The Dirty Truth About Our Clean Energy Future
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2024
- In order to develop clean energy technology, specific rare earth metals like cobalt and nickel need to be harvested. These often come at a steep human and environmental cost- but what if there was another way? Some propose sourcing these metals from the ocean floor or asteroids, but these solutions come with additional considerations and concerns.
*****
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateORIG
*****
Curious about the future? With the help of a diverse cast of innovators, researchers, and dreamers, FAR OUT explores the future of humanity on this big, messy planet called Earth -- and maybe beyond!
Hosted by futurist Sinéad Bovell, Far Out invites viewers to get informed about what’s to come. The series is produced for PBS by PBS North Carolina, the team behind the award-winning PBS series Overview.
#animal #communication #FarOutPBS
Subscribe to PBS Terra so you never miss an episode! bit.ly/3mOfd77
And keep up with Far Out and PBS Terra on:
Facebook: / pbsdigitalstudios
Twitter: / pbsds
Instagram: / pbsds - Наука та технологія
We need to do the research on the effects. We need to do the research on using less materials. We also need to make things to last, and recycle the materials when they can't be repaired. We can't look at this as if there is one, single solution. The old phrase, reduce, reuse, recycle is in that order for a reason. But we also need to adapt to have less expectation of materials. In not saying that your quality of life will go down, I'm saying that we need to realize that buying more stuff has diminishing returns on your quality of life.
We also need to know what we're talking about. Anytime the media have to deal with a complex, technical-engineering subject like the aviation / aerospace sector, etc., or like this one, they just don't have the gravitas and education to pull it off well. The tech adapts and adjusts and moves so fast that the research they did for this piece was out-of-date before they even wrote their script. And when they then try to put the consequences for what is already changing into 2050 as if nothing has changed by then, it just leaves viewers with a very unrealistic view. Imagine someone making a program in the early 20th-century declaring what the world would be like decades later with billions of people driving the Model T. It's not how technical realities flow in time.
But but money and growth. Our current system is a sickness that will end civilization.
Yes!
Or maybe we can consume more green energy, mine fewer materials, use more materials, use new and green high energy processes to do a much better job of recycling them. It can all be done using what the facts show is objectively the greenest energy source of all. It is also abundant, human controlled, reliable and already has an exemplary safety record having been used on a large scale since the 1960s.
If you would like to know more I can explain it.
this might just be due to me being a cynical sob but im constantly impressed and surprised by how in-depth, pragmatic and just great these videos are. pbs terra doesn't greenwash or cover for culprits as one might expect, but largely puts out as close to the objective truth as one can get and it makes these such a great and informative watch
😂 OK BUT, they seem to have no idea what they are talking about and did no research. They spout Fossil Fuel propaganda like a tea kettle.
Go ahead and look up how much nickel the leading renewable energy battery- LiFePO4 uses.
You know who uses all that nickel? The fossil fuel industry and steel. You know what you add to iron to get steel for machinery? Nickel and cobalt for drilling equipment. You know who wants Deep Sea mining? Consumer goods manufacturing sector, automotive, and steel industry and most of all Big Oil.
And how much nickel is in LiFePO4 solar and EV car batteries? (It's ZERO. ZERO nickel, ZERO cobalt. Only 4% Lithium, not even that much compared to all other mining sectors for consumer products and manufacturing of products people don't even need. )
Facts sure don't seem to matter to some of these social media "PBS" platforms. It's not the PBS of yesteryear, just a social media recycling bubble of a-factual disinformation. Do your own research. PBS is funded by Koch brothers and BNSF and Monsanto and many other disinformation Corporate conglomerates and dystopian Billionaires. Perhaps that's why they put out a video with Big Oil propaganda masquerading as facts? Or maybe they just don't know how to do legitimate research?
Take your pick, but most common new modern renewable batteries like LiFePO4 use ZERO of what they claim are "renewable energy deep sea metals" or nickel.
If you want to see a bit harder take on the climate crisis and the buffer solution I cannot recommend Thunderf00t enough. He does a lot of clips sometimes to run up to the crux of the argument or situation but be patient titled Our Legacy, your future explained. So if your an 70-80's kid even 90's you'll get all the references. Then he does two more on the green washing and finally the buffer that's on the table to at least buy humanity and climates some time.
I’m disappointed you didn’t mention the importance of recycling all batteries. Many of these materials have already been mined and are just sitting in our basements, junk drawers, and landfills.
This!
True, absolutely!!
If recycling was the solution it would be the one in use. Recycling is the new way to sweep under the rug: Oh, will recycle it in the future...
No, tesla use and will use new material, so will all the others compagny.
The known solution of optimizing urban area for alternative transportation is a hundred year old, yet, we optimize urban environoments around cars. Cars get optimize around 5year life span: so disposable like trendy cloth are the road... and the e.v.
Do not bring recyclability as an argument. Leaded fuel was supérior, but toxic. Petrol is an energy dense fuel, but as toxic. Cars, as we make em now is a danger to society greater than firearm.
I feel like we could take a big chunk out of this problem by just building electrified rail lines
More rail is a great idea, except that means more iron, and that's already the biggest amount of mining we do.
So much so, that it quite literally dwarfs the rest of the industry completely.
That's right you can combine the rest of the industry (metals anyway), and it doesn't come close.
You don't want to think about the environmental damage it causes either.
You mean like the California high speed rail project? Voters approved the $33 billion project in 2008 and now estimates to complete are in the $128 billion range. 15 years later not a single mile of track has been laid.
New rail projects also destroy habitat since they don't replace highways.
@@ChristopherJohnsonArtist They replace the need for additional highways certainly, if the city planning is done correctly. Not just highways, massive amounts of space are wasted in parking lots in a vicious cycle of the required space for cars forcing things to be spread out, thus necessitating cars
what?! how am I supposed to get across the street? walk?
Electric car batteries are trending towards lithium iron phosphate which uses no Cobalt. So that's one thing we probably don't have to worry about it at least.
Yeah but its also the REEs (Rare Earth Elements) that are a huge problem. We are doing deep see mining because there isnt enough know on land.
