Mining for a climate solution: Why going renewable means getting our hands dirty | Four Corners
Around Australia new mining operations are being established and old sites, shuttered decades ago, are being brought back to life.
These miners aren’t digging for coal or gold, they’re hunting for other lucrative commodities - known as critical minerals.
If you own a mobile phone, if you power your home with renewable energy or drive an electric vehicle, then these minerals are already playing a key part in your life.
Four Corners investigates the new critical minerals mining boom and finds Australia is in the box seat to exploit a surge in worldwide demand.
Subscribe: / abcnewsindepth Read more here:
ABC News In-depth takes you deeper on the big stories, with long-form journalism from Four Corners, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Planet America and more, and explainers from ABC News Video Lab.
Watch more ABC News content ad-free on iview: ab.co/2OB7Mk1
For more from ABC News, click here: ab.co/2kxYCZY
Get breaking news and livestreams from our ABC News channel: / newsonabc
Like ABC News on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Follow ABC News on Instagram: / abcnews_au
Follow ABC News on Twitter: / abcnews
Note: In most cases, our captions are auto-generated.
#ABCNewsIndepth #ABCNewsAustralia
Major EV manufacturers in China and Tesla are already stating that Cobalt is no longer needed. Lithium Iron Phosphate is the new minerals driving this change as the cheaper solution than Cobalt based EV batteries that the legacy car OEM are using. Overall This is something we should have moved on 10 - 12 years ago but again we move way to slowly. Australia maybe lucky but we are surely the dumb country as well.
I have heard the biggest Chinese battery manufacturer is looking into sodium based chemistry and have almost got the tech on par with lithium (energy density by weight but not volume). The sodium batteries don't require as complicated electrolytes (simplifying processing and recycling)
@@muzzarobbo yes I heard these are more suited for storage rather than EV’s. But could be a part of the overall solution if CATL can mass produce them.
Yup... sodium and aluminium batteries coming. I'm off to battery tech expo this week
@@melusine826 Where abouts is that being held?
Solar suppliers often have information days for their clients. Online PV magazines are a good source of the latest available batteries and soon to be released tech.
No surprises here. As someone who has been involved in hard rock mining in Australia for over 15 years, this is something I have been saying for ages. Yes, our mining IS getting greener, with more modern and efficient machinery, but it is a very dirty and energy intensive industry. Refining Australian minerals mined here is a critical step in ensuring our economy survives the transition to the electric future the world is pushing towards. If we send our raw materials overseas for processing (at minimal profit), only to return the finished product is a carbon intensive way to do business. We are also beholden to external market prices. We need to strike a balance between saving our collective futures AND saving the country to enjoy it later as well. People like Bob Brown are there to step in the way and stop mining in his local area, however, it is a two faced argument. Where does he propose to source the raw materials from, if he wants a 'Green EV' and copper wire and steel for wind and hydro turbines, minerals for solar panels etc to supply his energy? Not from my backyard, take it somewhere else?
I am one of the people that want a green future but alas... I too understand that for us to progress as a nation, sadly the fact is that we need to dig up the material, or someone else will and it will be within our back yard. The world is getting desperate and if the mining companies here refuse then someone outside would be happy to take extreme measures to get that material even if it's to the point of blood. Sadly, it's best to sell the mineral rights, or lease them, or apply for a permit to dig up your land for those materials because you can always live somewhere nice, hopefully they will have technology and methods in the future to restore lands as best they can after the extraction has occurred. I would rather have a future for my kids that is green with blemishes in the past than rely on gas and coal that can easily run out and holds little to no profit, at least with precious minerals, we can shape it into our future and recycle it, once gas and coal is burned... that's it. Australia is prime to become a powerhouse of energy and yet we're not even trying, we could export around asia through island hopping power cables, we can look into methods of bringing money into Australia without ever leaving our home and being a power company for the rich and powerful. We can manufacture our own things, we know how... if you can teach a kid to build with lego, you can teach an adult to build into the future.
@@HappyfoxBiz Very well put. Agreed 👍
To be fair, there are plenty of places to mine throughout australia, mining in a pretty well preserved Tasmanian forest is less than ideal. In this particular case I'd tend to agree with Brown, the area should be a part of the world heritage site
The thing is... we really don't need that much resources to transition to a green energy future. And that's the shocker. If we just made smarter decisions on our transport infrastructure, our water management practices, our farming practices, the resources required would be quite minimal. Alas, the "free" market has decided that we need electric vehicles that cost a fortune to 1.Research and develop, 2. manufacture, 3. Fuel (charge), when we already have the technology required to replace our current inefficient transport infrastructure. Yes, you guessed it, TRAINS! Trams too, bicycles. All these are incredibly low carbon and actually good for your mental and physical health. If we just stood up and made these smarter decisions rather than devolving into mindless consumerism then this really wouldn't be an issue, our beautiful landscapes and ecosystems wouldn't have to be destroyed either. It's just a shame really. And I'm not against consumerism either, I'm against dumb consumerism.
I remember a hot briquette iron project that involved cheap gas and cheap ore fines . Was the dream to corner global iron ore smelting? Well China, Korea and Japan didn’t drink the kool aid. The project was a dog. Mum and dad shareholder took another multi billion dollar bath. A sister project in Venezuela went the same way. Australia’s days of … manufacture are over. No capital. Only capital in Australia is for (mortgaged) residential housing.
"They paved paradise to put up an EV charging station"
Joni Mitchell ...Big yellow TAXI.
@@albertawheat6832 no
Calculating ecological footprints needs to include the impact of the full supply chain, not just at the end product footprints.
"Clean metals", made a clanging sound in my head just like "clean coal" does.
What would you know about clean coal. Are you a miner in Australia
@@MariesAcrylicAndGelNails I worked as an engineer in a coal consuming industry for 44 years both in Australia and internationally, I know much about the lie of "clean coal". What are your credentials (this should be good)?
@@David_in_Thailand yes same I have been in the coal industry here in Australia for 26 years myself, as an environmental officer next question
@@MariesAcrylicAndGelNails then why are you questioning me for saying clean coal is a lie? Surely you are aware of the multiple issues with coal and how the coal industry spends millions (just like the tobacco lobby with their product) to spread lies about burning fossil fuels?
Given your experience you must also know that coal is an 'ingredient' in silicon ingots necessary to manufacture crystalline silicon solar panels? It is also used in the coal-fired furnaces necessary in the three thermal processes required to make these ingots. One of which requires the coal fired furnaces to be held at 1100C for five days! And after all that half of the silicon is lost when sawn into wafers for the manufacture of the silicon solar panels. There are billions of these panels out there! So what is it that's clean about solar panels?
its not really about saving the planet. It is about how much it will cost to retain the status quo and its profits
they just want to shift the status quo to a new set of their favoured oligarchs.... the mining boom greed oozing from this "expose" is incredible
Nice but not great Virtue signaling. I give it a 6 out of 10
You make it sound like its all about maintaining corporate profits. But I could say: It's not about saving the planet, its about maintaining the possibility of vehicles for people without polluting the hell out of everywhere, causing premature deaths and rising CO2 levels. It's about maintaining the quality of life for everyone. All this mining might be pretty horrible. But so is the entire petro chemical industry. We need a balanced view here in order to make sensible moves into the future. What makes me miserable is the uglification of all our beautiful landscapes by thousands of hideous windmills.
