3 ms·

So still, there is no comparative study. And your link goes to some generic mining sector page. My point is, I see endless people saying "dams are horrible be

by b112 3y ago

So still, there is no comparative study. And your link goes to some generic mining sector page. My point is, I see endless people saying "dams are horrible because of cement carbon!", yet no one has the raw numbers, compared to other green projects, to validate that statement. People are just twitter spreading, an unjustified, unconfirmed hypothesis! And it serves no one except bad actors.

defrost 3y ago
If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. > your link goes to some generic mining sector page. To an up to date database of every significant mineral resource deposit across the globe backed by Tech Reports (geochem, geophysics, drilling, resource and reserve estimations), company ownership structure, land ownership structures, stock exchange filings, etc. Also includes prospects and ownership and development pipeline. The equivilants exist for energy (trad fossil fuel exploration) and the renewable sectors (capital investments in tech (wind turbines) and resource pipelines (copper, lithium, etc..)) It's an an example of what you can do if you put your mind to it. That one was developed here where I live (Western Australia) and onsold to Standard & Poor (the S&P people) when the private backers who wanted it had what they needed and passed it on. Cement is an interesting one as we can make cement from fly ash left over from coal fired plants; that has a much lower carbon footprint than other cement.
- b112 3y ago
  If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. You're not paying attention. I'm saying, without validation, and proof, no one should be saying dams aren't as green as, for example, wind. You've basically made my point for me, in that, no one has a clue, and everyone is just repeating a random thought someone had, without any comparative study done.

by b112 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. > your link goes to some generic mining sector page. To an up to date database of every significant mineral resource deposit across the globe backed by Tech Reports (geochem, geophysics, drilling, resource and reserve estimations), company ownership structure, land ownership structures, stock exchange filings, etc. Also includes prospects and ownership and development pipeline. The equivilants exist for energy (trad fossil fuel exploration) and the renewable sectors (capital investments in tech (wind turbines) and resource pipelines (copper, lithium, etc..)) It's an an example of what you can do if you put your mind to it. That one was developed here where I live (Western Australia) and onsold to Standard & Poor (the S&P people) when the private backers who wanted it had what they needed and passed it on. Cement is an interesting one as we can make cement from fly ash left over from coal fired plants; that has a much lower carbon footprint than other cement.

b112 3y ago
If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. You're not paying attention. I'm saying, without validation, and proof, no one should be saying dams aren't as green as, for example, wind. You've basically made my point for me, in that, no one has a clue, and everyone is just repeating a random thought someone had, without any comparative study done.