It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
From Science Advances (In depth Article):McDermitt Caldera (Nevada/Oregon Border) was formed after a massive magma eruption approximately 16.4 million years ago, dredging up untold scores of lithium and other metals. A lake eventually inhabited the caldera, which deposited a layer of sediment spliced with the lithium that today is over 600 feet deep. The result: a clay called smectite.
But that was just the first lithium injection. Eventually, as volcanic activity heated up again, hot brine containing additional lithium was driven up into the existing smectite, infusing it with even more of it. Now, the clay was no longer just smectite, but a uniquely lithium-rich illite.
"They seem to have hit the sweet spot where the clays are preserved close to the surface, so they won't have to extract as much rock, yet it hasn't been weathered away yet," Borst told Chemistry World.
This is good news for miners. Not only is this particular illite more rich in the metal, it's supposedly easier to separate. Plus, the deposits are mostly concentrated in one spot at the southern tip of the pass, limiting the area impacted by mining.
At least in theory. The extraction of lithium can, depending on the methods used, emit vast amounts of CO2, contaminate groundwater with dangerous heavy metals, and guzzle tons of fossil fuels. Its environmental toll shouldn't be overlooked in the rush to green transportation infrastructure.
This back-of-the-envelope estimation is calculated using caldera-wide extrapolation of publicly available drill hole data from Lithium Americas Corp. and Jindalee Resources Ltd. and is not a reporting code-compliant mineral resource estimate that considers economic viability. Even if this estimation is high due to variations in sediment thickness and/or Li grade, the Li inventory contained in McDermitt caldera sediments would still be on par with, if not considerably larger than, the 10.2 MT of Li inventory estimated to be contained in brines beneath the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia (12), previously considered the largest Li deposit on Earth.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
It's nice to run 'stuff' from lithium batteries, but you only actually gain anything if energy is constantly being added to the system. Any energy you add to the system ultimately ends up as heat. Otoh, the Sun adds heat regardless, so harnessing solar energy is practical (and limits CO2).
Otooh, nothing is gained if you burn stuff to make the energy to produce the solar cells. Ideally, we reach a critical level where solar power is used to recycle/build the solar cells and thereby run everything solely off the Sun's energy.
Or we build our own 'sun' in a fusion reactor and reflect the Sun's heat away. Drawback is that we're adding new heat to the Earth.
Frankly, from a purely heat-based analysis, the BEST approach is to harness the greatest existing resource of the Earth: its core heat, generated by radioactive decay. It's in a safe place, requires no coolant, is already melted down, already shielded, its heat is already here (unlike the Sun's energy); so it isn't going to raised the temperature of anything. It's one, big, fission reactor; centrally located. We wouldn't have to burn anything; wouldn't have to add the Sun's energy to our system (if we reflected it (or absorbed it to generate energy for use off Earth). In terms of 'global warming', it comes down to the fact that the process of fission with existing Earth materials remains the best possible solution to Earth Heat problems.
Most recycling requires additional energy. Only safely combustible waste (bio-waste) may produce energy economically.
Second, Racq, does your point about recycling metals accomplishing little in energy conservation take into account the energy it takes to mine new metals? I've seen analyses that conclude recycling is beneficial if you include the alternative costs of mining new metals.
We already have energy supplied 'in house', so to speak; as a result of nuclear decay in the core. That's there regardless of what we do or don't do, and the Earth gains in thermal energy every minute of the day as a result.
We also gain in thermal energy, minute by minute, as a result of insolation. We can tap into that energy and use it for our own purposes through the use of solar cells, but making those cells requires energy to mine, refine, and manufacture. Either way, we end up adding to the heat content of the Earth.
As yogi noted, recycling reduces the stuff we have to relegate to trash; which is an entirely different concern. Recycling helps to reduce trash... But, you extract energy from lithium by binding the lithium atoms and releasing energy. Recycling takes that same amount of energy and adds it to unbind the lithium atoms. How do you produce that energy, and what does that 'cost' you (in terms of energy)?
Finally, you mentioned recycling as an "alternative" to "mining new metals", but the fact is that this isn't an alternative; it's in addition to. We're going to mine and refine regardless; ostensibly for convenience and reducing carbon footprint by reducing 'burning'. Does it? I confess I don't know the answer after everything is considered. What I DO know is that it is likely to add to the heat content of the Earth. The only question in my mind is whether it exceeds what we'd normally garner from insolation itself.
And of course, there is monetary 'cost' which is yet another consideration. Does it promote or reduce jobs? Raise prices? Produce more trash? Pollute? Generate GHG? Promote global warming (note on this last: if we absorb external energy and use it; however that is done, or burn stuff to produce energy, or cause more energy to be absorbed from the Sun; this is a certainty)?
Of course. But the point is we don't have to mine the amount of metals we can reuse by recycling them. Recycling reduces the level of mining needed to supply the next use. Of course it would be best if we didn't need to supply the next use, but that's not reality, at least right now.
LOL.......Viva EVs.
Once upon a time glass was highly recycled. Not so much now. Energy costs to haul it where its used has hurt recycled glass. Around here it is landfill material.
https://nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5
Heck, it could have been an even more outrageous bet, like the Jets or Dolphins going to the Super Bowl.
Reuse is the highest form of recycling.
My last "career" was in e-scrap/e-waste. It was a fascinating experience. There is all kinds of stuff out there being sold and bought that you might not think of.
It's not all about toxicity or scarcity. Although, we did benefit from California's cathode tube recycling program during a time when copper prices were down.
I often thought of my grandfather's saying: "Use it up. Wear it out. Make do. Or do without."