@@heater5979 And thousands of lithium mines, and thousands of roads and millions of charging booths, and millions of barely recyclable cars that cannot be dumped and contain batteries that run down. It is an attempt to retain the car culture and uses every resource it has to make impossible any alternate life styles within the model
@@weblightstudio8215 I'm pretty sure that if we had millions of charging stations instead of millions of gas stations that would be far more environmentally friendly. What do you mean "barely recyclable cars"? EVs are as recyclable as any other car. EV's are expected to live two or three times linger than ICE cars (including the batteries) So the need for recycling is greatly reduced. The batteries are eminently recyclable. People are today investing heavily in battery recycling plants. Ah, I see, you have a downer on "car culture" and envisage an alternate lifestyle of some kind. Perhaps we all have to live in cities and get around on public transport. Perhaps you are suggesting we all take to bicycles or some such. Well, I kind of agree. I have lived without a car for 23 years. I could only do that because the city I moved too has an excellent public transport system (Including a large fleet of electric buses now). That suits my day to day life and I rent a car anytime I want to go somewhere far away. Still, now I'm forced to move 30Km out of town. There are no busses. The nearest shop is 8 km away. No way am I cycling in winter when the roads are deep in snow and the temperature gets down to -20C. Please leave me the freedom to have a car. Please let me have an EV that is environmentally friendly and far cheaper to run.
We also need to make sure poor quality items are stopped from being sold . We keep wasting our resources on crap. It needs to be legislated
Don't hold your breath my friend.
That’s an insult in capitalism!
Develop Austral;ia and sever from China. Marles and Albanese will tie us to China as they are marxist sympathisers.
@@aaron6806 haha the world will only get fixed after we blow it up. But I was being nice
I agree and we should move away from single-use plastic, altogether and move towards bamboo and hemp for packaging, boxes, paper, etc. Everyone should embrace minimalism and highest quality items.
Never enough, keep consuming, keep consuming, keep consuming. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Ride motorcycles
I love how one side is producing very well-researched, concise, logically sound arguments, and the other side is just no no no no fake lies no!
Because you only learn about one side
Good observation! So now you know the Earth is actually greening from higher CO2 levels and it has allowed the production of increased food crops which have kept millions from staving. It is good you ignore all the lies about there being a crisis. Men's corruption is the only crisis.
So which is which?
It would also be good if we can value add to the raw materials, i.e. manufacture batteries etc.
Yeah, seems like they can really step up and improve the technology when it is done in our backyard properly.
Unfortunately people like quick money.....
Shareholders wouldn’t want that.
That's need government will to do. In Indonesia we stop exporting nickel raw material and invite investor around the world to make smelter and batteries industry here.
@@ianian9078 So other countries then. We are definitely exporting iron ore and not steel. And we're definitely not manufacturing batteries we export lithium and other battery rare earth's . So what minerals are Australia processing and not exporting exactly?
The piece didn’t mention sodium ion, shame. This technology has the potential to bypass the need for lithium, cobalt, and nickel in batteries and instead can use common salt, cheap Prussian blue, and hard carbon.
The obvious solution is to nationalise mining. We can make sure it follows strict environmental rules and we'll get to put the profits back into our schools and hospitals. Why should Gina Rinehart and co get to profit from the shared wealth of Australia?
Nationalise? You speak like a true socialist!
@@ronferguson4379 Am I wrong though? Do not Australians deserve the natural wealth of Australia?
@@dielfonelletab8711 Yes, you are insanely wrong. Aside from the fact nationalisation is inefficient and reduces profit, we cannot profit from our riches in the first place if we nationalise an industry we are incapable of maximising for ourselves. Go take a class in basic business and economics. It's ideas like yours that ruin entire nations.
@@colejones6312 I have studied economics at university level. Industries that generate negative (or positive!) externalities are always inefficient when run privately, because the owners aren't affected by the negative (or positive) side effects of running their business.
@@dielfonelletab8711 Australians don't deserve the natural wealth of Australia. Australians who make the sacrifices to acquire the natural wealth of Australia deserve it. Private industries aren't efficient? That's why government run industries like the post service were made useless by companies like FedEx. Everyone knows private businesses are more efficient than government. Not affected by externalities? That's because the people don't impose responsibilities on them. The things the people do impose responsibility on them they get PR guys in for.
Then all we have to do is start making our own phones, TVs, and other electrical goods instead of selling the raw materials. We used to build Holden cars and we lost them. Is there anything that actually is Australian apart from Vegemite?
Cracking work, as per usual, by the Four Corners team!
I honestly believe that GL1 (ASX:GL1 - Global Lithium) is at the forefront of this revolution and could possibly be a life changing stock to invest in. They already have 2 established Lithium resources around 20 million tonnes in WA (and expanding with exploration drilling ongoing). Theyre still considered a spec / junior explorer - but with some luck, this company will be a producer in the near term. They have Ron Mitchell onboard and Greg Lilleyman who are ex FMG and Tianqi. Very big names in the industry and the risk vs reward here is tremendously in our favour. As you can tell, i am invested and i would look into this company if i was you
@@droidtek8017 Lol... duplicate comment from another commenter spriucking this share below. Account created TODAY. Clearly spambot sockpuppet promoting shares.
@@m0rthaus Environmentalists are a bunch of phony liars. I know about them and what they do in the "ancient forests".
What's missing from this is the discussion of recycled electronics and minerals. We have decades of a boom in electronics that there must be a substantial amount of minerals to be extracted from thrown away devices. If we can turn rocks into electronics, surely we can turn electronics into electronics with much less environmental impact.
Nah we haven’t moved that far ahead mate........not long ago Australia biggest exporter of coal yet we pay the most for power in the develop world.
Hopefully some progress can be made in this domain but the deck is ever stacked against the viability of recycling. It's already challenging to recycle even the most common materials (plastics, paper, etc) at a profit since China stopped accepting foreign waste. The problem with most consumer electronics is they contain only the tiniest bits of valuable raw materials and disassembling and recovering these fragments is a bit more complicated than breaking down a cardboard box, making the profitability of this process ever more unlikely. Govts should probably start subsidizing recycling projects since it's so hard to make a profit in recycling. That or we just collectively decide at some point that 'progress' is a destructive illusion and there is no tech breakthrough coming to save us from our appetite for infinite growth on a finite planet.