Which ones are you talking about? It is possible to build cars without them
You're right, and there are now Sodium batteries starting to hit the market.
I also expect there could be even more battery chemistries in the future.
Not all of these new batteries will be useful in the same vehicles/machines/homes, etc., and that's a very good thing.
Even "old fashioned" lead batteries will have certain uses in certain applications.
So we aren't going to be mining most of these things in quite the quantities the doomsayers envision.
@@najibyarzerachic the Tesla Model 3 standard range has had lfp batteries since last year and Ford is opening a new plant in Michigan to build LfP batteries for its EVS. In China byd and other manufacturers have been using lfp.
@@richardnwilson yes i know that. My question was about rare earth elements. Which rare elements is he talking about. None of battery material is classified Rare Earths.
It will play out the way it has always played out. Whoever has the most financial interest in destroying the earth for their own financial gain will do so. And most people even well meaning ones will not be able to make a meaningful difference because to do so would put them at complete odds with all of the way culture functions. It is heartbreaking. That is humans. We are so curious and clever and yet cannot devise a real way to exist on this planet that doesn't destroy it while doing so.
Perfectly stated, and disturbingly sad truth. We are blind with greed addiction.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
That isn’t humans that’s just capitalism
We absolutely "can" devise a way that allows us to exist without destroying the Earth. But the higher-ups will never allow it bc they cannot make money that way. Conservation does not make them money. Consuming less does not make them money. And that is all they care about. It is disgusting.
The more people buy "stuff" they are making the rich richer and contributing to the toxic dynamic known as our system. We do not need so much stuff.
Some of the most polluted areas in the U.S. are in big mining states going all the way back to the colonial era. Trillions of dollars in coal were extracted from the Appalachias yet now they battle chronic poor health, crushing poverty and an absolute epidemic of chemical dependency on top of the ecological train wreck the mining companies left behind. The oceans will be even worse because there will be no union or government department to keep the extraction companies in check.
Fewer batteries required if you invest in public transit
Agreed!
We need cleaner cars in a few exceptional cases,
but in general we just need fewer cars
(+more pedestriansµmobility, ofc)
@@pcongre *Please clarify your statement further. And no jumbling, thanks.* 😊
@@jeffdavis5723
i'm not a mobility scientist myself, but the current consensus among them after some 100 years of research is that to avoid as much sub/urban traffic as possible and all of its derived negative externalities (including but not limited to worse air quality, as well as worse mental and physical health - while costing tax payers more than the alternative), the only solution that has proven effective thus far is to combine, in order of importance:
1.dense cities+2.subsidize access to sustainable transportation+3.limit subsidies to unsustainable transportation
...in other words, we can keep hoping for tech to come up with a silver bullet that'll provide us with an excuse to keep on transporting ourselves unsustainably, but the truth is we've known for decades what we could be doing to mitigate the problem as much as possible using our current technology
The corporatists from PBS that hired her won't Ike that solution because it's a non-profit solution.
Public transit is a bad place to be in a pandemic.
EVs are the future of cars, but cars should not be the future of transportation. Investing more significantly in bikes, walking, and public transit would go a long way to mitigating the impact of transition from ICE towards EVs, which to be clear, still needs to happen.
Spoken as someone who lives in a city and works a few miles from home. Not every lives close to work, food, necessities.
@@Darkmattermonkey77 That's exactly the problem that building our cities around one mode of transportation created. We have lived in cities for centuries, only in recent decades have we divorced the necessities from where people actually live.
But yes, to undo that mistake will take zoning reform, investment in multi-modal infrastructure, and ultimately better city design. And to be clear, I think EVs are a great solution for the car usage we can't minimize, but we should be thinking broader than just solving the transition from ICE to EV, imo.
@@Darkmattermonkey77- I work 6 miles away from home and ride a bike to get there. I think most Americans are just crippled with laziness and feelings of entitlement. I get tired of people at work who call in to work because their car broke down. Well, get off your ass and walk.
@@Jason-sp5yc i totally agree with you
@@Darkmattermonkey77 nothing better than building everything around cars and then cry that you can't live without it... US fucked up...
This video is really just about how batteries are bad. Cars will consume most batteries produced in the future if nothing changes. That's why we need to look to ways to limit people needing cars and using them for all forms of travel. We need to bring back small, walkable cities, where you can run your errands without a vehicle and have good public transit to get to places further out. Busses, light rail, and heavy rail between cities is the only sustainable path forward.
Also different battery cell chemistries, like Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries don't depend on Nickel, Manganese, or Cobalt (like NMC batteries) mining.
Anyone who cares about the environment should care about reducing car dependency. Urban sprawl doesn't just create car-dependent cities, it also requires the building of highways, deforestation, destruction of arable land, urban heat dome effect, flooding, and so much more.
You are one of a few people thinking about the root of the problem.
Cars are the enemy of the future even if electric cars are slightly less cursed than ICE cars.
Some people, do not want to live in a suburban environment. Some people prefer the freedom of being out in the country and far, far away from cities.
Suburban environments are worse than cities, actually. They're the biggest contributors to the car-centric culture we got ruining us now.
Nobody said you had to live in a city, dude. One obvious example would be farmers. People need food, so we need farmers. But improving cities and suburbs doesn't necessarily mean rural areas are affected
Actually, if you are looking at it from an efficiency angle cities and rural areas both perform fairly well. It's actually the suburbs that are highly inefficient. Funny enough they also happen to have some of the lowest levels of happiness as well. So clearly there are gains, in efficiency, and societal health to be had.
Why do you not post your sources? What is the Japanese 2020 study?
A huge problem with pushing electric cars is the secondary market which cannot afford used electric vehicles because the replacement batteries are outrageously expensive and not easily maintained or repaired.
Where there is no law, the dollar will rule, and cruelly so. We are going to repeat the mistakes of the rampant extraction of the Victorian Age, with little to no regard to the non-human life forms that get in the way. The same goes for humans that live in those faraway places with the misfortune to be rich in minerals.
