6 ms·

Toxic rare earth mining industry at the heart of the green energy transition

37 points by rsolva 3y ago

ggm 3y ago
It's headline-ese because it could have been "at the heart of the computer industry" or "at the heart of the car industry" or space, mining, construction, any industrial sector which needs these inputs. The green energy transition may be a more recent consumer. It's still shit, but implying this wouldn't happen if we stuck with coal and nuclear is silly.
- dexwiz 3y ago
  And nuclear has its own set of toxic metals. Hell even coal has a heavy metal issue.
  - awolf 3y ago
    Coal has a much worse heavy metal issue than Nuclear.
    - polotics 3y ago
      Coal also has a much worse radioactive particles issue than nuclear... https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/255639/radioactivity_lecture_18.pdf https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/255639/radioactivity_lecture_18....
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Nuclear is effectively irrelevant to the future of power production, as it cannot compete on cost, and falls further behind with each passing year.
    - defrost 3y ago
      An interesting personal opinion albeit one at contrast to the IEA. While the International Energy Agency fully champion the use of renewables, they also take a vey pragmatic data based approach to global energy consumption and production and believe that nuclear power must compliment future energy creation more or less as it does today; providing some 20% of total electricity in advanced economies. Saying nuclear is "effectively irrelevant" is numerically equivilant to saying the third child in a two parent family is "effectively irrelevant". https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power
      - angiosperm 3y ago
        A little more starkly, each dollar diverted from solar and wind to nukes and fossil fuels brings climate catastrophe nearer.
        defrost 3y ago
        It's easy to make an argument that sticks for fossil fuels - the IEA doesn't make that case for nuclear. They acknowledge that AGW is real and they push for an optimal path forward through energy transition .. and they don't see a downside to maintaining existing reactors and maintaining current share. Thank you for your opinion none the less.
        roenxi 3y ago
        That is a somewhat silly statement; obviously it only makes sense to build nuclear plants if the resulting energy is cheaper than the alternatives. And nuclear power is as the most environmentally friendly source of energy we know of. The argument, as it has been for about 40 years now, is that the people saying it is not cost competitive tend to have high overlap with people who are changing regulations to ... make it very expensive. If the regulatory framework was sane, it'd be quite cost competitive. The problem nuclear has is the economic learning curve has been inverted. That can only be caused by overregulation.
        angiosperm 3y ago
        > That can only be caused by overregulation. That reads like a creedal statement. We see the same effect in all regulatory jurisdictions, indicating the effect is instead intrinsic. A more fundamental observation is that the more we learn about building nukes, the more expensive they get.
        ardaoweo 3y ago
        Nuclear has its role to play when the weather isn't windy or sunny, at least until storage technology gets good enough. Especially in Northern parts of the world it's a big deal, because during winters solar is pretty useless. Getting rid of coal (and natural gas, to lesser extent) should happen ASAP, and nuclear can be a part of the solution for the transition period.
- rsolva 3y ago
  What worries me as a green, is how we keep adding renewable energy to the mix without replacing the use of fossil fuels.
  - defrost 3y ago