Okay; great idea, now where will those electronics be found (perhaps research how many new phones are actually old phones 😉, the others have already been melted down, or in landfill now), and oh and how about processing into the grossly inadequate volume of resources to what is actually required? You can’t have your cake, and eat it too. Either something is done now that yes hurts like hell, and hopefully, just maybe we aren’t too late; or we keep arguing about it; and in the the not too distant future, that mining issue, doesn’t matter anymore;.. because we don’t have a planet to protect.
Another issue is; all wars start over resources, are you ready to turn America against Australia too? All of the enemies of the U S were once their allies. Either we access them, and save the future, or the US will; and destroy Australia (and my families 55,000 year heritage)
@@TWR1988 We want the same thing here - a sustainable future for the planet. It's always worth considering what options could potentially helpful, now or into the future. And speaking of friends who are turning into enemies, you don't have to raise alarms about the US, there's already a former friendly nation turning against us in the form of communist China and it's much closer to home, and with many fewer checks and balances. We'll have a difficult era to navigate, and we must work together with anyone who is likeminded and moral enough to join us.
Angus Grigg is probably the best investigative reporter in Australia. Always interesting to hear his stories.
1. All reactive minerals must be removed from the tailings: sulfides, arsenic containing minerals, all radioactive materials for instance. 2. Tailings must not be retained behind earthen dams 3. Water draining from mines and tailings ponds must be treated to drinking water standards 4. Land must be restored once the mining operations are done 5. All gases resulting from refining and smelting must be treated to eliminate pollution I am sure that I have left out other requirements.
Yeah completely agree, but something to note is that a site can't actually be "restored fully". it takes decades if not centuries for an ecosystem to fully recover post mining
If you take that stuff out of the tailings where do you put it? That's the point of tailings dams.
@@gongandfriends Th old Toxide site near Burnie now has frogs and birds using the tailings site, it has been over 2 decades but it is a credit to the laws that are now inplace. I have visited this site on many occasions doing security patrols at night, the noise at sunset of the birds is lovely and at night the frogs are easily herd whilst driving to the site.
@@ScubesFTW depending on the compounds in question many can be separated and used, lead, arsenic, thorium, cadmium and mercury all have legitimate industrial uses and can be managed in a way that has minimal environmental impact. The reason this rarely happens is that these make the minerals expensive and whilst we've been willing to accept cheap minerals mined with the most appalling practises like those in China and Indonesia it hasn't made sense to do it responsibly, with changes to the world order and the focus from the US and EU on sourcing these resources from stable liberal democracies like Australia these more expensive sustainable techniques become viable. Despite what many think there are safe ways to "dump" tailings so as to minimise their negative impact. All these byproducts were safely in the environment for millions of years and can be returned. The most important factor is locking up water soluble toxins so that they can't leech into water systems.
@@ScubesFTW We need to destroy the planet in order to save it.
We have a world built on the idea of infinite growth on a finite resource planet. This is our economic model it’s insane.
keep it in the ground! green energy is capitalist and industrialist' scam. ever increasing technological complexity isnt fit for 1 ecoshpere
It could be infinite, if we finally made space travel feasible.
It does seem insane, however, you're typing that note on your computer and most-likely living in a nice house with a car(s). Mining and extraction were done for you to have what you have, so you're as much part of the problem as I, and every other human are.
We are - you have just lost hope so hurry up and go yeah?
Amen and yes I’m using my mobile to get this message across as well agree I’m part of the problem.
This is awesome , we can still do the same stuff we have been doing for ever under the guise of a green life until there’s no more earth . That’s is so cool , who needs a world to live in anyhow 🤔
What is the alternative?
It is like the "musical chairs" race. Each politician (4 years), each generation (25 years), each Dinosaur (25 000Years) is only worried about surviving the current round going on. But when the last (chair) has been taken, good luck to the "person" left standing. And while the music ($$$) is still playing, nobody is even remotely thinking of slowing even a little bit. The train accelerates towards the cliff- with eyes wide closed
@@godhasleftthebuilding3224 what are you smoking? It must be some really good shgitt!! 😂
@@KayAteChef Less population requirements from governments in the name of economic growth.
@@KayAteChef do coke and bike
Australia's major parties are too busy promoting and prolonging coal. They have no idea.. Only trouble is that mining isn't known for good management of the total life of a mine: remediation or transition of jobs.. Always by then they have sold off the liability for $1 and the jobs were contracts rather than full-time.
Paradigm shift for you. Jobs, Jobs . The Human Enterprise is over, acceptance is a liberating position.... Happy unsustainable Overshoot.
But doesn't it make sense that mining jobs at a given mine site are ultimately temporary?
@@keshanranasinghe yep, but there is a habit that mining in Australia has of vastly overstating any of the jobs (e.g. construction jobs promoted as if they are permanent.. and ignoring the fact that the jobs often whiteant others not magic up actual new ones) and understating (or ignoring) the environmental impact/costs that carry on long past closure. There was an example in the 4corners report: tailing pond that was leaking and the claim "oh it is a legacy issue" or similar. Tailings ponds are inherently a legacy issue: if we look at fracking gas - they have rolled it out massively but ignoring the massive amount of salt they produce and have no plan whatsoever to deal with. No doubt they will do the same with these mines.. and the argument we should just go for it because there's worse places is getting a bit tired when it is the same global mining companies doing the terrible messes overseas too.. The race to the bottom approach. It might be why they work via donations (bribes) of both the major parties here and have shaped our loose environmental laws as a result. The arguments for benefits don't stack up when they get handouts/royalty holidays that are secret and then pay no tax either..
Thanks for commenting tell my trusted friends and my manager (mr Williams) I referred you to him for a profitable investment
十 ❶̣̣̣ ❽̣̣̣ ⓿̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ❷̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ⓿̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ⓿̣̣̣ ❶̣̣̣
Every mining agreement should be subject to a planning agreement covering all aspects of the plan..
I'd like to see them going through all the tailings dumps for minerals they missed first time around.
I'd like to see the "environmentalists" stop claiming they love the ancient forests that I know for a fact they use for nude parties and drug-use without interference. Phonies.
It’s funny how instead of scaling back human activity on the planet we just find new and now apparently “greener” ways of producing and consuming more stuff much of which we don’t really need
I take it that you haven't got a mobile phone.
absolutely agree and we're all guilty of using some of this technology but so much of it is unnecessary .imagine if before you got on Twitter a message come up saying thank you for destroying the forest so that you can see the latest celebrity news story
@@jackwright1070 we need mobile phones (for banking for instance since physical locations are shutting down) we don't need cars. Mobile phones are useful. Cars and their infrastructure are a giant waste. Electric cars are a lot bigger and more unsustainable. Doesn't really compare.
@Marcel van Neuren A phone and a car are not the same. A phone is useful, a car is stupid. A phone can actually save you trips to the bank for instance. A phone can call you a taxi or pay for a bus ticket. A car is perhaps the least efficient object mankind has invented. A phone is also a lot less harmful than a car. If a phone had a 1000kg battery, I wouldn't buy one.
