“Elephant in the room”: Clean energy’s need for unsustainable minerals

Our need for minerals may strain supply and lead to environmental issues.

Read the whole story

 

[monogon]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

 

[dio82]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

Reduce is kind of hard when battery production capacity needs to increase around 1000x fold in order to facilitate the "green revolution".

 

[Deranged]

Can we build a sustainable energy economy without unsustainable minerals?
Yes we can, it's just a question about what we are willing to pay for it. I today's profit oriented markets, that will take some heavy regulation to be the reality, but it's certainly very possible. We could do it today if we wanted to, there's nothing technically stopping us from being much more sustainable with resource use.

currently, the emissions impact seems to be relatively low, but as the push for renewable energy ramps up, so might the associated emissions, most of which occur upstream in the supply chain during extraction, refining, and manufacturing.

The amount of absolute emissions will surely go up, but i would assume that the amount of CO2 emissions per extracted amount of resources will stay the same. In addition, eventually the mining industry will transition to all electric vehicles (in underground mines, I'm pretty sure they already are all electric) which will lessen those emission eventually.

It's also a bit backwards to look at lithium and other metals as finite resource. That is, of course the amount of virgin lithium in the ground is not endless but on the other hand, the lithium we use is mostly stored in these neat containers (with some additional metals and electrolytes obv) in fairly concentrated form so it's definetely possible to extract the lithium from there, and not just from the ground.

-edit- wow, I absolutely do not understand the massive downvote on this?

 

[rxc6422]

Surprise, surprise. When you want to use an energy source that is diffuse, you have to build either very large or a lot of small structures to capture that energy. And even more structures to store it, when it is intermittent, and transmit it from places like offshore windmills.

Nuclear energy is 5 orders of magnitude more energy dense than wind or solar,, so the material requirements are correspondingly smaller. The waste stream is also correspondingly smaller.

 

[mikesmith]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

A couple of years ago the world learned how to make it work, just have everyone that can work from home do so. Clear up all of the municipal traffic problems, significantly reduce fossil fuel needs, and let people be happier.

Can't have that, though.

 

[Deranged]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

Reduce is kind of hard when battery production capacity needs to increase around 1000x fold in order to facilitate the "green revolution".

The error you make is that you assume our need of new vehicles need to be constant or increasing. If we instead strive to extend public transport and build cities not primarily designed around the car, it's very much possible to substantially reduce our transportation needs. In addition, building roads is also very resource intensive so if we can reduce the needed road capacity as well, we have again managed to substantially reduce or resource use.

 

[milkywayer]

Didn't we always need mineral ever since the industrial revolution?

I think we'll manage. Also what of new countries finding new deposits of said minerals and then also the planned space based mining plans I n coming decades? Those should contribute as well.

 

[bernstein]

today the world may run on lithium-cobalt-nickel batteries, but we're already massively shifting towards lithium-iron-phosphate batteries and already ramping up high volume production of sodium-ion batteries. the latter will completely eradicate the need for rare earth minerals (in batteries).

obviously this will not obviate renewable energy's need for minerals like neodymium, copper and all the other minerals needed in the semiconductor industry.

 

[bryanlarsen]

1. Remember that an average ICEV will use about 25 tons of gasoline over its lifetime. And in North America, much of our gasoline comes from tar sands or fracking. When that's what you're comparing against...

2. A BEV uses about 30kg of Lithium.

3. There are environmentally friendly forms of Lithium extraction. One model is Cold Lake Lithium in Manitoba, Canada. Zero carbon hard rock mining. Seawater extraction can also be good. We don't have to get it from brines.

4. Lithium is one of the most abundant elements in the universe and on Earth. We're not going to run out.

5. Recycling.

 

[DarkOcean]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

The word is banned from the Dictionary of Capitalism.

 

[strohminator]

The problem with these studies is they always under estimate our ability to adapt. This is "peak oil" all over again.

Different chemistry or energy storage will come out and we'll be fine.

 

[bryanlarsen]

Surprise, surprise. When you want to use an energy source that is diffuse, you have to build either very large or a lot of small structures to capture that energy. And even more structures to store it, when it is intermittent, and transmit it from places like offshore windmills.

Nuclear energy is 5 orders of magnitude more energy dense than wind or solar,, so the material requirements are correspondingly smaller. The waste stream is also correspondingly smaller.

