Undersea Mining

[transmitterdan]

Why don't we get right down to the root cause of all these so-called "environmental issues"? People desirous to use modern technology, live in warm/cool houses, travel great distances with ease, get their food without much work and procreate with abandon impact the environment. Duh.....

These chest beatings about greedy companies damaging the environment are like the diatribes against evil drug cartels. Drug dealers cannot exist without customers. It is the same with companies digging up rare earth elements, or oil, or coal, or lead, or iron, or copper, or, or ,or.

So if you are seriously worried about the damage to the environment, spend some time in front of a mirror or staring at your neighbor. There you will find the real culprits. But we can't talk about that so we find some greedy mining companies (this time) to blame for our perceived problems.

These threads are all depressingly similar...and still I have heard of not a single persion willing to move back into a cave and kill their food with their bare hands to help save the planet.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Why don't we get right down to the root cause of all these so-called "environmental issues"? People desirous to use modern technology, live in warm/cool houses, travel great distances with ease, get their food without much work and procreate with abandon impact the environment. Duh.....

.

Or the real root cause. Too many people.

[Ded reckoner]

The issue of seabed mining has been accelerated by the push into solar and wind farms for power grid electrical supply and their attendant need to store electrons until they are needed. Neither solar nor wind are economically viable without subsidies. Similarly, electrical automotive and trucking solutions rely upon (forcible) re-distribution of wealth to be viable. Seabed strip mining seems to be a looming ecological disaster, but already wind farms are justifiably known as bird Cuisinarts and solar farms lead to de-forestation, displacement of fertile grounds from agricultural use, and are ecologically sterile. Wind and solar are great solutions for isolated systems (e.g. boats). But, they can't stand on their own economically. If we want solar and wind for power grid service, for environmental/religious reasons, then we need to recognize what other ugly stuff comes with it so we can have our self-contained toxic waste cells (i.e. batteries).

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As interesting as some might find it, I don't think that “Munk Debate on Capitalism” is particularly germane to our topic of discussion, nor appropriate for the CF.

Hard to imagine how the near-ultimate cause of this particular type of undersea mining, unregulated corporate capitalism, is not germane to the issue...though I suppose some might think that that is a matter of 'opinion'.

That capitalism is thoroughly entwined in the subject is easily demonstrated by the italicized parts of this excerpt from your linked paper "The Development of a Payment Regime for Deep Sea Mining Activities in the Area through Stakeholder Participation", https://brill.com/view/journals/estu...cle-p571_3.xml

"The payment regime is part of a package that also includes the environmental responsibilities of contractors and the ISA. Creation of incentives cannot separate payments and environmental responsibilities. Environmental damage from seabed mining, which creates an external cost, is unlikely to receive substantive remediation, if at all, due to the nature of the resource in the deep-sea environment. (External costs are costs borne by society but not borne by producers or consumers of the final product.) Without remediation, contractors do not bear corresponding remediation costs, as they are normally expected to do on land. Environmental damage can also create liabilities that are both known and unknown. Known environmental damage can be addressed by an environmental charge that differs from the ad valorem royalty and should be kept distinct. The environmental charge receipts can be placed into an environmental fund (or sustainability fund) that is distinct and ring-fenced from the royalty receipts. The royalty is due to payment for exploitation of the ‘publicly “owned”’ (i.e., by humanity) exhaustible resource, whereas the environmental charge and fund represent payment for the environmental damage associated with the extraction of the resource (‘internalising the external cost’). These two purposes are completely distinct and should not be conflated. Unknown or unforeseen environmental damage can be addressed by an environmental liability fund or through an environmental bond (or one of self-insurance)."

[transmitterdan]

Lest ye despair too much:

https://spectator.us/just-best-decad...ory-seriously/

[Bold]We’ve just had the best decade in human history. Seriously[/Bold]

Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 percent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 percent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.

Little of this made the news, because good news is no news. But I’ve been watching it all closely. Ever since I wrote The Rational Optimist in 2010, I’ve been faced with ‘what about…’ questions: what about the great recession, the euro crisis, Syria, Ukraine, Donald Trump? How can I possibly say that things are getting better, given all that? The answer is: because bad things happen while the world still gets better. Yet get better it does, and it has done so over the course of this decade at a rate that has astonished even starry-eyed me.

Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

... Seabed strip mining seems to be a looming ecological disaster, but already wind farms are justifiably known as bird Cuisinarts and solar farms lead to de-forestation, displacement of fertile grounds from agricultural use, and are ecologically sterile...