@Marcel van Neuren I am aware that the ruling class has created a car dependent infrastructure. Which is why I said create walkable towns. Instead of investing in a doomed car infrastructure. Car culture cannot be sustained. The earth isn't big enough. Banking on electric cars is a fantasy that might end in catastrophe.
This is what happens when we focus only on emissions. We, collectively are refusing to ask the really hard questions, or do the work to properly contextualize the reality of climate science.... The idea that we can continue to grow and meet this enormous new demand for minerals is exactly what got us into the problems in the first place. Climate change is a effect of business as usual , but what most don't know or refuse to understand is the main cause of climate change sits at the very heart of our modern world. Economic growth. We are holding onto the idea of economic growth with religious like fanaticism. The multidisciplinary science of ecology is showing us that emissions are only one of a number of very critical boundaries humanity is smashing through and that any one of them , like climate change, could unseat our civilization. Humanity is in ecological overshoot - we are like an Algae bloom, we found a massive new source of energy, fossil fuels, and our population and consumption has exploded over the last 75 to 80 years. And like Algae have gorged ourselves on this one time bounty of energy from fossil fuels thinking this will go on forever... But we all know what happens to the algea when the overabundance of food / energy runs scarce .... A radical reversal of the experience going up the curve. Unless we address the cause of climate change, economic growth, we are going to run an experiment where we try to reduce emissions while radically increasing the impact of the mining industry globally.... You don't have to be that smart to see this is going to end badly. Degrowth , a managed decrease of our collective impacts on the environment across the board is the only solution that has any chance of avoiding an uncontrollable collapse and simplification of our society. Given the current state of the world, the quality of leadership we see globally, and our most cherished beliefs being unassailable, I'm not going to hold my breath....
Yeah, I keep thinking of the quote from ? Geronimo? ..about how european civilisation has everything but no idea how to distribute it. Something like that
Perfectly said, sadly the money men will win again, I'll keep hoping we get thru but sadly it feels as though no one cares
@@islandfreshman the thing we can do I guess is work on how to transition. No point railing at them for being idiots. They were, we all know it, and they must be realising they were living in a fantasy and there is no good outcome. The best they can do is knuckle down, spend some of their money genuinely helping. And I don't mean giant soy bean mono culture farms to feed ever more people. Otherwise were all forked, including them. Ahem, souse rant
Preach
Was this an ad for the minerals council? Didn’t even mention any of the new tech being developed and other viable alternatives. What a joke.
As far as I have heard, the greens want to massively expand mining of these minerals, We have a large country with lots of suitable mining locations, we do not need to destroy the very few pristine locations we still have left in the country.
Yeah, seems like mining the last remaining rain forests of a certain type rather than the areas already been cleared/wrecked by farming for instance..
Yeah man, you Aussies got more than enough open desert and Outback to mine without ripping up the forest. Like for real, why do the mining magnates have to rip up a forest for the minerals if they could prospect a site that is empty of biodiversity?
@@Napsteraspx In short, "because they can". Because governments approve it and let them get away with it with next to zero repercussions if they fail to restore the site per their mining lease contracts, nor if they release pollution. This is predominantly a Liberal Party and National Party issue (and of course Clive Palmer's party if that ever goes anywhere beyond attracting far right racists to give their voting preferences to the LNP.
In the words of the Cornish miners of the 18th century..." where she be, there she be." As a geologist I can tell you that ore bodies are where they are because of how the earth formed in that location. Very few orebodies are under farming land because the ore is mostly found in igneous and metamorphic rocks and good farming land is usually on sedimentary and alluvial soil. Yes, gold and some other ores are found in alluvial sediments but most of those have been mined out last century. Hard Rock mining is intensive and often low grade ores found at depth, usually high in sulphides and other hard to process ores. The easily processed, oxidised, close to the surface orebodies have usually already been found and mined last century. I'm not advocating ripping up forests or any other natural feature just to get minerals, in fact I left the mining industry and ended up in landscape conservation early on in my career. But I am pointing out the facts that we can only mine an orebody where it is, and to do so we need to set rules and regulations way better than are currently enforced to do so in an ethical, environmental and sustainable manner. Rather than increase usage we should be increasing efficiency in usage and deciding we don't need all of the ridiculous wasteful gadgets that burn up a huge amount of our finite resources.
Pristine forests were not under consideration. Are you aware that some of the lovely native forest areas of the Atherton Tablelands are being cleared by the QLD Govt for windmill farms. Total hypocrites. They won't let a farmer put a dam on his property but they can destroy native bush.
Good on you Bob,there’s plenty of other sites all over Australia to mine that aren’t under pristine forests.
Yes and there is plenty of land that isn't classified as arable, but that's where they're putting renewables. Thousands of square kilometres of wind and solar blanketing prime agricultural land and the total of Australia's arable land is only 6%.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 Can you point out a list somewhere (or any evidence) of "thousands of square kilometers of wind and solar" in Australia? Because even the largest plant in Australia - New England Solar Farm (720MW - currently under construction), is about 16 square KMs. There are a handful of similar sized projects, most are much smaller. Wind farms are generally much less condensed and can be positioned in pastures with minimal impacts on the grazing land (eg Hornsdale Wind Farm, literally dotted throughout existing pastures). Many of the projects are in arid land, eg Sundrop Farms, taking up a whopping 0.2 square kilometers.
@@m0rthaus I did say wind 'and' solar. And of course they all come with massive backup batteries too these days, they think it might go some way to make the infrastructure useful. It won't, it'll just increase the cost significantly, and they only last around ten years, the batteries that is. They will lie and tell you that renewables lasts 30 to 35 years, but wind and solar is already being decommissioned in America and the 'average' commercially viable lifespan of this infrastructure is 21years. Anyway I digress. We live in a Renewable Energy Zone, unfortunately, and they intend to build 180 kilometres of transmission lines that will pass close to our town. These transmission lines are only necessary because of the renewables infrastructure. Our area was originally classified as a pilot zone and the intention was to install 3,000 MW (megawatts) within this zone. They must have finally figured out that a MW of renewable energy is not equal to a MW of coal or gas fired energy because they've realised that they need to increase the capacity of wind and solar to 11,000 MW. To make green hydrogen will require that number to be upped considerably. The wind, solar and backup batteries will straddle each side of the transmission lines for the entire length. Including existing, approved, proposed and planned renewables our town alone is up 200 square kilometres of land to be fenced off for this infrastructure, and that's just the ones we know of. They try to hide the next project until it's well into the planning stages. Just one of the intended wind/solar projects will utilise 90 square kilometres of land. You can look it up if you like. The solar is Tallawang and the wind is Barneys Reef. The turbines for that one will be like having a small city built in our valley. They want to install 60 turbines each one at 7MW and standing 280m high and 200m wide. These will be the largest in Australia and at that size have previously only been used overseas in offshore installations. They will be quite close to our town but considering that there are only three other structures in the Southern Hemisphere that are taller, including Centrepoint Tower, we will see them from most of the town. Of course we are gutted. We will also have to contend with horrendous noise, you can't tell me that turbines of that size and those numbers will be quiet. Flicker will also be an issue, when the sun creates spinning shadows behind the massive blades of the turbines. There is also a good chance that they will need navigation lights. When you live in the country and there aren't major hospitals available for emergencies, light aircraft or helicopters are used to transport patients. They wouldn't be able to see the turbines at night so navigation lights would prevent accidents. It would also mean that up to five flashing red lights per turbine would be going all night, every night. Infrasound has been established as a cause of health problems overseas, they aren't even going to measure for that. There is so much more but I would need to run a two day seminar with input from some of the other knowledgeable people who have educated themselves on this subject. The whole industry is a farce and it's destroying the environment on a global level, not to mention the humanitarian degradation and collapsing economies. Remember I'm just quoting our area. It doesn't take long to add up to thousands of square kilometres when you consider the rest of Australia. The Riverina isn't even part of the Renewable Energy Zones and they are rolling it out there too. Australia's food bowl! One crop grower down there is surrounded on three sides by commercial solar. They are devastated. There is only 6% of arable land in the whole of Australia! There are no regulations in regard to the larger state significant wind and solar projects. No matter what community concerns are raised these projects are rubber stamped.
