Undersea Mining

[rbk]

Originally Posted by CarlF

While Redneckrob is right about then lifetime environmental damage of a solar panel being far less than burning coal, the US recycling industry is a mess -- controlled by a few large companies like Waste Management who have been doing terrible damage.

The attached amazingly depressing Sierra Club piece describes how companies like Waste Management and Casella sold US municipalities on "single stream" recycling where US recycling was shipped to China. The municipalities were paid handsomely for this recycling and didn't ask too many questions.

Well, many of those bales of unsorted recycling were too contaminated for the Chinese to process (often from things like dirty pet food cans). The unusable bales were shipped to impoverished Chinese coastal villages who salvaged some and threw the rest into rivers that went to the Pacific -- including about 2 million TONS of plastic a year. Ironically, much of the Pacific plastic pollution that's so in our news is made up of US recyclables.

After about 10 years the Chinese stopped taking US recycling. So now a lot of US recycling is just thrown in landfill -- which is probably a better idea than into the Pacific. Recycling is a good idea - we just have to be a lot smarter about what we recycle and how we do it.

I realize this is a lot of thread drift from mining but the same rule applies. There may be an environmentally good way to mine rare earths from the ocean - but large corporations without tight regulation aren't going to do that.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/20...system-garbage

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

... 1. While solar does cut carbon emissions, removing forests to do so seems counterproductive.

2. We have spent as much on renewables as ALL other forms of energy combined for only 5% of the electricity produced.
3. While we are looking at ways to produce more energy, we should be looking at ways to use it more efficiently...

1. Indeed.
2. Care to try to support that dubious claim?
3. Indeed.


Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry, over the past fifty years, have been so large, in proportion to the value of the energy produced, that, in some cases, it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market, and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The report, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies”, looks at the economic impacts, and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry; past, present, and proposed.
“Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies”
Executive Summary ➥ https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...es_summary.pdf
Full Report ➥ https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ies_report.pdf

A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects, in Florida and Georgia, shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources, such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants.
“Big Risks, Better Alternatives”
An Examination of Two Nuclear Energy Projects in the U.S.
➥ https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ternatives.pdf

See also:
“The High Cost of Nuclear Power”
Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future over New Nuclear Reactors
➥ https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uplo...wer_mdpirg.pdf

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by rbk

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.

Always room for improvement and for sure there are a subset of knee-jerk social media types out there. In general they don't represent the vast majority of us who are in this field. And I just want to be clear that a solar panel produced at the dirtiest plant in China with no oversight whatsoever is still going to reduce pollution over the union built coal plant in Indiana that complies with every environmental rule on the books and then some. The alternative is so dirty and destructive that aside from cutting down an old growth forest to build a solar farm there's almost never a case where replacing a coal plant with solar and storage or even solar and gas does "more damage than good" (and even then fewer people will die early by getting rid of the coal plant!). There's certainly better and worse ways to do it, and we should strive to be smart about land use and bird take and sight lines and sound pollution, and everything else that's a consequence of switching power sources. However, unfortunately the "do more damage than good" trope is one of the best ways for the guys making all the money off gross polluters to plant doubt and they use it to full effect. So I'm a little sensitive to it being thrown out especially in an industry where it's so unlikely to be the case and where the fossil fuel industry is using it to full effect.

[rbk]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Always room for improvement and for sure there are a subset of knee-jerk social media types out there. In general they don't represent the vast majority of us who are in this field. And I just want to be clear that a solar panel produced at the dirtiest plant in China with no oversight whatsoever is still going to reduce pollution over the union built coal plant in Indiana that complies with every environmental rule on the books and then some. The alternative is so dirty and destructive that aside from cutting down an old growth forest to build a solar farm there's almost never a case where replacing a coal plant with solar and storage or even solar and gas does "more damage than good" (and even then fewer people will die early by getting rid of the coal plant!). There's certainly better and worse ways to do it, and we should strive to be smart about land use and bird take and sight lines and sound pollution, and everything else that's a consequence of switching power sources. However, unfortunately the "do more damage than good" trope is one of the best ways for the guys making all the money off gross polluters to plant doubt and they use it to full effect. So I'm a little sensitive to it being thrown out especially in an industry where it's so unlikely to be the case and where the fossil fuel industry is using it to full effect.

Absolutely with you on alt's vs coal and maybe this is a northern/Canadian thing but the majority of our power is hydro and only a small portion is coal/gas/oil etc so when I get chastised by do-gooders for not having a massive PV array on my house and that I'm killing the environment because of that. Unless there is a practical/sustainable way to store the power (1500 miles from anywhere substantial by road so shipping&recycling batteries is an issue) most of the benefits of PV here are lost (I wont go into our daylight vs demand etc). Here we are far better making more efficient use of what we have i.e better homes, more efficient heating & appliances, choosing less packaging, locally sourced products and food and re-using/re-purposing rather than recycling. One method does not work for all.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

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

Or questioning the IPCCC on climate change. How dare you!

