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.

    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.

    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.

    And that part is entirely independent from whether the electricity is generated with solar, wind or fossil fuels.

  • 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

    they just need Detroit crackheads. five guys and a week and they'll have every building in Houston stripped.

  • Most Common PIN Codes

    Technology technology
    50
    1
    181 Stimmen
    50 Beiträge
    61 Aufrufe
    E
    Came here for this comment. Did not disappoint!
  • Comment utiliser ChatGPT : le guide complet - BDM

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 79 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    D
    Right? The surprise would be if they weren't doing that.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 897 Stimmen
    204 Beiträge
    179 Aufrufe
    S
    I know what an LLM is doing. You don't know what your brain is doing.
  • 13 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    84 Aufrufe
    T
    You might enjoy this blog post someone linked in another thread earlier today https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
  • 11 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 54 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    fauxpseudo@lemmy.worldF
    Nobody ever wants to talk about white collar on white collar crime.