We need to reduce our consumption on every level. No games will solve the greed vs. need problem. We forgot how to live sustainably within our means. Escalation is a race toward extinction.
The answer starts with consuming less and consuming smarter.
Nice dream, not going to happen
Impossible at large scale under capitalism
Rare elements? I wasn't aware sodium was rare... Lithium isn't gonna be sustainable yes, but there are abundant alternatives and more R&D than ever in new batteries orders of magnitude higher than in the past and they don't need cobalt or manganese, also nickel is pretty abundant. The portrait painted here with nations "fighting over asteroids" is a dystopian worst case scenario.
actually there's more lithium than most people are aware of.
We simply haven't looked hard because there wasn't demand.
There was a huge new find in California recently, and there will certainly be more such finds.
Yep, a scare tactic, and we can guess where it originates.
From what I understand there is an abundance of lithium, but not all of it is high grade, which makes extraction worthwhile.
Don't forget that PBS is largely funded by the Koch brothers. There are serious issues with mining cobalt and nickel, but the same is true of extracting fossil fuels. Look, I get that nodule mining could be bad but start a very limited pilot project and study the heck out of it with international funding and access by the academic community. In the meantime comtinue research funding on cobalt and nickel free alternative batteries and on building car free infrastructure to lower the demand for batteries. This viseo makes it sound like only all or nothing is possible. I think this is purposeful misrepresentation. If we don't slow climate change all ecosystems will be devastated.
Very well said.
Yes. Consider the tradeoffs and make the best choice (even if it's not a perfect choice).
Neither cobalt nor nickel are "rare earth metals", description should be corrected. They are simply rare(r) metals. Funnily enough rare earth metal abundance/distribution could also be an issue with clean energy tech but the video didn't bring that up.
Rare-earth element/Rare-earth metal is not a protected term, the classification of rare-earth elements is inconsistent between authors. The most common distinction between rare-earth elements is made by atomic numbers which you don't mention at all
@@thor.halsli While there can be small discrepancies in what ppl are classifying as rare-earths, literally no one is calling cobalt or nickel rare-earths. They're both transition metals lmfao.
I'm not bringing up atomic numbers because it's not relevant to this convo, if you want to be pedantic at least try to have a leg to stand on.
@@zooml4959 "if you want to be pedantic at least try to have a leg to stand on." Says the guy beeing pedantic lmfao.
@@thor.halsli I'm literally going off the most common definitions but go off ig.
If you have no clue what you're talking about you don't have to chirp
@@thor.halsli also, i wasn't just dogging you for being pedantic, i was dogging you for being pedantic AND wrong LOL
Why not more mention of energy efficiency, convservation, and post-growth economics? The US, for instance, uses TWICE the energy per capita as the EU, but is quality of life or living standards appreciably lower in the EU? No, the reason for the divergence is American car dependency, expressed in SUVs and supersize pickup trucks.
More time on the road leads to higher stress levels and cardiovascular diseases. Widening freeways leads to induced demands, which makes traffic even worse. A person who lives in a city that is highly dependent on cars is more likely to develop respiratory problems compared to a city that is less car dependent. The list goes on.
Where there is money to be made, people will be crushed (sometimes literally)
Who cares about people? I am more concerned for literally every other living entity that is forced to share their world with us.
Battery technology needs more research to be more efficient and to find new ways to store energy. The world doesn't need military drones at all so they can go. We need more repairable smartphones like the Fairphone and to abandon the techbro culture of always buying the latest model every year. We need to stop strip mining altogether and go back to using shaft mines but with new safety technology and remote operation. We could really use more nuclear power because it is in fact just as clean as wind and solar though it's not renewable. We need to reconsider what we make wireless so that fewer things need batteries.
A sustainable future is very possible but it does mean that western countries will have to come down a notch or two on resource consumption. Furthermore we can't simply abandon all fossil fuels forever because we have specific applications for certain plastics and lubricants and other materials that we don't have replacements for yet.
We can go to space and mine asteroids, yes, but the infrastructure needed to refine metals in space would cost many trillions of dollars. We don't have machines that can build copies of themselves or probes that can set up a whole refinery station on their own. The technology level required is the realm of science fiction and at least a lifetime away, and we don't have that kind of time to spare. For the far future humans must be operating with care and efficiency. With capitalism humans would just be a wave of destruction that ripples through the stars once and fizzles out. We need something new.
LFP,, the fastest growing type of lithium battery doesn't use cobalt or nickel. Also the newly mass produced sodium ion batteries don't use lithium either. And no one is going to be mining asteroids any time soon.
We’re basically trading one problem (greenhouse gas emissions) for another (not enough rare earth materials). If only carbon capture and storage was 100x as good as it is now, we wouldn’t be in this predicament
And you just realized this now and not decades ago. Anglo Saxon's exported the modern economy based on non stop consumption and you are brainwashed into thinking you can just consume your way out of this problem and not to think of the consequences. The issue is us and our insatiable demand of constantly consuming and consuming and consuming. Until we come up with an alternate economic model, then we will be doomed. Every proposed solution comes with a down side.
I should hope that the CCZ continues to be treated as a common resource - honestly ALL the oceans ought to be held in common and in trust, because without the seas we're 100% screwed :(
The infrastructure for making any sort of industrial activity in outer space practical is gonna be - well, astronomically expensive. But it seems like a much better bet than the deep ocean mining.
Yes, but what materials will be mined to create all those spaceships and rockets and living quarters in space and space mining machines? We need to just stop using and wasting so much energy. We need to go back to simpler lives.
@@lilithlives Hmm, the simpler lives where everybody was dying at early ages? It's frustrating but true that a LOT of our current miracles of medicine and most of what we now consider basic needs of life are supplied by the petroleum industry. I agree that we waste a great deal of energy but it's not a case of "simpler lives." It's a case of fighting the Powers that Profit and pushing them, and our law makers, into changing that habit of wastefulness on a truly industrial scale.
Which is even harder than building a space habitat.
