8 ms·

Deep-sea mining may soon ease the world's battery-metal shortage

58 points by scythe 3y ago

scythe 3y ago
https://archive.ph/7RpfK https://archive.ph/7RpfK
dumpsterlid 3y ago
[dead]
edhelas 3y ago
> Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths So why not doing both at the same time !
- ben_w 3y ago
  Getting half from the rainforest and half from the depths would cause (1+30)/2 = 15.5 times as much destruction as just getting it from the depths. (Assuming the numbers are correct; Gell-Mann Amnesia says that sadly it's reasonable cynicism to suggest we live in a world of misleading newspaper reports).
  - scythe 3y ago
    I thought the article was reasonably upfront about the limitations of the use of total biomass as a measure of ecological value. But the subtitle, unfortunately, omits those details. There is a bit of "until next time" in all of this: nickel only covers a small part of the ocean floor, and humanity is not normally interested in exploitation down there, meaning that the vast majority of the seabed will remain intact. But we have to be aware as a society that the first time we extract a resource somewhere is almost never the last.
- czbond 3y ago
  ^ This is Reddit level snark. Well done. I guess the thinking is the ocean approach is "see no evil or the outcomes" .... especially since large amounts of the ocean are empty enough?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Deep sea mining has its own risks that aren't readily apparent. I'd like to see how long mining equipment at 12k ft under the sea lasts compared to land.
aurizon 3y ago
We have all seen the hot vents, the large worms/crabs etc that subsist on the large sulfur bearing hot springs. Large colonies of bacteria live on these sulfur based nutrients. There is a large ecology from bacteria all the way to large worms/crabs/etc - an amazing diversity. These sulfur streams also carry cobalt/copper/zinc - all crustal minerals. Most of these sulfides are soluble at very high temperatures. They start to precipitate as soon as they exit the vent = black clouds of diverse sulfides = bacteria food = supports the whole food chain. These vents migrate and once they move away from the vent they cool, There is a zone of up to a kilometer or more within which the ecology lives. Once the live zone moves away = dead zone. The dead zone is full of the nodules and these zone are huge and dead. They can be mined for minerals = no need to mine the life zone. The nodules are hard and dense, They get covered by silt and deep ocean detritus that is easy to break and mine with zero harm to life-forms, tube worms etc. What is needed is a deep sea sieve with a separator/flusher connected to a conveyor to the surface. This what they do now. There are enough modules for mankind for 1000 years or more. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deep+sea+nodules https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deep+sea+nodule...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > no need to mine the life zone We need to set up independent monitoring and enforcement before the Pulitzer-winning expose of mining trawlers blisfully wrecking through vents.
- _Microft 3y ago
  > They get covered by silt and deep ocean detritus that is easy to break and mine with zero harm to life-forms, tube worms etc. What is needed is a deep sea sieve with a separator/flusher connected to a conveyor to the surface. What effect does it have to disturb/stir up all that silt? Isn‘t that going to create huge plumes that might take ages to settle? Could that be using up the little oxygen left at these depths?
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    We have no idea, and it really doesn't matter because it's going to happen anyway; even if we do know, nobody's going to not do it because it might wipe out some ecosystems. We'll wreck everything, carelessly, like we've always done.
max_ 3y ago
Its our growing hunger for resources that will eventually lead to our destruction. I recommend you read Geoffrey West's book "Scale". Or at least watch his talk [0] [0]: https://youtu.be/nxgHyPCCqaw https://youtu.be/nxgHyPCCqaw
- flownoon 3y ago
