[HN Gopher] Running on Empty: Copper
___________________________________________________________________
Running on Empty: Copper
Author : the-needful
Score : 16 points
Date : 2025-12-08 21:54 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehonestsorcerer.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehonestsorcerer.substack.com)
| chemotaxis wrote:
| I think the author is speaking authoritatively about things they
| may be less familiar with, or where they really want to push a
| particular doomsday / degrowth agenda (the only prescription at
| the end the article is that we need to stop technological
| progress). This paragraph in particular caught my eye:
|
| > Bah! Who needs copper anyway, when we have so much aluminum?! >
| Have you thought about how aluminum is made? Well, by driving
| immense electric currents through carbon anodes made from
| petroleum coke (or coal-tar pitch) to turn molten alumina into
| pure metal via electrolysis. Two things to notice here. First,
| the necessary electricity (and the anodes) are usually made with
| fossil fuels, as "renewables" cannot provide the stable current
| and carbon atoms needed to make the process possible. Second, all
| that electricity, even if you generate it with nuclear reactors,
| have to be delivered via copper wires.
|
| This seems to be trying to say that we can't make aluminum
| without copper, but that seems nonsensical. First, power can be
| delivered by wires made out of aluminum and indeed, it often is -
| I don't think that much of the transmission grid is copper.
| Second, the comparatively tiny amount of material needed for
| electrodes is a completely wacky argument. And renewables not
| being able to provide "the stable current" needed for smelting?
|
| I'm not cherrypicking here, there's a lot of assertions of this
| type in the article. Essentially, everything is doomed and
| there's nothing we can do, because we're going to run out of
| copper. And fossil fuels. And there's absolutely nothing that can
| replace them, ever. And therefore, we shouldn't build AI
| datacenters? That's what it says...
| morkalork wrote:
| I don't know about other countries but in Canada, I can think
| of a few aluminum smelting operations and they're all
| geolocated in close proximity to hydroelectric dams.
| auspiv wrote:
| Other countries are very much the same. Almost always located
| near giant hydroelectric generation facilities. Brazil +
| Russia are two big ones that come to mind. Probably China
| too.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| In New Zealand, a hydroelectric dam was effectively build for
| an aluminium smelter [0]
|
| 0.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwai_Point_Aluminium_Smelter
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > First, no, power can be delivered by wires made out of
| aluminum and indeed, it often is, I don't think that much of
| the transmission grid is copper
|
| Seconded, aluminum works just fine as a conductor. I'm pretty
| sure that _all_ overhead utility distribution conductors are a
| steel core wrapped with aluminum conductors and air for
| insulation, and I'd bet that underground distribution
| conductors are also aluminum.
|
| SER cable from the utility transformer secondary to your meter
| socket also uses aluminum conductors.
|
| You usually need to go up a couple of sizes for aluminum vs
| copper (#1/0 Cu ~= #3/0 Al) but it depends on the specific
| ampacity.
| pfdietz wrote:
| > as "renewables" cannot provide the stable current
|
| Stopped reading right after that nonsense.
| SyzygyRhythm wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| Aluminum is actually a (far) superior conductor to copper per
| unit mass. It would be used on transmission lines even if it
| was the same price as copper, because the towers can be cheaper
| and farther apart. It's in increasing use in EVs due to the
| lower mass.
|
| Copper is still used when the conductive density matters, like
| the windings of an electric motor. But if copper prices
| increase further, manufacturers will make sacrifices to
| efficiency and power density in order to save cost. And they'll
| figure out how to better balance the use of Al vs. Cu, perhaps
| using Cu only for the conductors closest to the core.
|
| We also use copper for transformers, which are fairy "dumb" in
| their usual design. Solid-state transformers exist, which use
| much less copper, but are currently more expensive. They will
| no longer be more expensive if the price of copper goes up too
| much. And they'll probably get cheaper in the long run anyway,
| regardless of copper price, in the same way that switch mode
| power supplies have totally replaced linear supplies in the
| consumer space.
|
| I've seen increasing use of copper in fairly mundane uses, like
| computer heat sinks, that used to be aluminum. The performance
| is a little better, but it won't be worthwhile if copper gets
| way more expensive. They'll just go back to aluminum, or use
| some other innovation (carbon heat spreaders, etc.) if price
| becomes an issue.
| scythe wrote:
| >This seems to be trying to say that we can't make aluminum
| without copper, but that seems nonsensical.
|
| The far better argument is that, if it were simple to replace
| copper with aluminum, this would create a ceiling on the price
| of copper. However, this hasn't happened. Many applications of
| copper can theoretically be replaced by copper, but in practice
| the reactivity and thermal performance issues of aluminum can
| be challenging. Aluminum wiring in homes, for example, has a
| very bad reputation.
|
| This isn't fatal, but it is a problem. And if society doesn't
| plan for it, it could become a more painful problem.
| parliament32 wrote:
| Something I could use some clarification on:
|
| > Even though the industry would be willing to pay top dollar for
| each pound of metal delivered, there is simply not much more to
| be found. Copper bearing formations are not popping up at random,
| and there is no point in drilling various spots on Earth
| prospecting for deposits, either. The major formations have
| already been discovered, and thus the ever increasing investment
| spent on locating more copper simply does not produce a return.
|
| How do we "know" there isn't any major formations we haven't
| found yet? I find it hard to believe we've prospected every
| possible area.. or are deposits more predictable than it seems?
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| We don't know. The entire article is garbage.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-08 23:00 UTC)