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by rbk

Absolutely with you on alt's vs coal and maybe this is a northern/Canadian thing but the majority of our power is hydro and only a small portion is coal/gas/oil etc so when I get chastised by do-gooders for not having a massive PV array on my house and that I'm killing the environment because of that. Unless there is a practical/sustainable way to store the power (1500 miles from anywhere substantial by road so shipping&recycling batteries is an issue) most of the benefits of PV here are lost (I wont go into our daylight vs demand etc). Here we are far better making more efficient use of what we have i.e better homes, more efficient heating & appliances, choosing less packaging, locally sourced products and food and re-using/re-purposing rather than recycling. One method does not work for all.

I actually work in Alberta among other places doing solar, where 90% of the power is from fossil fuels and 50% is from coal, so depends where you are even in Canada. Similar story in Saskatchewan I know. I do wonder if you've ever actually personally ever been "chastised" for not having solar panels on your house. Canadians in my experience are a lot more polite than Americans in general and I've never seen an American personally chastised for not putting solar panels on their home, so if it's happened to you, know that it's a seriously rare event!

That said, if you're in a place where most power is hydro then you could easily displace the rest of your coal power production with solar and no storage at all. Hydro can easily ramp up and down to match the intermittency of solar; as I mentioned already it's far more predictable than the intermittency of load and has an identical impact on the grid, and the grids been just fine with unscheduled load for a century. It really doesn't matter if your or my or a grid solar system offsets part of the last MW of coal power in a given area or one of thousands of MW of coal power, it has the same positive impact as long as it's offsetting ANY coal power anywhere. So I won't say you should feel in any way obligated to install solar, in fact you should only do so because it's a benefit to you financially or in some other way. But I would point out your reasoning doesn't really hold up vis a vis hydros.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry, over the past fifty years, have been so large, in proportion to the value of the energy produced, that, in some cases, it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market, and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Yet another of your "impartial" sources?

[rbk]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I actually work in Alberta among other places doing solar, where 90% of the power is from fossil fuels and 50% is from coal, so depends where you are even in Canada. Similar story in Saskatchewan I know. I do wonder if you've ever actually personally ever been "chastised" for not having solar panels on your house. Canadians in my experience are a lot more polite than Americans in general and I've never seen an American personally chastised for not putting solar panels on their home, so if it's happened to you, know that it's a seriously rare event!

That said, if you're in a place where most power is hydro then you could easily displace the rest of your coal power production with solar and no storage at all. Hydro can easily ramp up and down to match the intermittency of solar; as I mentioned already it's far more predictable than the intermittency of load and has an identical impact on the grid, and the grids been just fine with unscheduled load for a century. It really doesn't matter if your or my or a grid solar system offsets part of the last MW of coal power in a given area or one of thousands of MW of coal power, it has the same positive impact as long as it's offsetting ANY coal power anywhere. So I won't say you should feel in any way obligated to install solar, in fact you should only do so because it's a benefit to you financially or in some other way. But I would point out your reasoning doesn't really hold up vis a vis hydros.

Yes the prairie provinces are the coal burners but overall in Canada it accounts for less than 10% of overall power production. So with your reasoning the offset of PV panels produced in China (twice the carbon footprint of those made in US or EU) shipped across the pacific via cargo ship, trucked 3000 miles to the north to offset less than .5% of overall production (in my location) on a stand alone grid supplied by 90% hydro, offsets carbon. I’m too busy to do the math but when do they become carbon neutral...

Since your making grand assumptions my guess is that you are in the industry and more specifically the business of selling and installing PV systems.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

Or questioning the IPCCC on climate change. How dare you!
---------
Yet another of your "impartial" sources? (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Indeed.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by rbk

Yes the prairie provinces are the coal burners but overall in Canada it accounts for less than 10% of overall power production. So with your reasoning the offset of PV panels produced in China (twice the carbon footprint of those made in US or EU) shipped across the pacific via cargo ship, trucked 3000 miles to the north to offset less than .5% of overall production (in my location) on a stand alone grid supplied by 90% hydro, offsets carbon. I’m too busy to do the math but when do they become carbon neutral...

Since your making grand assumptions my guess is that you are in the industry and more specifically the business of selling and installing PV systems.

Nope, I actually run programs for utilities and that include solar among a whole host of other generation. But thanks for implying that I would be wrong simply because I worked in the solar industry...used to be we figured that people who did something 60 hours a week might actually know something about it rather than automatically painting them as dishonest, sad times.

