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

The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#21

Post by dboreham »

gottorf wrote: post #19
_heimdall wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we ref…

> There still one good choice, just use less power. All of civilization has basically been about allowing higher per capita energy usage. To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. If our goal is human flourishing, then our focus should be on enabling yet higher levels of energy usage per person, preferably with as few side-effects as possible. Fossil fuels have been (and will con…

> To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development.

This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#22

Post by chii »

t43562 wrote: post #10

The argument I've seen is that the amount of seabed that has the required minerals is not big and the surface of the earth is predominantly covered by water so as a percentage of what's there the mined area is small. I would like to know how bad mining that area is compared that to the damage we will do continuing with internal combustion engines if we don't solve the climate issue, or mining the same things on land.…

i've heard that clouding up the seabed has some bad effects that will be difficult to restore or prevent. Such as long acting changes to the sea food cycle which affects fish stocks etc.

I personally prefer that we mine asteroids...

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#23

Post by gruez »

mint2 wrote: post #13
paganel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s hard to sanction them, because the environmental-conscious way of extracting lots of minerals out of the Earth is by destroying jungles and other pristine land-based ecosystems, the underwater habitat is where the West draws the line.

“Oh yeah totally. the west really should be more like the BRIC and draw no lines, lines are bad.” What?!? Must we find any reason possible to knock the west?

The problem isn't that lines are being drawn. It's that they're being drawn arbitrarily.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#24

Post by _heimdall »

t43562 wrote: post #18
_heimdall wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we ref…

That could require people to die. Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.

Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing.

There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit.

In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materials to build and maintain the structure to the power it takes to run the home. We don't have to travel nearly as much as we chose to. We don't need LLMs, technology with 2-3 year lifespans, or "fast fashion" cloths that fall apart in a season. We don't need vacations that include flying to some far away place, cruise boats, or roller coasters.

Sure there are sacrifices in giving up any of these, but any risk of deaths would be second or third order effects related to economic impact. There's just so many things we could easily give up if we cared to without risking serious impacts before we have to worry about risking leaving the poor behind or directly requiring deaths in some way.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#25

Post by s1artibartfast »

CyanBird wrote: post #12

I still find this whole thing absolutely idiotic given that there are absolutely colossal piles of cobalt, manganese etc left on the tailings of copper and silver mines through the world just waiting for being collected and processed... And you don't need to build specialty equipment to reach the seabed at all

You should do just that and become rich if it is so obvious and easy.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#26

Post by _heimdall »

gottorf wrote: post #19
_heimdall wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we ref…

> There still one good choice, just use less power. All of civilization has basically been about allowing higher per capita energy usage. To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. If our goal is human flourishing, then our focus should be on enabling yet higher levels of energy usage per person, preferably with as few side-effects as possible. Fossil fuels have been (and will con…

Your argument hinges on two assumptions, both that I'd argue are flawed.

First, you're assuming that our current use of power is efficient and there isn't enough unnecessary or inefficient use of power to make a difference. Do you believe that there aren't changes we could make to reduce power use without noticeably reducing human well-being?

Second, you're assuming that increased growth is always a good thing and developing more stuff by using more power is always an improvement. There are changes that consume more power without making a clear improvement to human flourishing, and worse there is progress that consumes more power while actually making our lives worse.

Why do you believe that power consumption can't be reduced without meaningfully reducing human well-being or happiness?

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#27

Post by elmomle »

gruez wrote: post #23
mint2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Oh yeah totally. the west really should be more like the BRIC and draw no lines, lines are bad.” What?!? Must we find any reason possible to knock the west?

The problem isn't that lines are being drawn. It's that they're being drawn arbitrarily.

To rephrase: "We humans have already messed things up badly, why stop now? That would be arbitrary."

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#28

Post by causal »

The economic argument is important for the environmental one, because sunk capital is often used to justify more capital. Even if the first ten companies fail, they may develop enough tech and know-how to make some sunk-cost minded financier unwilling to give up.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#29

Post by collegeburner »

bglazer wrote: post #8
andrewstuart wrote: post #5

And if you think they ruin the environment above sea level , I’ll bet the miners really fuck things up underwater.

Yep these operations are going to be disasters. Huge plumes of waste silt, noise pollution, and permanent destruction of ecosystems whose role were don’t understand.

depends on which player you're looking at. i know of at least one other firm partnering with experienced deepsea companies that has highly favorable economic projections (they look pretty reasonable based on their partners' cost history) and is using a much less disruptive method of nodule collection. very significant reductions in the silt plume

problem is, you'll never make these people happy. o&g? emits carbon, must go. cobalt for batteries? tears up the congolese landscape, must go. seabed recovery? messes with ecosystem, must go.

to be clear, i'm not trying to preclude cleaner alternatives. just saying there seems to be a rising idea that basically no level of anthropocene change is acceptable and we must retvrn to communes and mud huts or something. some folks need to quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good

even if you agree with the almost inevitable conclusion that we should simply use less, you must recognize the political reality that almost no one is willing to suffer a substantial downgrade in standard of living. increased buy-in to the energy transition is largely due to promises that we can continue living how we are, tolerating what impact is left and mitigating costs with a combination of technological innovation and making "the rich" pay

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#30

Post by collegeburner »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #6

Even with dubious economics, deep sea mining could make sense for China for political reasons. Securing supplies of key industrial commodities under de facto Chinese sovereignty may be worth the cost of whatever subsidies are required to encourage entrepreneurs & investors. It’s very hard for anyone, even the US/UN, to sanction Chinese companies that only seek to import ocean materials into the Chinese domestic marke…

the guys i mentioned in my other comment will not be refining in china. too many natsec concerns and there are federal $ to be had if you help secure a durable supply of critical minerals not constrained by an evil empire
Post reply on HN