Though to answer you - quite a lot of the materials for space habitats and even machinery COULD come from the asteroids themselves, the Moon's regolith may be usable for making something like concrete, and so forth. Absolutely no one with common sense is going to launch building materials into space, it would be ruinously expensive...not that getting things back DOWN is much better, really. I believe one of the "golden ideals" is to move all the heavy industry into low orbit, building factories from "in situ" materials. Maybe even melting down the space junk around the planet, cleaning up the local space and reclaiming materials at the same time.
BUT all of that is pure speculation at the moment since getting up there is so expensive still.
@@Beryllahawk Our life expectancy is going down even with all these "medical advances". And I doubt anyone working in those Congolese mines lives past 40, and the life they live in those 40 years is tragic. All so we can have a new smartphone or EV that they will never own. I would rather live a quality short life with little on my conscience, than a long one in a dystopia world and blood on my hands. We need to take a pause and think about what kind of a future are we truly leaving for the next generations? Greed is an addiction that is killing us all.
Something not mentioned here, but EXTREMELY important, is that the materials used for green electrification are not consumed by use (unlike fossil fuels). Which means mining isn’t something that’s going to go on forever. They are totally recyclable. Once we have enough to provide clean energy for everyone, it can be self-sustaining. Is mining dirty? Yes. Does it cause harm? Yes. Well… where do you think coal comes from? Mines. And “drilling” for oil or natural gas is just mining for them, if you think about it.
Meanwhile, every kg of fossil fuel consumed generates around 3kg of CO2, that is just dumped right into the atmosphere like an open sewer. The pre-industrial atmosphere was 280ppm CO2. Today, it’s 420ppm (50% higher), and growing by 2.6ppm/year. If we wait “another ten years” to fantasize about asteroid mining or whatever, we add another 26ppm (or more). Another 10% above pre-industrial levels. Another quarter-degree of global warming. Another ten years closer to the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic glaciers - which will ALSO destroy habitats. Ten years more ocean acidification, which is bleaching coral reefs and killing life everywhere in all the oceans.
Yes, mining sucks. But the alternatives suck WAY THE HELL WORSE.
Well, you could always stop breathing. That would reduce the total co2 per day production. 🤷🏻
@@Darkmattermonkey77That type of snark contributes nothing to progress towards a solution. We are currently making our future more difficult, especially for our descendents. These issues need to be addressed. But as this video points out they need to be addressed in an informed holistic manner. We have to balance climate change, environment, species death and diversity, economics, manufacturing and human rights. Just to name a few.
There are already batteries that dont use lithium and such , and people around the world are working on developing more all the time .
Hopefully, we won't fall into the same situation we did with oil and use old technology just because the big invetesters have money tied up in it .
We definitely need solutions for mining minerals. There is also the recycling curve. It would be interesting to see where the recycling and mining curves intersect. Also, you can’t recycle fossil fuels, so which is worse for the planet?
There are other materials that work. Aluminum, for example, is useful where lithium is used, and has three electrons available rather than just one. It's also a tad bit safer, as our favorite beverages are often packaged in aluminum. Graphene is coming into the picture, though it's a bitch to make commercially. Nickel should be widely available, because it is a huge part of the earth itself. Mining can be done ecologically if the processing is done off-site. Gold, for example, often leaves acidic wastelands around its bigger mines.
Silicon is one of our worst polluters. There is no known method of extracting silicon from silicon dioxide without the use of carbon, which turns into CO2 by the ton per second.
Asteroids are tough to reach and have proven impossible to land on. They're mostly rubble piles loosely held together by gravity, but they are presently the most ecologically sound alternative, leaving no nasty acidic wasteland or carbon dioxide we can't eliminate. Getting the materials back to Earth, however, poses a rather daunting task of getting it through the atmosphere. But what about the moon? We can build a processing station on the moon and send raw materials back to Earth about a ton at a time. We can process in orbit around the Earth, too.
First and foremost, I would say the priority should be to reuse, repair and recycle. Currently most batteries and other items which contain cobalt and nickel aren't being recycled anywhere near enough, lithium is especially bad on that front, but that's not because it's impossible to recycle it (everything in existance is made of chemical elements, and ALL of them are isolatable, so lithium very much is too), it's just currently cheaper to mine than it is to recycle, so that's the preferred method. Personally I believe the most important thing to focus on before we open up new avenues for material extraction, is to focus on becoming a zero waste society, wherein everything is either reused, repaired or recycled. Once we've achieved this, we can begin to look for alternatives.
Asteroid mining is absolutely something we should pursue, even if it triggers a greed fuelled space race. With that said, asteroid mining is not even close to a valid option at present, the infrastructure, methods and equipment needed to actually employ it, currently makes even the very expensive process of recycling nickel and cobalt seem cheap by comparison, so within the next couple of decades it will not be a relevant avenue. With that said, I do believe it will be necessary on the longer term scale, to make sure we don't just mine all sorts of other materials from the ground for the rest of our infrastructure, which is also highly toxic and contaminating towards the world at large (even something like mining iron, will produce mining waste that we'd be better off without, and iron and steel will be mined for a long time to come, even if we raid and process all the materials we have lying around in landfills first).
While I do wish for, and hope that deep sea mining won't become a thing, I don't believe for a second that indiginous groups complaining will stop it from happening, because while some organisations are listening, and are open to a ban on the process, the question really is if larger more powerful organisations which stand to gain a lot of profit, will be cowed by this. Organisations which oftentimes have the backings of national governments, either directly or indirectly.
My last question (quandry perhaps) is, and this will be controversial, so let me preface it by saying the following: I am absolutely against the idea that anyone should expose themselves to a toxic environment that slowly kills and deforms people for generations. With that said though, I wonder if not buying cobalt and nickel (they also dig gold under similar circumstances) from the Congo is actually doing the Congese a favour, they've been doing this for generations, and any physiological and health implications would've been made apparent to anyone paying attention long ago. So I wonder, that since the Congese keep doing it regardless of how it poisons them, if perhaps not mining these materials under these unacceptable dangerous circumstances, might perhaps be less dangerous than not doing it. If the alternative is starvation, then it may for them be preferable to expose themselves to these dangerous materials.
