Oh, is this where the conspiracy theory about the government controlling hurricanes to wipe out the south so that they could get lithium came from?
If not that’s funny timing given that was a few weeks ago
USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
91–100 of 237 posts
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.
Uranium is extracted by mining the surface. I don't know ore concentrations though, so maybe not much land area is needed since it is a dense energy source?
Depends on the kind of deposit. Some they leech in situ.
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#93Interesting, & not necessarily in a good way. This method could well presage unprecedented numbers of attempts at eminent domain takings or other means of forcing people out of their properties.
Which government agency would use eminent domain to take land and start mining? We have historical precedence with the oil industry using various scanning methods in a similar manner, but it was the oil companies who went to the landowners to acquire the rights to extract. Then the government would buy the (usable) product from them.
Local government condemned a bunch of perfectly fine homes in Wisconsin, by declaring them blighted, to make room for a Foxconn plant which never really panned out. Where there is greed there is a way.
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#94Serious question: Given the mood alerting properties of lithium, are people living here chiller than would be expected (controlling for instance for poverty / SES) ?
It may surprise you to learn that lithium is actually a toxic substance. No human being has ever suffered from a lithium deficiency. Lithium is not a natural or healthy component of anyone's diet.
So, the so-called therapeutic dose of lithium is merely a sub-toxic level, and must be monitored by frequent blood tests.
There are horrific side effects from using lithium in the long term, including convulsions, hair loss, diarrhea, suicidal and homicidal ideations, and extreme thirst (polydipsia).
So personally, I would rather not be tapping into lithium reserves for my health.
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#95ugh i really don't want people to mine in the mobile basin. that's one of the most diverse ecosystems in north america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9coyJeB4Q
There is always sodium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.
> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either. > Globa…
What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#97ugh i really don't want people to mine in the mobile basin. that's one of the most diverse ecosystems in north america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9coyJeB4Q
[dead]
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either. > Globa…
What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?
Trash, mostly.
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#99From the paper's method section, a bit more about which type of ML algo was used: An RF machine-learning model was developed to predict lithium concentrations in Smackover Formation brines throughout southern Arkansas. The model was developed by (i) assigning explanatory variables to brine samples collected at wells, (ii) tuning the RF model to make predictions at wells and assess model performance, (iii) mapping spa…
So it turns out that there's no theoretical reason that gradient boosting will always outperform RF (which would violate the "no free lunch" theorem). But it does usually seem to be the case in practice, even with small and noisy data.
I would hazard a guess that with better tuning, XGBoost would still have won. (The paper notes that the authors chose a suboptimal set of hyperparameters out of fear of overfitting - maybe the same logic justifies choosing a suboptimal model type...)
Re: USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear. This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either. > Globa…
What do you think the people in cities burn for fuel to keep themselves warm?
[deleted]