  I used to think this way. I guess it is possible, in the long-term, that we might see some kind of social collapse due to a tragedy-of-the-commons driven depletion of some critical resource. But I see no evidence this is close. Humans are flourishing more than ever before. And in the places that humans aren't flourishing, this is more due to social issues (inequality, deaths of despair) than to resource depletion. Moreover, stalling birthrates obviate any kind of Malthusian concerns for at least a generation or so. People have been predicting resource-driven collapses for a long time now, since the Club of Rome and Donella Meadow’s Limits to Growth in the 70s. I haven't read Geoffrey West but it looks like he is in the same camp. A lot of very smart modelers and game theoreticians have come up with models predicting collapse. But they've been wrong so far when pressed to make falsifiable predictions (see the Simon-Erlich wager). And beyond falsifiable predictions, more empirical and less theoretical work also seems to show that models of resource-depletion and collapse are too simple to map on to what actually happens. See for example, Elinor Ostrom’s Governing the Commons, about how societies around the world and through history have successfully managed common-pool resources. So Im not worried about resource-depletion-driven collapse.
  - dottjt 3y ago
    I think the thing that people miscalculate is that resource-depletion-driven collapse happens once. Everything the happens prior to the collapse is largely irrelevant, irrespective of how nice life was prior to the collapse. Ultimately we live in a world of physical limits. Current society is predicated upon exponential growth, it is literally unsustainable by definition.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      This is not true. A total collapse can happen many times, and there can be innumerable reaource-driven collapses of societies or even civilizations. What is conjectures in this thread is that it hasn't happened yet (debatable) but that doesn't mean it can only happen one more time.
baud147258 3y ago
isn't deep sea mining something that had been promised to solve shortage of precious metals for decades already?
- NovaDudely 3y ago
  Yep, it is great in theory but reality is messy and expensive. I will probably eventually happen to some degree but a lot of groups that try to get into the space bite off more than they can chew. Its like getting uranium and gold from sea water, technically fine but economically a nightmare.
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  But it's not legal... Yet
tacotacotaco 3y ago
Wired did an article on this earlier this year. It talks about the ecological concerns and the international politics surrounding these deep sea mining efforts. https://www.wired.com/story/deep-sea-mining-electric-vehicle-battery/ https://www.wired.com/story/deep-sea-mining-electric-vehicle...
canadiantim 3y ago
If I had a nickel for every time someone said something may soon ease x shortage, I'd have atleast a couple nickels
- lovemenot 3y ago
  Sure. But where did the nickel come from?
Prcmaker 3y ago
Sounds like a prime reason to build a new Glomar Explorer.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  Yes, was going to comment that some three lettered agency needs to lift another Russian sub and needs plausible cover.
  - PradeetPatel 3y ago
    It's a shame that they didn't get the whole thing (according to official sources of), but that's easily an overlooked snippet from the Cold War era.
mrcartmeneses 3y ago
One problem is the ore deposits contain radioactive elements, so it would need specialist processing otherwise the workers would all have radioactive dust in their lungs
raffraffraff 3y ago
Great. So, all those disposable vapes with rechargeable batteries that are stewn across the streets of most cities... I should stop wanting to kill the assholes that make/sell/use them?
myshpa 3y ago
Deep-Sea Mining Could Cause 25x the Biodiversity Loss of Land-Based Mining, Report Warns https://www.ecowatch.com/deep-sea-mining-ocean-biodiversity-loss.html https://www.ecowatch.com/deep-sea-mining-ocean-biodiversity-...
jtrip 3y ago
This and other recent similar articles honestly sounds like someone paid a big bag of money to a very high profile PR agency, the one used by the Middle east dictators and BP, to rehabilitate ocean mining's image and lobby the public zeitgeist. I wonder what else comes with the Platinum knife through our morality's heart package other than nudging multiple article mills and ai wranglers to massage out their press kits.
- PradeetPatel 3y ago
