Recent comments in /f/Futurology

Steamer61 t1_jajfefk wrote

Many rare earth elements are available all over the world in easily mined concentrations. In the US, it is virtually impossible to mine rare earth minerals due to environmental regulation, some reasonable, some not. Rare earth minerals can be mined safely but the US just won't allow it.

7

Staerebu t1_jajdtur wrote

7

pbrand t1_jajcwbj wrote

Bit of a daft point when the US is a net food exporter (depleting its topsoil in the process) and also recently due to a certain European war exports a lot of liquid natural gas. The US strategically holds on to some things, and sells others, just like any other country.

China's hoarded flour and grain the past couple years, and I do not blame them in childish baffling terms such as "good guys" and "bad guys." That's fucking comic book shit. Keep it there.

48

_Darkside_ t1_jajcsn0 wrote

So your point is that Germany is fine destroying the environment on a large scale for almost worthless low-grade coal but does not want to do so for high-value rare earth.

If there were any known sources that are economical to exploit in Germany it would be done. Especially if that would reduce dependency on China. Similar story for the US.

1

DavidLedeux t1_jajbwxm wrote

Oh no, I'm pro-Democratic socialism - I think we're having a bit of a miscommunication here. The intent of my previous comment was to illustrate that no matter what the average person does to mitigate their carbon footprint, ours are a drop in the bucket compared to those of major corporations in China (and elsewhere, I should add). I'm not anti- any of the things listed, it just sucks to have cardboard in my drink and to remember to bring my own bags, when there are such lax regulations for Chinese (and other nations') corporations when it comes to dangerous waste and emissions, which is a much larger contributor than anything private citizens do. I hope that clears things up; if I were a betting person, I think we want the same outcome here.

2

DannyChucksOne t1_jajbe5t wrote

You're using a website owned and funded by people who short Tesla stock. If that's your basis of evidence, try harder.

The data clearly shows that EVs account for a smaller percentage of fires than ICE cars.

Maybe ask yourself why they haven't updated their claim statistics for over 5 years.

They also skew their numbers by logging any incident involving a Tesla product which results in a fire. So if I crash my ICE car into your Tesla and they both catch fire, it goes in the book as a Tesla fire. But hey, why let facts get in the way, huh?

5

Orisi t1_jaj8svf wrote

For some reason I initially read this as comically. Which ultimately has led me to disappointment, because commercially feasible is always a buzzword, comically feasible just sounds like we were being idiots and someone might actually do it in the next decade.

1

Nozinger t1_jaj8e16 wrote

Not necessarily. The seawater can also contain those rare earth minerals with current methods it is just way too expensive to extract those comercially.
If we find a way to improve this technology and make it way cheaper or use it on a bigger scale we could potentially extract those elements from the sea.

3

runetrantor t1_jaj8bjr wrote

Wouldnt this sort of... filter out part of the contaminants of the wastewater so it not as environmentally damaging? Yes, its still from traditional mining, which in of itself is bad for the land, but maybe this can help not pollute the watertable as much?

0

M98er t1_jaj4rum wrote

I always think that if Europe did not depend on china/asia and other countries to get their ores/metals/minerals/fuels, they’d develop way advanced methods just to comply with their own environmental compliance laws. This in turn would benefit the whole planet.

11