3 ms·

> We might not be producing enough right now, but there's far more than enough that can be mined or recycled inexpensively. That's not reality but a dream. So

by kkfx 4y ago

> We might not be producing enough right now, but there's far more than enough that can be mined or recycled inexpensively. That's not reality but a dream. So far we still have to find a sustainable lithium recycling on scale, there are various startups with various solutions, who actually prove to be just like most startup: PR scam for money or childish dream of someone who sold the cat before capturing it. It's not better in mining estimation: we have estimations of different kind but they are nothing than dream, we do not really know how much lithium is accessible on earth.

zdragnar 4y ago
Locally, there are several mines that have been trying to open for years (copper and nickel, mostly) but the environmental crowd has been extremely determined in using the courts and bureaucracy to block them from opening. The net result is the green wave will be driven largely by relying on dirty minerals from other countries.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Mining tech is essentially the same since ever, we just have transferred some physical efforts to machines, how a local mine is "green" and some in exotic places is different? Consider a thing: all industry do not pollute because they are evil but because the tech produce pollution. Something was done, something can be done, to reduce it of course, but that's not always possible, not possible more than a certain extent and not for free. A simple idea: can you pay a 8-years maximum lasting car 100k€? Even if you can, how many others needs cars and can't? Because that's relatively less heavy than the physical possibility of doing something, but it's not marginal at all. I have built a new home, with all actual tech to consume less and get a better life, but if such homes can only be made let's say by 10% of the western population, witch means roughly by 3% of the total human population what's the outcome? We are a society. Some can be richer than others, nothing wrong in that. BUT when the difference between the poorest and richest and so their numbers on total humans diverge too much the society fall apart anyway.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    > how a local mine is "green" and some in exotic places is different? https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/greenmining.html#:~:text=New%20mining%20technologies%20and%20regulations,because%20less%20waste%20is%20produced https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/.... https://empoweringpumps.com/5-ways-to-make-mining-more-sustainable/ https://empoweringpumps.com/5-ways-to-make-mining-more-susta... are both nice entry points for basic research. Mining tech has changed quite a bit since the early days- waste management is probably the biggest factor in whether a mine is relatively neutral or harmful to the environment. The other major factor between countries is the extent to which regulations are in place to ensure that old mines are also managed- ensuring water runoff doesn't flow into and through them (picking up excess metal waste), etc. A final note is many countries do not have the regulatory strength to catch all illegal mining operations, which may have no waste management or treatment in place at all. Even with all of the regulations in place, it would still be economically feasible to mine here- otherwise, the mining companies wouldn't be spending decades trying to open these mines up in the first place.
    - kkfx 4y ago
      Both are dreams, not very green by it's own, not really doable (like recycling water) and more important hyper costly witch means that the final product would be hyper-expensive. Are you ready to buy a small pot around 550€? Because that's the realist outcome of these starting point dreams. In the end yes, mining companies have invested in various tech, accidentally not one really environmentally friendly for real, those green parts tend to be just scam business like CO₂ sequestration tech and nothing really used on scale. That's probably why we almost close all mines in the western world to transfer them far from people's and reporters eyes...
  - benj111 4y ago
    >Mining tech is essentially the same since ever, we just have transferred some physical efforts to machines You could say that about literally anything
    - 4y ago

by kkfx 4y ago

zdragnar 4y ago

Locally, there are several mines that have been trying to open for years (copper and nickel, mostly) but the environmental crowd has been extremely determined in using the courts and bureaucracy to block them from opening. The net result is the green wave will be driven largely by relying on dirty minerals from other countries.

kkfx 4y ago
Mining tech is essentially the same since ever, we just have transferred some physical efforts to machines, how a local mine is "green" and some in exotic places is different? Consider a thing: all industry do not pollute because they are evil but because the tech produce pollution. Something was done, something can be done, to reduce it of course, but that's not always possible, not possible more than a certain extent and not for free. A simple idea: can you pay a 8-years maximum lasting car 100k€? Even if you can, how many others needs cars and can't? Because that's relatively less heavy than the physical possibility of doing something, but it's not marginal at all. I have built a new home, with all actual tech to consume less and get a better life, but if such homes can only be made let's say by 10% of the western population, witch means roughly by 3% of the total human population what's the outcome? We are a society. Some can be richer than others, nothing wrong in that. BUT when the difference between the poorest and richest and so their numbers on total humans diverge too much the society fall apart anyway.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  > how a local mine is "green" and some in exotic places is different? https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/greenmining.html#:~:text=New%20mining%20technologies%20and%20regulations,because%20less%20waste%20is%20produced https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/.... https://empoweringpumps.com/5-ways-to-make-mining-more-sustainable/ https://empoweringpumps.com/5-ways-to-make-mining-more-susta... are both nice entry points for basic research. Mining tech has changed quite a bit since the early days- waste management is probably the biggest factor in whether a mine is relatively neutral or harmful to the environment. The other major factor between countries is the extent to which regulations are in place to ensure that old mines are also managed- ensuring water runoff doesn't flow into and through them (picking up excess metal waste), etc. A final note is many countries do not have the regulatory strength to catch all illegal mining operations, which may have no waste management or treatment in place at all. Even with all of the regulations in place, it would still be economically feasible to mine here- otherwise, the mining companies wouldn't be spending decades trying to open these mines up in the first place.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Both are dreams, not very green by it's own, not really doable (like recycling water) and more important hyper costly witch means that the final product would be hyper-expensive. Are you ready to buy a small pot around 550€? Because that's the realist outcome of these starting point dreams. In the end yes, mining companies have invested in various tech, accidentally not one really environmentally friendly for real, those green parts tend to be just scam business like CO₂ sequestration tech and nothing really used on scale. That's probably why we almost close all mines in the western world to transfer them far from people's and reporters eyes...
- benj111 4y ago
  >Mining tech is essentially the same since ever, we just have transferred some physical efforts to machines You could say that about literally anything
  - 4y ago