Anywho, as I previously stated I'd much prefer if they didn't have to do these things, I'd much rather see someone find a method for extracting these materials in a way that doesn't lead to mountains of toxic waste, scores of malformed children, and crowds suffering from heavy metal poisoning, but still gives the people a way to support themselves in this world.
Your take on Congo isnt totally wrong but is too simplistic. This is a huge country with many different peoples in it and unfortunately many years of civil war. I dont know the details of mining operations there but in much of Africa mining is done by small local companies, usually with migrant workers, sometimes run by militias and organized crime- not an environment where workers and communities can feasibly organize for their rights. These local operations then sell to global corporations who press for the lowest price- regardless of costs on people. In other words its not just a simple choice between starvation and terrible work conditions, global corporations and the global economy are largely creating the limited choices that are available to people there.
@@scottabc72 Oh I realise it will obviously be too simplistic, but I also think the usual rhetoric is equally too simplistic. Too many times people in the west have done something with the intention to help, but only made things worse because they didn't understand the entirety of what they were talking about (or oftentimes, even anything beyond surface level understanding), so I just wanted to highlight that there could be more layers to the discussion at large.
The USA got incredibly pure Uranium ore from the Congo for the bombs we dropped on Japan... we had to topple a democratic regime and install a dictator who would protect it all for us. @@scottabc72
What is the model/source for the massive radioactive waste ponds in China? ~25-30 seconds in
Source: They made it up because they don't like nuclear energy
It's probably thorium left over from processing rare earths needed in enormous quantities for the renewable energy sources and electric vehicles. It's also not all over China but in one area with a lot of that industrial activity going on. It also does not emit enough radiation to be harmful. The chemical toxicity of all of the numerous types of chemical waste is the thing to worry about over there.
It could also be enough fuel to power the world for millenia at much higher levels, using breeder reactors. It's nearly all thoium-232 and can absorb neutrons from nuclear reactors, absorb them, and transmute into protactinium-233, then uranium-233 through beta decay. There could also be far more breeder reactors that convert abundant, already-mined uranium-238 leftover from uranium refining into neptunium-239, then plutonium-239.
It could easily provide enough energy to run all of the equipment that humanity uses for millennia. That's at about 5 or 6 times the energy use today to provide everyone on earth with a developed world standard of living.
Also, nuclear energy has an exemplary safety record and there are numerous solutions to the problem of nuclear waste already within our reach.
In contrast to other EV battery technologies, BYD does not utilize the common lithium-ion combination; instead, it is replaced by a lithium-iron-phosphate combination. Furthermore, the blade batteries are completely Cobalt-free.
byd sells more ev cars than tesla.
Lithium-iron-phosphate batteries are significantly heavier than lithium-ion batteries. That is a big problem for EV applications.
@@MrVenona either way, new batteries with different technology, materials are on the way. this is just the beginning.
Micheal Moore explored this issue years ago in his own documentary. It is not nice to mess with Mother Nature. Time to explore better alternatives to safe guard our planet.
It is NOT time to “explore better alternatives” while CO2 keeps going. We don’t have the luxury of time.
@davestagner
I disagree. Americans can consume less (food and just stuff in general), be less wasteful, protect grasslands and especially wet lands. Remove zoning laws from cities to make them more affordable and walkable. Invest more in train (not battery trains like I've seen out there).
If most of these things were done, the planet would probably feel the same effects and reduction in carbon.
@@ryanfisch7047 I don’t think you understand just how much CO2 we’re producing. Every gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of CO2. US per capita CO2 emissions are 15 TONS. Nationally, we produce 5 billion tons of CO2 each year. And the US is only a fraction of the 37 billion tons produced globally in 2022 alone. You don’t solve this problem by eating less and buying less stuff and occasionally riding a bike. And even if we could get an immediate 50% reduction - which we cannot do - we’re only delaying the inevitable. It’d take 60 years rather than 30 to hit 500ppm CO2, 60 years to cross the tipping points.
Our choice is simple. We electrify everything, or we burn fossil fuels until climate change causes civilization to collapse. There is no Plan C. We’re not going to solve this with LED light bulbs and buses.
edit: There is a Plan C. Starve.
@davestagner as long as we use a nuclear backbone to power everything sure, I could get behind that.
But for the carbon emissions, the US is only about 5% of the global population, but according to your emissions numbers, almost nearly 14% of global emissions. The US reducing their consumption across the board would go a long way. Less production at high emitting carbon factories over seas, less shipping on inefficient cargo ships, fewer deliveries, and emissions from that locally. Also, there is less extraction of material to make the stuff.
Protecting our carbon sinks of wetlands and grassland help, too.
I believe we both think climate change is a problem, but we just see two different ways to fix it.
@@ryanfisch7047 I don’t think we’re looking at two different ways to fix it, because one of these approaches will not fix it. Even if we had that “nuclear backbone to power everything” (why not solar and wind?), we’d STILL have to electrify the cars and trucks, which are the #1 source of CO2, and that means batteries, and that means mining. If you’re not willing to accept the mining, and you can’t wave your King of Earth scepter and make everyone stop using cars and trucks, then all the Degrowth in the world is just walking more slowly toward Armageddon. We CANNOT conserve our way out of this mess. Either we stop burning fossil fuel, or we die. Period.
Thanks for bringing up this topic and presenting it in a holistic way. Great presentation. I think we need to reconsider our place on this earth. The numbers, the way we use resources. We cannot expect that 8+ billion humans would live easy life with all of our modern comforts - electronics, cars, plane travels etc. Whatever we will do, we need clothing, transportation and food, the thing is how we would go about getting it and how many more of us we will bring to this planet, which is already massively struggling with our numbers.
To be clear, i dont propose anything close to eugenics(as Bill Gates was unfairly accused of). I propose we consider how many and if we want to bring more children into this world, if we ourselves struggle to live sustainably. Most of all some of Asia and African countries, who lead in population growth, but also USA and other modern countries, who lead in living unsustainably.
