The global fight for critical minerals is costly and damaging • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by actionfromafar » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

throwanapple wrote: post #56

actionfromafar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, is it more of a problem than trashing an ICE car when buying a new ICE car? It's better to use an old ICE than buying a new ICE car, too.

I think so from the bottom of my heart and try to live by it.

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

#72

Post by slashdev » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

walleeee wrote: post #43

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…

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.

This is so naive, I don’t know where to start.

Fresh water is not that big of a deal, it’s plentiful and cheap in most places. Desalination works really well, look at Israel.

Cars are required for most people to live their lives and make a living. I don’t know how you expect we’ll just magically do without.

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

#73

Post by aziaziazi » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 1:25 PM UTC

slashdev wrote: post #69

aziaziazi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Scope three isn’t mining

Absolutely, but that’s not what I said neither the article I link. Is talks about the emissions of mining itself and the scopes associated of that activity. It’s not mining within another activity scope.

The conclusion is basically : scope 1 and 2 emissions of mining itself is quite small compare to its scope 3 emissions. The reason is mining activity uses a HUGE quantity of steel which -in this context- produce a lot of GHG.

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

I guess you talk about derived goods “we” consume away from the mines… so your assomption of scope 2 is true but as stated in the article a linked, the mining part of our scope 3 will largely more benefit of decarbonizing the steel industry (the grid won’t have much effect). But guess what ? That’s (very) expensive and the only ones that cares are some smart Norwegians.

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

#74

Post by walleeee » Mon, Jul 24, 2023, 2:13 PM UTC

slashdev wrote: post #72

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.

This is so naive, I don’t know where to start. Fresh water is not that big of a deal, it’s plentiful and cheap in most places. Desalination works really well, look at Israel. Cars are required for most people to live their lives and make a living. I don’t know how you expect we’ll just magically do without.

This is so naive I don't know where to start.

> Fresh water is not that big of a deal, it’s plentiful and cheap in most places. Desalination works really well, look at Israel.

Half of the United States is in a more or less permanent water crisis which will get worse every passing year if we don't dramatically change use patterns. Not to mention the rest of the world. Desalination works, but it's energy- and materials-hungry. Energy is not getting any more abundant unless we have a breakthrough massively raising the sinking cap on civilizational EROI, e.g. fusion.

> Cars are required for most people to live their lives and make a living. I don’t know how you expect we’ll just magically do without.

Cars have been around for a little over a century. Somehow we managed before that. Even now, there are only 1.5 billion cars on the planet. Most human beings alive today do not have access to a car. I wonder how they do it?