Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#21

Post by bee_rider »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #18
costanzaDynasty wrote: post #7

And the wars haven't started yet. Soon though. Driving your electric car straight to hell on a road paved with feelings.

Several counter points: - singling out electrical vehicles is a bit disingenuous; there are lots of other consumers of rare earths. E.g. combustion engines have lots of exotic things on board and cobalt is used in oil refining. Lots of other industries use exotic minerals. - A lot of this stuff can be recycled and already is. Especially valuable commodities used in batteries. - There are alternate battery chemistries…

- Minerals aside, petrochemicals seem to have caused/enabled an awful lot of bad behavior

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#22

Post by lizknope »

Asianometry made a couple of recent videos on rare earth elements. They aren't that rare but the concentration is so low and they are always mixed in with other elements so it takes a lot of processing.

China‘s Iron Grip on the Rare Earth Magnet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxpKcbg30e4

A Semiconductor Rare Earths Problem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caEsW5h3dhA

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#23

Post by danaris »

londons_explore wrote: post #9
Mistletoe wrote: post #4

If you’ve never seen this you really should to understand how bad this can go. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...

I've been to some of these 'toxic lakes'. Usually they consist of a few things in large quantities that are easy to neutralize - eg. sulphuric or nitric acid. And thats mixed in with small amounts of something that is natural yet toxic - eg. Mercury, lead, arsenic, etc. The whole lot is typically in the form of a slurry with solids and lots of water. It has to be kept wet, or the toxic solids will turn into dust and…

Now, this may be naïve or uninformed, but...

Shouldn't it be possible to take that slurry and deliberately dry it out much faster, possibly even including a step that separates the products to some extent for separate processing or storage? If it were being dried out in a sealed processing facility, rather than a pond open to the air (and wildlife), the toxic dust wouldn't be a problem—indeed, it would be the end goal. Turn it to dust, compress the dust into something you can seal in a jar or whatever and then store the sealed jar. Or potentially even sell it; I bet some of these toxic byproducts would actually be something someone else wants for their own industrial processes.

Obviously even if it's possible, this isn't done because it would be more expensive—but if we, say, were more concerned with health and safety than profits, couldn't this be much less time-consuming and risky to the local water table than just letting it sit for decades or centuries?

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#24

Post by bee_rider »

slashdev wrote: post #6
blondie9x wrote: post #3

That’s the worst part of the AI race and “clean” electric cars. Behind the scenes the destruction they cause is more than you can imagine. We think electric cars and GPUs are pushing us ahead. But in reality we are driving the wedge in deeper. I’m afraid where we end up is like James Hansen said about fossil fuels, but relevant in general, with a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end…

Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense. Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every elec…

Not sure they are unequivocally good — maybe if we had the option between electric cars, and no cars, no cars might be preferable. But that is not the world we live in. Among the options we actually have, electric cars seem to be one of the least bad picks.

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#25

Post by tough »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #19

I’m interested in how this editorial got written. It’s not attributed to anyone and the language and perspective seem to me to be CCP talking points. “Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.” - I can think of one entity which wouldn’t want China’s dominance of rare earth production broken and it’s not the DRC. “China’s ascendancy is the result…

I guess like you can buy -articles- on my local newspaper for your local business, now you can buy -papers- on nature or whatever, must be a case of how much money you paying for the ad

Submarines are pretty easy to detect once you've been here for a while tho http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#26

Post by walleeee »

slashdev wrote: post #6
blondie9x wrote: post #3

That’s the worst part of the AI race and “clean” electric cars. Behind the scenes the destruction they cause is more than you can imagine. We think electric cars and GPUs are pushing us ahead. But in reality we are driving the wedge in deeper. I’m afraid where we end up is like James Hansen said about fossil fuels, but relevant in general, with a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end…

Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense. Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every elec…

In 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority

Electric vehicles can be a good thing if we also dramatically reduce our consumption of transportation and bring our political systems, lifestyles and economies in harmony with planetary boundaries. Without a corresponding sea change in expectations and way of life, they just dig us deeper into the energy trap.

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#27

Post by RhodesianHunter »

squarepizza wrote: post #5
blondie9x wrote: post #3

That’s the worst part of the AI race and “clean” electric cars. Behind the scenes the destruction they cause is more than you can imagine. We think electric cars and GPUs are pushing us ahead. But in reality we are driving the wedge in deeper. I’m afraid where we end up is like James Hansen said about fossil fuels, but relevant in general, with a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end…

EVs, while undeniably more efficient, seem very good at abstracting the costs away from the end user. Pair this with autonomy that reduces friction but has its own associated costs and I'm afraid that the increase in use will eclipse the gains in efficiency, leading to a Jevon's Paradox where the overall consumption increases.

Jevons paradox doesn't make sense in the context of purely competitive products. If it were, the effect would be expected to be the same for gas powered cars unless they were somehow prohibitively more expensive, which they are not.

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#28

Post by slashdev »

walleeee wrote: post #26
slashdev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense. Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every elec…

In 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority Electric vehicles can be a good thing if we also dramatically reduce our consumption of transportation and bring our political systems, lifestyles and economies in harmony…

You act like cars are a luxury good used for joy riding. Transportation is necessary. I’m all for mass transit, and making cities more walkable and friendly to cycling. That’s complementary.

But cars are still necessary, and that’s not about to change.

Re: The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging

#30

Post by slashdev »

bee_rider wrote: post #24
slashdev wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense. Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every elec…

Not sure they are unequivocally good — maybe if we had the option between electric cars, and no cars, no cars might be preferable. But that is not the world we live in. Among the options we actually have, electric cars seem to be one of the least bad picks.

Exactly.
Post reply on HN