Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve • Hacker News Board

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#361

Post by u801e » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 9:30 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #321

u801e wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs. When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri L…

> When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs. When India did it, it did lead to proliferatio…

> When India did [nuclear weapons testing], it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan.

And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively in close to 50 years (25 years for Pakistan).

> Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned.

Yet they haven't advertised it or tried to use them (if they ever had them) in any capacity. As for North Korea, while they do test missiles on occasion, they have not made use of any nuclear capability against another country.

> Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).

Yet, all the focus is on Iran in terms of sanctions and fear/warmongering about them developing nuclear capability. Every single example in the past has shown that developing such capability has not resulted in any type of nuclear conflict.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#362

Post by cameldrv » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 9:35 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #318

mywittyname wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Lithium scarcity is a similar mindset to what peak oil was in the 90s. It seems like an issue given our current understanding, but there's a huge economic incentive to discover new deposits and make their extraction economically viable. Some of the the largest oil fields currently known were only discovered in the past decade or two. I wouldn't be surprised if battery materials follow a similar discovery cur…

Peak oil was both right and wrong at the same time. Higher prices slowed demand growth, and made tight-oil financially feasible at the same. This combination made the peak much closer to a plateau. I also believe (but could be wrong), that a not insignificant amount of the success of oil alternatives today (which helps to slow demand growth) is due to a flurry of research that started with the price shocks of the 70s…

I'd say peak oil was 99% wrong. The main argument against it was simply that market forces would find a way to deliver more oil if conventional oil started getting expensive. That's exactly what happened. As it turned out, the main solution the market has come up with is fracking, but if fracking had not been invented, it could have been tar sands, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, more ultra-deepwater drilling, political accommodation with pariah states, etc etc.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#363

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 9:44 PM UTC

u801e wrote: post #361

dragonwriter wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs. When India did it, it did lead to proliferatio…

> When India did [nuclear weapons testing], it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively in close to 50 years (25 years for Pakistan). > Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Yet they haven't advertised it or…

> And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively

The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region, to something like “well, neither they nor the states in the area of further proliferarion they contributed to have, to date, used nukes in anger, so it doesn't matter”.

I would suggest that waiting until after a nuclear war to take proliferation concerns seriously is... not a great idea.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#364

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 9:58 PM UTC

edflsafoiewq wrote: post #344

fsloth wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état Of course it’s hard to say what course history would have taken without this but I fail to see how the current theocracy / securocracy could have had a foothold without it (revolutions always just swap elites).

That was 70 years ago. It has been 44 years since the Shah's government was overthrown in the Revolution. How long will people continue to pretend the entire modern history of Iran is the deterministic result of Western actions? That in the Shah and even in the Revolution, Iran possesses no agency of its own, a passive object only of Western force? But to the point: there is absolutely zero chance of the US going to…

[deleted]

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#365

Post by ag315 » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #358

ArnoVW wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A typical nuclear station genrates 1 Gw. You'd need 1000000 square meters (=1000 sq km) to generate the same thing. Oh and we can only capture 20-30 % of the energy of the total light. We're going to need solar power, and fossile fuel is madness. But to deny that solar power is not 'dense' seems irrational.

Now include the largest uranium mines like inkai in your area calculation. Or alternatively any recently opened coal mines. Then include that any solar panels feeding variable load can go wherever (like roofs and parking lots) and take no land but instead enhance the other use. Then include tilting agrivoltaics (which increases yield for heat sensitive crops and makes animals healthier). Dedicated utility PV in a goo…

Strategic installation of solar panels certainly helps maximize efficiency, and is in general a great idea, especially in some areas. But to your point about the space taken up by uranium and coal mines, that's only a fair comparison if you also calculate the mines needed for things like lithium, copper, etc. that would all go into a solar-oriented power grid.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#366

Post by syntheweave » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:18 PM UTC

cameldrv wrote: post #362

aidenn0 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peak oil was both right and wrong at the same time. Higher prices slowed demand growth, and made tight-oil financially feasible at the same. This combination made the peak much closer to a plateau. I also believe (but could be wrong), that a not insignificant amount of the success of oil alternatives today (which helps to slow demand growth) is due to a flurry of research that started with the price shocks of the 70s…

I'd say peak oil was 99% wrong. The main argument against it was simply that market forces would find a way to deliver more oil if conventional oil started getting expensive. That's exactly what happened. As it turned out, the main solution the market has come up with is fracking, but if fracking had not been invented, it could have been tar sands, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, more ultra-deepwater drilling, polit…

It all depends on whether we define fracked oil to be actually the same energy resource as conventional. Which, in EROEI terms, it isn't - it gets a compatible result at a higher cost.