Marvellous how the ABC would take something pristine that was never under consideration anyway and try to make it the norm. Talk about dishonest journalism. If you want dishonesty, give Bob Brown a call.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 Sheep graze and shelter under solar panels and cattle ignore wind turbines.
Now you voted for a labor greens coalition, hope you don't mind skyrocketing fuel and electricity prices, on top of unaffordable housing.
Sounds like business as usual to me. Here comes RCP 8.5.
Sadly there was no mention of the effects of this mining to the indigenous people .
I grew up In Arnhemland at gove, where rio has a mine and had a large refinery. The aboriginal community gets very large royalties and development of their communities and now the town is winding down the aboriginal people are developing the town into a tourist attraction. As someone who has spent a lot of time in remote communities throughout the NT and northwest wa my opinion is that aboriginal communities with mines are better off the without. But there are still issues.
Lol dont you know? The miners know what it best for the tribes. "Take these shiny coins, we are doing this because we truly care about you... Uncharacteristically"
About 50% of Tesla's batteries are now being produced without cobalt (its cheaper) - John Goodenough the inventor of the Lithium battery recently released a paper outlining a new battery design using ubiquitous materials - none of this environmental destruction is necessary and these mines will ultimately generate losses
39:49 - 39:58 imagine paying for your own destruction
I always do. I don't know about anybody else, though.😉
Good informative program. I thought it was a bit odd that the balance of speakers was heavily sided with pro mining.
You can't have renewables without mining, and lots of it!
@@margaretarmstrong2445 we could be smarter this time and take steps to wean ourselves off addictions. Driving a car is fun but a focus on public transport as our main people mover is saner. I liked labors version of drive to train station, not the whole way. Better for congestion and emissions ...trees and green parks not carparks in liveable cities...
@@margaretarmstrong2445 Australias Gov' is f-ed, as Juiceymedia has covered 10 times.
The good ol' capitalist propaganda machine... slow and steady wins the race, (The Greta Thurnberg and lost 'Extinction rebellion' movement is the rabbit in this story)
@@siouxm2117 That works in cities. But we don't have public transport in the regions. The trains were shut down decades ago and the regional buses don't run frequently. We would be very isolated out here without our own transport, even if we don't use it frequently.
Look, I know we are at the coal face of this new mining boom, but if it costs us our environment and wildlife then the cost is too high. Yes Australia desperately needs the jobs and the income from new mines, but it MUST be tempered with the need for a planet to live on. I don’t know the profit margins but, if the margin is cut by 50%, so as to properly treat the run off, and repair the site once it’s finished, then so be it! I know that companies will scream about it and try to wriggle out of cleaning up after themselves but we just have to MAKE them! We have to incorporate it into the agreement, before the first sod is turned. Have the cost of it in the bank, before they start! We can’t go on as the 19 th and 20 th century people did. We have to accept much lower profit margins and care for the mess we make!
Mining is heavily regulated in Australia. Decommissioning and land restoration is a given, the mine would not be approved without it. There are no such regulations in regards to renewables. The renewables infrastructure lasts around twenty years, less than ten for batteries. Who is responsible for decommissioning, recycling and land restoration at end of life? This infrastructure is being rolled out over thousands of square kilometres of prime agricultural land. Who is going to clean up the toxic waste?
Looking forward to see your reasearch and analysis on the same potential to SEA region. It is also a rather "friendly" region to supply the gap
Let's not mess it up AGAIN with regards to a mega-profit mining tax that is used as in-flows to a well diversified sovereign wealth fund.. some of which is used as grants/CPI-pegged loans for innovation.
@@ianian9078 Absolutely. Joyous, isn't it!?
Mining should be for the Nation and benefit the people as the land belongs to the people. Not Private Enterprise where they don’t care about the result of pillaging and running away once mining finishes.
But that's exactly what the renewables industry do after they've bulldozed thousands of square kilometres of agricultural land, destroying the small native animal life and fencing off and displacing the larger ones. Thousands of steel pylons are driven up to three metres into the soil. And the fantasy of grazing sheep under panels doesn't happen on any large scale. I know of one small commercial solar plant that put a small number of sheep in amongst the panels and two of them lost their lives, very slowly I might add when their fleece got caught up in the tracking mechanisms. And on a larger scale it would be impossible to round them up for routine treatment and care. Sheep don't mow grassed areas, they thin it out. The growth around panels would be problematic for energy efficiency and poisoning under the panels would be problematic for the sheep. It just doesn't happen. Australia has only 6% arable land in total. And that is where the renewables are going. Mining is highly regulated, right down to decommissioning the mine and restoration of the land. There are no regulations for renewables. What will happen to the billions of panels which are declared E-waste in Victoria, so it's illegal to send them to landfill. That's exactly where end of life rooftop panels are going in most states now. That where most panels go in America, to landfill. There are no renewables recycling factories in Australia. There are a few collection agencies, and some take off the aluminium frames and inverters. But we do not have the facilities to fully recycle panels. There are very few such centres anywhere in world because the cost is prohibitive. This is only done in countries where it's mandated, and even then only up to around 85% and the rest is incinerated. If a large renewables project takes around three years to build then common sense tells you that it will take the same amount of time to decommission and rehabilitate the land. But no one talks about that. That cost is not discussed, or who is going to pay for it. Mining companies have to put up bonds for the mines end of life. Renewables developers do not. If they go bankrupt, or if they sell the project before it's commissioned, and they do, just who is responsible for the high cost of decommissioning, responsible disposal and land rehabilitation? The landholder hosting the site? The local councils? The local ratepayers?
You obviously don't understand anything if you think like this.
@@colejones6312 Why do you believe Charon knows nothing? Perhaps explain why rather than just a snide remark, yes?
