Environmentalism and Green Energy vs. Mining

[joemandadman189]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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

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

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.

[Paper Chaser]

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.

[GodlessCommie]

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.

[Just Joe]

...in reality the only way out is to reduce consumption.

I agree entirely.

[sixwings]

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.

[GuitarStv]

...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.

[Watchmaker]

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.

[js82]

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.

[Watchmaker]

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.

[joemandadman189]

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.

[sixwings]

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.

[Tyson]

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. 

[RetiredAt63]

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. . . . .

[PDXTabs]

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.

[joemandadman189]

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.

[Tyson]

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. 

[Watchmaker]

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.

[Watchmaker]

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.

[joemandadman189]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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.

[Watchmaker]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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?

[Tyson]

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:



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. 



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!

[Sanitary Stache]

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.

[Watchmaker]

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

[Sanitary Stache]

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.

[Fishindude]

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.

[Watchmaker]

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. 

[joemandadman189]

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

[Abe]

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).

[GuitarStv]

Don't forget to account for the additional energy costs that the climate change we've already baked into our future will incur.

[gooki]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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.

[sixwings]

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.

[zolotiyeruki]

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).

[Tyson]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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.

[Tyson]

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. 

[Telecaster]

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. 

[PDXTabs]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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?

[GodlessCommie]

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.

[zolotiyeruki]

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." 

[Tyson]

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.

[GodlessCommie]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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?

[PDXTabs]

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 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. According to Nature 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:

Code: [Select]

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.

[Tyson]

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 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. According to Nature 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:

Code: [Select]

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.