the whole thing less fragile.
-
I've been seeing a lot of (silly seeming to me) protests, against lithium mining, against geothermal energy developments, against solar plants in the desert (admittedly roof top solar seems better, as it has no additional externalities at all), against all sorts of things which I don't see a reason for protesting. It seems hypocritical to me. The protesters depend upon the items they protest against, and there aren't alternatives because these are the alternatives. If the last of an endangered species dies in west Xinjiang and no environmentalist notices, does it yet live? Better by far to be upfront about these things. IMO it would be better for the US if we passed a law requiring no net imports of minerals. It would be best if consumers had to face the consequences of their consumption by dealing with the necessary mines, while the economy would get the benefit of mining jobs and economic diversification, and also the shorter supply chains would make the whole thing less fragile.
I agree - most people want to outsource whatever is involved in their daily plethora to someone else. People opposed to wind farms want someone else to live next to coal plants. People opposed to coal plants want someone else' random bird to lose its habitat for solar panels (because some bird is going to have to go, that's the nature of large-scale solar development), but they fail to see how many thousand times more birds will die from climate change.
I guess once we find the perfect, optimal solution for every solar and wind farm placement, we an all celebrate with the cockroaches that are left.
-
Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents. I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry. Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species). Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )
IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines. But of course, the companies don't want to do that. They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause. This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.
-
Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents. I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry. Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species). Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )
IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines. But of course, the companies don't want to do that. They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause. This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.
Some recent VERY good news about batteries is we now know that they can be recycled and re-used with zero degradation to the battery performance. Which means at a certain point we'll have all the battery material we need and we'll just be able to recycle the stuff already mined:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUS5s1tYp6g
-
Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents.
Where I live in the midwest we have many old reclaimed coal mine properties that have been turned into public rec land and / or sold privately. These are some of the most beautiful, gin clear lakes, best fishing holes and nicest forests around. One area I frequent has over 100 small lakes and thousands of acres of woodlands all open to public, some of the best hunting and fishing area in the state.
At least mining stops at some point. Row crop farming goes on forever leaving a barren landscape that will never support much wildlife.
-
Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents. I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry. Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species). Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )
IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines. But of course, the companies don't want to do that. They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause. This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.
I think you may be comparing existing abandoned mines, pre mid 1970s, in the US and mines permitted and constructed after the mid 1970s or mines being permitted/constructed today. Most of the Bolded text above relate to abandoned mines (at least in the USA). Today, to permit a mine can take a decade, or more. There are many factors but base line environmental studies must be completed to determine if any threatened or endangered species are present. Cultural studies are completed on federal lands to determine the presence of sites of archeological significance exist. Other studies include monitoring ground water for quality and seasonal variations and surface water flows for again quality and quantity all to set a baseline that needs to be maintained or mitigated during and after mining activities. Other activities like community outreach are very important to a mining project. If the community is against a potential mine it can be very hard to permit. So community outreach is real to hear what concerns the local community has and the mine can show how they plan to mitigate or eliminate their concerns.
Then there is the material testing to determine the the existence of potentially acid generating (PAG) materials (rocks that have the potential to release acid or heavy metals) or non-acid generating materials (inert rock). Any PAG waste materials are placed on a double lined facility (may vary by state law) that typically consists of either 12 inches of clay or a low permeability soil layer or a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) both of which have a hydraulic conductivity of at least 10^-6 cm/s. Then an HDPE liner (around 60 mil thickness) is placed over the low perm or GCL to provide double protection. Any runoff or drainage from a PAG waste dump is routed to a collection pond that typically has triple containment with a leak detection system. solution from these ponds are pumped to a water treatment facility then released once water quality is confirmed. After mining operations end these PAG waste dumps are capped with a low permeabiltiy soil or liner system (similar to a land fill) to prevent precipiation from entering the material. this eliminates rain/snow from coming into contact with PAG and over time the seepage from the PAG dump goes to zero.
