3 ms·

> It's not like fossil fuels where it is plausible that there are limited amounts. Elements are created by the same processes that formed the universe. This is

by evilos 4y ago

> It's not like fossil fuels where it is plausible that there are limited amounts. Elements are created by the same processes that formed the universe. This is a non sequitur. There is a limited amount of anything on Earth. The pertinent question is: can we get enough of these minerals economically to use them as storage by 2050. If it is not economical, it won't happen. If you think extracting more than 4x the known global reserves of lithium is going to be economical, I don't know what to tell you.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
The 10x price increase that Lithium has experienced is going to expand reserves by a heck of a lot more than 4X.
- evilos 4y ago
  It hasn't even doubled in the past 10 years. At today's global lithium mining rate, it would take 220 years to get today's known reserves out of the ground. Nevermind 4x. And then there's the human and environmental impact of all that mining. We're just talking about a single element. There's several more that are just as constrained if not worse. Today's batteries just aren't suited for grid storage.
  - defrost 4y ago
    > It hasn't even doubled in the past 10 years. It was set to triple, except reasons. Still, "almost tripled" is better than "hasn't even doubled". 35K metric tonnes in 2012, 38K metric tonnes in 2016, 69K metric tonnes in 2017, 95K metric tonnes in 2018, 100K in 2021. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/606684/world-production-of-lithium/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/606684/world-production-... [2] https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...
    - evilos 4y ago
      That's production. We were talking about global reserves. Which hasn't even doubled in 10 years.
      - defrost 4y ago
        Why would they though? There's sufficient known and proven reserves to not put any pressure on proving known resources. Why expend the capital on techical reports and economic feasibility studies to raise resources to reserves ahead of lead time on production demand?
        evilos 4y ago
        Because mines take 10 years to open on average from minerals found to minerals being moved out of the ground. 1% of surveyed mineral deposits become mines. Because for the better part of a decade, the green transition plan has been to move to solar/wind plus energy storage. The obvious question is, how many machines will we need? What kind? How much will it cost? The author of this report described how he convinced his management to fund this work. He works at a Finnish government geological survey organization. He told his management, "Who do you think the EU leadership will blame when they realize that we don't have anywhere near the resources needed to complete the green transition as it is imagined today?" They haven't done the math.
        defrost 4y ago
        The spglobal link connects to a product (global database + updating tools) that S&P acquired from it's source here in Western Australia, between here and the Toronto TSX you'll find the vast weight of companies and capital that form the bulk of global transnational mining (sans Russia and China, although they are threaded in and tracked also). > Because mines take 10 years to open on average from minerals found to minerals being moved out of the ground. Bear in mind that "minerals being found" is when they first become "resources" (see JORC terminology which has become standard across the global mineral industry) .. when minerals have been proven (tightly estimated by volume and density) and had an Economic Feasibility Technical Report completed and filed they become "reserves" .. known amounts with a costing to extract. Also bear in mind that mines can open much faster when there is a demand .. mines generally don't open faster unless there is a demand, now that past global supply issues and ramping production of end goods upwards you'll see mines open on proven reserves and more resources being advanced toward reserve status. I agree with your general point about general EV resources (there's a looming Copper issue and with the processing of rare earths in general) .. but your argument here WRT lithium is overly simplified, there are political issues that weigh more on mid future lithium extraction more than known reserve issues.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    > it would take 220 years to get today's known reserves out of the ground That doesn't strike me as particularly constrained then - it's highly unlikely known reserves won't expand in that time or that we'll find no alternatives.
    - evilos 4y ago
      I think you need to reread the previous comments. The question is: do we have enough minerals to switch to a solar/wind plus batteries energy system as a species? There is a controversial report from a mining professor who says the answer is 'not even close'. https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Fortunately I don't believe we'll need to. From a previous glance of that report, scenario F is pretty close to what I'd imagined we'd likely aim for. It would've been a lot smoother and less costly if we'd started 40 years ago, but it's not shortage of minerals like lithium or cobalt that have been holding us up. If the "Big rare-earth-metals-mining" industry had anything like the clout of Big Oil/Gas/Coal, we'd probably be half way there by now.
        evilos 4y ago
        You might want to look at figure 26.10 of Scenario F. We still hit mineral constraints. The author says outright the report is not an attempt at simulating a realistic transition because it's asking first order questions: along the lines of "do we even have enough stuff to try this?". There's no attempt to ask if this is economical or logistically possible because it is not. The author is convinced that we're all about to be much poorer because the IV drip of cheap energy that the world has enjoyed for at least 50 years is about to be ripped out. Personally, I think what's most likely to happen is that we will fail to get the world's nations to stop using fossil fuels and we will suffer the environmental consequences of that. Plus all the consequences of the resource wars that will follow. It's a shame. I think our best chance to avoid this is to rush research on mass manufacturable gen 4 nuclear reactors. We need a factory that spits these things out so we can ship them to developing nations because otherwise, they build coal plants. I have high hopes for Thorcon. They plan to use shipyards to build annually up to 200 GW of modular shippable reactors.