Buy shares in these companies they you benefit
"This will give our town a boost", Until of course they've mined all the minerals out and we're back to empty cashless ghost town, now with a massive environmental hazard that won't be cleaned up
LFP and Redwood Industries might be worth looking into .
Tyres have 8 gallons of oil in them each? No alternative has been found for them
Mining is critical for the future, but past practices have to change. It has to be done much more strategically and responsibly. This begins with how capital is sourced and allocated as well as how the life cycle costs and benefits of a mine are evaluated. Leaving it up to the mining industry will be disastrous. Smart and effective leadership required.
There are virtually no regulations in the renewables industry. You would be horrified if you knew what they were doing to our countryside, and our native flora a fauna. At least with a mine there is a bond in place and a plan for land rehabilitation at the mines end of life. There is no such bond or plan to clean up after renewables end of life, and the cost of this is extremely high. Just who is responsible? The developers always say they're in it for the long haul but most of them sell the project after it's been approved or before its commissioned. Meanwhile the profits go offshore to the parent companies. What leadership?
Smart leadership is very hard to come by these days.
If we're going to mine it here, then i believe we should refine it and manufacture it here also, with the most modern technologies and cleanest technologies.
100%
we have every metal here to do it, just no industry, if we had a car manfacturer they could build it all australian made and australian products.
And we need to make sure these resources are processed and refined in Australia
So we are just gonna consume our way out of the energy and climate crisis? Yeh right.....
While mining will be necessary to get the materials needed to go full renewable, mining is environmentally nasty and destructive and no corporation will do more than the absolute minimum they are required to by laws, regulations and regular inspections. To do anything more than the bare minimum would lower their profits and therefore be irresponsible in their eyes to their shareholders
The problem of Capitalism is that it is a greed based system...
@@davidhollenshead4892 agreed and the problem with government controlled ventures are lack of oversight, proper funding and corruption. So are we screwed either way we go?
@@josephchaneyiii The level of government oversight of Socialism can be as good as Milwaukee Wisconsin during their German Socialist period or as bad as the CCCP or PRC [during the early years]...
Totally agree. Incredibly profitable industry, and in Australia the largest companies generally get away with paying ZERO corporate tax. They should be required to return any areas mined to near-pristine state, and avoid any release of pollution (upon threat of enormous fines) - they can certainly afford it, and think of the massive environmental jobs sector that could be created.
Overall good segment, didn't quite agree with the comparison @7:26 - 7:40 feel like you;re comparing a fire-pit to an induction stove. Yeah sure the stove requires a bit more investment but it'll work for far longer and produce far less COequivalent over that life time. Also this entire segment was on extraction of materials but what about recycling of these rare materials, they are still finite on a human scale, shouldn't sustainable recycling methods also be at the forefront of this equations and not just keep living in this throw away society? Furthermore, I do hope these Mines do take care and properly maintain and fix the soils and watercourses surrounding them, as they provide vital filtration and land management. Heck even investigate varying wetland projects to mitigate run off and filter out harmful pollution back into the waterways, the Darwin creek 32:39 would be a prime example.
Won’t happen, it will see damage to our water and environment, but hey they are killing us as I type! These corporations only develop what creates massive profits, there is better out there but would see our energy needs supplied at a greatly reduced cost to the consumer, and not harm our environment or our health, the money hungry will not stand for that!
Only 2% of actual and probable ground surveys have been assayed in Australia, mostly through drill cores or actual mining.
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view!" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"
I just halted at point where there was a comparison made between the critical minerals needed to make a turbine and the energy output of a coal fired power station. I have to say, there was no fair point of comparison being made here. The 8.5 tons of critical minerals are used to create the 'structure' of a turbine that, in turn, will create electricity for up to 30 years (yes, I know some turbines 'don't' last that long, but it is the given lifespan). The presenter then 'compares' this tonnage of recyclable minerals to build the 'structure' of an energy-producing device to the fuel (coal) necessary to drive a coal-fired power plant to produce the 'same amount of energy.' The same amount of energy as 'what'? Why is he comparing fuel to the making of an energy producing device. Where's the time-stamp for the energy comparison for the two? Did he stop at the point it takes to mine the actual minerals from the ground? He surely isn't trying to say that a measly 2.83 tons (that's a third of 8.5 tons) of coal will produce the same amount of electricity as a turbine creates over a span of 30 years? Because that is entirely untrue. (As someone who has fuelled their own heating with coal - I can assure you that 2.83 tons of coal does 'not' last 30 years! I only wish it did). He's comparing 2 entirely different things - an energy-producing structure being made vs the energy production of a fuel. This is like saying it takes so many tons of minerals to make a car vs how much petrol is used by a motorbike, without mentioning how far the motorbike has to travel. I notice he didn't bother to mention how much energy is used in the building of the coal power plant initially, the maintenance of the coal plant turbines, or the transportation of the coal via road and rail. That's not exactly environmentally 'cheap' either. The other advantage in a turbine is, at the end of its working life, those critical minerals can be retrieved easily and recycled into a new one. Try doing that with 2.83 tons of coal you burned 30 years ago.
He's saying if you uproot a wind turbine and feed it into a furnace it will produce less energy than building your turbines out of coal. Simple stuff.
We have two crisis' playing out 1. Climate 2. Environmental. They are not the same thing though can go hand in hand. Even if we didnt have the climate crisis, we would still have an environmental crisis on our hands by way of the extinction spasm whereby we are disturbing and destroying flora and fauna species and whole ecosystems at our peril. The destruction and contamination of ecosystems is also driving the climate crisis as ecosystems like old growth forests and wetlands are carbon sinks and really, the preservation and restoration of these ecosystems should be at the fore front of our response to both crisis'. This may sound shocking to some but preserving and restoring our natural environment is more important that feeding the hungry ghost of greed and consumerism : O And where is the plan to recycle these rare earth minerals? And how much of these rare and precious minerals will be used to service the military industrial complex? I think the tough decisions aren't about whether or not to destroy Australian landscapes, the tough decisions really should be about how to reign in consumption by living more efficiently and collectively. Anyone who thinks that by servicing 9 billion people by 2040 to each own a mobile phone, computer, smart car, air conditioner, flatscreen TV and whatever other 'must have' gadgets and tech that comes along and updating all theese gadgets and tech ever few years- is the way to 'save the planet' is dreaming! It's untenable, ridiculous and will destroy the resources that we actually are dependent on and for what? We are one human family and are of one Earth. We cant just go on disturbing and destroying ecosystems forever when we really could focus more on living together more intelligently and harmoniously.
agree, going to be a tough task when money has so much power in the world :(
In the end, battery power is extremely clean compared to using oil. They may share the fact that we rip up the earth for both, but every time we do so for battery materials, we need to do so less and less, whereas oil is 1-time use and necessitates destroying ever more habitats and such.
Yes , but , those windmills can last up to 100 years easily with maintenance !!!
