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

61–70 of 74 posts

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

#61

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jjoonathan wrote: post #17
actionfromafar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars are helping, but maybe not as much one can be lead to believe. The biggest danger about them is possibly that people may believe they are a big step forward. They are an important but rather small step forward. Electric cars will reduce demand for gasoline. Some people say this won't affect how much oil is pumped out of the ground, because we still need the other fractions. That's not exactly the case t…

I thought the fractions were relatively straightforward to convert to balance demand? I don't really have good intuition for the economics of it though.

If I understand correctly, we want more gasoline than the natural fraction in petroleum. So refineries "crack" longer molecules to create shorter ones, increasing the amount of gasoline.

I'm not sure if that's the gasoline subsidizing the heavier fractions. It might be the other way around. There would be more heavier fractions available if we didn't crack them, and therefore they'd be cheaper.

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

#62

Post by AnimalMuppet »

bee_rider wrote: post #20
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.

While it would be nice if everyone could use a bicycle instead, unfortunately people are really stubborn about hanging on to their cars.

My mother is 95. She's not walking anywhere. My wife has a bone spur in her heel. She can walk, but not far.

So, yeah, a world without cars sounds great if you're young and healthy, and there's good public transportation and bike paths and such. But for some people, it's cars or being a shut-in, and so, yeah, they are really stubborn about hanging on to their cars.

They're not the majority of car users. But you can't ignore them when you design your utopian future.

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

#63

Post by steve76 »

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…

[dead]

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

#64

Post by pixl97 »

achenet wrote: post #49
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…

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.

The US has painted itself into a corner here. When you put yourself in a few trillion dollars of infrastructure debt building around 'cars are king'. What is going to be miserable is attempting to service that debt while moving to a more manageable society.

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

#65

Post by slashdev »

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?

No, because you don’t scrap it, you sell it. That reduces the demand for new cars.

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

#66

Post by londons_explore »

danaris wrote: post #58
MisterTea wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Even if money is no object, there aren't many environmentally friendly solutions to acidic mine tailings ponds.

Most treatments require huge amounts of energy, which itself isn't very environmentally friendly.

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

#67

Post by slashdev »

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…

Like I said, both are necessary and complementary. Electric vehicles don’t suddenly make alternative transportation a bad idea.

Also there’s budget electric cars, and even Uber drivers purchase them. While I agree that they’re not that affordable yet, they’re not a luxury good either (although some models definitely are.)

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

#68

Post by bee_rider »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62
bee_rider wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it would be nice if everyone could use a bicycle instead, unfortunately people are really stubborn about hanging on to their cars.

My mother is 95. She's not walking anywhere. My wife has a bone spur in her heel. She can walk, but not far. So, yeah, a world without cars sounds great if you're young and healthy, and there's good public transportation and bike paths and such. But for some people, it's cars or being a shut-in, and so, yeah, they are really stubborn about hanging on to their cars. They're not the majority of car users. But you can't…

Since it is a utopia, we’ll make sure that people like your mother and your wife get places near the center of town so they can walk to shops and restaurants. It might be hard to fit everybody, but it beats climate change or mineral wars, right?

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

#69

Post by slashdev »

aziaziazi wrote: post #48
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…

> 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

Scope three isn’t mining. Calling it mining is really playing fast and loose with words.

Smelting and processing of raw materials is a big source of GHG.

Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though.

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

#70

Post by actionfromafar »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #61
jjoonathan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the fractions were relatively straightforward to convert to balance demand? I don't really have good intuition for the economics of it though.

If I understand correctly, we want more gasoline than the natural fraction in petroleum. So refineries "crack" longer molecules to create shorter ones, increasing the amount of gasoline. I'm not sure if that's the gasoline subsidizing the heavier fractions. It might be the other way around. There would be more heavier fractions available if we didn't crack them, and therefore they'd be cheaper.

That still requires changes to the refineries, but even so, when the cracking is eventually turned off, the same mechanism remains.
Post reply on HN