Here's a thought: engineering nodule precipitation beds _off_ the ocean floor, by technology that would accelerate their formation. We'd be mining ocean water, and leaving natural nodule sites alone.
some energies are more damaging to the environment some are less so but non of them is completely clean and sustainable
I loved all the information covered here. I almost wish this video had been broken up into a multi-part series to go more in-depth on each section. Especially with solutions!
Hopefully flow batteries will become viable. They don't require rare earth elements. They use vanadium, which is reasonably abundant but will no doubt cause its own extraction problems.
As the saying goes, "There is no free lunch." To just consider the source of energy without considering what's involved to harness it doesn't make any sense.
Who says we don’t want to “give up” driving? Getting rid of driving would be great, socially ecologically and economically, it’s basically a no brainier at this point.
I think hybrid vehicles are the way to go for now. Our infrastructure is not at all up to speed to support EVs, particularly for those who drive frequently or want to go long distances between cities or in remote places. The time some EVs currently take to charge is ridiculous too.
I'm all for clean energy, but economically and practically, I don't think this is a transition we should rush.
I've said it before, in the mid 80's I installed and maintained the automatic monorail system at General Motors. It would be an easy system to build. Argue all you want we could use laminated bamboo and carriers rather than vehicles with batteries which makes no sense whatsoever. I spent my life doing maintenance in heavy industry, I can't do the engineering but I know what works and how to make it work. There are many other ideas! What there is not is people willing to listen!
The press of humanity along with the rise in material wealth of societies around the world is very seriously straining the planet's resources and the ecosystems we depend on for survival. This trend is exacerbated by our 'throw away' mentality.
The political edge of climate change is definitely something that's overlooked in more utopian predictions. So many of the predictions seem to only focus on rich industrialized countries, whole developing countries already face the brunt of climate change consequences. So many "solutions" seem overlook the human rights abuses that already exist and are often made worse by climate disasters. for example, rare earth metal mining has been funding political chaos in the Congo for decades, and that will only get worse if demand increases without any human rights consideration
I want to recommend working locally to change your city's zoning laws. They define your town/city's car use. The value is also immediately economic: suburbia and car-centric design is a bad use of public money compared to walkable cities and neighborhoods. At scale a transition to walkable cities, is transformative and puts the world on a path of inexpensive, climate friendly, and vibrant development.
Maybe the next video should cover the damage done from the mining and drilling for fossil fuels on land and under the sea.
China gonna hoove up that seafloor without a second thought. Amorality and a callous disregard for the environment has business advantages.
Years ago I saw a report about a battery system using sodium as a base component. Tell us more about that.
We also need to put a lot of investment into Iron Flow batteries. There's already zinc bromide flow batteries, but iron flow batteries will form the primary storage for the grid, in order to avoid requiring L-ion batteries and their components from being required by grid storage.
I think space collection is more logical. Space debris is endless. Plus it would also allow far more learning of our cosmos in the process and how it formed. I personally think it's a win-win for both areas.
It takes ten years to double the output and refining of a natural resource. Ten years for double. How long will 40 times take?
Weight is everything, need lightest safest transportation that fits needs, and different roads
These topics are extremely complex given that, there will not be any clean solution during transition. Electrification is a great solution as is optimizing the system while we find ways to give energy to human civilization. All have to realise the problem and have to work together which we are not seeing till now. we live on the same planet and share the same oceans and sky.
- Make human habitat efficient - the small footprint of the city, ease of hence less use of energy, ease of providing resources to them. ( We can't have everything, maybe find some healthy balance)
- Improve and support public transport
- Make use of a bicycle and walk easy. Sad to that that not happening in many parts of the world.
- Improve recycling technologies
- Improve extraction technologies
What do we spend on the military and what do we spend on science. Our society has become inefficient, 4 hours of meeting with 20 people to discuss trivial matters is happening everywhere.
Energy for billboards and all advertising is produced from fuel likely.
Improve the safety of nuclear technologies and other high-density energy sources.
- A humble engineer guilty of working in the mining sector after working in the medical helping people
Did I miss where you addressed Sodium Ion battery technology? No?
Making projections into the future without considering potential advances in technology is poor reporting.
For example from the recent past on batteries, we now have LiFePO4 batteries which use far fewer impactful elements. Tesla is already using them in cars.
Sodium Ion "may" be "a" next step to reduce the energy storage environmental footprint. If not, I'm confident there will be others.
Mining the sea floor not ground level, where we live.
We certainly need more sustainable means of producing and storing energy. But switching to non fossil fuels energy model is a net good for climate change which needs to be our primary focus. Asteroid mining is probably the best option for protecting the planet but the most expensive and furthest off in terms of the near future.
*Is a net good for climate❓I’m not sure what you meant by that statement. Please clarify. Thank you.* 😊
@@jeffdavis5723 net carbon emissions including transport of materials mining ect. Sorry I didn’t explain that very good. There was a good bit on that on Star Talk recently. Dr.Tyson and pbs are part of the few sources that are trustworthy sources. There are a few others I am sure.
One from (crowded, urban)modern world uses only traction batteries as "Lithium-Iron-Phosphate" .. Hint: Zero Manganese.. zero cobalt.. zero nickel... This PBS vid will certainly interest some who may be uninformed about battery chemistry... or "micro-mobility" needing a lot less batteries anyway ;) Cheers
"Clean energy" is neither clean, nor is it carbon-free. The industry relies on mining and extraction, both high polluters with high carbon footprint. Then there's the destruction to the land from mining as well. The pollution of rivers and oceans for minerals to do that, plus the toxic extraction chemicals in huge quantities to purify those metals, and the pollution from manufacture of panels, charging stations, batteries, etc. - ALL make this very dirty energy, AND it carries a huge carbon footprint
It definitely isn't clean, but it is a massive improvement. There are definitely areas that are basically marketing BS, like blue hydrogen. Still it's important to not downplay these technologies improvements. It can lead to apathy and pessimism.