Nuclear plants use a large amount of Concrete, which is very CO2 heavy. CO2 emissions per kW are higher for nuclear than for wind or solar. They're all essentially zero compared to fossil fuels, but you cannot say nuclear is better than wind or solar cf resource usage.

 

[85mm]

I feel like this is the same issue as causes us to use too much of everything else. We never did address the issue of overconsumption generally, so expecting overconsumption of these resources to be any different is a big ask.

I think that banning advertising and promoting status symbols that don't include lots of resource usage is probably the best bet as we are still fundamentally competitive as a species and need to have ways to out do each other, but that's still unlikely to happen.

 

[justin150]

The article is nonsense. It falls into a classic Malthusian trap, eventually Thomas Malthus will be proved right, but eventually is a long time away.

Let us start with the first assumption - there are finite resources on the planet for things such as cobalt etc. which we need to make the batteries. Obviously that is true but massively misleading. To determine whether the finite resource issue is a problem we would first have to know how much of the particular resource the earth started with, how much we have used to date and how much we are currently using on an annualised basis. And the only number we have some reasonable confidence about is how much we are currently using. But even that is misleading because we cannot know how technology will advance, so we may be able to make the same with less of the particular resource in the future (as battery tech over the last 10 years shows). Then there is the issue of technology substitution - if the cost of a particular resource gets too high humanity is exceptionally adept at finding ways to substitute something else for that resource.

And that is before we start thinking about if/when we can economically mine in space.

A lot of this is so familiar - it is no different to the many predictions of "peak oil" first mainstream prediction was this would happen nearly 60 years ago and current predictions are that it will occur in the next 10-20 years. Eventually we may get to peak oil but more likely is that demand reduces so much that the concept of peak oil becomes meaningless.

 

[bernstein]

Didn't we always need mineral ever since the industrial revolution?

I think we'll manage. Also what of new countries finding new deposits of said minerals and then also the planned space based mining plans I n coming decades? Those should contribute as well.

we also shouldn't forget that the earth is 71% covererd by oceans and as of yet untapped for mineral extraction. while hugely more expensive than surface extraction, it's hugely less environmental damaging.

 

[bryanlarsen]

This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of Powerwall type products. Stationary energy storage can be done so many ways, so dedicating a "mobile" pack to a stationary life just doesn't make sense to me.

Stationary storage uses LiFePo batteries. Lithium, Iron and Potassium are all extremely common and all can be mined very cleanly. Compared to the environmental damage a hydro dam does, batteries definitely win that comparison.

Edit: PO4, not Po. Phosphate, not potassium (which is K).

 

[Bigdoinks]

I forget if it was USC or UCLA, but many years ago, there was a Ochem professor who would hold demonstrations at the end of each spring semester where he would throw the excess Li reducing agents into the ocean to demonstrate the violent reaction of Li with water. He had a point about it being environmentally-neutral since it just reacted into Li and Al salts and water, but damn, seems like a pretty shitty waste of Li looking back.

 

[T. J. Babson]

Just imagine if we had invested one or two trillion dollars of stimulus over the past ten years into nuclear energy. We would be in much better shape.

 

[lithven]

While I realize we need to be consciensous of the impacts of various green technologies these articles seem almost tailor made to feed talking points to those insisting green technology is actually worse than burning coal, etc. Most of the issues raised seem to be either saddling green technology with all the sins of an industry (i.e. the increased cost of processing lower grade copper in this article) or presenting it in dishonest terms (i.e. lithium carbonate takes three times as many emissions as steel while ignoring there is way more steel in an ICE engine, transmission, etc. than lithium carbonate in a typically sized EV battery).

Like I said, I realize we need to be aware of the impacts and work to mitigate them but we don't need to go so far as to do the opposite of green washing and present every impact and problem with greener technologies as world ending or uniquely bad for the environment.

 

[Mardaneus]

While the majority of mineral emissions are related to the rise of battery technology, wind power may also struggle to reduce its upstream impact. A recent study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment found that when green energy production grows by 1 percent, it leads to a 0.90 percent growth in greenhouse gas emissions. According to the study, from 2010-2020, the use of permanent magnets in renewable tech resulted in emissions amounting to 32 billion metric tons of carbon-equivalent emissions.