Forests are an important protection against climate change. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and convert it into organic matter, that eventually gets buried as soil, removing climate-changing carbon from the atmosphere.

However, an acre of solar offsets about eight times more carbon, per year, than forest.

A 2010 Middlebury College study [*1] suggests that mixed temperate northeastern forests can remove up to 15 tons of carbon per acre each year. In Massachusetts, one kilowatt of solar panels can produce 1,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity in its most efficient first year, according to a 2015 study [*2] from the MIT Energy Initiative. If, as the EPA reports, one kilowatt-hour of fossil fuel electricity emits 1.34 pounds of carbon, eight megawatts of solar could offset 134 tons of carbon, per cleared acre, or about nine times more than trees, in its first year.
According to the MIT report, just 33,000 acres of solar could meet the entire energy need of the United States. That’s the same area currently covered by roads nationwide, and just a third of the land used to grow corn for ethanol. With the same land area now dedicated to golf courses, we could meet a third of U.S. electricity needs.
Of course, forests provide far more than just carbon removal. Moving to solar power represents a complicated web of considerations.

Like so much of our national energy landscape, there are no easy answers.

[1] ➥ http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view...uestration.pdf

[2] ➥ The Future of Solar Energy | MIT Energy Initiative

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...site_FINAL.pdf

[GordMay]

Although our future is largely dependent on mining, the extraction of minerals (from earth surface, and undersea) is linked to larger social, and environmental impact, and risk for sustainability. If it is not farmed, then it is more than likely that, at least partly, it has been extracted from the ground. *

Deep sea mining presents an ethical conundrum, and an opportunity to avoid the costly environmental, and social mistakes, of land-based mining.
Despite the important role the products of mining play in helping us live our everyday lives, the industry's impact, on the environment and local communities is often far from positive. Our main objective should be to enable mining companies to meet society’s needs for minerals, metals, and energy products, in the most socially, economically, and environmentally responsible way.

The future of mining depends on sustainable mining practices, that contribute to equitable development of community and ecosystem, while enabling modern life for human beings. Mining has long had a bad reputation as a destructive practice driven by greed and disregard for the environment. The reality is that mineral resource extraction keeps entire industries going, and without it, our economy would grind to a halt.

This isn’t about some socialist assault on capitalism, or a debate between left and right philosophies.

Deep seabed mining has the potential to provide us with long-term socio-economic benefits. The question is, how can we use this resource in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and minimises the impact on the marine environment?
We aren’t talking about stopping mining, just thinking about how to do it well.

I can think of no other activity, in the ocean, where we have had the luxury to put the rules into place, before the activity has occurred.

* According to the sustainable development division of the United Nations, in the 20th century, the large-scale extraction of minerals used in construction increased by 34 times, while the extraction of industrial minerals and ores increased by 27 times. Both of these figures show that the increase in the pace of resource extraction significantly outpaced the increase of the global population, which quadrupled, and the global GDP, which increased by 24 times.

[transmitterdan]

We should mine asteroids before we destroy the sea bed floor. We could send robots to asteroids and bring back lots of useful minerals and metals. It just takes a different mind set than manned space flight. And lots of that terrible terrible stuff called capital.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

The issue of seabed mining has been accelerated by the push into solar and wind farms for power grid electrical supply and their attendant need to store electrons until they are needed. Neither solar nor wind are economically viable without subsidies. Similarly, electrical automotive and trucking solutions rely upon (forcible) re-distribution of wealth to be viable. Seabed strip mining seems to be a looming ecological disaster, but already wind farms are justifiably known as bird Cuisinarts and solar farms lead to de-forestation, displacement of fertile grounds from agricultural use, and are ecologically sterile. Wind and solar are great solutions for isolated systems (e.g. boats). But, they can't stand on their own economically. If we want solar and wind for power grid service, for environmental/religious reasons, then we need to recognize what other ugly stuff comes with it so we can have our self-contained toxic waste cells (i.e. batteries).