To extract metals from ore, typically the ore is processed in a plant or is placed on a double lined facility and leached. Heap leach pads are very similar to a PAG dump and managed in a similar fashion. The process plant creates a the subject metal and tailings or the "rock" the subject metal was in. Tailings are managed in a similar way to PAG materials some times as a filtered or dewatered material or others placed as a slurry. A tailings slurry is kinda like a chocolate milk to pudding consistency and are managed in a tailings storage facility (TSF) where over time the tailings are dewatered via gravity and compaction. Recent TSF failures ( Brazilian mines and mt. polley in canada) have changed the global through process on how a TSF should be managed and the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) is being implemented across the industry. https://globaltailingsreview.org/global-industry-standard/
This standard has enhanced monitoring, review, and reporting requirements that should mitigate future failures.
Open pits are typically not filled after mining activities but the surrounding groundwater is mapped to determine the effect on the surrounding aquifer. These typically generate lakes that can be viable habitats as @Fishindude pointed out.
Similarly closure studies are completed at several phases of design to determine a safe final ground environment that is covered with salvaged growth media prior to construction and is revegetated with native plants. Closure monitoring obligations can last decades to ensure the designs are functioning as designed and to mitigate any potential problems that arise during the monitoring phase. Closure studies determine closure bonds that need to be funded prior to starting construction so if for any reason the company goes bankrupt or what ever, there are funds to close the site.
These are not evil corporations looking to destroy the world. they have a vested interest in developing a safe project, partnering with the local communities in which they work and providing a social benefit in terms of the necessary building blocks of our society, sand and gravel, rare earth metals, battery materials, industrials staples and precious metals. In today's world a dam failure or a spill can bankrupt a company, they don't want they nor do the consultants that serve the industry. Hopefully the above helps to alleviate some of your concerns. i to am an environmentalist and am glad to be part of the solution preventing catastrophes or spills at the sites where we work.
-
Personally, as a rabid environmentalist, I'd be happy with more mines IF said mines were less destructive to the local environment and weren't so completely horrific, health-wise, to the local residents. I'm thinking of the proposed Pebble mine in Alaska that, if it went ahead, would have toxic tailing piles and other sludge that could conceivably leak and permanently destroy a multi-million dollar salmon fishing industry. Or other mines that rely on open-pit techniques that destroy the land permanently - even if they 'put the earth back' once they're done (which often they don't), they usually have ruined the land for any farming, ranching, or other use (and again, they are irretrievably destroying local ecosystems, which thanks to habitat loss, are often the last refuges for multiple species). Or pollute local aquifers and rivers to the detriment of anyone living downstream (see: Amazon gold mining, coal mining in Appalachia, etc., etc )
IF mining companies were actually willing to explore less-destructive methods of extraction and be held fully responsible for any potential damage they might cause (to the tune of non-dischargable insurance bonds in the millions or billions of dollars it would take to clean up after them, if they have any hazardous waste discharges/illegal disposal), I'd be a lot more onboard with new mines. But of course, the companies don't want to do that. They want to pull the good stuff out of the ground, and then take the profits and run and leave the local communities holding the bag for the destruction they cause. This has been going on for several hundred years at this point, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for change.
As a rational environmentalist, I look around at all the crap I and other people use which is mined, and think "holy crap the US should be pockmarked with mines to afford this level of consumption." Like I said, I'd prefer to see no net imports of minerals to the US. All things sold should be recyclable and an organized recycling network should be set up such that 99% of materials are recycled. If we want to transition to renewable energy, we need to mine. Beyond that, our social goals conflict with our environmental goals. If we want to keep bringing up the standard of life of the poor in the US and around the world, we need more mining. I don't know where that line is drawn, but I'd like to see all the costs and benefits go to the places the materials are used, especially if they are carefully regulated and transparent. "Made in USA 2030" would be a great and effective slogan, and also it would be nice to see more messaging about reducing waste.
