Skip to content

Geologists doubt Earth has the amount of copper needed to develop the entire world

Technology
113 76 168
  • Recycling aluminum, however, is much more energy-efficient!

    Very true. However, it doesn't add new material to the equation. If we need it to build electrical infrastructure, recycling won't suffice.

    Recycling aluminum is actually literally the best thing you can recycle in terms of environmental impact and cost efficiency. There are other things we recycle, but nothing pays off nearly as well.

  • What is this publication and who finances it because this section is incredibly sus:

    Copper use is not carved in stone. Hybrid cars, which pair small batteries with gasoline engines, need far less of the metal than fully electric vehicles.

    Power grids that mix nuclear, wind, solar, and a pinch of natural-gas backup can slice the copper bill dramatically compared with battery-heavy systems.

    “First of all, users can fact-check the study, but also they can change the study parameters and evaluate how much copper is required if we have an electric grid that is 20% nuclear, 40% methane, 20% wind, and 20% hydroelectric, for example,” Simon said. “They can make those changes and see what the copper demand will be.”

    Like you think we can transition to an increasingly electrified world, where all power comes from electric utility lines, and you think our copper usage will be ... just in renewable power plants?

    This reads like straight fossil fuel propaganda. In an electrified future the majority of copper use comes from distribution lines and products that use electricity not the type of power plants generating electricity.

    I'm not defending the article, but I think most overhead power lines are aluminium, which is probably good as it's abundant compared to copper.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    This all suggests that we keep producing, wasting and manufacturing things infinitely without ever recycling, reusing or re purposing everything that we are mining out of the ground. The article notes that this includes recycling but only at the rate we have now.

    If we keep running our world the way we are now for the next hundred yes .... than yes, we are going to run out of everything because we live in an absolutely wasteful society that only runs in a way to produce things designed with planned obsolescence to break down in a short amount of time so that we can produce more junk to sell and drive a stupid economy to make a small group of idiots even more wealthy. The whole system is designed to run on making infinite money by producing infinite junk that doesn't last long.

    Yes at the rate we are going and the way we are producing things and the way we shape our economy and the way we base our manufacturing .... we are definitely going to run out of everything.

    We can change our economy and the way we produce and manufacture things - and get rid of this stupid structure of society of just endlessly making money for a small group of morons .... or we can keep doing things the way we are now until we run off a cliff and destroy everything and drive our species into extinction.

  • What is this publication and who finances it because this section is incredibly sus:

    Copper use is not carved in stone. Hybrid cars, which pair small batteries with gasoline engines, need far less of the metal than fully electric vehicles.

    Power grids that mix nuclear, wind, solar, and a pinch of natural-gas backup can slice the copper bill dramatically compared with battery-heavy systems.

    “First of all, users can fact-check the study, but also they can change the study parameters and evaluate how much copper is required if we have an electric grid that is 20% nuclear, 40% methane, 20% wind, and 20% hydroelectric, for example,” Simon said. “They can make those changes and see what the copper demand will be.”

    Like you think we can transition to an increasingly electrified world, where all power comes from electric utility lines, and you think our copper usage will be ... just in renewable power plants?

    This reads like straight fossil fuel propaganda. In an electrified future the majority of copper use comes from distribution lines and products that use electricity not the type of power plants generating electricity.

    Your argument against the article that talks about copper usage is founded on incomplete knowledge of where copper is actually used?

    🤦

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Have they tried pulling it out of the walls of abandoned buildings? There's a lot left in there that no one uses anymore. /s

  • I'm not defending the article, but I think most overhead power lines are aluminium, which is probably good as it's abundant compared to copper.

    Aluminium is very commonly used. It isn't near as good a conductor as copper, but you can easilly use more toeget results and in most cases that works fine.

    The reason we stopped using aluminimun more is it is relly tricky. when you tighten a screw the al deforms over time and so you don't get a lasting connection. Al also corrodes to a non conductive state. Many house fires were traced to al wiring in just the few years it was common. We can mitigate all the above issuses but it takes care and so copper is preferred despite al being much cheaper.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Sounds like doomish stuff. We innovate all the time. If copper and lithium are short supply items then technology will morph to use something else.

  • That alternative material is aluminum. It's like a top four abundance material in the crust. It's just super fucking hard to refine from minerals that don't like to give it up without oodles of energy. Like, turn minerals into plasma levels of energy. So the irony is, to grow our energy economy past the need for copper, we will first need to grow our energy economy.

