4 ms·

ugh i really don't want people to mine in the mobile basin. that's one of the most diverse ecosystems in north america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9coyJe

ugh i really don't want people to mine in the mobile basin. that's one of the most diverse ecosystems in north america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9coyJeB4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9coyJeB4Q

mmaunder 2y ago
Extracting lithium from brine is cleaner than e.g. extraction from spodumene ore. Also direct lithium extraction from brine is faster, cleaner, smaller footprint, lower energy consumption.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Someone was telling me a proposed hard rock lithium mine in the US would be powered by burning sulfur. They need the sulfuric acid so produced to dissolve the spondumene anyway, and trucking in solid sulfur is cheaper than trucking in the sulfuric acid made elsewhere. Sulfur, currently extracted by desulfurization of oil and gas, gets more expensive in the post fossil fuel society, but there are other sources (like pyrite).
declan_roberts 2y ago
It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.
- bagels 2y ago
  Uranium is extracted by mining the surface. I don't know ore concentrations though, so maybe not much land area is needed since it is a dense energy source?
  - wbl 2y ago
    Depends on the kind of deposit. Some they leech in situ.
- waveBidder 2y ago
  > It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either. > Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century. This is a European phenomena mostly, and is a result of urbanization mostly.
  - declan_roberts 2y ago
    What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?
    - ianeigorndua 2y ago
      Trash, mostly.
      - luckylion 2y ago
        Not really. I live close to Hamburg, Germany. _Very_ eager to be eco-friendly and sustainable. Currently: 64% coal, lots of nat gas, ~20 renewables. The future plan is to use a lot more industrial waste heat. Burning garbage is done and planned, but nowhere near a major factor. Not to mention that the garbage would also need to come from something: plastics from oil, wood from trees etc.
        UltraSane 2y ago
        Germany shutting down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors instead of their coal plants was so stupid. Germany emits 5 to 6 times more CO2 per J than France.
        luckylion 2y ago
        I agree. But at the end of the day it's not rationality that controls the fate of large groups of people, it's emotions. Nuclear power is a very emotional topic in Germany, and you can't argue with people who believe they'll die next week if that power plant keeps producing energy.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Contrarianism has definitely entered its self-parody era.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  Lithium isn't a fuel
krunck 2y ago
There is always sodium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery
fishcrackers 2y ago
[dead]
Dalewyn 2y ago
A significant reason the real holders of power in the world today are Saudi Arabia and China is because we've refused to gather and use our resources while they have theirs. It's high time we realize that Pax Americana is our era to lose, (re)start mining and (re)start development.
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  the mobile bay already has a lot of oil mining: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=oil+rigs+mobile+bay https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=oil+rig... we don't need it happening upstream. and watch as the nations destroy themselves (ecosystems)
- bcrosby95 2y ago
  The counter view is that it's better to save your natural resources for when you really need them and pay others to exhaust their own, rather than to exhaust yours before you have to.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    And a counter to that is that if you don't flex an economic muscle, it withers away. The ability to extract a natural resource depends on extracting it.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    But then when you really need them you have no infrastructure with which to extract them nor experience doing so. You have also lost out on tremendous economic opportunity from money you needed to spend on resources while the people you've paid, assuming they manage their income responsibly, have invested that money in further productive assets.
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  we are already extracting a lot of resources around the mobile bay. i recommend that you do some research before you post knee jerk contrarianism comments

mmaunder 2y ago

Extracting lithium from brine is cleaner than e.g. extraction from spodumene ore. Also direct lithium extraction from brine is faster, cleaner, smaller footprint, lower energy consumption.

pfdietz 2y ago
Someone was telling me a proposed hard rock lithium mine in the US would be powered by burning sulfur. They need the sulfuric acid so produced to dissolve the spondumene anyway, and trucking in solid sulfur is cheaper than trucking in the sulfuric acid made elsewhere. Sulfur, currently extracted by desulfurization of oil and gas, gets more expensive in the post fossil fuel society, but there are other sources (like pyrite).

declan_roberts 2y ago

It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.

bagels 2y ago
Uranium is extracted by mining the surface. I don't know ore concentrations though, so maybe not much land area is needed since it is a dense energy source?
- wbl 2y ago
  Depends on the kind of deposit. Some they leech in situ.
waveBidder 2y ago
> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either. > Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century. This is a European phenomena mostly, and is a result of urbanization mostly.
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?
  - ianeigorndua 2y ago
    Trash, mostly.
    - luckylion 2y ago
      Not really. I live close to Hamburg, Germany. _Very_ eager to be eco-friendly and sustainable. Currently: 64% coal, lots of nat gas, ~20 renewables. The future plan is to use a lot more industrial waste heat. Burning garbage is done and planned, but nowhere near a major factor. Not to mention that the garbage would also need to come from something: plastics from oil, wood from trees etc.
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        Germany shutting down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors instead of their coal plants was so stupid. Germany emits 5 to 6 times more CO2 per J than France.
        luckylion 2y ago
        I agree. But at the end of the day it's not rationality that controls the fate of large groups of people, it's emotions. Nuclear power is a very emotional topic in Germany, and you can't argue with people who believe they'll die next week if that power plant keeps producing energy.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Contrarianism has definitely entered its self-parody era.
bastawhiz 2y ago
Lithium isn't a fuel

krunck 2y ago

There is always sodium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery

fishcrackers 2y ago

[dead]

Dalewyn 2y ago

A significant reason the real holders of power in the world today are Saudi Arabia and China is because we've refused to gather and use our resources while they have theirs. It's high time we realize that Pax Americana is our era to lose, (re)start mining and (re)start development.

greenie_beans 2y ago
the mobile bay already has a lot of oil mining: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=oil+rigs+mobile+bay https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=oil+rig... we don't need it happening upstream. and watch as the nations destroy themselves (ecosystems)
bcrosby95 2y ago
The counter view is that it's better to save your natural resources for when you really need them and pay others to exhaust their own, rather than to exhaust yours before you have to.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  And a counter to that is that if you don't flex an economic muscle, it withers away. The ability to extract a natural resource depends on extracting it.
- jjk166 2y ago
  But then when you really need them you have no infrastructure with which to extract them nor experience doing so. You have also lost out on tremendous economic opportunity from money you needed to spend on resources while the people you've paid, assuming they manage their income responsibly, have invested that money in further productive assets.
greenie_beans 2y ago
we are already extracting a lot of resources around the mobile bay. i recommend that you do some research before you post knee jerk contrarianism comments