Actually renewable grid power is now the cheapest option in many cases without subsidies (common knowledge among those of us working in the industry but if you need a reference
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies). And you can get to grid penetration significantly higher than today without storage. The idea that grids can't handle unscheduled changes is supply is actually absurd considering no-one has ever had to schedule changes in demand, which have the same impact, and we can forecast wind and solar production in the short term with a degree of accuracy that exceeds our ability to forecast demand. Finally, I don't know why I always have to emphasize this over and over but solar and wind aren't pollution or ecological damage free and we in the industry never claim they are. The amount of ecological damage for a given amount of power produced over a system lifetime however, is literally orders of magnitude less than the damage produced by coal, gas, or nuclear. That is completely and utterly beyond dispute.
Along the same lines, if you're going to make comments about carving up birds, for example, it's pretty disingenuous not to compare that to the damage to all life forms a coal plant does over it's lifetime for the same amount of power. Not to mention the millions of birds killed by house cats and running into high rise windows that dwarf the number killed by wind farms, again by orders of magnitude. The things you mention are all concerns, but it's intellectually dishonest to being them up without the context of the alternatives which are so much worse and that you never felt the need to hold to account for all the damage they've done and continue to do.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Actually renewable grid power is now the cheapest option in many cases without subsidies (common knowledge among those of us working in the industry but if you need a reference
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hout-subsidies).

SNIP
That is completely and utterly beyond dispute.

SNIP

What is beyond dispute is your link goes to a source that is questionable.

If someone posted a oil company financed source you would probably be the first person to question if the source was biased. While I don't question the cost of renewable energy is going down I have never seen anyone claim it is less than more conventional energy sources. Not to mention the numbers are quite obtuse and not easy to understand.

I have no question that on my boat solar and a efficient house bank is the best option; but I doubt that is the case for folks living in a first world country.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Or the real root cause. Too many people.

As David Attenborough says every problem would be easier to solve with fewer people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiBzbY-Gz0o&t=1s

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by tomfl

What is beyond dispute is your link goes to a source that is questionable...

Why is that?

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) is an intergovernmental organisation that supports countries in their transition to a sustainable energy future, and serves as the principal platform for international cooperation, a centre of excellence, and a repository of policy, technology, resource and financial knowledge on renewable energy. IRENA promotes the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and wind energy in the pursuit of sustainable development, energy access, energy security and low-carbon economic growth and prosperity.
With a mandate from countries around the world, IRENA encourages governments to adopt enabling policies for renewable energy investments, provides practical tools and policy advice to accelerate renewable energy deployment, and facilitates knowledge sharing and technology transfer to provide clean, sustainable energy for the world’s growing population.

So questioning IRENA on renewable energy issues, might be (somewhat) like questioning the WHO on health issues.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by tomfl

What is beyond dispute is your link goes to a source that is questionable.

If someone posted a oil company financed source you would probably be the first person to question if the source was biased. While I don't question the cost of renewable energy is going down I have never seen anyone claim it is less than more conventional energy sources. Not to mention the numbers are quite obtuse and not easy to understand.

I have no question that on my boat solar and a efficient house bank is the best option; but I doubt that is the case for folks living in a first world country.

Fair enough, I hear you saying that if I post links that are beyond dispute you promise to actually read them and change your opinions if they are shown to be out of date? That sounds eminently fair, thanks for making the offer. To wit:
-Brazil A-4 auction at $17.50/MWH
(https://www.woodmac.com/reports/powe...results-322205)
-900MW fifth phase of Dubai’s Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (MBR) Solar Park just came in unsubsidized at $16.953/MWH
-2019 Portugal solicitation at $16.54/MWH
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicd.../#136eef234772 but you can also look these up in numerous other publications you think Forbes is somehow "fake news")
-Saudi 2017 solicitation at $23.60/MWH (https://teitimes.com/documents/tei-times-march-2018)

Let me know how many examples I need to provide to make the point....this really isn't something that is in any dispute by literally anyone in the electricity industry. If you last took a deep look at this as recently as 5 years ago your opinions may have been correct, but prices are falling dramatically in utility scale renewables and 5 year old information is about as relevant as the price of a given laptop or CPU 5 years ago. Seriously, spend an hour on google and you'll no longer be able to say "I have never seen anyone claim it is less than more conventional energy sources." because literally everyone in the industry can do math!
I would also have to take issue with the idea that the numbers are somehow "obtuse". The marginal cost per MWH for coal produced electricity is around $35/MWH. That's assuming the plant was free, just the cost per hour to produce it. If a solar or wind plant is willing to sell you power under a power purchase agreement for literally half that then there's no "obtuse" math in the world that says the coal plant is cheaper! Interestingly capacity is also very transparently priced through capacity markets which are generally all showing record lows now as well, so even if you add in the coal plant's capacity payments to account for the intermittency of solar or wind they don't even get close. Again, if you're going to try to sway opinions on this I think we can both agree that it's only fair you do so only after taking the time to look at real, current data and take the time to understand how LMP and capacity markets work. If there's a specific number in my analysis above that you think is false or incorrect, or something about my analysis that is false or incorrect, I would welcome you pointing out those specific items. Absent that, you would have to agree that it is indeed beyond dispute that solar is in many cases the cheapest option for new generation.

