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

51–60 of 74 posts

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

#51

Post by actionfromafar »

throwanapple wrote: post #45
walleeee wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, but is that a problem? Usually you sell your ICE, you don’t trash it when you buy an EV.)

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

#52

Post by scythe »

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…

With the exception of arsenic, most of these metals can be effectively immobilized as the sulfides. That's how they naturally occur, and the sulfides are so inert that early life never encountered the metal ions or adapted to them — which is probably why they are so toxic! The sulfides of lead, mercury, cadmium and copper are all very stable and insoluble.

So the solution may be quite simple: once the lake pH is adjusted to be not too acidic, pumping hydrogen sulfide into it should entrain any heavy metals in their natural form. This is a dangerous process, though, because hydrogen sulfide is an extremely toxic gas.

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

#53

Post by jazzyjackson »

londons_explore wrote: post #14
squarepizza wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> abstracting the costs away from the end user. The vast majority of costs are already abstracted away. When you drive to work, do you think about the massive environmental cost of all the concrete and steel that went into building the roads and bridges that you drive over? Yet those costs, which nobody talks about, are of similar scale to the environmental costs of all cars.

I think that goes to the parent's point: making the individual cars more efficient is not going to make a difference in the big picture. For one, the increase in efficiency has really already been met by an increase in power and performance - even the humble Prius has made an effort at faster 0-60, not to mention the sub-3-second super-SUVs.

But if driving a car is cheaper (and more fun) then we are doomed to dedicate more land to asphalt, and all the hidden costs thereof.

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

#54

Post by aziaziazi »

actionfromafar wrote: post #42
jazzyjackson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dear future kids, here was a wonderful and poetic place. Daddy and friends needed those rocks slot to support the level of comfort they accustomed to. Here’s a 4D .metavers file so you can enjoy it too as I did! Kiss, your loving grandpa.

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

#55

Post by walleeee »

actionfromafar wrote: post #50
walleeee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Agreed. The problem is it's too easy to look at electrification efforts, pat ourselves on the back, and stop there.

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

#56

Post by throwanapple »

actionfromafar wrote: post #51
throwanapple wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, but is that a problem? Usually you sell your ICE, you don’t trash it when you buy an EV.)

Yes if we want to reduce total consumption of polluting resources. Depends on each person's circumstance, if you need to drive then it's better to keep using your old car but use it as little as possible and look for opportunities to replace trips with walking, cycling, public transport, etc. Rather than buying a new EV but still driving everywhere even for short trips.

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

#57

Post by soco »

hker wrote: post #44
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 hu…

That "forward thinking" - just done by occidental leaders and called outsourcing - is what brought China in this privileged position in the first place. Should we expect next an African country rising to superpower statute?

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

#58

Post by danaris »

MisterTea wrote: post #46
danaris wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if I thought that profitability of these companies was The Most Important Thing, then that would matter to me.

As it stands, I think that companies shouldn't be allowed to offload negative externalities onto the public and the world at large. I think they should be required to clean up their own messes.

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

#59

Post by soco »

aziaziazi wrote: post #54
actionfromafar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dear future kids, here was a wonderful and poetic place. Daddy and friends needed those rocks slot to support the level of comfort they accustomed to. Here’s a 4D .metavers file so you can enjoy it too as I did! Kiss, your loving grandpa.

Too bad we can't attach pictures, so here's the link: https://ifunny.co/picture/here-son-i-saved-all-this-money-fo...
Post reply on HN