4 ms·

The carbon costs of manufacturing a replacement fleet of cars is surely vast. Meanwhile, the internal combustion engine is perfectly capable of running on a wh

The carbon costs of manufacturing a replacement fleet of cars is surely vast. Meanwhile, the internal combustion engine is perfectly capable of running on a whole slew of renewable fuels, including but not limited to hydrogen gas, methanol, etc. It's not the most efficient in the long run, but it's a piece of the puzzle, especially when you consider the baseline energetic/carbon costs of building new vehicles from scratch. P.s. lithium is a conflict mineral now.

ajross 7y ago
The point about the desirability of a direct liquid fuel replacement for transportation is valid, but this logic doesn't work: > The carbon costs of manufacturing a replacement fleet of cars is surely vast. Cars have finite lifetimes. You don't replace the ones on the road, you replace the ones we'll buy in the future. And this one... well... > P.s. lithium is a conflict mineral now citation REALLY needed
- macawfish 7y ago
  > Cars have finite lifetimes. You don't replace the ones on the road, you replace the ones we'll buy in the future. Apologies... I realize upon rereading what I wrote that it was all a little hyperbolic. My point is that renewable hydrocarbon fuels could extend the use of already manufactured cars in a way that saves energy on the supply end, much in the same way that thrift stores extend the lives of worn clothing and satisfy a lot of demand that might otherwise go toward pressuring suppliers to make new clothes. It pays, energetically, to reuse and recycle (two out of the three R's right there!) Renewable hydrocarbon fuels would effectively "recycle" existing cars. I don't have any hard numbers but my hunch is that economically this could be quite a significant effect. Combined with hybrid conversion kits, renewable hydrocarbon fuels could make existing vehicles into a viable piece of the sustainable transportation puzzle. > citation REALLY needed http://gppreview.com/2018/02/07/motivations-unearthed-re-contextualizing-war-afghanistan/ http://gppreview.com/2018/02/07/motivations-unearthed-re-con... https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-american-troops-to-afghanistan-to-keep-the-chinese-out-lithium-and-the-battle-for-afghanistans-mineral-riches-2/5605456 https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-american-troops-to-afghan... http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/the-united-states-in-south-asia-the-afghanistan-factor/ http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/the-united-st... https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.htm... From the mouth of the beast itself: https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-trump-mining-lithium/3798585.html https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-trump-mining-lithium/3...
  - ajross 7y ago
    Those links all just say that there's Li in Afghanistan. Calling it a "conflict mineral" is a particular term of social justice that implies that its extraction is directly related to the exploitation of some local population, not just that there's a putative "conflict" nearby! You just seem to be using the term to argue that people near wars should be economic pariahs who we never trade with. That's harmful, not helpful. An of course, the overwhelming majority of Lithium production and reserves in the world are in Australia and Chile, which are notably conflict-free.
    - macawfish 7y ago
      That's a disingenuous reading of "all those links". In the very first link, for example, we have this quote: > The existence of this historical data suggests minerals may have been an underlining factor in the administration’s decision-making long before their official entanglement in the Afghan conflict. That would explain why, mere weeks after 9/11, and weeks before the official declaration of war, the Pentagon was already commissioning geologists to study caves throughout the country. ... > ... The process began almost immediately. From 2004 to 2006, the USGS conducted airborne geophysical surveys of the country. This was supplemented by efforts between 2005 and 2007 to consolidate existing information about the deposits in tandem with the AGS. What they found shocked even seasoned geologists, with an internal Pentagon memo from 2007 referring to Afghanistan as a “Saudi Arabia of Lithium.” With peaked interest, experimental hyperspectral imaging surveys began in 2007. But by the time Bush’s tenure as president was over, those surveys were not yet complete.
      - ajross 7y ago
        I'm sorry, where in that quote is someone making the case that we shouldn't trade in Lithium because it's bad for Afghanis? Again, you're making a very specific claim about social justice here and seem to be justifying it with bland pronouncements about Afghanistan. That doesn't fly. Find me someone credible demanding divestment from Afghani Lithium or battery boycotts or something and we'll talk. But no, I'm not going to just take the word of some rando HN poster that somehow Lithium is to be avoided. Like I said: citation needed.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>P.s. lithium is a conflict mineral now. I'll try not to mention it next time I am in Cornwall then, so as not to start a fight - https://www.cornishlithium.com/ https://www.cornishlithium.com/

