Skip to content

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

Technology
113 76 158
  • 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

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

    !remindme 15 years

    This was my first thought, we aren't going to develop the whole world. That's not how this works. Who said that was a goal of... well ... anyone's?

    That's a rhetorical question. Frfr tho, does that remind me work on your instance only, or what's the deal with that?

  • 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.

    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.

    What I mean is that the bulk of current copper wiring goes towards distribution and consumption, not generation.

    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.

    This isn't a big thing. This is a constant thing in every system. It's the push and pull between efficiency and resiliency. More storage capacity is less efficient when things are going well, but is more resilient and adaptable when they're not.

  • 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.

    Or you use pumped hydro, or compressed air, or gravity batteries, or any of the other energy storage technologies that aren't chemical batteries.

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

    🤦

    It's founded on the article not making a cohesive argument. Current copper usage is primarily in consumption and distribution, not generation.

  • 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.

    When we run out of things, it's we who run out of things but not those with power to get what they need and kill excess population.

    So preaching to them is useless.

  • 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.

    Aluminium conducts better per weight. Copper per volume.

  • 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.

    1. The article is shit, the study is about copper used for reducing fossil-fuel power generation. It is basing the projected use of copper on windmills and especially large batteries.

    2. Those high-powered and long distance power lines are made aluminium and steel.

    1. The article is shit, the study is about copper used for reducing fossil-fuel power generation. It is basing the projected use of copper on windmills and especially large batteries.

    2. Those high-powered and long distance power lines are made aluminium and steel.

    1. Distribution doesn't just include long distance distribution. It includes all the wiring between transformers and houses and all the internal wiring of the house and all the devices inside etc.
  • They stopped putting aluminum in homes, because it has a tendency to overheat more. The aluminum expands and contracts with load more than copper, which can loosen contact points and encourage oxidation, which then increases resistance and heat. Hot wires in the walls and outlet boxes are no bueno.

    1. Distribution doesn't just include long distance distribution. It includes all the wiring between transformers and houses and all the internal wiring of the house and all the devices inside etc.

    only residential wiring uses copper, everything from 350kV down to 400V lines is aluminum, and even in houses aluminum can be used too

  • 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.

    What I mean is that the bulk of current copper wiring goes towards distribution and consumption, not generation.

    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.

    This isn't a big thing. This is a constant thing in every system. It's the push and pull between efficiency and resiliency. More storage capacity is less efficient when things are going well, but is more resilient and adaptable when they're not.

    What I mean is that the bulk of current copper wiring goes towards distribution and consumption, not generation.

    Yes, but big batteries everywhere is going to effect that if there's copper in lithium batteries, and apparently there is.

    This isn't a big thing. This is a constant thing in every system. It's the push and pull between efficiency and resiliency. More storage capacity is less efficient when things are going well, but is more resilient and adaptable when they're not.

    Excess storage capacity, sure.

    But inflating the base battery capacity to cover people having showers at 5pm because it's easier than storage water heaters and time/remote controls is stupid. You can reduce the base need for batteries by reducing the need for electricity in the first place and reducing the use of vehicles that need to carry batteries in place of e.g. overhead catenary.

  • 73 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    F
    They have a tiny version that is listed as 1000 on their website, plus the simulation is FOSS
  • 138 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    49 Aufrufe
    toastedravioli@midwest.socialT
    ChatGPT is not a doctor. But models trained on imaging can actually be a very useful tool for them to utilize. Even years ago, just before the AI “boom”, they were asking doctors for details on how they examine patient images and then training models on that. They found that the AI was “better” than doctors specifically because it followed the doctor’s advice 100% of the time; thereby eliminating any kind of bias from the doctor that might interfere with following their own training. Of course, the splashy headline “AI better than doctors” was ridiculous. But it does show the benefit of having a neutral tool for doctors to utilize, especially when looking at images for people who are outside of the typical demographics that much medical training is based on. (As in mostly just white men. For example, everything they train doctors on regarding knee imagining comes from images of the knees of coal miners in the UK some decades ago)
  • 68 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    55 Aufrufe
    H
    Set up arrs, you basically set it and forget it.
  • 120 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    anzo@programming.devA
    Interesting! Python and Bash do the same as British.
  • 809 Stimmen
    152 Beiträge
    54 Aufrufe
    C
    Do you mean investors are trying to manipulate stocks by planting stories? Yeah, I think so. But intelligence agencies have whole training programs on how to manipulate narratives, and a very long track record of doing so. See: Israel's hasbara apparatus, GCHQ leaked documents on infiltrating and derailing socialist discussions, Church Committee Hearings, "The Cultural Cold War" by Frances Stonor Saunders.
  • AI could already be conscious. Are we ready for it?

    Technology technology
    64
    1
    16 Stimmen
    64 Beiträge
    73 Aufrufe
    A
    AI isn't math formulas though. AI is a complex dynamic system reacting to external input. There is no fundamental difference here to a human brain in that regard imo. It's just that the processing isn't happening in biological tissue but in silicon. Is it way less complex than a human? Sure. Is there a fundamental qualitative difference? I don't think so. What's the qualitative difference in your opinion?
  • OpenAI plans massive UAE data center project

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    V
    TD Cowen (which is basically the US arm of one of the largest Canadian investment banks) did an extensive report on the state of AI investment. What they found was that despite all their big claims about the future of AI, Microsoft were quietly allowing letters of intent for billions of dollars worth of new compute capacity to expire. Basically, scrapping future plans for expansion, but in a way that's not showy and doesn't require any kind of big announcement. The equivalent of promising to be at the party and then just not showing up. Not long after this reporting came out, it got confirmed by Microsoft, and not long after it came out that Amazon was doing the same thing. Ed Zitron has a really good write up on it; https://www.wheresyoured.at/power-cut/ Amazon isn't the big surprise, they've always been the most cautious of the big players on the whole AI thing. Microsoft on the other hand are very much trying to play things both ways. They know AI is fucked, which is why they're scaling back, but they've also invested a lot of money into their OpenAI partnership so now they have to justify that expenditure which means convincing investors that consumers absolutely love their AI products and are desparate for more. As always, follow the money. Stuff like the three mile island thing is mostly just applying for permits and so on at this point. Relatively small investments. As soon as it comes to big money hitting the table, they're pulling back. That's how you know how they really feel.
  • Mazda DMCA takedown of Open Source Home Assistant App

    Technology technology
    6
    108 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    S
    Soon this all will be much easier. From 12 of September we’re going into a new world of EU Data Act that forces all companies to allow third parties to communicate with iot devices. Which a car is. So soon Mazda will need to provide those APIs in an official way.