3 ms·
OK so where is the path? Electrification of everything requires at least 2x more copper than we have in circulation (official IEA estimate), while all existing/
by rini17 2y ago
OK so where is the path? Electrification of everything requires at least 2x more copper than we have in circulation (official IEA estimate), while all existing/planned mines only produce very low grade ore. So the mining will result in environmental destruction either, or won't happen at all due to local resistance. If this can be alleviated by reusing some oil infra for hydrogen, is that really so evil?
Whether it is actually possible and not just gaslighting like promises of plastics recycling, that's another question. Hydrogen has different properties, requires different materials and lower energy density than gas.
- j4mie 2y agoDo you have a source for your statement about copper? The closest I can find is [1] "The expansion of electricity networks means that copper demand for grid lines more than doubles over the same period". That's a doubling of demand, not of total current circulation. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...
- rini17 2y agoSorry not in circulation, my bad. The discrepance between required(for net zero) and planned mining is still worrying. Other metals like cobalt can be substituted by something else but not copper. https://www.iea.org/reports/copper https://www.iea.org/reports/copper
- gadders 2y agoThere currently isn't one that doesn't cause wrecking economies. But that doesn't matter because if you wreck your economy and crater your GDP the economy becomes more green because you are doing less. /s