That said, carefully regulated means efficient and fast regulation. If a mine cannot be allowed at a location or can be allowed only conditionally, then that is OK, but it should be determined quickly, and not drawn out over years decades.
A thing about oil and gas is that it is very minimally invasive and has few side effects. An oil well is like a very small straw in a very large cup, and with new technology the size of the cup is growing very large. From there it is preferably pumped (not trucked or shipped) through a small pipe to its destination. Really, carbon dioxide and whatnot is the only significant drawback to these.
For a mine, it is the reverse. It will always leave a large hole in the ground, and almost always a larger pile of waste rock next door. If there are lingering effects, they will usually be very local. It actually does not make sense to refill the mine, because the energy expenditure is almost as large as it was to mine in the first place, hence nearly doubling the emissions or quantity of battery.
Modern mining regulations, especially since the 1990's, are far more stringent about environmental protection than those which came before, though I am not sure how effective they are over the long run in all cases, for example some pit lakes will be highly acidic for centuries. But as a comparison, I once (for the year I did that type of thing) sampled water from a mine cerca 1900 which had built its tailings and waste dumps directly over a stream. The pH was 2, and every gallon of water we sampled from it weighed a full pound more than a regular gallon of water because of all the dissolved minerals. The stream carried this stuff through all sorts of habitat, and eventually past drinking water intakes (and also was a super fund site). However, now there are requirements to build those far from water, and to line the bottom with plastic and clay as described above, and to put a cap on it to direct precipitation away. So there will still be a very large negative effect, but it should be strictly local.
Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role. It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.
-
Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role. It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.
A lot of truth here.
Wake up and realize that we are not going to get away from mining anytime soon.
The real environmental push should be towards the low hanging fruit, easier to accomplish stuff like simply cleaning up after ourselves and creating less waste. Big thing I would like to see is all liquid containers of returnable (glass) or recyclable materials which means aluminum or steel. Plastic and papers have no recycle value so they don't get recycled.
Should also eliminate all the paper and packaging if you eat indoors at any fast food restaurant. Use washable plates, silverware and glasses. I pick up a couple miles of roadside and fast food and drink containers are 90% of the litter.
-
Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role. It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.
A lot of truth here.
Wake up and realize that we are not going to get away from mining anytime soon.
The real environmental push should be towards the low hanging fruit, easier to accomplish stuff like simply cleaning up after ourselves and creating less waste. Big thing I would like to see is all liquid containers of returnable (glass) or recyclable materials which means aluminum or steel. Plastic and papers have no recycle value so they don't get recycled.
Should also eliminate all the paper and packaging if you eat indoors at any fast food restaurant. Use washable plates, silverware and glasses. I pick up a couple miles of roadside and fast food and drink containers are 90% of the litter.
The thing is, it can get quite complex figuring out what the best course of action is in a lot of situations. Glass packaging is great when used correctly, but it adds significant weight to the products and has pretty high embodied energy itself, all of which increases packaging and shipping costs and emissions. If you can package, sell, and reuse glass locally, that's often a great option. But if it's shipping long distances, or being recycled rather than reused, that can end up being a pretty awful solution.
A lot of our modern packaging solutions have been developed to allow global supply chains. One part of the solution needs to be to shift those supply chains to be more local for high volume consumption goods (I'm primarily thinking of food here).
-
Anyhow, as an exercise I think people should look around and look at how much of the stuff around them which is visible right now is entirely a result of mining, how much was made out of renewable materials but shaped by mined materials, how much was merely transported by mined materials, and how much is in a form and location such that mining played no role. It is shocking how much stuff tends toward the beginning of that order.
A lot of truth here.
Wake up and realize that we are not going to get away from mining anytime soon.
The real environmental push should be towards the low hanging fruit, easier to accomplish stuff like simply cleaning up after ourselves and creating less waste. Big thing I would like to see is all liquid containers of returnable (glass) or recyclable materials which means aluminum or steel. Plastic and papers have no recycle value so they don't get recycled.