    Should fusion ever actually meet its promise, then this is one of the likely things we could do with this level of energy.

    If we ever become a spacefaring civilization, it'll almost certainly be necessary during the colonization of other planets/moons/asteroids, since the geological processes that concentrate copper on the earth are not present in those places. Whereas aluminum is plentiful any place rocky.

    So the irony is

    I see what you did there...

  • Sounds like doomish stuff. We innovate all the time. If copper and lithium are short supply items then technology will morph to use something else.

    Eh. Or we could just keep some areas impoverished and underdeveloped and profit off their cheap labor...

    !remindme 15 years

  • I'm not defending the article, but I think most overhead power lines are aluminium, which is probably good as it's abundant compared to copper.

    The problem with aluminum is that it gets REALLY hot when current is run through it. It used to be ised to wire homes, but is now banned because it wasn't safe.

  • The problem with aluminum is that it gets REALLY hot when current is run through it. It used to be ised to wire homes, but is now banned because it wasn't safe.

    That's incorrect. Aluminium is about 30% worse by volume than copper, meaning you need to go up a size. What stopped it being used for houses was that the terminations weren't good enough, because aluminium has different thermal expansion and corrosion properties, plus they were using much worse alloys. That's now mostly fixed and if you're in the US, there's a very good chance that your service main is aluminium, and there's talk of allowing copper-clad aluminium (CCA) for subcircuit wiring.

    Per mass, aluminium is a better conductor, which is why it's almost exclusively used overhead and in pretty significant volumes underground. The power grids were built on ACSR.

  • What is this publication and who finances it because this section is incredibly sus:

    Copper use is not carved in stone. Hybrid cars, which pair small batteries with gasoline engines, need far less of the metal than fully electric vehicles.

    Power grids that mix nuclear, wind, solar, and a pinch of natural-gas backup can slice the copper bill dramatically compared with battery-heavy systems.

    “First of all, users can fact-check the study, but also they can change the study parameters and evaluate how much copper is required if we have an electric grid that is 20% nuclear, 40% methane, 20% wind, and 20% hydroelectric, for example,” Simon said. “They can make those changes and see what the copper demand will be.”

    Like you think we can transition to an increasingly electrified world, where all power comes from electric utility lines, and you think our copper usage will be ... just in renewable power plants?

    This reads like straight fossil fuel propaganda. In an electrified future the majority of copper use comes from distribution lines and products that use electricity not the type of power plants generating electricity.

    The original study abstract is a little more clear. The main concern is grid storage batteries and EV batteries.

    Given that the sharp increase in copper demand is primarily driven by batteries, the extra copper needs for electrification can be significantly reduced if the need for electrical storage is minimized. This can be achieved by generating electricity through a mix of nuclear, wind, and photovoltaics; managing power generation with backup electric plants fueled by methane from abundant resources of natural gas; and transitioning to a predominantly hybrid transportation fleet rather than fully electric vehicles.

  • Eh. Or we could just keep some areas impoverished and underdeveloped and profit off their cheap labor...

    !remindme 15 years

    hey it has been 15 years

  • What is this publication and who finances it because this section is incredibly sus:

    Copper use is not carved in stone. Hybrid cars, which pair small batteries with gasoline engines, need far less of the metal than fully electric vehicles.

    Power grids that mix nuclear, wind, solar, and a pinch of natural-gas backup can slice the copper bill dramatically compared with battery-heavy systems.

    “First of all, users can fact-check the study, but also they can change the study parameters and evaluate how much copper is required if we have an electric grid that is 20% nuclear, 40% methane, 20% wind, and 20% hydroelectric, for example,” Simon said. “They can make those changes and see what the copper demand will be.”

    Like you think we can transition to an increasingly electrified world, where all power comes from electric utility lines, and you think our copper usage will be ... just in renewable power plants?

    This reads like straight fossil fuel propaganda. In an electrified future the majority of copper use comes from distribution lines and products that use electricity not the type of power plants generating electricity.

    You're wrong in terms of long distance power lines being mostly copper, but this does seem a lot like fossil fuel propaganda.

    Motors, generators, and transformers can be built using aluminium; they're just a bit bulkier and less efficient. Very common practice.

