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

41–50 of 74 posts

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

#41

Post by aziaziazi »

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.

That’s not the world you used or chose to live.

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

#42

Post by actionfromafar »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #38
defrost wrote: post #13

It's good news if you're in Maine: Gem Hunters Found the Lithium America Needs. Maine Won’t Let Them Dig It Up https://time.com/6294818/lithium-mining-us-maine/ not so good news if you're indigenous: Tribes object. But a federal ruling approves construction of the largest lithium mine https://www.npr.org/2023/07/17/1188204958/tribes-object-fede... A mining company is hunting for lithium, right on the edge of wildlife…

The grand canyon was originally prospected for mining, they didn't build a railroad to the middle of nowhere for tourists after all. I won't be surprised if I live to see the day that national security trumps scenic detours. I feel like most people who want to see it have seen it, if we can put together a way to distribute the profits evenly to citizens like Alaska and Norway I think you'd win a lot of votes.

I wouldn’t dare bet against you but I find it a bit short sighted to say that those who want to see it have seen it.

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

#43

Post by walleeee »

Aurornis wrote: post #32
walleeee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 EVs are key to “civilizational resilience”, when combined with the sharp increase in solar and renewable energy that we’re also going through. Fantasizing about telling…

Sustainable food production is key. Fresh water availability is key. Electric cars are a necessity for no one. EVs and renewable energy sources are being sold to us as a comprehensive solution when they are just a small part of any realistic approach to the ecological challenges we face.

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

#44

Post by hker »

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…

> “Sustainability, equity and security are all at risk in the rush to break China’s dominance over their production.”

Chinese dominance of rare earth production is not sustainable, either, using lax regulations to externalize environmental and health hazards: leaking radioactive residue (like thorium) and other toxic waste, polluting water sources (including the Yellow River), neglecting worker safety, and abusing human rights.[1]

> “China’s ascendancy is the result of forward thinking by the country’s leadership”

One forward thinking of China is to move its operation through its state-owned enterprises to Africa, contaminating outside communities instead.[1]

[1]: https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complica... "Not So “Green” Technology: The Complicated Legacy of Rare Earth Mining"

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

#45

Post by throwanapple »

walleeee wrote: post #36
slashdev wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Electric cars are a luxury good. The people buying new EVs are not the same people struggling to break even with 2 jobs. Many of the people struggling to break even are putting extra miles on their older ICE vehicles to deliver meals or groceries to the Tesla owners. We need to make cars less necessary for life. It's not an easy task, but it's a question of priorities. Do we care more about convenience in the near te…

Plus, if you already have an older ICE car that works perfectly fine, isn't it better to keep driving it (in terms of carbon emission and other environmental impacts from mining, production, distribution and disposal), than to swap it with a new electric one?

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

#46

Post by MisterTea »

danaris wrote: post #23
londons_explore wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goa…

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

Like, that costs money and stuff.

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

#47

Post by icegreentea2 »

metacritic12 wrote: post #39
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 think it just happens in this case that the pie-maximizing-in-cooperative-state behaviour == not duplicating mining efforts == China favoring. An opposite argument could be make for semiconductors. In that case, the environmental approach is to NOT make multiple fabs, keep them in Taiwan / the Netherlands, and discourage China from making new fabs. This would be against China. Generally, the environmental position…

The editorial actually very carefully (and rightfully) isn't arguing for 'let China do all the mining' (or even avoiding duplicating mining efforts). It clearly says so "But it would be unwise for the rest of the world to rely on just one country for the processing of critical minerals" (and logically the same would be true for mining).

The editorial is arguing against trading blocs. In fact, it's arguing for some form of free trade. This benefits China in both that it is currently in a dominant position in terms of market and capacity, and also favors China in that it neutralizes one area where the US generally holds advantages - better soft power, and a being generally thought more favourably than China.

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

#48

Post by aziaziazi »

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…

> Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions.

Heh ??! Mining is a huge source of GHG, especially if you count scope 3 (you should): https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-...

> Within mining, scope 1 and 2 emissions account for 4%-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 28% of global emissions however when accounting for scope 3

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

#49

Post by achenet »

Aurornis wrote: post #32
walleeee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 EVs are key to “civilizational resilience”, when combined with the sharp increase in solar and renewable energy that we’re also going through. Fantasizing about telling…

Speaking as someone who grew up in Houston and then moved to France - a society that depends on cars as the only method of transportation is, at least in my opinion, much more miserable than one that can be lived in car-free.

You're right that a sustainable future doesn't have to miserable.

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

#50

Post by actionfromafar »

walleeee wrote: post #43
Aurornis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 EVs are key to “civilizational resilience”, when combined with the sharp increase in solar and renewable energy that we’re also going through. Fantasizing about telling…

Sustainable food production is key. Fresh water availability is key. Electric cars are a necessity for no one. EVs and renewable energy sources are being sold to us as a comprehensive solution when they are just a small part of any realistic approach to the ecological challenges we face.

I think EVs can have beneficial second order effects. I’ll take some progress over no progress.

(But currently we aren’t even slowing down the coming “train crash”, we are merely decreasing the acceleration into the wall of food shortages and other horrors.)

Post reply on HN