We shouldn’t be using lithium ion batteries for storage anyway.
Vanadium will take over.
@@3800TURBO I was thinking Sodium bromide etc.
This report completely leaves out how tech R&D is heading. Most of these minerals won't be used. Has ABC accepted some deal with mining companies ?
Need to clear the forest so that we can mine the minerals so that we can save the environment, I'm confused 😕
14:15 is a critical part of this documentary: They are looking for elements that they just ignored 10 years ago.
Great documentary, thank you! We absolutely need to mine more for lithium, nickel and other rare materials but should avoid cutting down forests, at ALL costs. Anyone who denies the fact that we need to mine are lying to themselves and not facing facts. Mines should definitely be graded and re-seeded when used, to return to a natural setting but EV's, solar and wind are the future, no question.
yes question
@@scyllajk2757 we should keep exploring ways to make batteries, not jump at the first solution and put all our eggs in the lithium basket. Like fossil fuels- useful on the way to something better?
Uses trees to do the mining for us
Maybe watch planet of the humans and get back to me on the going green thing 🤔
Mining has increased globally on a massive scale as a direct result of the push for renewables. At end of life most of this infrastructure is being buried in landfill because it's cheaper than building new infrastructure from scratch.
"To save the planet, we will need more mines" - Should be "If we are to continue living on a capitalist globe, we will need to open more mines as capitalism demands growth and degrowth is not possible"
Primary problem is the high entropy inherent in the fraudulent banking/monetary system. Usury is historically prohibited cuz the interest amount does not exist. The result is an accumulation of wealth in the upper class...which is where most of the printed wealth resides. And these people are characteristically interested only in their profits...and to hell with the mess our children inherit.
What portion of these resources remains n Aus?
The minerals Australia has left should be left alone or it will all be gone overseas. I was born in Australia in 1968 and was once proud of our country. I'm no longer proud of my country, it's being sold out to the rest of the world.
As we uncover more issues with the concept of "renewables" I think it's only going to become more obvious that nuclear is the most environmentally friendly option.
The benefit/profit needs to be shared by all Australians, not allowed to concentrate in the hands of a few. Coal, Iron Ore etc a examples of how massive profits, pay little tax.
Check out the ATO's Corporate tax transparency reports
Mine the Tungsten, then use the hole as part of a pumped hydro scheme! Win-win! Rinse, repeat for every mine in Australia!
You can almost guarantee our government will mess this up. See you in 20 years when we're looking for something else to dig up and all the cash is spent.
Not a fan of Bob, and all for mining, but I agree the rainforest should be saved. It can't be the only option. Stricter rules need to be enforced on mining companies for rehabilitation because it simply doesn't happen. Even during operations, old equipment? no worries, just bury it... Needs to be recycled.
There is virtually no regulations for the renewables industry anywhere in the world. Millions of square kilometres of land are or will be utilised for renewables globally. Millions of turbines and billions of solar panels. This infrastructure is already being decommissioned in America and the average lifespan of commercial solar plants is only 21years, wind is less. And this infrastructure actually produces energy during its lifespan for around 30% of the time. Most of it is being sent to landfill because the recycling returns are less than the cost if the recycling process. The only countries recycling renewables are those that have mandated to do so. Even then contrary to popular belief few recycle more than 80 - 85%, the ingredients that are to difficult to separate easily are simply incinerated. These most commonly include the rare earth components. Renewables here in Australia are being installed on agricultural land. Australia's total arable land is only 6%. The general public are supporting an industry they know nothing about. Green energy will destroy the global environment faster than any traditional forms of energy. They increase mining on a massive scale. These ores are 'shipped' around the planet, one of the highest contributors of emissions. The processing of some of the materials necessary for the manufacture of renewables is among the most toxic of all mined materials. We send it overseas because we don't want to deal with the toxic waste. Malaysia are protesting in the streets over this. The Chinese just have to do as their told. Manufacturing of renewables also creates large amounts of toxic waste. This has caused environmental damage to what was once farmland. The finished product is shipped around the world and then transported in heavy vehicles to sites that are often hundreds of kilometres from the ports. There is nothing clean, green, sustainable, reliable or even ethical about renewables. It is increasing the global environmental damage, humanitarian degradation and economic collapse at a rapid rate. The energy crisis in the Northern Hemisphere is evidence of the latter.
That area that as usual Bob Brown says no to, he and the rest of those protesting at the MMG site have used miss information, most of the damage done down there at present has been done by them. The rubbish tip that they have left down there is just as bad for the Tarkine. They should be ashamed of themselves for that and also for their actions.
Rehabilitation absolutely does happen. I recommend reading up on Australian mining regulations
@@chlorineismyperfume It does. But it can often be poor and is not guaranteed to have a great outcome. The ability of the ecosystem to adapt and it's level of resilience needs to be considered. It's pretty hard to re-establish a natural ecosystem that you have decimated. Not to mention the run-off that tends to impact other ecosystems. This is a question for ecologists and other environmental scientists. We do rely on ecosystem services to survive, afterall.
The logical sustainable solution would be to create walkable towns. Electric cars are dirty and unsustainable. There is nothing green about a car. No matter how you power it.
There's still a need for EVs unless you're living in fantasy land. Public transport doesn't cut it for many car trips so we can't ignore the need to replace that mode of transport with something far cleaner (and EVs are - the return on manufacturing emissions is pretty short and there are other benefits like cleaner air in residential/built up areas).
@@--Nath-- sold my last car in 2011. Haven't looked back. If you calculate how much time you spend working for your car you are slower than a bicycle. Ultimately you won't be able to con the laws of physics. Electric cars are unsustainable. They pollute and consume finite resources. You are making the planet uninhabitable for future generations.
development of a global EV supply chain and infraestructure will lock-in unsustainable energy, mineral and land uses. it is contrary to an ecological and social justice goal we could be aiming at
@@ianian9078 Don't be so dramatic. Talking about privilege, I do backbreaking work on a farm growing organic food for rich people and I couldn't afford a car if I wanted to.
@@ianian9078 I can't afford a car. It's car people that the whole infrastructure is geared towards in most countries. I have to ride my bike between cars and trucks.
Lead acid batteries that fail can be disassembled into their various components, remanufactured and reassembled into a new battery. Does this happen to the new breed of batteries, lithium for example, or are they simply discarded when they fail?
yes, lithium battery recycling is a growing industry
What's the carbon footprint and environmental impact of by-products of recycling vs manufacturing new?
More than ever we need good leadership on this issue , lets hope these valuable resources arent plundered by foreign companies we currently hold all the cards on this one lets do it right and not sell out to the highest bidder , being a finite resource rare earths are only going to become rarer and more valuable
What do you define as a "foreign company"? Rio Tinto for example is referred to as "Anglo-Australian" (having HQ in England and Australia). Do you think that they would be somehow more altruistic than any other company? These companies and their shareholders are driven by profit. Look at what the "Australian" Rio Tinto mine did at Juukan Gorge. They don't give a stuff about "doing it right". They'll do what they think they can get away with.