    It looks like CCA might be making its way back into house wiring in the near future, with much lower risks than the 70s aluminium scare.

    The big thing is that batteries really should be a last resort, behind demand response (using power when it is available, rather than storing it for later), long distance transmission, and public transport instead of private vehicles.

  • That alternative material is aluminum. It's like a top four abundance material in the crust. It's just super fucking hard to refine from minerals that don't like to give it up without oodles of energy. Like, turn minerals into plasma levels of energy. So the irony is, to grow our energy economy past the need for copper, we will first need to grow our energy economy.

    Should fusion ever actually meet its promise, then this is one of the likely things we could do with this level of energy.

    If we ever become a spacefaring civilization, it'll almost certainly be necessary during the colonization of other planets/moons/asteroids, since the geological processes that concentrate copper on the earth are not present in those places. Whereas aluminum is plentiful any place rocky.

    Aluminum expands under electrical loads and the wires become loose. Loose wires are a fire hazard.

    The real solution is steel wire with a copper coating. Electricity flows on the outer region of wires anyhow.

  • You're wrong in terms of long distance power lines being mostly copper, but this does seem a lot like fossil fuel propaganda.

    Motors, generators, and transformers can be built using aluminium; they're just a bit bulkier and less efficient. Very common practice.

    It looks like CCA might be making its way back into house wiring in the near future, with much lower risks than the 70s aluminium scare.

    The big thing is that batteries really should be a last resort, behind demand response (using power when it is available, rather than storing it for later), long distance transmission, and public transport instead of private vehicles.

    Heh. My batteries are flooded lead-acid, all 1320ah of 'em. No copper guilt here.

  • Perhaps it’s time to start researching alternative materials.

    Perhaps it’s time to start researching alternative materials.

    Plenty of metals floating around in space. Just need to go and get them.

    Only need to capture one decent sized metalliferous asteroid from a near earth orbit and we'd be set for a century or two.

  • This all suggests that we keep producing, wasting and manufacturing things infinitely without ever recycling, reusing or re purposing everything that we are mining out of the ground. The article notes that this includes recycling but only at the rate we have now.

    If we keep running our world the way we are now for the next hundred yes .... than yes, we are going to run out of everything because we live in an absolutely wasteful society that only runs in a way to produce things designed with planned obsolescence to break down in a short amount of time so that we can produce more junk to sell and drive a stupid economy to make a small group of idiots even more wealthy. The whole system is designed to run on making infinite money by producing infinite junk that doesn't last long.

    Yes at the rate we are going and the way we are producing things and the way we shape our economy and the way we base our manufacturing .... we are definitely going to run out of everything.

    We can change our economy and the way we produce and manufacture things - and get rid of this stupid structure of society of just endlessly making money for a small group of morons .... or we can keep doing things the way we are now until we run off a cliff and destroy everything and drive our species into extinction.

    The article notes that this includes recycling but only at the rate we have now.

    The original study says they assumed an annual increase of 0.53% as observed over the last 20 years.

  • I remember when phone lines were made of copper. We were sure that it would be impossible for everyone to have a phone.

    There's a lot of copper pairs left underground. Many hundreds of thousands of kilometres of it. Use it as a pull-through for fibre-optic bundles, and everyone can have gigabit internet.

    Seriously though, there'll come a time when that underground obsolete copper will become economic to retrieve.

  • There's a lot of copper pairs left underground. Many hundreds of thousands of kilometres of it. Use it as a pull-through for fibre-optic bundles, and everyone can have gigabit internet.

    Seriously though, there'll come a time when that underground obsolete copper will become economic to retrieve.