Not having access to the study in question is this for the first generation magnets and other items in wind turbines and the batteries needed to store excess energy from the turbines. Or have they also taken a look at the recycling of these?

[edit]minor rephrase:
this -> the turbines
[/edit]

 

[Red Pill Green]

I agree we should limit environmental damage of renewables and batteries as much as is practical.

But let's not forget two important points:
- Resources that enter the renewables value chain are extracted once and can be recycled many times in the future. Battery recycling will be a huge industry once there is enough feedstock for it of EOL batteries
- The alternative is to continue extracting fossil fuels that we use once and throw away. Even ignoring the carbon emissions, the extraction, transport, refining, etc operations are not exactly low impact.

I'm always very suspicious of any of these "ya know, green ain't all that green" reports. Follow the money and you'll often end up at some shale field or mountaintop removal coal mine somewhere.

 

[Jonas-fr]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

The word is banned from the Dictionary of Capitalism.

Along with "degrowth".

 

[SympatheticScientist]

I find it interesting that this discussion always ignores the current renewable energy technology when talking about mineral needs. For example: nickel and cobalt are becoming vastly less important for lithium-ion batteries as the lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP, from LiFePO4) chemistry becomes dominant. Iron and phosporous are abundant. Tesla has taken up LFP and is using them for over half of their vehicles. The cells are cheaper, more stable, and long-lasting. The only disadvantage is slightly lower energy density compared to NMC, but that's becoming less and less important as tech improves.

Yet, somehow nickel and cobalt are supposed to be "critical" for batteries even though what is becoming the most popular lithium-ion battery tech doesn't even use them? And we're going to assume that technology won't evolve to work around shortages or extraction impacts with other raw materials? Heck, if lithium itself becomes scarce, we have competitive sodium-ion batteries arriving on market in the next year or two from CATL.

I find it odd and more than a little suspicious that suddenly the "renewable energy will never happen because minerals" talking point is everywhere. Especially when the same questions are never applied to use of rare minerals in fossil fuels or nuclear energy. It feels a lot like when big oil companies bankrolled climate change denial and suddenly their talking points were everywhere. Then otherwise reputable media sources picked up and amplified that disinformation either in the name of (false) "balance" or because they weren't grounded enough in the science to dismiss the fallacious infomration outright.

I expect better research and critical thinking than this from Arstechnica. Please talk with somone who's current on the renewable energy industry before you publish this kind of stuff.

 

[SolarMane]

The words "clean energy" invite people to conflate an energy production process that produces low pollution with a supply chain that is ethical and produces low pollution. There is a gap between those understandings, but (thanks to improvements in technology) the gap is at least closing. In the overall scheme of things, "clean energy" is actually one of the less (ethically) dirty things.

I find that some of the most mundane products often turn out to be the surprisingly "dirty." For example, the chocolate supply chain runs on child slave labor, deforestation, (French) neocolonialism, economic exploitation, etc. Worse things could be said of anything made of petroleum.

 

[panton41]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

I agree. Reducing our footprint can be achieved by radically changing our lifestyle but also by reducing our population which is a topic even less discussed because it's politically challenging (among other reasons).

You realize about half the world (mostly the rich half, who uses more resources) hasn't had fertility rates over replacement rate in decades, right? The United States has only grown due to immigration since the mid-1970s and the same is broadly true of Europe, Japan and Australia. Hong Kong is less than half replacement rate and China is likely to see a population collapse before the end of the century due to their One Child policy.

And all of this, other than China, through no effort of the government other than easy access to birth control and empowering women.

 

[ItchyPoo]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

The word is banned from the Dictionary of Capitalism.

I would argue reduce also stands for reduced energy use through conservation. That might mean new insulation, double or triple pain windows replacing single pain, new energy efficient appliances, etc. still can be capitalistic purchasing going on.

 

[odikweos]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

That's a philosophy, not a physical law of the universe. I prefer:

"Keep dirty industry offworld where it belongs, and aggressively recycle." Even reuse is deeply limited vs what we can accomplish when we put industry where it belongs, and develop our ability to recycle.

What we need is practically unlimited electricity.

 

[afidel]

Cobalt and Nickle are not required for all batteries, in fact Tesla is already producing the bulk of their vehicles with LFP chemistries that don't require them. Likewise their industry leading efficiency is powered not by motors with rare earths but by simple synchronous reluctance motors that use none.