In that framing, peak oil happened - we just proceeded to reframe reality around a substitute and choked down a decade of stagnation in the energy economy.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#367

Post by Schroedingersat » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

ag315 wrote: post #365

Schroedingersat wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now include the largest uranium mines like inkai in your area calculation. Or alternatively any recently opened coal mines. Then include that any solar panels feeding variable load can go wherever (like roofs and parking lots) and take no land but instead enhance the other use. Then include tilting agrivoltaics (which increases yield for heat sensitive crops and makes animals healthier). Dedicated utility PV in a goo…

Strategic installation of solar panels certainly helps maximize efficiency, and is in general a great idea, especially in some areas. But to your point about the space taken up by uranium and coal mines, that's only a fair comparison if you also calculate the mines needed for things like lithium, copper, etc. that would all go into a solar-oriented power grid.

It's not because they're no longer needed once the panel is produced. That would be analogous to the sand and copper and steel and indium and cadmium and gadolinium and chromium and zirconium and nickel and silver in the nuclear plant (and fuel cycle). All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing). Even then it's questionable because most of the nuclear reactor cannot be recycled, but the solar panel legally must have recycling prepaid in many jurisdictions.

You're welcome to include mining for the entire supply chain of solar and exclude the supply chain of the generator for thermal though, it doesn't change how one sided the land use is in solar's favour.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#368

Post by smugma » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:46 PM UTC

panick21_ wrote: post #343

I'm so sick of these articles. The amount of 'lithium discovered' articles are crazy. Nobody cares, lithium is plentiful, it exists in lots of places and we haven't even looked for it much. If people really search for it, it would show up in many more places. The problem with lithium is not finding a resource, but doing the necessary chemical process to get it to be battery quality lithium. Lithium is not like base m…

Is China not one of their closest Allies (the other being Russia?

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#369

Post by ag315 » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:46 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #367

ag315 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strategic installation of solar panels certainly helps maximize efficiency, and is in general a great idea, especially in some areas. But to your point about the space taken up by uranium and coal mines, that's only a fair comparison if you also calculate the mines needed for things like lithium, copper, etc. that would all go into a solar-oriented power grid.

It's not because they're no longer needed once the panel is produced. That would be analogous to the sand and copper and steel and indium and cadmium and gadolinium and chromium and zirconium and nickel and silver in the nuclear plant (and fuel cycle). All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing). Even then it's questionable because…

"No longer needed once the panel is produced" The land used for the mining isn't land that we're just getting back--given the costs of making it useful again for anything else, space used for a lithium mine is in almost all cases essentially going to be gone for good. This is of course true for other mines as well, but your notion that lithium is an exception is a curious one.

"All of which except silver outmass minerals of similar rarity and mining impact in the solar panel (and that is quickly changing)" Nuclear reactors require relatively small inputs of these metals compared to the metals used in solar panels, and the huge capital invested in making solar panels less resource-intensive could also be applied to nuclear, if we wanted to do so.

"Even then it's questionable because most of the nuclear reactor cannot be recycled, but the solar panel legally must have recycling prepaid in many jurisdictions." But again, reactors are small compared to the millions of panels that are necessary to be the equivalent of one plant, and furthermore plenty of those materials can be and are recycled, especially in France (the entire history of the American nuclear energy program have created less waste than solar panels have in just a couple decades). And, again, innovations that make solar panels more recyclable (which we absolutely need because right now they mostly just produce massive amounts of toxic waste) could also be invested in nuclear recycling. I did get a good chuckle out of your vague "many jurisdictions" though.

Re: Iran discovers world’s second largest lithium reserve

#370

Post by u801e » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 10:50 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #363

u801e wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When India did [nuclear weapons testing], it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively in close to 50 years (25 years for Pakistan). > Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Yet they haven't advertised it or…

> And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region, to something like “well, neither they nor the states in the area of further proliferarion they contributed to have, to date, used nukes in anger, so it doesn't matter”. I would suggest…

> The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region

My original claim was that nuclear weapons did not proliferate in the region beyond India and Pakistan (and there was a 24 year gap between India's and Pakistan's first nuclear tests). You claimed that:

>>> Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned.

But this wikipedia page[1] does not mention anything like that. Do you have a source for your claim?

> I would suggest that waiting until after a nuclear war

Again, this has not happened so far, and it doesn't look like the probability of that happening will change regardless of whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_and_weapons_of_mass_de...