4 ms·

Another inconvenient truth is that immediate global climate concerns need to take priority over the localized toxic mining, manufacturing, and waste problems th

by 0xDEF 4y ago

Another inconvenient truth is that immediate global climate concerns need to take priority over the localized toxic mining, manufacturing, and waste problems that might be associated with renewables and electric vehicles. We really don't have time to care whether broken solar panels end up in landfills or whether lithium mining ruins some picturesque landscapes in Australia.

ggm 4y ago
Spodumene mines in Australia already exist at scale. So, the landscape in question has already been opened up for mining, and the question was asked (and answered) in time past. This isn't really as big a deal as some people like to say here (Oz) where greenfield but plausible coal strip mines are a valid high risk question, and are being aggressively opposed and with good reason. TL;DR its like the PETA campaign against Kangaroo meat/leather: misplaced activism. The lithium mining environmental concern isn't the problem.
- angry_octet 4y ago
  I thought it was the processing, rather than the mining, which came with toxic downsides? But in any case, the Chinese have been undercutting everyone for two decades. Lower costs and massive capital investments. Compared to massive crop failure, mass starvation, wide scale species extinction, and resulting resource conflict, the toxic byproducts and landfill of wind/solar are inconsequential. Even the risk of nuclear (increased radiation from failures, proliferation) is bearable if we can decarbonise faster.
  - ggm 4y ago
    Spodumene is roasted and treated with acid to make the lithium salts needed. It does use water, and heat (energy) and you have waste water settlement ponds. Atacama lake deposits are different, and have a different treatment path which I think has a higher risk to a fragile ecology in salt-pan type evaporation and depletion of a high-altitude water table. I'm kind of hedging: I want to believe our (AU) spodumene waste cycle issues are both different and smaller (we can use PV to do the heating, and its recyclable water) but I think thats unknown. A geologist/ecologist could say.

by 0xDEF 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

Spodumene mines in Australia already exist at scale. So, the landscape in question has already been opened up for mining, and the question was asked (and answered) in time past. This isn't really as big a deal as some people like to say here (Oz) where greenfield but plausible coal strip mines are a valid high risk question, and are being aggressively opposed and with good reason. TL;DR its like the PETA campaign against Kangaroo meat/leather: misplaced activism. The lithium mining environmental concern isn't the problem.

angry_octet 4y ago
I thought it was the processing, rather than the mining, which came with toxic downsides? But in any case, the Chinese have been undercutting everyone for two decades. Lower costs and massive capital investments. Compared to massive crop failure, mass starvation, wide scale species extinction, and resulting resource conflict, the toxic byproducts and landfill of wind/solar are inconsequential. Even the risk of nuclear (increased radiation from failures, proliferation) is bearable if we can decarbonise faster.
- ggm 4y ago
  Spodumene is roasted and treated with acid to make the lithium salts needed. It does use water, and heat (energy) and you have waste water settlement ponds. Atacama lake deposits are different, and have a different treatment path which I think has a higher risk to a fragile ecology in salt-pan type evaporation and depletion of a high-altitude water table. I'm kind of hedging: I want to believe our (AU) spodumene waste cycle issues are both different and smaller (we can use PV to do the heating, and its recyclable water) but I think thats unknown. A geologist/ecologist could say.