Why do people protest coal mining and fracking, but not Lithium mining?

Lithium is used for batteries, coal and oil cause GHG emissions. Not to say that the Lithium mining does not involve GHG emissions as well.

Because these mines are far away and they need it for the smart phones.

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2020/03/lithium-mining-what-you-should-know-about-the-contentious-issue.html

A. Risstottle wrote:pul

Sages of Let's Run, help me understand!

Outstanding O.P.! I have been saying the push for battery cars is flawed. Hopefully I have gained an ally for Hydrail, high speed rail connecting all U.S. cities greater than 1/2 million in population powered by hydrogen.

Note: I am aware there are no large cites between Minneapolis, MN and Seattle, WA.

The routes of Miami, FL to Boston, MA; New Orleans, LA to Dallas, TX; Chicago to Indianapolis, IN; Chicago, to Detroit, MI; Chicago, to Kansas City, MO; Chicago, IL to Minneapolis, MN; Chicago, IL to Saint Louis, MO and San Diego, CA to Seattle, WA would more than justify New Orleans, LA to Chicago, IL; ABQ, NM to Los Angeles, CA and Minneapolis, MN to Seattle, WA routes.

ReallybroReally wrote:

Lithium is used for batteries, coal and oil cause GHG emissions. Not to say that the Lithium mining does not involve GHG emissions as well.

Batteries use electricity which is overwhelmingly generated through burning coal and fossil fuels (63%). We also use wind (18%) and nuclear (~20%) but not nearly to the extent as we do fossil fuels.

applied economics wrote:

A. Risstottle wrote:pul

Sages of Let's Run, help me understand!

Outstanding O.P.! I have been saying the push for battery cars is flawed. Hopefully I have gained an ally for Hydrail, high speed rail connecting all U.S. cities greater than 1/2 million in population powered by hydrogen.

Note: I am aware there are no large cites between Minneapolis, MN and Seattle, WA.

The routes of Miami, FL to Boston, MA; New Orleans, LA to Dallas, TX; Chicago to Indianapolis, IN; Chicago, to Detroit, MI; Chicago, to Kansas City, MO; Chicago, IL to Minneapolis, MN; Chicago, IL to Saint Louis, MO and San Diego, CA to Seattle, WA would more than justify New Orleans, LA to Chicago, IL; ABQ, NM to Los Angeles, CA and Minneapolis, MN to Seattle, WA routes.

We could do Minneapolis - Winnipeg - Edmonton (stopping at Greg's house) - Calgary - Vancouver - Seattle and get Canada to pay for it. They're flush in cash as they have money to support people who don't even work!

One simple reason why is that lithium can only be mined or produced in a few spots in the world (Australia, Chile, and Argentina) either by evaporating brine or mining spodumene and the sheer amount of soil and nature that needs to be disrupted in order to produce the batteries that go into a Tesla is 100X - 1000X times less than the amount of soil and nature disrupted to run an American family home for a year. The lithium batteries are good for perhaps 10 years while the home needs coal or coal equivalents every year. Also, when the coal is converted into useable energy dispute the best scrubbers technology can buy most of the harmful byproducts are vented to the atmosphere. You are correct though that producing lithium and the other inputs into "clean energy" sources are not really that green, it is just a matter of relative scale and arguably optics

Lithium was theorized to be behind a coup in Bolivia.

you're comparing the costs of producing energy STORAGE to the cost of the energy itself?

this is why humankind has not choice. stupidity used to be fatal.

Ten year lithium battery life? Not achievable with current technology. Maybe if pack capacity reduction of 70-80% from new is acceptable. You’re lucky if lithium batteries last 3 years with only a 30% drop in capacity with typical life cycle and and a usage cycle where batteries are kept in moderate climates and aren’t constantly deep cycled.

A. Risstottle wrote:

Sages of Let's Run, help me understand!

Because people are stupid, don't understand chemistry nor science in general, and rely on the media and and even more dumb celebrities to give them technical information they could simply find even on Wikipedia. It is the same problem with people thinking nuclear power is clean; idiots really. Hydro and wind right now are the cleanest sources of energy we have; solar could be some day, but is not now.

Most people know very little about lithium, and probably couldn't even tell you that it's mined. Seriously, the answer to the OP's question is just "ignorance."

They do and they will bruh. /thread

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

A. Risstottle wrote:

Sages of Let's Run, help me understand!

Because people are stupid, don't understand chemistry nor science in general, and rely on the media and and even more dumb celebrities to give them technical information they could simply find even on Wikipedia. It is the same problem with people thinking nuclear power is clean; idiots really. Hydro and wind right now are the cleanest sources of energy we have; solar could be some day, but is not now.

erm, you do know that eg california has said that large hydro doesnt qualify as renewable dont you?

in what way is wind clean?

what is 'clean'?

you probably think co2 is carbon.

idiots really.

by the way, i am certainly not defending the appalling mining techniques being used for the woke virtue signalling crowd's lifestyle.

You're listening to the wrong people. Ignore the wokes, they know nothing. Ignorant spastic crusaders.

There is lithium exploration going on in the US and it will be protested. Dig a little deeper.

There was a woman in Boston who suffered from kidney failure caused by Lithium treatment. She eventually decided that she wanted to die. Horrible story.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/07/18/teresa_interrupted/

I expect there are people that do protest lithium mining.

One key difference, however, is that much of the current push back on fossil fuels is on the wide scale externalized and uncaptured cost of fossil fuel use whereas the negative impacts of mining are mostly localized and the cost of damage mitigation can be captured through regulation.

Direct mining impacts were at the center of the environmental movement of the 60s & 70s.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Direct mining impacts were at the center of the environmental movement of the 60s & 70s.

True. It's actually remarkable how much environmental progress we've made in so many areas. CO2 wasn't on anyone's radar for such a long time.

As a complete tangent, I wonder if long term we'll replace fossil fuels in some applications with synthetic chemical fuels produced by renewable energy. There's no plausible, or even really theoretical, replacement for jet fuel. But if we produce it by taking carbon out of the air on the front end, it would have zero net impact:

A. Risstottle wrote:

Sages of Let's Run, help me understand!

It is hard to protest mines thousands of miles away. But people have been worried about the environmental impacts of lithium batteries since pretty much day one. Same thing with the generation of electricity from coal and oil. The math still clearly favors EVs.

I used to think my green friends were paranoid about their assertations of big oil propaganda. But given how people keep repeating these 20year old false statements, I have to wonder if they were on to something. They were all definitely on something....

ddidididid wrote:

people have been worried about the environmental impacts of lithium batteries since pretty much day one. Same thing with the generation of electricity from coal and oil. The math still clearly favors EVs.

in math we have these things called "proofs." Let's see those numbers you thoroughly crunched that say EV's are better for the environment.