Lithium Mining in the West

[ski3pin]

Here is another interesting one. A "sea" that was filled by accident in California and is now dead holds one third of the global supply of lithium.

Salton Sea is Key to California's EV Future

 

[Foy]

If I'm not mistaken, the presence of the Accidental Sea at the surface has nothing to do with the geothermal power resource or the developing processes to extract lithium from the brine which occurs at some apparently considerable depth below the "sea". The questions about the source of the brines and the depths at which they occur are probably fairly readily determinable but for the time being, I suspect the arrival of the sea at the surface 100 years ago has little to no impact on the resource aquifer much deeper in the graben.

But it's fascinating to read about the State Gummint's enthusiasm towards development of the resource! There's even a catchy new name in play: The Lithium Valley! Again, this skeptical curmudgeon's Gummint BS radar is buzzing loudly.

I earnestly hope to see gobs of lithium produced in the area of the Salton Sea a responsible and profitable manner, but when Gummint enthusiasm such as this suddenly pops up, I sense some other interests are about to get trampled.

That which seems too good to be true, often is.

Foy

 

[AWG_Pics]

Foy, I have yet to meet a fellow geologist who is not a skeptic at heart. I share your sentiments. My take is there are many "garbage to gold" schemes out there, but very few pan out. I would love to be proven wrong on this one.

 

[teledork]

So, will all this lithium mining have any effect on climate change?

I've pulled some quotes, the full article is at:

https://www.sierranevadaally.org/2021/05/17/dispatches-from-thacker-pass-harms-of-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project/?fbclid=IwAR11nsL5nF5aY7kUoecopWLbA8pATs_JhEJRC-oY5BWt2dpA7BkB2jIKLD4

"…..analysis from the Center For Interdisciplinary Environmental Justice says that electrification of cars will only reduce national emissions by 6 percent. Since transportation accounts for 29 percent of U.S. Greenhouse Gas emissions, that 6% reduction only accounts for a 20 percent reduction in overall transportation emissions. Eighty percent remains.

Manufacturing an electric car and its battery releases around 9 tons of CO2 emissions. On top of this, most electricity generation (roughly 64 percent) that powers electric vehicles still comes from gas, oil, and coal. Most of the rest comes from nuclear power and hydropower, which have their own associated atrocities (choked rivers, plummeting salmon populations, and radioactive waste that will last billions of years) as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Solar and wind energy make up an increasing, but still small, proportion of the power supply, and Nevada is paying the price: solar sprawl is bulldozing through critical Mojave desert tortoise habitat, and wind turbines are knocking birds and bats from the sky en masse.

All this is why the CEO of Toyota, the largest car company in the world, recently said that “The more EVs [Electric Vehicles] we build, the worse carbon dioxide gets.”

Extractive industries like mining are responsible for half the world’s carbon emissions and more than 80% of species extinctionshttps://www.theguardian.com/environ...extraction-carbon-emissions-biodiversity-loss. "


There are also plans to use huge banks of lithium batteries for on site storage of electricity. Apparently there is a rule( or policy or something) that the so-called "sustainable" energy cannot exceed a certain threshold of production which would lower the price of electricity. Since "peak" power hours continue after sunset (when winds often die down as well) it seems storage would solve this problem. But ........

I have experienced how poorly lithium batteries fare in the cold. And if they get too hot they can catch on fire. So these massive banks of lithium batteries, likely to be housed in metal buildings in the desert, will need to be heated and cooled. To what extent and how much of a parasitic drain the heating and cooling will be, is unknown.

- the latter two paragraphs are information from a podcast - if I can find it again I'll post it up but I believe the interviewee was the director of Basin and Range Watch

 

[searching for nowhere]

Thanks for sharing this information. It encourages me to do more digging into the facts around Green plans. I'll be looking for other sources since everyone seems to have their own bias. One simple step forward is for everyone to assess their own energy usage and see if it can be reduced.

 

[Foy]

So, will all this lithium mining have any effect on climate change?

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps about as much as cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline will have, which is to say "so close to zero it can't be measured". Changeover to EVs with lithium batteries and mega scale power storage for solar and wind power is nice to imagine but it's tough for even the most optimistic of objective observers to estimate how, or even if, whatever warming trends there are may be affected by the changeover.

Really not trying to be too cynical here, and not trying to start a flame war or any sort of dispute with a community whose members I value greatly, but this old geologist sees the big picture as one in which this planet's climate has been changing since it was formed. We've had everything from "snowball earth" to an earth's surface temps in the hundreds of degrees C. Sea levels have changed by hundreds of meters many dozens to hundreds of times. In only the last 12,000 years, less than a blink of an eye relative to a 4 billion year old planet, sea level has risen dozens of meters as the (most recent) continental ice sheets melted and retreated. Some, including myself, see insufficient hard evidence that what warming we've seen in recent decades can't be attributed materially to the tail end of the post-Pleistocene warm-up. Man's input has been only been present in the last 150 years of that 12,000 year trend.

