5 ms·
I’m not convinced. planet-tracker says that refinement method, not ore source, determines carbon intensity. But deep sea nodules are richer than ore on land, wh
by elil17 3y ago
I’m not convinced. planet-tracker says that refinement method, not ore source, determines carbon intensity. But deep sea nodules are richer than ore on land, which means they use less energy per unit of refined product. This is born out by the actual planet-tracker report: they themselves show that the highest estimates for sea-based carbon intensity are lower than all but the lowest estimates for land-based carbon intensity. Sea-based mining only looks bad if you compare the worst assumptions about sea-based mining with the best assumptions about land-based mining.
Planet-tracker also raises the concern that sea-based mining could theoretically disturb carbon which is sequestered on the ocean floor. However, there isn’t much circulation between the top of the ocean and the depth at which sea-based mining would occur, so this effect may be minimal or non-existent.
Additionally, the study neglects to consider how increased availability of critical metals could accelerate green technology adoption. Even if sea-based mining was somewhat worse for the environment on a kg co2/kg metal basis, it could be beneficial if it made EV batteries more economical.
I’m not saying that we should give companies unfettered access to the ocean floor. But planet-tracker’s call for a moratorium on deep sea mining is counterproductive.
The best course of action is to allow for a limited amount of mining in the Clarion Clipperton Zone so that scientists can study the resulting sediment plums. Advocates should be pushing the International Seabed Authority and governments to fund more research, not trying to block mining altogether.
- culopatin 3y agoYour third paragraph, assumes that ocean ores would only be used for carbon negative products, which unless we want to lie to each other we know it’s not true and we will use them to make the frame of the iPhone or the trim of a Tesla, or some random shape in the name of art. Then we’ll be “oh, dang, that didn’t fix anything AND it added MORE carbon not only in the atmosphere but to the ocean”
- o11c 3y agoEspecially relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- Voultapher 3y agoIt goes even further than that https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-efficiency/ https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energ...
- chii 3y ago> would only be used for carbon negative products you can make this assumption if you believe refined metals are fungible. If making refined metals cheaper, it will also mean more of it available for green tech (that currently might be too expensive to produce to replace fossil fuels). On the other hand, more available metal ores do not make fossil fuels more economical (also an assumption, but i think this is fairly true). Therefore, on the whole, this would make green tech more competitive with fossil fuel tech.
- billiam 3y agoPlease. The International Seabed Authority has been almost entirely captured by the same mining interests that are trying to perversely argue that only by destroying the last effective carbon sink on the planet can can we save the planet. After all, the only reason we had to kill almost every whale in the world in the nineteenth century was because we needed all that oil for lamps forever, since there was no prospect of a better lighting technology ever being developed. We will manage to find or replace these metals without hoovering the deep ocean.