  Hence it is extremely important to lay down regulations and compliance requirements for ocean mining from the get-go. It has been established that this has the potential to be destructive towards the biosphere, but it can be reduced through due diligence and NGO oversight.
  - jtrip 3y ago
    I wonder if the Regulatory bodies and the NGOs can sufficiently express the necessity and severity of these new regulations to the high levels of radioactivity in the metal nodules. There is also the concern that mining companies may not be able to relay their concerns about the proper handling of such metals to the Governmental and Regulatory bodies in a timely and above the board manner. Over dinner at the local Social Club. This might create some consternation.
- halhod 3y ago
  hi, i’m the writer. this article, like all my articles, originated from my own curiosity. at no point was i pitched on this. the only PR pitches i’ve received about the subject over the last few years have been from environmental groups
  - cosmicRobot 3y ago
    I read your article this morning before coming across this post. I really enjoy the economist and thought your article was well-written. I think many folks, including myself, have become very cynical about content that isn’t overtly anti-industry. I appreciate that you’ve come to this post to respond, especially in light of the mixed reviews your article seems to be receiving here. I also appreciate that you linked your sources here upon request.
woodpanel 3y ago
and this is supposed to be a good thing, obviously
mcpackieh 3y ago
Oh, have they lost another military submarine?
ulrashida 3y ago
In the Economist's own words: "a very rough comparison is possible" which they then turn into a speculative headline ("may") and a bold statement that the comparison is correct "taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more..." after the article specifically states it is incomplete. What a bunch of tools. We shouldn't be listening to management consultant speak when it comes to underwater ecosystems. Not a single scientist quoted in the article. Disclosures from the company taken as truth and "very transparent". To think I used to look to this magazine for journalism. Again: the whole article is premised on "deforestation bad, destroying marine ecosystems okay or less bad" based on... what? The mining company's assessment? Absolute rubbish. How much was this writer paid by the company?
- halhod 3y ago
  Hi, I’m the writer. I was, obviously, paid nothing by TMC or any other company. If you’re interested I can link all the peer reviewed publications on which I based the calculations. The Economist's style is not to show our workings on things like this in copy, but I’m happy to do so myself
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    Why is that the standard for The Economist, if you don’t mind my asking?
    - halhod 3y ago
      I don’t mind at all. The honest answer is I don’t really know. Broadly speaking it helps our voice sound authoritative and readable to not be breaking the flow of a piece up with lots of quotes and citations. But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article
      - Zandikar 3y ago
        > But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article You keep saying that and not citing them. Please do.
PaulKeeble 3y ago
For country level power usage where space and weight are less of a premium lithium ion and lithium phosphate batteries aren't really the right fit. Pumped hydro, molten salt,redox or even just the new sodium ion all make more sense as they are much cheaper per KW/h. Also a lot of second hand car batteries are now appearing and getting racked for grid storage uses now. I am hopefully in the next few years we won't have nearly the explosion in demand for lithium, nickel and cobalt expected as alternates are released.
AwaAwa 3y ago
We're going to go further green, with industrial mining directly in the earth's water supply. And it will all be eco green and not joker green. From fix, to accelerate. Now if there were a plug about the titan/titanic the story would be complete.
sidewndr46 3y ago
or it might just recover a lost submarine from a major superpower
DropInIn 3y ago
Please, just Don't.
more_corn 3y ago
Or possibly break the delicate homeostasis of our oceans, potentially endangering the oxygen cycle and all complex plant and animal life on earth. No biggie.