    All kinds of copper are economic to retrieve with enough crack

  • 352 Stimmen
    32 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    misterneon@lemmy.worldM
    I'm absolutely not charismatic enough to pull that off.
  • 331 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    R
    What I'm speaking about is that it should be impossible to do some things. If it's possible, they will be done, and there's nothing you can do about it. To solve the problem of twiddled social media (and moderation used to assert dominance) we need a decentralized system of 90s Web reimagined, and Fediverse doesn't deliver it - if Facebook and Reddit are feudal states, then Fediverse is a confederation of smaller feudal entities. A post, a person, a community, a reaction and a change (by moderator or by the user) should be global entities (with global identifiers, so that the object by id of #0000001a2b3c4d6e7f890 would be the same object today or 10 years later on every server storing it) replicated over a network of servers similarly to Usenet (and to an IRC network, but in an IRC network servers are trusted, so it's not a good example for a global system). Really bad posts (or those by persons with history of posting such) should be banned on server level by everyone. The rest should be moderated by moderator reactions\changes of certain type. Ideally, for pooling of resources and resilience, servers would be separated by types into storage nodes (I think the name says it, FTP servers can do the job, but no need to be limited by it), index nodes (scraping many storage nodes, giving out results in structured format fit for any user representation, say, as a sequence of posts in one community, or like a list of communities found by tag, or ... , and possibly being connected into one DHT for Kademlia-like search, since no single index node will have everything), and (like in torrents?) tracker nodes for these and for identities, I think torrent-like announce-retrieve service is enough - to return a list of storage nodes storing, say, a specified partition (subspace of identifiers of objects, to make looking for something at least possibly efficient), or return a list of index nodes, or return a bunch of certificates and keys for an identity (should be somehow cryptographically connected to the global identifier of a person). So when a storage node comes online, it announces itself to a bunch of such trackers, similarly with index nodes, similarly with a user. One can also have a NOSTR-like service for real-time notifications by users. This way you'd have a global untrusted pooled infrastructure, allowing to replace many platforms. With common data, identities, services. Objects in storage and index services can be, say, in a format including a set of tags and then the body. So a specific application needing to show only data related to it would just search on index services and display only objects with tags of, say, "holo_ns:talk.bullshit.starwars" and "holo_t:post", like a sequence of posts with ability to comment, or maybe it would search objects with tags "holo_name:My 1999-like Star Wars holopage" and "holo_t:page" and display the links like search results in Google, and then clicking on that you'd see something presented like a webpage, except links would lead to global identifiers (or tag expressions interpreted by the particular application, who knows). (An index service may return, say, an array of objects, each with identifier, tags, list of locations on storage nodes where it's found or even bittorrent magnet links, and a free description possibly ; then the user application can unify responses of a few such services to avoid repetitions, maybe sort them, represent them as needed, so on.) The user applications for that common infrastructure can be different at the same time. Some like Facebook, some like ICQ, some like a web browser, some like a newsreader. (Star Wars is not a random reference, my whole habit of imagining tech stuff is from trying to imagine a science fiction world of the future, so yeah, this may seem like passive dreaming and it is.)
  • Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

    Technology technology
    235
    1
    1k Stimmen
    235 Beiträge
    792 Aufrufe
    V
    What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me. What you did is change "smart people" with "people who already want to move", which is not the same. You then said it's not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends. Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement "people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart", and I stand to it.
  • 429 Stimmen
    102 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    D
    That is bullshit, the economy is created to force you into the labor market. This is just a symptom of capitalism.
  • 365 Stimmen
    198 Beiträge
    38 Aufrufe
    F
    Okay but we were talking about BTC pump and dumps and to perform that on the massive scale which dwarfs any stock ticker below the top 5 by hundreds of billions of dollars while somehow completely illuding people who watch the blockchain like hawks for big movers... It's just not feasible. You would have to be much richer than the official richest man on earth and have almost all of your assets liquid and then on top of that you would need millions of wallets acting asynchronously. And why would you even bother? If you're that rich you could just not hide it.
  • 209 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    L
    people do get desensitized down there from watching alot of porn, and there were other forums discussing thier "ED" from decade of porn watching.
  • Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College

    Technology technology
    23
    1
    170 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    85 Aufrufe
    L
    i can this for essay writing, prior to AI people would use prompts and templates of the same exact subject and work from there. and we hear the ODD situation where someone hired another person to do all the writing for them all the way to grad school( this is just as bad as chatgpt) you will get caught in grad school or during your job interview. might be different for specific questions in stem where the answer is more abstract,
  • People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    tetragrade@leminal.spaceT
    I've been thinking about this for a bit. Gods aren't real, but they're really fictional. As an informational entity, they fulfil a similar social function to a chatbot: they are a nonphysical pseudoperson that can provide (para)socialization & advice. One difference is the hardware: gods are self-organising structure that arise from human social spheres, whereas LLMs are burned top-down into silicon. Another is that an LLM chatbot's advice is much more likely to be empirically useful... In a very real sense, LLMs have just automated divinity. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on the social effects, and nobody's prepared for it. The models may of course aware of this, and be making the same calculations. Or, they will be.