[HN Gopher] Deep sea mining could be worse for the climate than ...
___________________________________________________________________
Deep sea mining could be worse for the climate than land ores
Author : neom
Score : 65 points
Date : 2024-04-05 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (planet-tracker.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (planet-tracker.org)
| sunday_serif wrote:
| I am always surprised when I find others don't just assume that
| undersea mining is more impactful.
|
| To me this fact feels like a given considering that is such a
| complex operation and the sea is such a delicate environment.
|
| Of course its great to have data to back up what we know... but
| I'm always surprised that we have to go so far out of our way to
| back up what should be intuitive.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Indeed. Let alone the energy needed to move machines to the
| deep and back with the extracted material.
| sigzero wrote:
| Agreed. I would have thought that as well.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Yep and it's one of the rare parts of the earth that has been
| relatively undisturbed, so bringing industrial operations there
| is obviously (if you're paying attention) going to have
| unforeseen adverse effects. The entire planet's biological
| origin started there and it's a region we don't yet thoroughly
| understand. Mass scraping of the surface for cobalt and nickel
| nodules is the very definition of fuck around and find out.
| iraqmtpizza wrote:
| doubt if godzilla actually gives a fuck if you disturb his
| slumber, but sure
| gweinberg wrote:
| Well, obviously nobody is going to mine undersea for the sake
| of mining undersea. If someone is going to go to the bother
| there must be some advantage that compensates for the
| difficulty. Maybe the ores are richer, or you don't have to dig
| as deep.
| refulgentis wrote:
| The ore is sitting right there, in coalesced lumps, on the
| floor for core green energy metals, and there's a general
| acceptance that the orders of magnitude involved over the
| next 3 decades _require_ getting them.
|
| I don't mind the discussion on it the past couple days, god
| knows wherever I get information from isn't the one blessed
| source, but I am worried about HN's instinctual "from first
| principles" reactions to undersea mining. Made me wince a
| little bit when I saw the post you're replying to say "I am
| always surprised when I find others don't just assume that
| undersea mining is more impactful."
|
| I really appreciated you gently pointing out there's other
| smart humans on this and they likely have considered things
| like the environment.
| henearkr wrote:
| But I also wonder, with what fishermen are already inflicting
| to sea floors, would sea mining worsen anything if e.g. it
| comes right after...
| eschulz wrote:
| A serious concern is how mining operations won't really be
| observed as much when they're working at the bottom of the sea.
| Blowing up a mountain may be subject to witnesses - at least
| satellite imagery for very rural areas. On the other hand, who
| can observe the actions of deep sea mining? There won't always be
| an enormous oil slick to let the public know that someone has
| been reckless down below.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| we'll find out when the dead fish wash up and start rotting
| scottLobster wrote:
| We're going to need exponentially more metals of all varieties to
| build all the green tech to save the environment, and they have
| to come from somewhere. If deep sea mining makes economic sense
| then let's do it!
|
| Now, if deep sea mining only makes economic sense because
| misguided policy prevents land based mining for the same
| materials, then sure let's revise the policy instead.
|
| But we need to de-carbonize. If there's any industry that should
| get a pass on carbon emissions it's mining for industrial metals.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| In my country, the party that proclaims the end of the world
| due to climate change (note how it is no longer just ,,global
| warming") shut off the last remaining nuclear power plants,
| increasing lignite consumption.
|
| Holding conflicting POVs at the same time is not a challenge
| for these people.
| FredPret wrote:
| They _aren 't_ conflicting points of view... because these
| people don't care about the climate at all. If they did,
| they'd be all for:
|
| - transitioning dirty fuels to natural gas
|
| - transitioning natural gas to electric
|
| - nuclear power
|
| - economic growth (green solutions are expensive and only
| rich people care about the environment)
|
| - dense cities
|
| But as you point out, they cherry-pick only some of these.
|
| The reason is simple... they believe in one or both of two
| things:
|
| - getting elected
|
| - anti-humanism
|
| The medieval Christian belief in an inherently wicked
| humanity (original sin) has been replaced by a modern anti-
| development, there-should-be-fewer-of-us mindset.
| vlachen wrote:
| Straight out of "The Wild Robot Protects" by Peter Brown.