It will have to come from somewhere, I would rather it comes from Australia.
Why? We have such corrupt political parties that we get not only a pittance in royalties but they pay no tax then leave our kids the hollowed out country and forever polluted rivers/water tables.. Where exactly is the benefit?
Thanks for commenting tell my trusted friends and my manager (mr Williams) I referred you to him for a profitable investment whatsapk
十 ❶̣̣̣ ❽̣̣̣ ⓿̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ❷̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ⓿̣̣̣ ❹̣̣̣ ⓿̣̣̣ ❶̣̣̣
Oh let the others suffer ya? Do you realize it is an only 1 planet
Saving the planet is POINTLESS unless we magically figure out how to stop our sun expanding then going supernova
It's all well and good chiba owning a mine in taz bit with tensions rising, its going to or could raise tensions even more! This will become the case all over the world!
Well done documentary.
Lets address something stupid.. @7:20 "..wind turbine [requires about] 8.5 tonnes of critical earth minerals to build, that's three times more minerals than a coal-fired power plant needs to generate the same amount of energy". OK. The HUGE DIFFERENCE there is that the coal-fired plant needs that same amount of minerals to generate the next kilowatt (or however much energy you're comparing) - and the next - and the next, forever. The wind turbine however needs the minerals for its build, and then the energy generation itself requires no additional minerals, it's renewable energy - what an absolutely disingenuously presented factoid. The featured quote of the video is also quite misleading, "to go green, will will in fact actually need MORE mines". This is very contentious - yes, we'll need additional rare-earth and 'critical minerals' mines, however, all of the coal mines (of which there are a great many), and fracking mines/operations, will be able to be closed. We will need oil & gas for a much longer timeframe as they're used in far too many products and don't have readily available alternatives - but the coal mines (that we are still for stupid political reasons, funding and building) can be closed near immediately as we move to renewables.
yeah I found that jarring too, there is no comparison, CO equivalence nor the amount of life time wattage that turbine would produce. Like comparing a Fire-pit to an induction stove
If you want to convince people that you know stuff then you should learn that fracking is done via a Well
@@MartintheTinman If you want to convince people your comments are worth reading you should probably make a point in them.
So after mining all these minerals what fuel do you use in the smelter to smelt them Coal
hydrogen and electrification are alternatives to coal
Gas, electric furnace, there are many ways to get rid of carbon and more industrial scale technical solutions are being discovered for better production.
the whole world will have free energy when they break the thermal dynamics law
Opportunity Knocks. We won't just answer the door. We will take it off it's hinges. 💪 Straya!
we actually only need THORIUM
Thorium powered cars and homes 👍
I concur
While global greed is pushing the mining agenda, what hope does this world have.
6:00 “huge amount of renewables,” whereas what is the total input compared to going nuclear.
5:00 cobalt is being phased out from batteries given its cost.
Why is nuclear not a topic of conversation here! Plenty of reasonably clean power vs the pollution of coal and more secure than renewables and batteries that have a limited lifetime.
Then what do you do with the spent fuel?
@@hillvalley6716 think gen 4 not gen 1 reactors a bit like Biplanes compared to a jet aircraft
Capitalism has spoken. It’s not profitable.
@@hillvalley6716 Do you have any idea the amount of physical toxic waste and by-products created during the manufacture and disposal of wind, solar and batteries? It's far greater than the waste from nuclear energy production, you just don't hear about it.
@@margaretarmstrong2445 have you heard of recycling? Battery chemistries are changing all the time and getting cleaner. Nuclear waste remains just that. Waste!
This is the kind of world 🌎 we've made for ourselves and our children, better have no enemies when the light goes out , due to the economic criss, wars and rate of unemployment I think now is the best time to invest and make more money for the future.
I Found Mr Williams Armstrong portfolio online some weeks ago, It was very remarkable and I was so impressed with the reviews.I made up to 35k canadian trading with him for some weeks now
Wow I'm just shock you mentioned and recommended Mr Williams Armstrong, I thought I'm the only one trading with him
@@kyliealex6347 You don't really need to be shock because I'm also a mega beneficiary of expert Mr Williams
🙏Please how do I contact Mr Williams Armstrong?
@@eslacarla8841 He's active on whats app 🇺🇸
in the end, it pushes the progression for better batteries.
You have all the traceability with food! It should be the same with mining! Once an area is finished being mined the land should be reinstated to how it was before and replanted.
Yes it was too polluting to mine cobalt to save lives but it is good to mine it for batteries that will fill our landfills with toxins for centuries to come!
Don't invest in Cobalt, everyone is ditching it...
@@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV That and 4680 has it designed out.
Fancy a mining representative misrepresenting the truth... A long time ago I did engineering with these types at Sydney Uni. Smooth brains.
One of the biggest challenge here isn't the resources or the manufacture of the end product - it's the consumption. People will want an EV for travel (of which they use ~10% of stored energy each day), home battery storage (of which they use 30-50% of stored energy each day)... giving a LiFePo4 battery about 10 years plus before replacement. How about having just one of those two, and either powering your house from your EV battery or powering your car for 30km each day from your home battery?
I think that's where EV manufacturers are going, like with the Ford F150 Lightning but there needs to be backup power when the EV is gone away from the house.
4 Corners need to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
if we upped our Cobalt production and actually built our own batteries, we would be at the forefront of the EV world.
China had a headstart in finding natural resorces such as energy, copper, rare earths and metals for green energy long time ago. thiry years in Africa and South America countries. The west is so late to realize the importance of these critical minerals in modern tchnologies and electronics.
What base power runs the electric car system? Coal, Oil Gas, Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal? Unfortunately Wind and Solar don't provide base energy, so you always need one of the above to make the electric cars in the first place. So renewables by themselves are a pipe dream
This is an incredibly outdated mindset my guy, as more and more renewables feeding the grid, coal-fired power stations are often forced to pay to keep their turbines running when demand drops
EVs are about preserving the car dependent lifestyle, it's not really about preserving the earth. to be fair many Australian cities are taking public transport more seriously but more needs to be done globally
How many diesel trucks are needed to mine “green” minerals.
While mining for electric vehicles may be necessary despite it being so bad for the environment, riding a bicycle sure looks like a good option to reduce this massive mining. On your bike, mate!
13:54 They should be careful who they divulge information to.
ah u must be very proud eh
Imagine being able to drive a luxury big Tesla and flex and be saving the planet at the same time! You get the best of both worlds.
It's a tradeoff whichever way you slice it, but if you can't grow it, you have to mine it.
But if any company makes a profit, there will be screaming and wailing about that.
The 4Corners of NSW apparently.
It seems the rush here is to extract this minerals right away no matter the cost. If we are to do so, why not a measured approach? Like what Norway did with their petroleum extraction, perhaps a portion of the revenue it should go into a sovereign wealth fund which would benefit the country into the future.