“What we have is a one-way bureaucratic command and control mechanism that makes bad decisions with funding sourced from captive consumers and one-way radical agendas. Accordingly, environmental extremists despise fossil fuels, while still arguing that only wind and sun are ‘green’ enough to ‘save the planet’. This in itself is greenwashing.
Like Rob Bradley’s “Renewable energy: Not cheap, not ‘green’” (see my part), my colleague, Tom Tanton, wrote an important article on the over-regulation of the rare earth mining industry in the United States: “Dig it! If you want more information about the importance of rare earths in the US economy, this would be a good place to start.
The long-term viability of this transition to renewable energy simply assumes that there are enough raw materials for it. Professor Michaux of the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) has studied these issues, perhaps more extensively than anyone else, and thinks not. Professor Simon Michaux tackles these issues through the following groundbreaking work:
The result of Professor Michaux’s research is that “we need a new plan” because there are not enough raw materials to sustain this transition and the recycling or reprocessing of mining waste cannot compensate. make up for the shortfall. Since the success of free market economies is predicated on informed citizens, I recommend you visit Professor Michaux’s website or at least watch the following YouTube:
Dr. Michaux also has several PowerPoint presentations that can be downloaded from his website. I recommend starting with the following:
While Michaux’s information is invaluable, be warned that taking all of it is like drinking from a fire hydrant. But I guarantee, it will be worth it.
While it is likely that at least some engineering process and raw material discoveries will be made to improve the supply of rare earth minerals needed for renewable energy all the time, there is at least one More issues to consider: What are the environmental and social consequences of this transition to “clean energy” compared to traditional fuels?.
There are many previous posts in my MasterResource repository (https://www.masterresource.org/category/krebs-mark/) summarizes the environmental and “social justice” issues of government forced use of renewable energy, some of which I wrote or co-wrote with Tom Tanton. These articles deal with total economic costs (in trillions of dollars in the United States alone); child/slave labor used to extract raw materials and then process/produce them into renewable energy systems; environmental consequences, etc. The latter includes the highly toxic waste streams associated with lithium extraction and disposal to the often impoverished local communities where such activities are conducted. regularly. “Environmental justice” is for me, not for you.
Exploiting the seabed strip
return exploitation of the seabed strip; It appears that the putative GHG reductions of this transition to renewables are significantly undermined by their own unique forms of environmental consequences. Not only are large amounts of fossil fuels required to produce renewable energy systems, but the harder it is to secure raw materials, the more GHGs will be released for this “clean energy” transition. . As Professor Michaux said, “minerals become the new petroleum.” Or as Daniel Yergin titled the energy transformation: “Big Oil to Big Shovel.”
A case in point: a Real Clear Wire article dated November 18order 2022 has a title Seabed mining will help break China’s control over key minerals by Tom LaTourrette, senior physical scientist and interim director of the Public Health and Environmental Policy program at RAND Corporation (a government-funded policy research organization).
The article makes the case of developing new resources to make raw materials needed for a “clean energy transition” from undersea mining independent of China. I do not underestimate the potential such resources exist and could reduce China’s dominance in these markets, but I question whether a cure is worse than this disease in reducing effectively mitigate a new type of apparent climate apocalypse.
GHG emissions associated with undersea mining are a major penalty for the production of renewable energy systems and this topic needs further scientific research. In addition to the greenhouse gas emissions from energy-intensive undersea mining and mining, policy should not ignore the fact that undersea mining requires acute disturbance of oceanic sediments. ocean, representing the largest (by far) carbon and methane reservoir in the world. planet.
Such processes are like mining on the ocean floor with ecological impacts that are not widely known. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions are just one form of environmental consequences associated with undersea mining. A Google search for the term “environmental impact of undersea mining” reveals the extent of those problems. The following lists some of these references:
- Frequently asked questions about deep sea mining
- Understanding the impact of deep-sea mining
- Deep-sea mining can help meet demand for vital minerals, but comes with serious setbacks
- A climate solution lies deep in the ocean, but accessing it could have huge environmental costs
- Is deep-sea mining a cure for the climate crisis or a curse?
In short, the oceans are an important carbon sink, absorbing up to a quarter of global carbon emissions each year in their deep sediments. Open-pit mining on the ocean floor could upset this balance and harm ocean ecosystems in general.
There is not enough scientific evidence to date to conclusively assess the risks associated with deep ocean strip mining. What is known is that the sediments, which can be miles deep, must be drawn up and then filtered to screen out large solids that may contain valuable minerals. Then the filtered sediment is simply dumped into the sea. This will likely release significant amounts of carbon and possibly methane (hydrate). Alluvial clumps can disrupt the food chain necessary for most of the world’s organisms.
Need more energy, pollution ahead
The energy required to power the mining equipment and the emissions generated is also significant. Assuming that undersea mining equipment operators pay for a “social carbon cost” (SCC), the cost-effectiveness of the process could be negative. All for what? To reduce “global warming?”
Betting the farm on “clean energy” increasingly seems like a bad bet both economically and environmentally. Unless, of course, you’re the government and are betting with “other people’s money” and growing your empire.
Are aspiring environmentalists willing to accept the ecological risks associated with deep-sea exploitation to achieve their “green energy” transition? “Out of sight is out of mind” right? Clearly, they are willing to take such risks, as evidenced by their “closed-eyed” approach to child slavery in mining. The following excerpt is from the fifth article in the list above. It goes on to indicate that the answer is yes:
We live in a world where more and more people want the latest mobile phones as well as electric vehicles and wind and solar power plants that will help achieve net zero emissions. And these require metals like cobalt and manganese.
On their own, recycling these metals is unlikely to provide the components we need for these devices, so mining will be important. On land, it involves all kinds of problems and eventually there will be a push to deep-sea mining – and eventually that will happen.
Conclusion
I do Not campaigned that consumers should be deprived of material possessions such as smartphones. Nor should they be deprived of affordable energy. I do advocates that, since all forms of energy have negative effects, sustainable decision-making about energy needs to be fully informed, transparent through sound science (versus politics). chemical)–and consumers should be well informed about both the pros and cons of these alternative forms of energy.
What we have, by contrast, is a one-way bureaucratic command and control mechanism that makes bad decisions with funding sourced from captive consumers and radical agendas one way or another. afternoon. Accordingly, environmental extremists despise fossil fuels, while still arguing that only wind and sun are “green” enough to “save the planet”. This in itself is bleaching. Back to “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green'” by Robert Bradley.
APPENDIX
- Mark Krebs presentation with Cooler Heads on “Electrification is beneficial”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Biden-Administration-policies-to-
FINAL09JAN23-.pptx - Podcast “Hungry for Power” by Robert Bryce: Simon Michaux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QzSlXEEyw8
————
This concludes a two-part article (Part I yesterday).
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved in program evaluation and energy efficiency design for more than thirty years. He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, is an advisor to the DOE, and has filed numerous Federal energy efficiency filings. More posts on his MasterResource can be found on natural gas versus electricity and the federal policy “Deep Carbonization” here. Mark’s first post was in Public Utilities Every two weeks, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs founded an energy policy consulting firm (Gas Analysis & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.
Related