58 points by scythe 3y ago

scythe 3y ago

https://archive.ph/7RpfK https://archive.ph/7RpfK

dumpsterlid 3y ago

[dead]

edhelas 3y ago

> Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths So why not doing both at the same time !

ben_w 3y ago
Getting half from the rainforest and half from the depths would cause (1+30)/2 = 15.5 times as much destruction as just getting it from the depths. (Assuming the numbers are correct; Gell-Mann Amnesia says that sadly it's reasonable cynicism to suggest we live in a world of misleading newspaper reports).
- scythe 3y ago
  I thought the article was reasonably upfront about the limitations of the use of total biomass as a measure of ecological value. But the subtitle, unfortunately, omits those details. There is a bit of "until next time" in all of this: nickel only covers a small part of the ocean floor, and humanity is not normally interested in exploitation down there, meaning that the vast majority of the seabed will remain intact. But we have to be aware as a society that the first time we extract a resource somewhere is almost never the last.
czbond 3y ago
^ This is Reddit level snark. Well done. I guess the thinking is the ocean approach is "see no evil or the outcomes" .... especially since large amounts of the ocean are empty enough?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

Deep sea mining has its own risks that aren't readily apparent. I'd like to see how long mining equipment at 12k ft under the sea lasts compared to land.

aurizon 3y ago

We have all seen the hot vents, the large worms/crabs etc that subsist on the large sulfur bearing hot springs. Large colonies of bacteria live on these sulfur based nutrients. There is a large ecology from bacteria all the way to large worms/crabs/etc - an amazing diversity. These sulfur streams also carry cobalt/copper/zinc - all crustal minerals. Most of these sulfides are soluble at very high temperatures. They start to precipitate as soon as they exit the vent = black clouds of diverse sulfides = bacteria food = supports the whole food chain. These vents migrate and once they move away from the vent they cool, There is a zone of up to a kilometer or more within which the ecology lives. Once the live zone moves away = dead zone. The dead zone is full of the nodules and these zone are huge and dead. They can be mined for minerals = no need to mine the life zone. The nodules are hard and dense, They get covered by silt and deep ocean detritus that is easy to break and mine with zero harm to life-forms, tube worms etc. What is needed is a deep sea sieve with a separator/flusher connected to a conveyor to the surface. This what they do now. There are enough modules for mankind for 1000 years or more. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deep+sea+nodules https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deep+sea+nodule...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> no need to mine the life zone We need to set up independent monitoring and enforcement before the Pulitzer-winning expose of mining trawlers blisfully wrecking through vents.
_Microft 3y ago
> They get covered by silt and deep ocean detritus that is easy to break and mine with zero harm to life-forms, tube worms etc. What is needed is a deep sea sieve with a separator/flusher connected to a conveyor to the surface. What effect does it have to disturb/stir up all that silt? Isn‘t that going to create huge plumes that might take ages to settle? Could that be using up the little oxygen left at these depths?
- meepmorp 3y ago
  We have no idea, and it really doesn't matter because it's going to happen anyway; even if we do know, nobody's going to not do it because it might wipe out some ecosystems. We'll wreck everything, carelessly, like we've always done.

max_ 3y ago

Its our growing hunger for resources that will eventually lead to our destruction. I recommend you read Geoffrey West's book "Scale". Or at least watch his talk [0] [0]: https://youtu.be/nxgHyPCCqaw https://youtu.be/nxgHyPCCqaw

flownoon 3y ago
I used to think this way. I guess it is possible, in the long-term, that we might see some kind of social collapse due to a tragedy-of-the-commons driven depletion of some critical resource. But I see no evidence this is close. Humans are flourishing more than ever before. And in the places that humans aren't flourishing, this is more due to social issues (inequality, deaths of despair) than to resource depletion. Moreover, stalling birthrates obviate any kind of Malthusian concerns for at least a generation or so. People have been predicting resource-driven collapses for a long time now, since the Club of Rome and Donella Meadow’s Limits to Growth in the 70s. I haven't read Geoffrey West but it looks like he is in the same camp. A lot of very smart modelers and game theoreticians have come up with models predicting collapse. But they've been wrong so far when pressed to make falsifiable predictions (see the Simon-Erlich wager). And beyond falsifiable predictions, more empirical and less theoretical work also seems to show that models of resource-depletion and collapse are too simple to map on to what actually happens. See for example, Elinor Ostrom’s Governing the Commons, about how societies around the world and through history have successfully managed common-pool resources. So Im not worried about resource-depletion-driven collapse.
- dottjt 3y ago
  I think the thing that people miscalculate is that resource-depletion-driven collapse happens once. Everything the happens prior to the collapse is largely irrelevant, irrespective of how nice life was prior to the collapse. Ultimately we live in a world of physical limits. Current society is predicated upon exponential growth, it is literally unsustainable by definition.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    This is not true. A total collapse can happen many times, and there can be innumerable reaource-driven collapses of societies or even civilizations. What is conjectures in this thread is that it hasn't happened yet (debatable) but that doesn't mean it can only happen one more time.

baud147258 3y ago

isn't deep sea mining something that had been promised to solve shortage of precious metals for decades already?

NovaDudely 3y ago
Yep, it is great in theory but reality is messy and expensive. I will probably eventually happen to some degree but a lot of groups that try to get into the space bite off more than they can chew. Its like getting uranium and gold from sea water, technically fine but economically a nightmare.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
But it's not legal... Yet

tacotacotaco 3y ago

Wired did an article on this earlier this year. It talks about the ecological concerns and the international politics surrounding these deep sea mining efforts. https://www.wired.com/story/deep-sea-mining-electric-vehicle-battery/ https://www.wired.com/story/deep-sea-mining-electric-vehicle...

canadiantim 3y ago

If I had a nickel for every time someone said something may soon ease x shortage, I'd have atleast a couple nickels

lovemenot 3y ago
Sure. But where did the nickel come from?