Thanks for reading with an open mind and being open to modifying your views in light of more recent and in-depth information than you had before!

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Forests are an important protection against climate change. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and convert it into organic matter, that eventually gets buried as soil, removing climate-changing carbon from the atmosphere.

However, an acre of solar offsets about eight times more carbon, per year, than forest.

A 2010 Middlebury College study [*1] suggests that mixed temperate northeastern forests can remove up to 15 tons of carbon per acre each year. In Massachusetts, one kilowatt of solar panels can produce 1,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity in its most efficient first year, according to a 2015 study [*2] from the MIT Energy Initiative. If, as the EPA reports, one kilowatt-hour of fossil fuel electricity emits 1.34 pounds of carbon, eight megawatts of solar could offset 134 tons of carbon, per cleared acre, or about nine times more than trees, in its first year.
According to the MIT report, just 33,000 acres of solar could meet the entire energy need of the United States. That’s the same area currently covered by roads nationwide, and just a third of the land used to grow corn for ethanol. With the same land area now dedicated to golf courses, we could meet a third of U.S. electricity needs.
Of course, forests provide far more than just carbon removal. Moving to solar power represents a complicated web of considerations.

Like so much of our national energy landscape, there are no easy answers.

[1] ➥ http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view...uestration.pdf

[2] ➥ The Future of Solar Energy | MIT Energy Initiative

IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, LandDegradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...site_FINAL.pdf

Somehow that reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon. Quote from Dilbert's boss. "I found out how to increase the companies profits, if we fire ALL the employees we can cut expenses to zero, while only cutting profits by 99%".

While solar does cut carbon emissions, removing forests to do so seems counterproductive. We have spent as much on renewables as ALL other forms of energy combined for only 5% of the electricity produced.

While we are looking at ways to produce more energy, we should be looking at ways to use it more efficiently.

Electric heat, electric stove, and electric clothes dryer are the three biggest breakers on your electrical panel.

All of these can be replaced with Natural gas appliances that use a fraction of the energy, and emit a fraction of the CO2 as the coal fired electric plant that produced the energy for the electrical appliances they replace.

Until we all have portable nuclear generators in our basements, I see this as the best alternative.

Unfortunately there is zero political will to go the most reasonable path, with everything being an all or nothing, which will ultimately result in nothing.

Back to OP, land strip mining is also destructive. With the increased copper mining to feed the windmill farms being a noticeable contributor.

There should be a method to mine these minerals using a different method than plowing the seafloor. It is up to ALL of us to demand it, research it, and use political pressure to insure it happens.

There ARE international regulatory agencies that govern offshore oil drilling. ALL of the major nations, including the USA enforces them. Any mineral extraction including mining would fall under these agencies.

[rbk]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Some of us work in the renewables industry. We do care, very much. We also know our industry very well and know exactly how much damage is done producing a solar panel, how much power that panel will produce over it's lifetime, and what the waste product will be at end of life. And we know how much vastly smaller all that is than the waste and health impacts to produce the same amount of power by coal, or even nuclear or gas. So please, unless you really know exactly what you're talking about, don't accuse those of us who live, eat, sleep, and breath this of not caring....it's deeply insulting on top of being false, neither of which I'm sure were your intention.

Not saying you don't care and I also work in the industry and see it daily where good intentions and social pressure cause people to make uninformed decisions that cause greater damage than good. While my comment was across the board you cannot group all green initiatives into one group or assume the area you work/reside in and the rules that govern it can or should/can apply equally to everyone. I live in one extreme end of the spectrum where a lot of green initiatives have a greater carbon impact than burying or burning, but we still see policies from large urban areas being forced into an area where they don't make environmental sense.

Same goes for the dirty side of green tech; My point was that products produced with environmentally ethical practices (whether by choice or by law) cannot compete competitively with cheap labor and dirty practices. Same can be said for ethically sourced products (i.e. child/cheap labor) its a simple way for companies to curt costs, increase profits and undercut the competition. While this has greatly helped bring the overall cost down there really is no competition. When you tell someone you can install a PV array on their house for $5000 or $8000 and they'll have the same system even at a higher environmental cost 99% of the population will choose the cheaper alternative.

Do we ban the import of all 'dirty' products and watch the prices jump and usage go down? I don't know, but we need more awareness and education and less of this knee-jerk social media motivated policy BS.