And yep, if your solar panels from China offset coal power, which they will given the order of merit in the hydro rich provinces, you absolutely offset an order of magnitude more carbon than used to produce them, no question. My point is that that as long as there is a single coal plant in your grid, solar will eventually replace it and all its awfulness will go away. What percent of your grid is coal is really irrelevant....as long as there is any then solar is displacing it given the cost to make power with coal. It doesn't matter if you're replacing the last itty bit of coal in your province or an itty bit of a huge coal fleet in another province is irrelevant, the impact is identical as long as you have any coal powered plants at all. That's all.

BTW, happy to hear what my "grand assumptions" are specifically?

[rbk]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

Nope, I actually run programs for utilities and that include solar among a whole host of other generation. But thanks for implying that I would be wrong simply because I worked in the solar industry...used to be we figured that people who did something 60 hours a week might actually know something about it rather than automatically painting them as dishonest, sad times.

And yep, if your solar panels from China offset coal power, which they will given the order of merit in the hydro rich provinces, you absolutely offset an order of magnitude more carbon than used to produce them, no question. My point is that that as long as there is a single coal plant in your grid, solar will eventually replace it and all its awfulness will go away. What percent of your grid is coal is really irrelevant....as long as there is any then solar is displacing it given the cost to make power with coal. It doesn't matter if you're replacing the last itty bit of coal in your province or an itty bit of a huge coal fleet in another province is irrelevant, the impact is identical as long as you have any coal powered plants at all. That's all.

BTW, happy to hear what my "grand assumptions" are specifically?

Your assumption that I don’t get chastised for implementing every single possible green technology in every project I do. Your right in line with those who question why I don’t include ASHP in every project in a climate that sees many days well below the efficiency thresholds. I assumed you sold and distributed PV as your opinion is obviously biased and tone deaf to just about everything else, that or you’re illiterate. I’m guessing illiterate and a good possibility you’re not even Canadian as your geography must be ***** to not be able to deduce my location from my profile that combined with the clear fact you either didn’t or can’t read my past posts and insist that every place on earth burns coal for energy production. In fact pound for pound it’s actually cheaper and more efficient for northerners to burn diesel both in operation and infrastructure, but I’m sure you’re aware of that being ‘in the industry’.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yet another of your "impartial" sources?

The problem with this source and the other ones mentioned is they are all "rent seekers".

They all get government money/grants used to support their position. If they are not successful in advancing their position they will no longer get money. What is most upsetting is that the amount of money they are demanding along with the changes they claim are necessary would result in massive wealth transfer; with a significant amount going to them.

Sad to say the same conditions exist on the opposite side. As I posted earlier undersea mining would have terrible effects on the oceans; but it's proponents are well financed and seem to be in complete control of the LOS agency charged with regulating it. Even sadder is my tax dollars are being used by both sides.

[GordMay]

Tom's Rent Seeking article, cites New York City taxi licensing.
Some comparative fares, based on the average cost of a sixty-block journey:
New York: $10
London: $18
Paris: $12
Tokyo: $15
Rio de Janeiro: $3.50
Los Angeles: $9.50
Sydney: $11

[Reefmagnet]

Ripping up the sea bed for the good intention to save the planet from other supposed nasties sounds an awful lot like the good intention Chairman Mao had when he included sparrows in his "Four Pests" campaign of 1958.

[GordMay]

We’re not alone, in our concerns.

Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has again called for a 10-year moratorium on sea-bed mining, at a time that many Pacific island nations are preparing for new frontiers of resource exploitation in the marine environment.
Speaking in Tuvalu last summer (Aug 2019) before the 50th Pacific Islands Forum, Prime Minister Bainimarama (Fiji) called on fellow Forum island states to “support a 10-year moratorium on seabed mining from 2020 to 2030, which would allow for a decade of proper scientific research of our economic zones and territorial waters.”
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape has indicated he will support a proposed regional moratorium on seabed mining, however, could not go as far as to say a ban outright would be needed.
However, the Cook Islands government dismissed the director (Jacqueline Evans) of the world’s biggest mixed-use marine protected area (MPA), which is called Marae Moana, after she expressed support for a 10-year moratorium on seabed mining across the Pacific Ocean.

“10-year moratorium on deep sea mining in PNG not enough – activists” ~ by Canadian Mining Journal Staff
➥ https://www.mining.com/10-year-morat...ugh-activists/

“Why the Rush? Seabed Mining in the Pacific Ocean”
➥ http://www.deepseaminingoutofourdept...y-the-Rush.pdf

“Deep Sea Mining a New Ocean Threat” ~ by Professor Richard Steiner
➥ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deep-...hrea_b_8334428

“Deep sea mining is not the future” ~ by Louisa Casson
➥ https://www.greenpeace.org/internati...ing-no-future/