4 ms·

Rare-earth extraction is pretty nasty https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/enviro

Rare-earth extraction is pretty nasty https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra... And e.g. neodymium extraction for wind turbine magnets produces waste with radioactive thorium https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/49/034/49034222.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...

Gwypaas 4y ago
Now dig up all metals and other construction material used for the steam side and generators in fossil plants and make a comparison if that question is even worth to ask yourself. Also consider that we will be able to recycle the materials used so the extraction should level off to only supplying potential market expansion and loss.
- ratdragon 4y ago
  I believe these types of arguments should start with "What about..." sir. Also not sure how we got to fossil plants...
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Coal and nuclear have equivalent steam sides. Well, nuclear often has even more complexity with separate loops with heat exchangers to minimize contact between the reactor water and rest of the plant. CCGT turbines are a bit different in that they have turbine first, and then the same steam boiler to turbine setup. That is why I ask. All generation from mechanical sources needs generators, they need control circuitry. Steam plants need boilers, cooling towers and what not. Just wanted to point out that singularly focusing on "hurr durr renewables need to dig stuff out from the ground and not made using pixie-dust" is quite the irrelevant take since the entire energy generation industry shares so much complexity, no matter the source of energy.
- concordDance 4y ago
  > Now dig up all metals and other construction material used for the steam side and generators in fossil plants and make a comparison if that question is even worth to ask yourself. Is iron mining and refining as toxic as, say, lithium? Particularly when adjusted for how much extra mining you have to do for a particular amount of end product? Just throwing out factors to consider like you are doing (and I just did) is not very useful unless you also include some numbers for scale. Do some research and share.
dv_dt 4y ago
Rare earth is also not a necessary component for wind turbines. https://www.evwind.es/2017/05/31/rare-earths-and-wind-turbines-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist/60018 https://www.evwind.es/2017/05/31/rare-earths-and-wind-turbin...
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  But you need batteries to store energy for non-windy times, right? And those batteries will require rare earth materials.
  - dv_dt 4y ago
    For some chemistries, but there are multiple grid battery contenders which do not involve rare-earths. Even in chemistries that use it, Rare earth materials are being minimized or designed out. https://rmi.org/rmi-reality-check-greener-friendlier-alternatives-exist-for-rare-minerals-in-batteries/ https://rmi.org/rmi-reality-check-greener-friendlier-alterna...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    No, you do not need batteries. Batteries are the most expensive form of energy storage, and societies usually choose the lower-cost of alternatives where presented them. Furthermore, batteries do not require rare-earths. (A formerly-popular chemistry needed cobalt, which is not one.) Finally, "rare-earths" is just a name; the ones used industrially, including in some wind turbines, are not rare, and are anyway recycled. So, no, no, and no. We will need energy storage, eventually, after we have built out enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Fortunately, storage cost is falling very fast.
    - rockemsockem 4y ago
      So what I'm reading is that "we don't have to do it this way, there are better options", but are the better options actually being used and getting traction? Right now batteries are what we're using to store spare energy as far as i know (could be wrong for sure here though). I certainly might be using the term "rare earth" imprecisely, but cobalt is used in most batteries and mining it is in fact detrimental to the environment. It's just much more localized pollution than releasing methane or carbon, which is for sure a win in the climate change fight. You say storage cost is falling very fast, but again, what are the technologies being used backing up that storage you mention? I'm pretty sure it's batteries, but I'm totally open to facts saying otherwise.

Gwypaas 4y ago

Now dig up all metals and other construction material used for the steam side and generators in fossil plants and make a comparison if that question is even worth to ask yourself. Also consider that we will be able to recycle the materials used so the extraction should level off to only supplying potential market expansion and loss.

ratdragon 4y ago
I believe these types of arguments should start with "What about..." sir. Also not sure how we got to fossil plants...
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Coal and nuclear have equivalent steam sides. Well, nuclear often has even more complexity with separate loops with heat exchangers to minimize contact between the reactor water and rest of the plant. CCGT turbines are a bit different in that they have turbine first, and then the same steam boiler to turbine setup. That is why I ask. All generation from mechanical sources needs generators, they need control circuitry. Steam plants need boilers, cooling towers and what not. Just wanted to point out that singularly focusing on "hurr durr renewables need to dig stuff out from the ground and not made using pixie-dust" is quite the irrelevant take since the entire energy generation industry shares so much complexity, no matter the source of energy.
concordDance 4y ago
> Now dig up all metals and other construction material used for the steam side and generators in fossil plants and make a comparison if that question is even worth to ask yourself. Is iron mining and refining as toxic as, say, lithium? Particularly when adjusted for how much extra mining you have to do for a particular amount of end product? Just throwing out factors to consider like you are doing (and I just did) is not very useful unless you also include some numbers for scale. Do some research and share.

dv_dt 4y ago

Rare earth is also not a necessary component for wind turbines. https://www.evwind.es/2017/05/31/rare-earths-and-wind-turbines-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist/60018 https://www.evwind.es/2017/05/31/rare-earths-and-wind-turbin...

rockemsockem 4y ago
But you need batteries to store energy for non-windy times, right? And those batteries will require rare earth materials.
- dv_dt 4y ago
  For some chemistries, but there are multiple grid battery contenders which do not involve rare-earths. Even in chemistries that use it, Rare earth materials are being minimized or designed out. https://rmi.org/rmi-reality-check-greener-friendlier-alternatives-exist-for-rare-minerals-in-batteries/ https://rmi.org/rmi-reality-check-greener-friendlier-alterna...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  No, you do not need batteries. Batteries are the most expensive form of energy storage, and societies usually choose the lower-cost of alternatives where presented them. Furthermore, batteries do not require rare-earths. (A formerly-popular chemistry needed cobalt, which is not one.) Finally, "rare-earths" is just a name; the ones used industrially, including in some wind turbines, are not rare, and are anyway recycled. So, no, no, and no. We will need energy storage, eventually, after we have built out enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Fortunately, storage cost is falling very fast.
  - rockemsockem 4y ago
    So what I'm reading is that "we don't have to do it this way, there are better options", but are the better options actually being used and getting traction? Right now batteries are what we're using to store spare energy as far as i know (could be wrong for sure here though). I certainly might be using the term "rare earth" imprecisely, but cobalt is used in most batteries and mining it is in fact detrimental to the environment. It's just much more localized pollution than releasing methane or carbon, which is for sure a win in the climate change fight. You say storage cost is falling very fast, but again, what are the technologies being used backing up that storage you mention? I'm pretty sure it's batteries, but I'm totally open to facts saying otherwise.