    There is a real need to keep at reducing fossil fuel usage for sure. That said, in some small assuage to your worry there are large sectors that are transitioning to replacement of fossil fuels. Global scale mining operations, such as Australia's ~ one billion tonne per annum iron ore industry consume large quantities of fuel for trucks, trains, and electricity generation for shovels, loaders, crushers, conveyots, screens, etc. https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green-ammonia https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green... https://fortescue.com/news-and-media/news/2024/03/15/world-s-first-use-of-ammonia-as-a-marine-fuel-in-a-dual-fueled-ammonia-powered-vessel-in-the-port-of-singapore https://fortescue.com/news-and-media/news/2024/03/15/world-s... https://reneweconomy.com.au/fortescue-starts-work-on-world-first-infinity-train-a-regenerating-battery-on-rails/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/fortescue-starts-work-on-world-f... Infinity Train: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuLrc1u43gU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuLrc1u43gU
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Use of fossil fuels will fall off naturally as the cost of renewables continues on down the learning curve, radically undercutting them. Without the enormous subsidies fossil fuels still enjoy, they would have been undercut years ago.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    What do you mean? We are reducing fossil fuel usage. Look at the UK's grid. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805.amp
  - cinntaile 3y ago
    It is replacing fossil fuels, look at the statistics.
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
cyanydeez 3y ago
Toxicc oil mining and paptmospheric pollution at the heart of the fossil fuel cabal.
flgb 3y ago
Dog whistling. The phrase "green energy transition" is mentioned only in the headline, and is completely irrelavent to the point being made in article, which is that unregulated mining in poor developing countries is bad.
- defrost 3y ago
  As a point of order, and especially with most (not all) rare earth elements it's not the > unregulated mining in poor developing countries that's the worst part of the chain, it's the processing of concentrates. With, say, lithium for batteries a great deal of the mining takes place in Australia and that mining produces a spodumene concentrate which is shipped onwards for processing - which creates acid lakes in holding dams and low level radioactive waste as a by product. This has recently occured on location in countries such as China and Malaysia : https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/malaysias-rare-earths-ambition-fuels-chinese-displeasure-fears-betrayal-cries-over-radioactive-waste https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/mal... https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-radiation-be6b858a97caa316a15a0c21e85caaaa https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-r... but has recently expanded to locations in Australia and (soon) Texas and other US states.
- shermozle 3y ago
  Don't worry. Oil and gas have no negative impacts from their extraction!
  - elcritch 3y ago
    Exactly, it needs to be about the relative impacts of each. Extracting oil and gas produces lots of toxic and carcinogens for every unit which is used just once. In theory rare earth metals produce toxic waste but have a longer lifetime and smaller concentrations even then. Not to mention the rise in recycling of these materials.
- rsolva 3y ago
  OP here, I thought it was relevant as alot of the output goes to production of windmills and electric cars (motors). I am genuinely worried about the squeeze we are in now between conserving and protecting nature and transitioning away from fossil fules. I am active in the green party i Norway where we are fighting to wind down our oil production in a responsible and controlled maner. But alot of the new non-fossil energy production is now added to the existing energy mix, not replacing fossil fuels. Close by where I live (45 min drive), Google is building a huge server park that will require approximately 5% of Norways total electricity production. The region does not have enough power and energy companies are now in a frenzy to build solar parks along the delicate norwegian coastline in the south. This will mostly go to cover the needs of Googles new datacenter, not replace fossil fuels in any way. Just because someone calls something "green" does not automatically make it so.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