Should also eliminate all the paper and packaging if you eat indoors at any fast food restaurant. Use washable plates, silverware and glasses. I pick up a couple miles of roadside and fast food and drink containers are 90% of the litter.
I completely agree with most of this, and practice it as much as I can in my personal choices. That said, personal choices only get us so far, and we need systemic change to make real impact. There were originally three R's --reduce, reuse and only then, recycle. But for some reason reduce and reuse has been ignored (gee, wonder why in an economy that thrives of consumerism), and recycling is underfunded and undercut by the mountains of mixed and unrecycleable garbage out there.
Honestly, if I were Queen of the World, my solutions would be as follows:
All single use items should be compostable whenever possible, and engineered to be recyclable where not. (With exceptions for specialty materials needed for medical use, critical needs for safety, infrastructure, etc.)
Mixed plastics should be reduced to use cases where they are absolutely necessary. (see above exceptions) Everything else should be designed to be easily recyclable.
Government funding should given to materials and engineering research programs to gradually expand and create alternatives for these use cases, to create items that are recyclable or compostable.
All non-single use items need to be engineered to be repairable, and/or have a cradle-to-grave obligation for easy breakdown for recycling or safe disposal by the companies that create them. If a company wants to create a non-recyclable, non-repairable disposable item, they still can, but that item is going to be significantly more expensive to produce due to this. No more big companies outsourcing their disposal costs to local communities and federal gov'ts.
If we did this, we'd see a big reduction in resources needed for all sorts of extractive industries. What still needed to be mined could be done in much smaller quantities, and-with proper incentives-much less destructively, I would hope.
We are seeing a lot more push for this, legislation-wise, but we still have a looooong way to go. And inevitably is going to see pushback by people who are used to their throwaway, everything-is-plastic consumer lives.
-
These are not evil corporations looking to destroy the world. they have a vested interest in developing a safe project, partnering with the local communities in which they work and providing a social benefit in terms of the necessary building blocks of our society, sand and gravel, rare earth metals, battery materials, industrials staples and precious metals. In today's world a dam failure or a spill can bankrupt a company, they don't want they nor do the consultants that serve the industry. Hopefully the above helps to alleviate some of your concerns. i to am an environmentalist and am glad to be part of the solution preventing catastrophes or spills at the sites where we work.
Sorry, this feels like a lot of PR to me. Maybe there are some good, responsible mining companies out there abiding by the letter of the law, but from what I can tell there are also a lot of 'pull all the profit out of the ground you can, then up and run' outfits still in operation. Hilltop removal is still legal and ongoing practice in Appalachia. I lived next to an open pit coal mine in North Dakota that supplied a nearby coal plant - all the local residents knew they turned off their scrubbers in the wee hours of the morning, because you could see the haze along the horizon, but nobody ever did anything about. Lord know if they will ever put the earth back when they're done, and if that land will be usable if they do. In that same location, I lived next to another former mine where they had 'put the earth back' - put it back in huge mounds that made the area unuseable. You couldn't level it; you couldn't even build a house on it. The local boy scouts went in an planted some trees and the state turned it into a park - but it was a park you couldn't hike or otherwise use, was a haven for mosquitos, and provided very little good habitat for local animal life. I'm not even sure you could hunt in it, unless you liked trekking up and down sheer hillsides constantly.
Far too many mining outfits promise the moon in adhering to safety regs and requirements, but then have 'accidents' that leave their local communities holding the bag. And sure, they'll get fined a few hundred grand, but if they make a million bucks in profit in the meantime, then that's just the cost of doing business. I receive regular notices from Earthjustice about ongoing efforts to hold mining companies accountable for the harm they cause, and believe me, not all of them are from old operations from the 70's. Some of them are ongoing today.
-
PTF. I am in the Mining EPC business and am seeing a substantial increase in mining projects to support the energy transition. We are hiring in every office but are still limited by lack of resources as are our competitors.
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions (https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions)
I gave my notice to retire but was talked into extending part time for another 6 months. I accepted in part because it allows me to play a role in supporting the energy transition and in part because of the current market volatility.
