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

USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

usgs.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 237 posts

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#221

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

whimsicalism wrote: post #207
shmageggy wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it looks like their arguments are presented entirely in terms of tradeoffs. They argue that the carbon benefit from electric cars (cited as very far down the list on e.g. https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions ) isn’t worth the cost to biodiversity, water use and pollution, cultural values and history, peacefulness and tranquility, etc. https://www.protectthackerpass.org/mining-lithium-at-thacker.…

Frankly, these articles are obviously written from a very left-wing perspective with essentially no relevance on the American political stage. None of the opinions stated in the protect* article are close to majority. > > Benson’s argument is that “mining critical metals is a necessity for a greener future.” But I would ask—a necessity for whom? For example, do child slaves laboring in Congolese cobalt mines call thi…

I would argue leftism is very relevant on the American political stage, at the very least since WWII.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#222

Post by lightedman »

volkl48 wrote: post #212
lightedman wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But people never clamor on about how awful California is every time it's mentioned(well, rarely)." Well, here's why it sucks, just so you can feel better. 1. the apartment rental industry is outright violating a court order that basically sets late fees and needs to outright face criminal charges. See Orozco v Casimiro 2. Ill-advised farmers up north are consuming tons of water on crops that make zero sense, and in…

> Nobody's fixing the infrastructure. Sure new stuff is being built but that is supposed to be ON TOP of what we already have - and we're just letting what we already have crumble away. Yea internet and some power is going down but that's about it. Roadways, bridges, oh no. Route 66? It's screwed right now. Recent issues we had on the 40 forced a traffic reroute and the weight limit on those little bridges is 3 tons…

""Route 66" in this area is a 70 mile, parallel road to I-40 that serves a population of zero or nearly so and is a 2 lane strip of asphalt through the desert left over from before I-40 was constructed. It serves basically no function and no population, today."

From end to end, Route 66 spans 2,448 miles.

"Additionally, the road is only officially closed east of Kelbaker Rd, and that section of road has zero population,"

The whole farm community in Cadiz would like to know they don't exist. I talk to the population there regularly before I go out to the Chambless skarn to dig. ditto the mining community that's there for the quarry at Kelbaker road (I own the uranium mine nearby.)

"The road to Dish Hill"

Collapsed last weekend at the railroad track crossover. You have to come from Amboy's power line backroads.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#223

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

moffkalast wrote: post #171
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you worried about, zombies that want to eat your batteries?

Was thinking more about sink holes and the entire area caving in after much of the underground is destabilized and/or removed, but battery eating zombies would be worse.

Ideally we'd just be removing lithium and adding mycelium (mostly carbon) so the net mass removed would be near zero. The zombies though, yeah, that's a worry.

I assumed you were worried about GMO fungus wrecking the soil ecology or somesuch. Not an insignificant risk, but it's hard to believe that it could be worse than tiling the surface with evaporation ponds.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#224

Post by lazide »

volkl48 wrote: post #208
pfdietz wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, at some point you need to tell people "you don't own this land, so you don't get to say what gets done to it." I'm half expecting the future more conservative SCOTUS to shoot down land use regulation as a taking, requiring such regulation to be combined with payment for the value lost instead.

Thacker Pass appears to be federally owned (Bureau of Land Managment) land. The public does own this land and does deserve some degree of a say in what's done with it. I have no issue with this project, and I certainly don't think that means a loud but tiny opposition should be able to derail it, just noting that this isn't private property and thus public oversight should be higher.

Public land in Nevada (and many other western states) has a long history of being ‘stolen’ in various ways. There is quite a racket around it, actually.

For instance, if you drive along I80 east of Reno, once you get away from the city, that land is all BLM. Yet it’s gated off, with incredibly difficult to get gate access. If you call around, you’ll eventually talk to the person who controls those gates, and eventually figure out that those gates are closed for a variety of ever changing reasons.

For a given gate, I’ve heard everything from ‘National security’ to ‘Nevada state law and interstates’ to ‘only utility companies’ to ‘only directly approved persons’.

Once you know the local roads, it’s trivial to get to the other side of those gates though, just a bit more out of the way.

I’ve also seen BLM land gated off by private gates, and individuals threaten people trapped on BLM land due to those gates with fines for ‘trespassing’.

They shut up pretty quick when I pulled out the map showing it was public land, and started quoting the Nevada law they were violating with the presence of their gate though. All the sudden, the lady they were threatening (in this case) was free to go.

When I was in Nevada, I kept a pair of bolt cutters in my truck. And a gun.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#225

Post by pfdietz »

_heimdall wrote: post #217
pfdietz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that degree of say comes in the form of voting.