I politely contend that the smart money is in dealing with climate change, not in attempting to stop it. Large areas may become far less inhabitable, just as the great, vast Saharan savannah did just 5,000 years ago (again, with no input from mankind), and there very well may be nothing which can realistically be done about it. I'm not in favor of abusing any resource, but I see little other than a vastly disrupted economy resulting from a rush to find solutions for problems which may be unsolvable.

Foy

 

[craig333]

I wish I could remember his name but back when I was working for CDF in the 80s they commissioned a weather study. He never mentioned climate change at all that I remember but he did say we leaving a period of unusually mild weather and entering a period where we'd see wild swings in weather. Pretty much exactly what has happened. I'd be curious to see what he thinks about climate change.

Think it was Dodge something or something Dodge. Marvin Dodge. I knew it would come to me eventually.

 

[Foy]

I'd be curious to see what he thinks about climate change.

Think it was Dodge something or something Dodge. Marvin Dodge. I knew it would come to me eventually.

The developing "greenhouse effect" was hitting the press from within academia circles by the late 1960s and was in full swing by the time my particular group of doe-eyed hippies sought to save the Earth with our geology degrees in the mid 1970s. Problem was (and is?) that none of the dire predictions concerning climate and sea level changes came true. Almost to a man (and woman), we all got into oil and gas or mining since nothing of substance was going on in environmental. The ringing of the alarm bells has persisted since that time as has the absence of the predicted circumstances. So when "environmental scientists" speak of "10 to 12 years before it's too late", my memory cells remind me I've seen this movie on a continuous loop for the last 50 years. I don't claim to know what's going to happen, but I've got a strong intuitive feel for what won't happen.

For the college science folks out there: Ever take a close look at the curriculum for an "environmental science" degree? Just in the last couple of years, some of my old classmates and I have had occasion to do so due to our beloved Geology Department having morphed into the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences. To cut to the chase, there are many, many curricula which require only 12-14 credit hours of applied science (chemistry, physics, biology, geology) and 12-14 credit hours of social science (political science, sociology, psychology, "environmental law", etc.). Whether these folks should be regarded as scientists or not depends on one's own perspective, but in the eyes of certain fossils who earned BS and MS degrees from classical geology schools in the 1970s, lots of them are not scientists to any meaningful degree. And yes, we did walk to class through 3' of snow, uphill, both ways.

Foy

 

[rando]

I feel like there is some pretty bad stereotyping and hand waving going on here. Dismissing an entire field of science and a massive body of research based on some hand waving arguments does not seem particularly scientific. For the old geologists in the group, I would suggest you consult your own professional societies (the GSA or more broadly the AGU) to learn what the current thinking in your field is. Even the API and the Society of Exploration Geologists have position statements that align with the scientific consensus.

As to belittling environmental scientists, it helps to realize that environmental science is a broad field and is an applied science, not a basic science. The fundamental research into climate is primarily carried out by PhD atmospheric scientists, hydrologists and geophysicists at government agencies (NOAA, NASA, USGS etc) and universities. Environmental science builds on this basic research (as well as toxicology, hydrology etc) to come up with strategies, practices and policies for mitigation, adaptation and remediation for environmental impacts. As such, environmental scientists have a larger breadth of knowledge and need to not only have a understanding of the science, but also the politics and policy, the societal impacts, the economic impacts etc. At my institution, an undergraduate ES degree requires 60 credits in physical science, economics and social sciences in order to graduate.

There is also a large overlap between ES and Environmental Engineering, with the Environmental Engineering folks having a focus on the more technical details of assessment and remediation, while the ES folks are looking at the broader picture.

Full disclosure, this is coming from a practicing atmospheric scientist and recovering engineer.

 

[AWG_Pics]

I feel like there is some pretty bad stereotyping and hand waving going on here. Dismissing an entire field of science and a massive body of research based on some hand waving arguments does not seem particularly scientific. For the old geologists in the group, I would suggest you consult your own professional societies (the GSA or more broadly the AGU) to learn what the current thinking in your field is. Even the API and the Society of Exploration Geologists have position statements that align with the scientific consensus.

As to belittling environmental scientists, it helps to realize that environmental science is a broad field and is an applied science, not a basic science. The fundamental research into climate is primarily carried out by PhD atmospheric scientists, hydrologists and geophysicists at government agencies (NOAA, NASA, USGS etc) and universities. Environmental science builds on this basic research (as well as toxicology, hydrology etc) to come up with strategies, practices and policies for mitigation, adaptation and remediation for environmental impacts. As such, environmental scientists have a larger breadth of knowledge and need to not only have a understanding of the science, but also the politics and policy, the societal impacts, the economic impacts etc. At my institution, an undergraduate ES degree requires 60 credits in physical science, economics and social sciences in order to graduate.