37 points by rsolva 3y ago

ggm 3y ago

It's headline-ese because it could have been "at the heart of the computer industry" or "at the heart of the car industry" or space, mining, construction, any industrial sector which needs these inputs. The green energy transition may be a more recent consumer. It's still shit, but implying this wouldn't happen if we stuck with coal and nuclear is silly.

dexwiz 3y ago
And nuclear has its own set of toxic metals. Hell even coal has a heavy metal issue.
- awolf 3y ago
  Coal has a much worse heavy metal issue than Nuclear.
  - polotics 3y ago
    Coal also has a much worse radioactive particles issue than nuclear... https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/255639/radioactivity_lecture_18.pdf https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/255639/radioactivity_lecture_18....
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Nuclear is effectively irrelevant to the future of power production, as it cannot compete on cost, and falls further behind with each passing year.
  - defrost 3y ago
    An interesting personal opinion albeit one at contrast to the IEA. While the International Energy Agency fully champion the use of renewables, they also take a vey pragmatic data based approach to global energy consumption and production and believe that nuclear power must compliment future energy creation more or less as it does today; providing some 20% of total electricity in advanced economies. Saying nuclear is "effectively irrelevant" is numerically equivilant to saying the third child in a two parent family is "effectively irrelevant". https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power https://www.iea.org/energy-system/electricity/nuclear-power
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      A little more starkly, each dollar diverted from solar and wind to nukes and fossil fuels brings climate catastrophe nearer.
      - defrost 3y ago
        It's easy to make an argument that sticks for fossil fuels - the IEA doesn't make that case for nuclear. They acknowledge that AGW is real and they push for an optimal path forward through energy transition .. and they don't see a downside to maintaining existing reactors and maintaining current share. Thank you for your opinion none the less.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        That is a somewhat silly statement; obviously it only makes sense to build nuclear plants if the resulting energy is cheaper than the alternatives. And nuclear power is as the most environmentally friendly source of energy we know of. The argument, as it has been for about 40 years now, is that the people saying it is not cost competitive tend to have high overlap with people who are changing regulations to ... make it very expensive. If the regulatory framework was sane, it'd be quite cost competitive. The problem nuclear has is the economic learning curve has been inverted. That can only be caused by overregulation.
        angiosperm 3y ago
        > That can only be caused by overregulation. That reads like a creedal statement. We see the same effect in all regulatory jurisdictions, indicating the effect is instead intrinsic. A more fundamental observation is that the more we learn about building nukes, the more expensive they get.
      - ardaoweo 3y ago
        Nuclear has its role to play when the weather isn't windy or sunny, at least until storage technology gets good enough. Especially in Northern parts of the world it's a big deal, because during winters solar is pretty useless. Getting rid of coal (and natural gas, to lesser extent) should happen ASAP, and nuclear can be a part of the solution for the transition period.
rsolva 3y ago
What worries me as a green, is how we keep adding renewable energy to the mix without replacing the use of fossil fuels.
- defrost 3y ago
  There is a real need to keep at reducing fossil fuel usage for sure. That said, in some small assuage to your worry there are large sectors that are transitioning to replacement of fossil fuels. Global scale mining operations, such as Australia's ~ one billion tonne per annum iron ore industry consume large quantities of fuel for trucks, trains, and electricity generation for shovels, loaders, crushers, conveyots, screens, etc. https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green-ammonia https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green... https://fortescue.com/news-and-media/news/2024/03/15/world-s-first-use-of-ammonia-as-a-marine-fuel-in-a-dual-fueled-ammonia-powered-vessel-in-the-port-of-singapore https://fortescue.com/news-and-media/news/2024/03/15/world-s... https://reneweconomy.com.au/fortescue-starts-work-on-world-first-infinity-train-a-regenerating-battery-on-rails/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/fortescue-starts-work-on-world-f... Infinity Train: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuLrc1u43gU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuLrc1u43gU
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Use of fossil fuels will fall off naturally as the cost of renewables continues on down the learning curve, radically undercutting them. Without the enormous subsidies fossil fuels still enjoy, they would have been undercut years ago.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  What do you mean? We are reducing fossil fuel usage. Look at the UK's grid. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805.amp
- cinntaile 3y ago
  It is replacing fossil fuels, look at the statistics.
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago

cyanydeez 3y ago

Toxicc oil mining and paptmospheric pollution at the heart of the fossil fuel cabal.

flgb 3y ago

Dog whistling. The phrase "green energy transition" is mentioned only in the headline, and is completely irrelavent to the point being made in article, which is that unregulated mining in poor developing countries is bad.

defrost 3y ago
As a point of order, and especially with most (not all) rare earth elements it's not the > unregulated mining in poor developing countries that's the worst part of the chain, it's the processing of concentrates. With, say, lithium for batteries a great deal of the mining takes place in Australia and that mining produces a spodumene concentrate which is shipped onwards for processing - which creates acid lakes in holding dams and low level radioactive waste as a by product. This has recently occured on location in countries such as China and Malaysia : https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/malaysias-rare-earths-ambition-fuels-chinese-displeasure-fears-betrayal-cries-over-radioactive-waste https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3242368/mal... https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-radiation-be6b858a97caa316a15a0c21e85caaaa https://apnews.com/article/malaysia-australia-mining-lynas-r... but has recently expanded to locations in Australia and (soon) Texas and other US states.
shermozle 3y ago
Don't worry. Oil and gas have no negative impacts from their extraction!
- elcritch 3y ago
  Exactly, it needs to be about the relative impacts of each. Extracting oil and gas produces lots of toxic and carcinogens for every unit which is used just once. In theory rare earth metals produce toxic waste but have a longer lifetime and smaller concentrations even then. Not to mention the rise in recycling of these materials.
rsolva 3y ago
OP here, I thought it was relevant as alot of the output goes to production of windmills and electric cars (motors). I am genuinely worried about the squeeze we are in now between conserving and protecting nature and transitioning away from fossil fules. I am active in the green party i Norway where we are fighting to wind down our oil production in a responsible and controlled maner. But alot of the new non-fossil energy production is now added to the existing energy mix, not replacing fossil fuels. Close by where I live (45 min drive), Google is building a huge server park that will require approximately 5% of Norways total electricity production. The region does not have enough power and energy companies are now in a frenzy to build solar parks along the delicate norwegian coastline in the south. This will mostly go to cover the needs of Googles new datacenter, not replace fossil fuels in any way. Just because someone calls something "green" does not automatically make it so.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]