Instead frame them as parts of an overall solution. Better public transit, public planning, biking and walking, mixed housing, tax incentives, etc. Many of these actually lead to a community that is more connected and family oriented, which can be a bonus. Many of the solutions are actually very people centered and result in a happier healthier population.
What about the green house gas emissions just from mining and transporting these metals? Is it even a net benefit for CO2e emissions?
Save Our Planet Now
an interesting topic, that also in line with Political agenda that will happened in Indonesia. There are 3 candidates of President that will affect 5 years of Indonesia economy and environment. 2 of 3 candidate aiming at continuing the current policy, when the 1 is promoting a change of policy. The new Capital of Indonesia (named Nusantara) will be located in Kalimantan/Borneo where there are many biodiversities inside it that will be affected by the emerging of new population of people after the new capital is finished. Maybe PBS wants to make a video about it..
It's now 4 years that i thought we where all societally agreed on waiting for salt batteries before making the EV explode in numbers.. am i wrong?
Please tell Dr. Scales that she has a lovely Monstera in the background!
I have heard that several institutions and research facilities are investigating battery manufacturing alternatives to rare earth metals.
MIT and CalTech are creating batteries made from things like aluminum.
What do we know about that aspect of this problem?
check out "LFP batteries". Already being used. Also EV motors dont all use rare earths, it's mainly permanent magnet motors (and even those are due to have their rare earths phased out construction requirements)
Aluminum mining is extremely toxic.
This has already been done some… for example, the LFP batteries used in most EVs now do not contain cobalt. Sodium offers a similar chemistry to lithium (although it has problems), and we’ll see sodium used in non-mobile batteries and even EVs. And for larger grid-scale batteries, chemistries like iron-air use no rare materials at all (as one wise man said, if you want to make something dirt cheap, make it out of dirt).
If we become successful at mining asteroids the cost of a variety of resources will go down, resulting in 'trillion dollar asteroids' being worth 'billions' instead.
Well I learned today that, as the host would say, PBS is exspecially been overcome by corporate donations. Assuming, as was done during the "Robber Barons" of the railway age, the choices are limited to current (that is 2 decade old tech and info) for projecting the future. Geuss my country has been bought and paid for as well.
Well, we'll have to let go of some things we think we are entitled to today, and replace those *particular solutions* to our problems with another, sustainable solutions.
A nuanced view.
Mining the ocean floor with a combine vacuum seems like a recipe for wider ecosystem collapse up the food chain. When will we learn?
Thank you
I just don’t get why we don’t put more effort into biodiesel. We already have existing infrastructure and engines.
-It’s easy to get “rare earths” out of EV’s, motors and batteries.
-Recycling batteries is already getting 95% of raw materials back so there will be far less mining required once we hit a certain level of EV’s being scrapped regularly, say 30 years at max
-plus there’s a lot of efficiency to make our power go further in the future.
-we should be able to avoid mining the sea floor entirely
The future will be far less horrible than the show’s intro
Remaining positive is a key part of the effort.
Thank you for this report 👍
Special thanks that you pointed out the necessity to actively seek solutions which aren't bad trade-offs between slowing climate warming, environmental protection and human rights 💯
Earth's natural resources are rich, but humanity needs to improve at harvesting our greatest resources: intelligence and social collaboration. If only the latter would benefit more from the technological advancements.
classic one-way narrative on this platform. counter points in the comments get shadow banned
Metals are (relatively) plentiful in extraterrestrial rocks, while deep-sea mining sounds ecologically catastrophic and no less remote, financially costly, or dangerous than 6-24 month missions to develop and build the necessary orbital and off-planet infrastructure to mine minerals from asteroids.
If the reverse tech on the Alien ships don’t kick in soon. We will have all of this to worry about…
Ocean and space mining aren't equivalents, they are opposites. There is nothing living in space who's habitat we need to be concerned about disturbing. Space mining isn't an extension of the problems of terrestrial and seafloor mining, it is the solution to it. Nine billion humans are not going to suddenly start using less materials to survive, they need more, and space is the only environmentally safe place to get them. Many of the materials which are most useful in replacing fossil fuels are rare on Earth, and virtually unlimited in space.
Meanwhile, we have robotics and AI which can enable less damaging harvesting of seafloor nodules. Smaller nodules can be left in place, and larger ones picked up gently one at a time by intelligent robots who can work around seafloor life. And vacuuming up millions of gallons of seawater to raise very heavy metal nodules from the seafloor is about the most inefficient way of doing the job I can imagine, so maybe don't do that.
Without huge technological advancements, space mining isn't viable for anything but extremely rare elements. Lithium, Cobalt and Nickel are needed in quantities which are far far away from being economical for space mining. And it wouldn't pay off ecologically, far too much fuel is needed to get things into space and back.
Elements which are very rare on Earth might be economical if a sufficiently concentrated deposit is found in space.
It would be different if we find a mining place which also allows us to produce/harvest fuel in space, but that's a big if with current technology. It's also not going to help much if fuel sources and deposits are in significantly different orbits around the sun.
@@justmy-profilename It is a given that technological advancement is needed to efficiently mine space, and equally a given that it will occur. It is only a matter of how long we will take to get there, and it will be longer if we don't make it a priority. As for energy, it will not likely be chemical fuels for much longer, they are too heavy to be efficient. Whatever the fuel elements may be, they definitely exist in space, because there is nothing which doesn't. We will start with the low-hanging fruit of course, metal-dense asteroids which are the most accessible. As for getting things to Earth, if they are in orbit, getting them down is accomplished by gravity, the same way spacecraft are landed.
@@justmy-profilename *Have you not heard of this new element that the Chinese probe found on the moon ❓It is supposed to power rockets and have clean energy here on earth. I watch a lot of the **#NASA** channels videos and saw this on one of them.*
@@crawkn The space travel involved will destroy the ozone layer, thus killing us in a different way. A large industrialized civilization is simply incompatible with Earth's limits and the laws of nature.