This is a particularly tricky year to argue voting, particularly for the president, is the right level of public oversight. We were offered two candidates with comparatively little say or visibility (compared to the last few decades) during the primaries. Trump effectively sat out of the primary season, though primary voters did overwhelmingly support him they did so without ever having the chance to hear him pressed…

Whether it's the "right" level of oversight is another question entirely.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#226

Post by pfdietz »

jofer wrote: post #218
pfdietz wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process for here, I was reading, would involve concentration of the lithium with resin absorbers (to separate it from other alkali elements, I imagine), followed by elution into water, reverse osmosis, and only then evaporation. This is called "DLE": Direct Lithium Extraction.

Yes, but that's among the most expensive ways of approaching the problem. In regions where it's feasible, evaporation approaches are far cheaper, which is why they're still the most widely used approach. In humid regions with a lot of precipitation like the gulf coast, though, you have to take more expensive and energy-intensive approaches to concentrate things.

A serious issue with pond evaporation is that it wastes all the waster. The DLE approach evaporates 98% less water. It's increasingly being used even in places like Chile where evaporation can be used.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#227

Post by robocat »

robocat wrote: post #190
shmageggy wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it looks like their arguments are presented entirely in terms of tradeoffs. They argue that the carbon benefit from electric cars (cited as very far down the list on e.g. https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions ) isn’t worth the cost to biodiversity, water use and pollution, cultural values and history, peacefulness and tranquility, etc. https://www.protectthackerpass.org/mining-lithium-at-thacker.…

Their argument: But many analyses actually find that the emissions reductions from switching to electric vehicles are quite minor. Paul Hawken, for example, doesn’t put electric cars in his top 10 climate solutions. In fact, it’s number 24 on his list, with almost ten times less impact than reducing food waste, nearly six times less impact than eliminating the use of refrigerants which are powerful greenhouse gases,…

> almost ten times less impact than reducing food waste, nearly six times less impact than eliminating the use of refrigerants

I love this: it implies we should eliminate refrigerants and we should eliminate food waste...

Like a child wanting two incompatible things.

And I was answering "it looks like their arguments are presented entirely in terms of tradeoffs". Which to me contains the same locura - trying to face reality but failing to.

Plus the other reply which is black and white: "unambiguous moral purity opposing these projects that we can have a trade-off. Without them, nothing that goes against the unambiguous selfish interests"

And I've just noticed the original comment is flagged... Another form of denying and erasing the reality of others.

Casting into the void.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#228

Post by lazide »

pfdietz wrote: post #225
_heimdall wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a particularly tricky year to argue voting, particularly for the president, is the right level of public oversight. We were offered two candidates with comparatively little say or visibility (compared to the last few decades) during the primaries. Trump effectively sat out of the primary season, though primary voters did overwhelmingly support him they did so without ever having the chance to hear him pressed…

Whether it's the "right" level of oversight is another question entirely.

Local BLM offices are some of the most corrupt federal institutions in existence, IMO.

More often than not, whoever is in charge seems to get compromised and ends up aiding and abetting all sorts of weird land stuff.

No one higher up ever gets any visibility unless it goes really sideways.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#229

Post by jjk166 »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #202
pcl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ”And of course the lithium that is mined can be used and recycled over and over again. Once it is in circulation, we'll be re-using it forever. And given the improvements in battery tech, production processes, etc. the amount currently in circulation is likely to power a larger amount of battery capacity when we do recycle it eventually. Even when considering inevitable losses during recycling.” This point is overl…

I understand the argument that it’s a net positive if we reduce mining, but the ideal green solution probably doesn’t include mining. It’s accessing a limited resource in a way that damages local ecosystems. It’s admitting a comprise.

What is this ideal green solution which doesn't include mining? All solutions are inferior to magically snapping your fingers to solve your problems, but that's not an option.

Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

#230

Post by jjk166 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #120
Dalewyn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant reason the real holders of power in the world today are Saudi Arabia and China is because we've refused to gather and use our resources while they have theirs. It's high time we realize that Pax Americana is our era to lose, (re)start mining and (re)start development.

The counter view is that it's better to save your natural resources for when you really need them and pay others to exhaust their own, rather than to exhaust yours before you have to.

But then when you really need them you have no infrastructure with which to extract them nor experience doing so. You have also lost out on tremendous economic opportunity from money you needed to spend on resources while the people you've paid, assuming they manage their income responsibly, have invested that money in further productive assets.
Post reply on HN