ajross 7y ago

The point about the desirability of a direct liquid fuel replacement for transportation is valid, but this logic doesn't work: > The carbon costs of manufacturing a replacement fleet of cars is surely vast. Cars have finite lifetimes. You don't replace the ones on the road, you replace the ones we'll buy in the future. And this one... well... > P.s. lithium is a conflict mineral now citation REALLY needed

macawfish 7y ago
> Cars have finite lifetimes. You don't replace the ones on the road, you replace the ones we'll buy in the future. Apologies... I realize upon rereading what I wrote that it was all a little hyperbolic. My point is that renewable hydrocarbon fuels could extend the use of already manufactured cars in a way that saves energy on the supply end, much in the same way that thrift stores extend the lives of worn clothing and satisfy a lot of demand that might otherwise go toward pressuring suppliers to make new clothes. It pays, energetically, to reuse and recycle (two out of the three R's right there!) Renewable hydrocarbon fuels would effectively "recycle" existing cars. I don't have any hard numbers but my hunch is that economically this could be quite a significant effect. Combined with hybrid conversion kits, renewable hydrocarbon fuels could make existing vehicles into a viable piece of the sustainable transportation puzzle. > citation REALLY needed http://gppreview.com/2018/02/07/motivations-unearthed-re-contextualizing-war-afghanistan/ http://gppreview.com/2018/02/07/motivations-unearthed-re-con... https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-american-troops-to-afghanistan-to-keep-the-chinese-out-lithium-and-the-battle-for-afghanistans-mineral-riches-2/5605456 https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-american-troops-to-afghan... http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/the-united-states-in-south-asia-the-afghanistan-factor/ http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/the-united-st... https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.htm... From the mouth of the beast itself: https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-trump-mining-lithium/3798585.html https://www.voanews.com/a/afghanistan-trump-mining-lithium/3...
- ajross 7y ago
  Those links all just say that there's Li in Afghanistan. Calling it a "conflict mineral" is a particular term of social justice that implies that its extraction is directly related to the exploitation of some local population, not just that there's a putative "conflict" nearby! You just seem to be using the term to argue that people near wars should be economic pariahs who we never trade with. That's harmful, not helpful. An of course, the overwhelming majority of Lithium production and reserves in the world are in Australia and Chile, which are notably conflict-free.
  - macawfish 7y ago
    That's a disingenuous reading of "all those links". In the very first link, for example, we have this quote: > The existence of this historical data suggests minerals may have been an underlining factor in the administration’s decision-making long before their official entanglement in the Afghan conflict. That would explain why, mere weeks after 9/11, and weeks before the official declaration of war, the Pentagon was already commissioning geologists to study caves throughout the country. ... > ... The process began almost immediately. From 2004 to 2006, the USGS conducted airborne geophysical surveys of the country. This was supplemented by efforts between 2005 and 2007 to consolidate existing information about the deposits in tandem with the AGS. What they found shocked even seasoned geologists, with an internal Pentagon memo from 2007 referring to Afghanistan as a “Saudi Arabia of Lithium.” With peaked interest, experimental hyperspectral imaging surveys began in 2007. But by the time Bush’s tenure as president was over, those surveys were not yet complete.
    - ajross 7y ago
      I'm sorry, where in that quote is someone making the case that we shouldn't trade in Lithium because it's bad for Afghanis? Again, you're making a very specific claim about social justice here and seem to be justifying it with bland pronouncements about Afghanistan. That doesn't fly. Find me someone credible demanding divestment from Afghani Lithium or battery boycotts or something and we'll talk. But no, I'm not going to just take the word of some rando HN poster that somehow Lithium is to be avoided. Like I said: citation needed.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>P.s. lithium is a conflict mineral now. I'll try not to mention it next time I am in Cornwall then, so as not to start a fight - https://www.cornishlithium.com/ https://www.cornishlithium.com/