@@crawkn A civilization advanced enough to mine asteroids will also be advanced enough to mine the Earth without causing environmental damage. Also, consider how far away the asteroid belt is. The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 386 thousand km. The distance from the Earth to the asteroid belt is 487 million km. So, the asteroid belt is over 1000 times further away than the moon.
Can't we use modular nuclear reactors ?
I'm alway shocked how fast people or corporations will spring into action to fix what 'occurs' like a need, without looking at the environmental impact of their actions. An example is the beef or fast food industry cutting down the rain forest to have land for cattle to graze. Not realizing that their methods of grazing cattle make the land fallow so they have to do it again. Or how we have an enormous amount of one time use plastic, like water bottles, filling up the ocean and washing up on the beaches of other countries. Humans it seems, could be the most destructive of all life on this planet, because we don't look at how our actions will unfold in the future. In the US it's all about investing large sums of money setting up to produce whatever they set out to produce, expecting a huge return on their investment, then justifying these actions with economic evidence. None of this is about how to make money of saving jobs. All of it is about not paying attention to the one thing that is keeping us alive - a healthy EARTH.
Maybe should wonder where trinkets like that necklace came from as well
we need a consumable resources that don't take the scale of YEARS ,DECADES ,HUNDREDS OF YEARS to form and re-form after harvesting.
Sodium Ion and LFP batteries are now taking off and they don't use nearly the same amount of precious metals...
Nickel mining in sulawesi but the video show sulphur mining in east java.
Man I think if we could stop what's happening in the Congo first I feel like that has more urgency 😢
We need different solutions for future transport EVs, hydrogen, synthetic fuels we need to explore all the possibilities 😊😊
If I had a penny for every "dirty truth of clean energy" video
There is also zero discussion of rationing non-renewable resources for future generations. Shouldn’t others have a right to access cobalt or nickel? Even oil? We don’t need to use everything there is, as fast as possible. Plus these are our common resources, but we are not even sharing what is extracted with everyone. Resources are appropriated from nature for free, and then sold to us with a price. The producer, who added value, did not make the material inputs, but they collect all the value. A planet that was so endowed with wealth, should not be covered in poverty. And we should measure national wealth in what resources are preserved, not how much products were consumed. Consumption does not make you wealthy, preservation does.
Cars in America have suffered a coronary and the head hasn't got the message. Most Americans can barely afford a $300 emergency and are living paycheck to paycheck as is. The average cost of basic car repairs has more then tripled over the past 10 years. Coupled with requirements to meet "road worthy" standards states set and it's more then most people can afford.
By the time we hit 2030 the average cost of owning a car while maintaining a house will be virtually impossible. EV or no the industry is circling the drain and the jobs that rely on long distance drivers making it to the office are going to start feeling the hit.
Hopefully Sodium batteries can replace all of this.
Wow, fascinating conversation. Clean energy is not clean.
So these nodules crystallise out of solution and form a ball, like the kidney stones of the ocean?
cobalt and manganese are current tech used in Li batteries, but besides lifepo4 now commercial, there is the just evolving LiS as well as hydrogen fuel cells Toyota has expermienting for cars, and many others options for non fossil power ... existing electrical tech can be designed to use new chemistry bats once commercial, and just as NiMH bats gave way to LiIon so will LiIon ...
Did the oil companies DIRECTLY pay for this? Sure sounds like...
People miss out beryllium and lithium for the blanket of Fusion reactors.
I'm all for fusion, but commercial scale production requires more beryllium than exist as reserves... Give or take the sea bed :(
There's simply no fusion technology which is anywhere close to practicality.
Laser traps need immense improvements in laser technology and extreme scale up of released energy + an efficient harvesting of released energy.
Magnetic concealements are closer to practicality, but the closest is ITER, which should also be a warning. Its cost overrun is huge, and it would need a scale up by around a magnitude to become viable for harvesting energy.
Projects of such a scale are ruling out meaningful market competition, and would require that states build in time and budget. That is seemingly not what's frequently practiced - especially when considering mega-projects
Fusion sounds cool, and maybe we get it done eventually, but it's nothing which will come timely enough to help slow climate change in the coming decades.
And btw, it will create radioactive waste as well, just not with the incredibly long half-life of spent rods from Uranium fission.
Mine the landfills. Make recycling tech more accessible.
So if we understand how these deep sea metals are formed and already agree it's best to hold off on dredging than why arnt we investing in tech that can recreate synthetic versions? We already do it with everything else from food to chemicals to diamonds dont we..why not metals or metal-like materials? And why does it have to be traditional batteries anyway? Sure easy solution for now but why not focus on super conductives that can hold a charge? Imo, instead of dumping who knows how much money into the unknowns of space exploration and the potential dangers that come with it, or fighting over new mines, wouldn't the money be better spent working on new tech here on earth?..i gotta admit space mining would be pretty badass but practical 🤷♂️ and do we really wanna go down the road of companies staking claims on asteroids? Who decides who owns what space rock and on whos authority anyway? How would we enforce those rules and regulations? Those types of questions need awnsers before we head into the cosmos. Last thing we need are space wars over resources.
Green washing and lithium extraction go hand in hand.
Thanks for providing EV critics something to blow out of proportion derailing needed advancements. I'm not in denial, but i dont want to face amplification of disinfo.
Tethered electric with central computer control could be done now.😊
The strongest survive 💪💪💪💪
Don’t need nickel or cobalt for LFP or LMFP battery chemistries. Dunno why you people never seem aware of that or don’t see it as worth mentioning.
Am I the only one who's also freaked out by discussions of hydrogen power from electrolysis of water? It sounds like that will mean running out of water before anyone moves to stop it.
If only potable water was used, it might be something to be freaked out about. Anyway, there's no indication that hydrogen for energy will be viable.
When the hydrogen gets remixed with oxygen in the burning stage you get the water back
Clearly, we have to do something about climate change because if we don't farming will become so difficult that billions of people could end up starving to death by the middle of this century. There is very good chance the collapse of global farming could get so bad that by 2090 societies will collapse and most of people on Earth will have starved to death. All industry has waste or environmental costs but fossil fuel industry is the only one that threatens our existence on Earth.