Of course it requires perspective. Mineral extraction is a filthy business. We might talk about gold mining especially as an environmental disaster, but also steel, aluminium and copper etc too.
Still mineral extraction is a far smaller issue in global terms than power, transport, fossil fuel extraction, industry and agriculture.

Seems to be a series of these articles. The last one was on nickel. I look forward to the cobalt edition but I doubt we’ll get one on the harms of coal mining or fracking or steel and aluminium production.

 

We could always point out that cobalt is used in oil refining, along with large amounts of electricity. But somehow that doesn't count 🫤

 

I think the article stated 200k tonnes of lithium. Last I saw we're extracting (and mostly burning) 4.5 billion tonnes of oil p.a. Perspective indeed.

 

And to do that requires treating and disposal of over 15 billion tonnes of waste water. Plus the associated gas flaring, acid gas treatment etc.

 

It's incredible how environmentally minded some people become when it comes to lithium mining. If only we could channel that in a useful direction.

 

I do like this image, it puts things into perspective.
It is 2019 mind.
Go find lithium.

Found one for 2022

 

View attachment 212987
I do like this image, it puts things into perspective.
It is 2019 mind.
Go find lithium.

View attachment 212988
Found one for 2022

Nice although are we looking at the amount of material we dig up or are we looking at the amounts of final metal extracted? These can be quite different of course.

 

Nevertheless, there is a very good argument to support a view that we should try to extract essential metals and minerals with the least amount of environmental damage and not always choose to use the cheapest methods.

Lithium is a very good example, because its a reasonably abundant metal, more abundant, for example, than lead, tin or tungsten and a lot more abundant than metals like silver, gold or platinum. The problem with lithium is as in that article, the most concentrated reserves are in an ecologically sensitive area in the Atacama, where extracting the lithium-containing brine from deep underground is seriously depleting what very little surface water there is there.

There is a hell of a lot of lithium is sea water (around 230 billion tonnes) but because the concentration is lower it is harder to extract. Commercially it's better to destroy the habitats in places like the Atacama than it is to cause very little environmental harm by extracting lithium from seawater.

I think the arguments about other forms of mining are sound, but should, perhaps, not be compared with lithium extraction, given that there is an, albeit more expensive, way to extract lithium without causing anywhere near as much harm.

 

Whilst I agree, it is the hypocrisy of the majority of those raising issues with the energy transition that needs calling out. I don't think this article falls into that category, but that would change if for example Reform referenced it in their arguments against net zero/climate change.

 

This sort of thing unfortunately is used by the fossil fuel lobby to promote their interests and put people off renewable technology and EVs so I would prefer it not be shared.

However for an in depth and broad look at the impacts of green tech on the planet (and similar revolutions that have occurred historically) I very highly recommend the book 'Material World' by Ed Conway. The Atacama is one among many places covered.

 

Another overlooked aspect is that mineral extraction is used to build stuff. At the end of that stuff's life it can be recycled and reused but fossil fuels are burnt once then they're gone. Lithium recycling is low right now but for steel it's 80%, and we should be advocating a similar goal.

 

Extraction from the earth is worse for oil than electric vehicles and yet you see much more about EVs. I think these types of articles essentially exist as something to sooth the guilty conscience of fossil fuel users. It doesn't make sense that there are so many articles about mining for electric vehicles when Putin is using oil money to assassinate children.

So electric vehicles damage some deserts in the north of Chile - I don't care.

 

You want to see what tar sands have done in Canada and Venezuela.

But if there are better practices then we should look at those as well.

 

You could argue that oil is what destroyed Venezuela...dutch disease destroying the economy, oil price fell, oil corruption leading to wider corruption...not sure how true that is but could be

 

At the end of that stuff's life it can be recycled and reused but fossil fuels are burnt once then they're gone.

Not true. CO2 is produced and returned into the ground as solid or liquid carbon. Just takes a few years.
Too many people using too much stuff.

 

Also worth looking at manufacturers like Polestar and even Renault on this issue, as they are now estimating the environmental impacts of their car components and reporting it, as well as finding innovative ways of extracting them which are less harmful, as well as less liable to take place under forced or child labour conditions.

 

And who said that we would continue Lithium in the quantities we do today? Is there not an alternative for static batteries at least using sodium ions? Research is ongoing to improve the density and reduce the weight of batteries and no doubt some smart guys/gals at MIT or Warwick or somewhere will find a new better solution.

 

What will batteries of the future be made of? Four scientists discuss the options – podcast

Four battery researchers talk about the future of power storage on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

theconversation.com

 

Is the supposed demand from the public for EVs that can travel even more miles on a full battery and it’s the same with the size of memory in electronic devices that is the cause of excess us of materials. Let’s be honest we could live out our lives in smaller cars and charge batteries every day but demand is for five seats, loads of luggage space and a status symbol on the drive that is recharged often once a fortnight.

We could build twice as many small cars from the same amount of materials but demand is for space and mileages many buyers don’t use. It’s odd that you can buy a three year old car with 6,000 miles a year recorded. that could have been recharged at home for less than four hours a week at home but spent over twenty hours a day on the drive not charging.

Is the recent release of smaller cars such as the Renault 5 and Hyundai Insta the manufacturers making more cars with the Same amount of materials?

 

Inte

Interesting thought. If average mileage in the UK is just 7000 pa then driven at an average 30mph... Each car is driven for something like 233 hours a year. 4.5 hours a week or about 40 minutes a day.
It’s doing not much other than be in the way for 97% of its lifetime. Smaller cars would be better but effective alternatives to private car ownership would require far less materials.

 

I agree massive batteries should not normally be required, a 300 mile range is more than adequate, you need to be taking a break after 200 miles in any case, and even a 50kw charger can replace those 200 miles in 45 minutes, just enough time for a coffee and a burger.

 

I totally agree with this point. My wife dodged an EV for her new company car last year and took a hybrid because of range anxiety. She does about 200km a week (mainly at motorway speeds), but her workplace has a number of slow chargers in the staff parking at very low cost to the user (7¢/kwh or something). It's definitely a mentality thing, rather than a real world issue. Hopefully, seeing how much better my driving life has been since picking up my R5 has convinced her for the next one.