Prcmaker 3y ago

Sounds like a prime reason to build a new Glomar Explorer.

gpderetta 3y ago
Yes, was going to comment that some three lettered agency needs to lift another Russian sub and needs plausible cover.
- PradeetPatel 3y ago
  It's a shame that they didn't get the whole thing (according to official sources of), but that's easily an overlooked snippet from the Cold War era.

mrcartmeneses 3y ago

One problem is the ore deposits contain radioactive elements, so it would need specialist processing otherwise the workers would all have radioactive dust in their lungs

raffraffraff 3y ago

Great. So, all those disposable vapes with rechargeable batteries that are stewn across the streets of most cities... I should stop wanting to kill the assholes that make/sell/use them?

myshpa 3y ago

Deep-Sea Mining Could Cause 25x the Biodiversity Loss of Land-Based Mining, Report Warns https://www.ecowatch.com/deep-sea-mining-ocean-biodiversity-loss.html https://www.ecowatch.com/deep-sea-mining-ocean-biodiversity-...

jtrip 3y ago

This and other recent similar articles honestly sounds like someone paid a big bag of money to a very high profile PR agency, the one used by the Middle east dictators and BP, to rehabilitate ocean mining's image and lobby the public zeitgeist. I wonder what else comes with the Platinum knife through our morality's heart package other than nudging multiple article mills and ai wranglers to massage out their press kits.

PradeetPatel 3y ago
Hence it is extremely important to lay down regulations and compliance requirements for ocean mining from the get-go. It has been established that this has the potential to be destructive towards the biosphere, but it can be reduced through due diligence and NGO oversight.
- jtrip 3y ago
  I wonder if the Regulatory bodies and the NGOs can sufficiently express the necessity and severity of these new regulations to the high levels of radioactivity in the metal nodules. There is also the concern that mining companies may not be able to relay their concerns about the proper handling of such metals to the Governmental and Regulatory bodies in a timely and above the board manner. Over dinner at the local Social Club. This might create some consternation.
halhod 3y ago
hi, i’m the writer. this article, like all my articles, originated from my own curiosity. at no point was i pitched on this. the only PR pitches i’ve received about the subject over the last few years have been from environmental groups
- cosmicRobot 3y ago
  I read your article this morning before coming across this post. I really enjoy the economist and thought your article was well-written. I think many folks, including myself, have become very cynical about content that isn’t overtly anti-industry. I appreciate that you’ve come to this post to respond, especially in light of the mixed reviews your article seems to be receiving here. I also appreciate that you linked your sources here upon request.

woodpanel 3y ago

and this is supposed to be a good thing, obviously

mcpackieh 3y ago

Oh, have they lost another military submarine?

ulrashida 3y ago

In the Economist's own words: "a very rough comparison is possible" which they then turn into a speculative headline ("may") and a bold statement that the comparison is correct "taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more..." after the article specifically states it is incomplete. What a bunch of tools. We shouldn't be listening to management consultant speak when it comes to underwater ecosystems. Not a single scientist quoted in the article. Disclosures from the company taken as truth and "very transparent". To think I used to look to this magazine for journalism. Again: the whole article is premised on "deforestation bad, destroying marine ecosystems okay or less bad" based on... what? The mining company's assessment? Absolute rubbish. How much was this writer paid by the company?

halhod 3y ago
Hi, I’m the writer. I was, obviously, paid nothing by TMC or any other company. If you’re interested I can link all the peer reviewed publications on which I based the calculations. The Economist's style is not to show our workings on things like this in copy, but I’m happy to do so myself
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Why is that the standard for The Economist, if you don’t mind my asking?
  - halhod 3y ago
    I don’t mind at all. The honest answer is I don’t really know. Broadly speaking it helps our voice sound authoritative and readable to not be breaking the flow of a piece up with lots of quotes and citations. But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article
    - Zandikar 3y ago
      > But I can assure you I spoke to many people, and read many papers, in reporting the article You keep saying that and not citing them. Please do.

PaulKeeble 3y ago

For country level power usage where space and weight are less of a premium lithium ion and lithium phosphate batteries aren't really the right fit. Pumped hydro, molten salt,redox or even just the new sodium ion all make more sense as they are much cheaper per KW/h. Also a lot of second hand car batteries are now appearing and getting racked for grid storage uses now. I am hopefully in the next few years we won't have nearly the explosion in demand for lithium, nickel and cobalt expected as alternates are released.

AwaAwa 3y ago

We're going to go further green, with industrial mining directly in the earth's water supply. And it will all be eco green and not joker green. From fix, to accelerate. Now if there were a plug about the titan/titanic the story would be complete.

sidewndr46 3y ago

or it might just recover a lost submarine from a major superpower

DropInIn 3y ago

Please, just Don't.

more_corn 3y ago

Or possibly break the delicate homeostasis of our oceans, potentially endangering the oxygen cycle and all complex plant and animal life on earth. No biggie.