71–80 of 165 posts
Shame Australian's see little to no benefit, all of the profits are off shored and there are little royalties paid back to the Australian people.
It's not like they're giving the lithium away for free?
The flipside of electrification of vehicles is all the extra metal they need to mine, which is highly environmentally destructive. We don't even have the metal supplies to fully electrify car production, not even close, although I see South America is going to ramp up production substantially soon.
Lung cancer rates are higher near major roads due to air pollution from cars. Fossil fuel cars basically means every highway is a superfund site. We just don't talk about it. Given the choice between toxic waste at a mine and toxic waste in millions of homes, I'll take the mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought we are talking about the sizes of holes in the ground, not the cost.
Doesn't it seem likely the cost of the material directly relates to the size and difficulty of creating said hole in the ground?
The flipside of electrification of vehicles is all the extra metal they need to mine, which is highly environmentally destructive. We don't even have the metal supplies to fully electrify car production, not even close, although I see South America is going to ramp up production substantially soon.
Okay, I need to say that you are not even wrong. Yep, I am slightly irritated on this blatantly false claim that has started popping up. If you think your claim has any merit, could you please provid the metal that you think we are lacking, estimat the amount needed and compare that amoun to the amount in earth's crust. If you get anything but infinitesmally small needs compared to what here is, please explain why that metal can't be replaced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It looks like insufficient bonds and bankruptcy just shifted cost burdens for cleanup to government. That's the goal of capitalism, privitise the profits, socialise the losses.
I actually only looked at north america, knowing that it happens in every country that mines. Capitalism is not the scapegoat. https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic... The psuedo-environmentalists getting played like a 2-bit....crypto investor (not my 1st word choice, but still relevant) is funny though :p
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afghanistan is landlocked. To its north is Russia. To its east is China. To its south are Pakistan and India. And to its west is Iran. Fun neighborhood. Nothing could go wrong with the above countries fighting for their share of Afghanistan's mineral resources.
>Afghanistan is landlocked Which is not that great if you intend to export raw bulk goods (e.g. ore). You really want to have ports for that. The extra few percent efficiency of ship vs rail makes a huge difference because margin is so thin.
I wish Australia the best of luck in escaping the resource curse, by moving up the value chain. Relative to China. I'd like this post to be more sarcastic than it is, really, I would.
Australia is like the Saudi Arabia of mining. Such a big continent with very few people. Politically stable and smart enough to exploit itself and keep most of the profits. The lucky country indeed.
Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.
Maybe we’re a bit better now (particularly after the last election) but it doesn’t really mean what everyone thinks it means. Basically, historically, we have failed upwards. Still, there are very few places I’d desire to live in
The flipside of electrification of vehicles is all the extra metal they need to mine, which is highly environmentally destructive. We don't even have the metal supplies to fully electrify car production, not even close, although I see South America is going to ramp up production substantially soon.
Lung cancer rates are higher near major roads due to air pollution from cars. Fossil fuel cars basically means every highway is a superfund site. We just don't talk about it. Given the choice between toxic waste at a mine and toxic waste in millions of homes, I'll take the mine.
Why lithium is not considered in the same category as fossil fuels? I mean, it is technically used as a fuel that you need to keep "energising" and it becomes "spent" after nth "energising'. Whereas e.g. diesel comes "pre-charged" and is "spent" after first use? I read conflicting articles which one is more environment friendly.
Lithium car batteries can be cycled 1500-2000 times. Fossil fuels get 1 cycle. 3 orders of magnitude is a categorical difference. [1] https://www.midtronics.com/blog/do-electric-car-ev-batteries...