| matznerd wrote:
| We don't need to go to the ocean for metals. There are new
| technologies that can recover metals much less destructively from
| "unconventional resources" that are already exposed or naturally
| exposed. And some of those mienral resources are ones that can
| create benefits to the planet, such as carbon dioxide removal.
| One example is a process using hyperaccumulator plants to draw up
| nickels from the soil, known as phytomining.
|
| Full disclosure, I have been working for the last two years
| developing this technology, but combining enhanced weathering of
| olivine for carbon dioxide removal, with nickel phytomining in
| order to solve two problems at once. Leaving stealth finally
| after two years, look out next week for an announcement... Will
| post here.
| namibj wrote:
| What do you think of developing electrochemistry to e.g.
| recover silicon, magnesium, and iron from the very common
| olivine? Yeah, the other two aren't used much today, but they
| seem to be superior in specific strength to steel, and mostly
| not used because they're expensive today (and because silicon
| is brittle).
|
| Similarly, sea salt has many elements of interest; there's a
| lot of sodium but afterwards a good variety. Desalination
| plants already concentrate these up.
| henearkr wrote:
| Looking forward to reading your post!!
|
| Seems exciting!
| elil17 wrote:
| I'm not convinced. planet-tracker says that refinement method,
| not ore source, determines carbon intensity. But deep sea nodules
| are richer than ore on land, which means they use less energy per
| unit of refined product. This is born out by the actual planet-
| tracker report: they themselves show that the highest estimates
| for sea-based carbon intensity are lower than all but the lowest
| estimates for land-based carbon intensity. Sea-based mining only
| looks bad if you compare the worst assumptions about sea-based
| mining with the best assumptions about land-based mining.
|
| Planet-tracker also raises the concern that sea-based mining
| could theoretically disturb carbon which is sequestered on the
| ocean floor. However, there isn't much circulation between the
| top of the ocean and the depth at which sea-based mining would
| occur, so this effect may be minimal or non-existent.
|
| Additionally, the study neglects to consider how increased
| availability of critical metals could accelerate green technology
| adoption. Even if sea-based mining was somewhat worse for the
| environment on a kg co2/kg metal basis, it could be beneficial if
| it made EV batteries more economical.
|
| I'm not saying that we should give companies unfettered access to
| the ocean floor. But planet-tracker's call for a moratorium on
| deep sea mining is counterproductive.
|
| The best course of action is to allow for a limited amount of
| mining in the Clarion Clipperton Zone so that scientists can
| study the resulting sediment plums. Advocates should be pushing
| the International Seabed Authority and governments to fund more
| research, not trying to block mining altogether.
| stuaxo wrote:
| It makes sense, everything kicked up will go into the water
| instead of falling back to the ground, we will be directly
| polluting the oceans.
| FredPret wrote:
| And then it will settle on the seafloor again. How did it end
| up there in the first place? By being denser than water.
| nprateem wrote:
| Yes and in the meantime sea creatures that rely on sight will
| starve, and the ocean will absorb more heat from the sun.
| This will further speed up its destruction while causing more
| catastrophic weather events on the surface.
|
| Absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
| FredPret wrote:
| Calm down with the hyperbole. Catastrophic weather events,
| my lord.
|
| Concern for the planet and climate is a worthy cause and
| ought not to be discredited by obvious nonsense like this.
| Extreme reactionary climate conservatism is ultimately
| self-defeating, much like it's less sexy social
| conservatism cousin.
|
| Sea floor mining will happen at 200m - 6500m deep. The
| recently granted exploration license for the Clarion-
| Clipperton zone is at 4000-5500m deep. There's very little
| life that deep, and certainly no sunlight to get absorbed
| by murkier water.
| jstmm wrote:
| why will the ocean absorb more heat from the sun if 'sea
| creatures that rely on sight will starve'?
| fractallyte wrote:
| Why so much focus on climate? Sure, it affects humanity directly,
| but we're not the only species on Earth.
|
| What about the ecological impact of deep sea mining? What about
| the cascade through connected ecosystems, which we know so little
| about? Yes, it eventually _will_ indirectly affect humanity too.
|
| This kind of anthropocentrism is exactly the problem. We should
| be equally concerned about the fauna and flora with which we
| share our planet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-05 23:00 UTC)