There is little doubt that we will continue to need to rely on extractive industries to power the green revolution, but what won't be needed is the extractive industries of coal and oil/gas (as much anyways, most will contain some plastics).

 

[ItchyPoo]

Surprise, surprise. When you want to use an energy source that is diffuse, you have to build either very large or a lot of small structures to capture that energy. And even more structures to store it, when it is intermittent, and transmit it from places like offshore windmills.

Nuclear energy is 5 orders of magnitude more energy dense than wind or solar,, so the material requirements are correspondingly smaller. The waste stream is also correspondingly smaller.

Nuclear plants use a large amount of Concrete, which is very CO2 heavy. CO2 emissions per kW are higher for nuclear than for wind or solar. They're all essentially zero compared to fossil fuels, but you cannot say nuclear is better than wind or solar cf resource usage.

I’d also like to see a citation that the waste stream is smaller as I have my doubts.

 

[C.M. Allen]

The confusion here stems from *CAPITALISM* dictating the *HOW* we get these minerals and materials. It doesn't have to be done this way. 'We,' the collective leadership of humanity, has decided that all of this destructive behavior is fine and that 'we' only care about making as few people as possible as wealthy as possible at the expense of everyone and everything else. There *ARE* other ways to extract these minerals and materials that *AREN'T* destructive, that don't rely on child-slave labor, that don't build corrupt governments, oligarchies, and so forth. They're just not used because they're not as 'profitable' as being destructive, using child-slave labor, and seeding or aiding corruption in foreign countries.

I have looked the enemy in the eye, and the enemy is 'us.'

 

[bryanlarsen]

Surprise, surprise. When you want to use an energy source that is diffuse, you have to build either very large or a lot of small structures to capture that energy. And even more structures to store it, when it is intermittent, and transmit it from places like offshore windmills.

Nuclear energy is 5 orders of magnitude more energy dense than wind or solar,, so the material requirements are correspondingly smaller. The waste stream is also correspondingly smaller.

Nuclear plants use a large amount of Concrete, which is very CO2 heavy. CO2 emissions per kW are higher for nuclear than for wind or solar. They're all essentially zero compared to fossil fuels, but you cannot say nuclear is better than wind or solar cf resource usage.

I’d also like to see a citation that the waste stream is smaller as I have my doubts.

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=gra ... 0vs%20wind

 

[shunted]

Surprise, surprise. When you want to use an energy source that is diffuse, you have to build either very large or a lot of small structures to capture that energy. And even more structures to store it, when it is intermittent, and transmit it from places like offshore windmills.

Nuclear energy is 5 orders of magnitude more energy dense than wind or solar,, so the material requirements are correspondingly smaller. The waste stream is also correspondingly smaller.

Nuclear plants use a large amount of Concrete, which is very CO2 heavy. CO2 emissions per kW are higher for nuclear than for wind or solar. They're all essentially zero compared to fossil fuels, but you cannot say nuclear is better than wind or solar cf resource usage.

Uranium mining isn't exactly clean either. An article on NYT about this popped up today actually. Less mining in Russia means more dirty extraction back home on tribal lands.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/us/u ... ribes.html

 

[ottb]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

Indeed! Reduce starts with reducing polluting agents, i.e. us. If you think about it, Total pollution = Per capita pollution X Population. It's a broad-brush equation, to be sure. However, it is useful to see that there are 2 variables on the right-hand-side of the equation. We mustn't ignore either one.

More importantly, both variables are completely within the control of the individual.

 

[afidel]

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

"Reduce" is the very first word, and the one we never talk about here.

I agree. Reducing our footprint can be achieved by radically changing our lifestyle but also by reducing our population which is a topic even less discussed because it's politically challenging (among other reasons).

You realize about half the world (mostly the rich half, who uses more resources) hasn't had fertility rates over replacement rate in decades, right? The United States has only grown due to immigration since the mid-1970s and the same is broadly true of Europe, Japan and Australia. Hong Kong is less than half replacement rate and China is likely to see a population collapse before the end of the century due to their One Child policy.

And all of this, other than China, through no effort of the government other than easy access to birth control and empowering women.

The US didn't fall below replacement levels until the 2008 recession (2.07 births per native-born female, just below 2.1 replacement levels).

Edit
source