As a mining business we are doing a lot of good things to ensure the projects are sustainable. Examples include electric mine trucks, on site solar farms and additional safety factors and inspection in tailing dam designs.
-
These are not evil corporations looking to destroy the world. they have a vested interest in developing a safe project, partnering with the local communities in which they work and providing a social benefit in terms of the necessary building blocks of our society, sand and gravel, rare earth metals, battery materials, industrials staples and precious metals. In today's world a dam failure or a spill can bankrupt a company, they don't want they nor do the consultants that serve the industry. Hopefully the above helps to alleviate some of your concerns. i to am an environmentalist and am glad to be part of the solution preventing catastrophes or spills at the sites where we work.
Sorry, this feels like a lot of PR to me. Maybe there are some good, responsible mining companies out there abiding by the letter of the law, but from what I can tell there are also a lot of 'pull all the profit out of the ground you can, then up and run' outfits still in operation. Hilltop removal is still legal and ongoing practice in Appalachia. I lived next to an open pit coal mine in North Dakota that supplied a nearby coal plant - all the local residents knew they turned off their scrubbers in the wee hours of the morning, because you could see the haze along the horizon, but nobody ever did anything about. Lord know if they will ever put the earth back when they're done, and if that land will be usable if they do. In that same location, I lived next to another former mine where they had 'put the earth back' - put it back in huge mounds that made the area unuseable. You couldn't level it; you couldn't even build a house on it. The local boy scouts went in an planted some trees and the state turned it into a park - but it was a park you couldn't hike or otherwise use, was a haven for mosquitos, and provided very little good habitat for local animal life. I'm not even sure you could hunt in it, unless you liked trekking up and down sheer hillsides constantly.
Far too many mining outfits promise the moon in adhering to safety regs and requirements, but then have 'accidents' that leave their local communities holding the bag. And sure, they'll get fined a few hundred grand, but if they make a million bucks in profit in the meantime, then that's just the cost of doing business. I receive regular notices from Earthjustice about ongoing efforts to hold mining companies accountable for the harm they cause, and believe me, not all of them are from old operations from the 70's. Some of them are ongoing today.
All i can say is, from my experience, every project i have worked on has followed the rules and regulations of the governing bodies and if there is was an issue they notified agencies as required and remediated any issues. Your coal example is about the power plant, not the mine. I havent worked in the eastern US so i cant comment on coal mining in appalachia, but i do know that not a lot of coal is being mined any more as we transition to clean energy, especially dirty coal. As far as land use after mine closure, that should be considered on a case by case basis and consider the existing or prior land use and proposed use post reclamation.
As far as not following the rules, i have never seen it. Its not in a companies best interest to do harm and make a bad name for themselves in the industry and with regulators at least with US or Canadian companies. This may be an area where we dont agree, and thats ok. I just dont see the evil mining companies conspiring to harm others or the earth to make a profit. Mining leaves an impact there is no doubt, but many stake holders and government agencies have a say in the plans and outcomes.
-
Good topic, great discussion.
I look forward to the day when all mines are as carefully run as those where OP works. In general, I support the "all of the above" discussed early in the thread. By getting the achievable good from each option, we can make progress and position ourselves for further improvements. The overall tradeoffs discussed here really are key for building a sustainable future.
Re carbon tax, I'm for it and progressives could logically support a version that assists poor people. The simple version (so to speak) would be a carbon dividend, in which the carbon tax revenues are returned to the people on a per-person basis as a monthly or annual "dividend" payment. Since wealthy people generate more energy use per person on average, they will be net payers, while ordinary people would likely get paid slightly more than the cost of the tax. The average Jane would come out ahead financially, even before system improvements end up reducing net costs.
The carbond dividend idea is already embodied in a legitimate bill in US Congress: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2307?r=758&s=1
Canada passed something similar but devoted about a third of the revenue to renewability-related projects, I believe. I have read that the implemented bill has remained popular.