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

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#41

Post by kiba »

collegeburner wrote: post #34
dboreham wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.

a barrel of oil is equivalent to around twenty-five thousand man hours of work. sacrificing that would result in a colossal hit to quality of life. and ironically, the additional people needed to mitigate that might actually result in more ecological impact, to say nothing of broadening a global underclass of widget producers we can and should use our limited hydrocarbons to bootstrap our way to higher-potential ener…

We can use less cars and use more trains. Energy efficiency is also an addition in the crease of available energy source, since said energy sources can be deployed to more productive, less harmful processes.

Walking is also good, and it would probably do us good to personally increase humans' basal metabolism.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#42

Post by RandomLensman »

_heimdall wrote: post #24
t43562 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 materi…

The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#43

Post by pi-e-sigma »

kiba wrote: post #40
pi-e-sigma wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like you don't know anything about history of human civilization. All improvements to the standard of living come from using more power per capita.

It can also be true that improving energy efficiency will be good, and forgoing harmful energetic activity is also good, such as reducing the number of cars on the road.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#44

Post by deadly-penguin »

unglaublich wrote: post #11
bglazer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Especially since this will be completely hidden from the public, and complex and expensive to check by governments, and even harder when on international waters. That means there's hardly any penalty or price for polluting and destroying sensitive ecosystems. And since companies treat fines like operational costs, these companies will be financially incentivized to mine, pollute, and destroy the seabed, even for ques…

The UK government, as well as others, is currently funding research into the ecology of the target areas and the impacts of mining (https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/blogs/SMARTEX)

I'm not sure it will be 'hidden' (the research projects are not going away) so much as yet another case of competing interests within governments, where the environment gets sidelined for the sake of an hypothetical future magic money tree.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#45

Post by kiba »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #43
kiba wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be true that improving energy efficiency will be good, and forgoing harmful energetic activity is also good, such as reducing the number of cars on the road.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

Of course. If you ever drove downtown during rush hours, it is a miserable experience.

If you want to see people riding bike, see youtube videos about Finland. If you have the right clothes, or the right infrastructure and support, a lot of things are suddenly possible and easy.

But of course, noticed that I said reduction of cars, not a total elimination of cars.

We do not need a car for any and all activity. There will be a time and place when you need to haul large amount of materials, for example.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#46

Post by kiba »

RandomLensman wrote: post #42
_heimdall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 materi…

The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.

It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process.

Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all.

Given that some countries are richer or poorer than other, and some countries are better at public transits than other, I find it hard to believe that the status quo can be justified by people merely making 'choices'.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#47

Post by kiba »

collegeburner wrote: post #32
_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…

"just use less" is a very prescriptive line that i rarely find accompanied by concrete ideas on how to do so without huge reductions in welfare and quality of life. past some point, we must consider how highly we value the habitat of a rare lemur or something weighed against the benefit to conscious beings the above does not exclude a reduction in our hyperconsumerist tendencies. i live in a pretty minimalist fashion…

Walk more. Drive less. Get rid of parking minimums. Easier said than done of course, but that's politics for you.

We have very good reason to reduce environmental pollution now, because pollution literally kill people, and not some obscure species that only a few people are aware of.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#48

Post by pi-e-sigma »

kiba wrote: post #45
pi-e-sigma wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for. Of course. If you ever drove downtown during rush hours, it is a miserable experience. If you want to see people riding bike, see youtube videos about Finland. If you have the right clothes, or the right infrastructure and support, a lot of thi…

You are advocating riding a bike instead of a car in Finland of all the places? And doing it all year round? And as supporting argument you point to YouTube videos? I'm speechless...

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#49

Post by kiba »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #48
kiba wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for. Of course. If you ever drove downtown during rush hours, it is a miserable experience. If you want to see people riding bike, see youtube videos about Finland. If you have the right clothes, or the right infrastructure and support, a lot of thi…

You are advocating riding a bike instead of a car in Finland of all the places? And doing it all year round? And as supporting argument you point to YouTube videos? I'm speechless...

Not Just Bike has a good video on it.[1] Of course, if you don't think youtube videos can't ever be credible sources, then I am not going to be able to convince you of anything.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#50

Post by xondono »

collegeburner wrote: post #29
bglazer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, mu…

> recognize the political reality that almost no one is willing to suffer a substantial downgrade in standard of living.

“Downgrade” is an understatement, people always idealize living “in the field” until they need an emergency surgery, then all of the sudden the cheap availability of plastics is great.

Post reply on HN