by evilos 4y ago

bryanlarsen 4y ago

The 10x price increase that Lithium has experienced is going to expand reserves by a heck of a lot more than 4X.

evilos 4y ago
It hasn't even doubled in the past 10 years. At today's global lithium mining rate, it would take 220 years to get today's known reserves out of the ground. Nevermind 4x. And then there's the human and environmental impact of all that mining. We're just talking about a single element. There's several more that are just as constrained if not worse. Today's batteries just aren't suited for grid storage.
- defrost 4y ago
  > It hasn't even doubled in the past 10 years. It was set to triple, except reasons. Still, "almost tripled" is better than "hasn't even doubled". 35K metric tonnes in 2012, 38K metric tonnes in 2016, 69K metric tonnes in 2017, 95K metric tonnes in 2018, 100K in 2021. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/606684/world-production-of-lithium/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/606684/world-production-... [2] https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...
  - evilos 4y ago
    That's production. We were talking about global reserves. Which hasn't even doubled in 10 years.
    - defrost 4y ago
      Why would they though? There's sufficient known and proven reserves to not put any pressure on proving known resources. Why expend the capital on techical reports and economic feasibility studies to raise resources to reserves ahead of lead time on production demand?
      - evilos 4y ago
        Because mines take 10 years to open on average from minerals found to minerals being moved out of the ground. 1% of surveyed mineral deposits become mines. Because for the better part of a decade, the green transition plan has been to move to solar/wind plus energy storage. The obvious question is, how many machines will we need? What kind? How much will it cost? The author of this report described how he convinced his management to fund this work. He works at a Finnish government geological survey organization. He told his management, "Who do you think the EU leadership will blame when they realize that we don't have anywhere near the resources needed to complete the green transition as it is imagined today?" They haven't done the math.
        defrost 4y ago
        The spglobal link connects to a product (global database + updating tools) that S&P acquired from it's source here in Western Australia, between here and the Toronto TSX you'll find the vast weight of companies and capital that form the bulk of global transnational mining (sans Russia and China, although they are threaded in and tracked also). > Because mines take 10 years to open on average from minerals found to minerals being moved out of the ground. Bear in mind that "minerals being found" is when they first become "resources" (see JORC terminology which has become standard across the global mineral industry) .. when minerals have been proven (tightly estimated by volume and density) and had an Economic Feasibility Technical Report completed and filed they become "reserves" .. known amounts with a costing to extract. Also bear in mind that mines can open much faster when there is a demand .. mines generally don't open faster unless there is a demand, now that past global supply issues and ramping production of end goods upwards you'll see mines open on proven reserves and more resources being advanced toward reserve status. I agree with your general point about general EV resources (there's a looming Copper issue and with the processing of rare earths in general) .. but your argument here WRT lithium is overly simplified, there are political issues that weigh more on mid future lithium extraction more than known reserve issues.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > it would take 220 years to get today's known reserves out of the ground That doesn't strike me as particularly constrained then - it's highly unlikely known reserves won't expand in that time or that we'll find no alternatives.
  - evilos 4y ago
    I think you need to reread the previous comments. The question is: do we have enough minerals to switch to a solar/wind plus batteries energy system as a species? There is a controversial report from a mining professor who says the answer is 'not even close'. https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Fortunately I don't believe we'll need to. From a previous glance of that report, scenario F is pretty close to what I'd imagined we'd likely aim for. It would've been a lot smoother and less costly if we'd started 40 years ago, but it's not shortage of minerals like lithium or cobalt that have been holding us up. If the "Big rare-earth-metals-mining" industry had anything like the clout of Big Oil/Gas/Coal, we'd probably be half way there by now.
      - evilos 4y ago
        You might want to look at figure 26.10 of Scenario F. We still hit mineral constraints. The author says outright the report is not an attempt at simulating a realistic transition because it's asking first order questions: along the lines of "do we even have enough stuff to try this?". There's no attempt to ask if this is economical or logistically possible because it is not. The author is convinced that we're all about to be much poorer because the IV drip of cheap energy that the world has enjoyed for at least 50 years is about to be ripped out. Personally, I think what's most likely to happen is that we will fail to get the world's nations to stop using fossil fuels and we will suffer the environmental consequences of that. Plus all the consequences of the resource wars that will follow. It's a shame. I think our best chance to avoid this is to rush research on mass manufacturable gen 4 nuclear reactors. We need a factory that spits these things out so we can ship them to developing nations because otherwise, they build coal plants. I have high hopes for Thorcon. They plan to use shipyards to build annually up to 200 GW of modular shippable reactors.