There is also a large overlap between ES and Environmental Engineering, with the Environmental Engineering folks having a focus on the more technical details of assessment and remediation, while the ES folks are looking at the broader picture.

Full disclosure, this is coming from a practicing atmospheric scientist and recovering engineer.

Agreed!

 

[Foy]

Full disclosure, this is coming from a practicing atmospheric scientist and recovering engineer.

I'm entirely grateful for your boots-on-the ground perspective! My view of the matter is restricted to undergraduate ES programs only, so your quote concerning 60 hours of physical science, econ, and social science dovetails with what I've read of some Eastern schools' curriculum, one of which requires only 12 hours of physical science and plus 15 hours of social science. With but 12 hours (4 three hour courses?) spread out among chemistry, physics, biology, and geology, my own perspective is that the graduate has little claim to being a scientist, no more than my own claim to be a chemist because I passed 2 semesters of chem, a physicist because of 2 semesters of physics, or an economist because I earned a minor (15 hours) in economics. I'm none of those in that I am a geologist, having earned 29 semester hours in geology courses in addition to the chemistry, physics, biology, and general college social science credits. MS and PhD graduates are a whole different group, again IMHO.

Thanks again!

Foy

 

[rando]

There is a difference between core requirements, breadth requirements and electives. I don't know which specific program you are speaking of, but even if their core undergraduate requirements are 12 credit hours of physical science, that doesn't mean that a graduate from that program didn't elect to take 50 credit hours of biochemistry, geology, hydrology, limnology, economics, policy analysis or what ever specific field they are interested in. They still require 120-130 credit hours to graduate with a BSc.

Environmental Science (it is sometimes called Environmental Studies) is a broad field and graduates work in all sorts of roles, from conducting fish surveys in streams, performing policy and regulatory analysis for fortune-500 companies, preparing air quality permit applications for mining companies, working as interpretive rangers, working with communities to address environmental concerns and I am sure a good number end up working at Starbucks as well. A graduate from one of these programs also may or may not consider them selves to be physical, social or political scientists, depending on the selection of courses they took and the career path they chose.

Demeaning an entire program of study based on skimming a course catalog is not a fair or accurate assessment.

 

[Foy]

It was not my intent to demean any program or any individuals involved with any program. I'm sorry my comments were perceived as such.

My classmates and I engaged in far more analysis of ES undergraduate programs than "skimming a course catalog" can describe. Two of us had personal first-person exposure to the processes of the morphing of undergraduate geology departments into ES departments at the University of Virginia and at Duke University. We also critically reviewed undergraduate ES curricula from each of the state supported universities in Virginia and in North Carolina in addition to a small handful of private Eastern universities in addition to Duke.

What we saw, and still emphatically believe is is the case, is the embracing of ES effectively spells the beginning of the end of classical undergraduate training in geology. Whether that's problematic or not is a matter of personal and professional perspective. One might imagine Sheldon from the "Big Bang Theory" sitcom might say "so what?" One of my colleagues recently retired from 42 years in oil and gas exploration and over the last dozen to 15 years of his career he regularly lamented the poor training received by BS degree holders from ES or combined ES/Geology programs in the East as compared to the undergraduate programs in the Mountain States, Texas, and Louisiana. It's easy to assume his observations are the result of the dumbing down of geology degrees triggered by substitution of social sciences for physical sciences. Review of curricula supports this notion. Anecdotal observations include comments from retired faculty at UVA, Duke, and our own BS program and all lean heavily in the direction of frustration about the poor quality of undergraduate training.

Nowadays, we see on a daily basis exhortations to "follow the science" and sharp criticism/vilification/"cancellation" of any who dare to question local, state, or national government policy which purports to "follow the science". We feel like it's entirely legitimate to learn more about how the scientists our government leaders are (blindly?) following were trained. For our parts, we're far more comfortable with scientific leadership arising from those with rigorous undergraduate and graduate training in hardcore physical sciences than from those with more credit hours in social sciences than in physical sciences. That's not meant to be demeaning, instead it's just a statement of preference.

Once again I thank you for providing your valuable perspectives. Even in my late 60s, I earnestly try to learn something each and every day. This discussion has provided lots of food for thought.

Foy

 

[rando]

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but on the surface it does seem that you are implying that graduates of Environmental Science departments are somehow inferior or 'poor quality' relative to 'classical' geologists. That is a broad and unfair assessment.

However, it does appear that this may be a straw man argument. If the concern is about the education of 'government scientists', you will be relieved to know that the standard bar for entry as a research scientist at a government or academic institute is a Ph.D. (usually from an R1 university) and 3-5 years of post doctoral study (roughly equivalent to residency in an MD program) and a successful track record of research and peer reviewed publications.

It maybe informative to browse the qualifications of some of the NASA, NOAA, NCAR scientists before casting dispersions.

However, as a 'hard core physical scientist' I am not sure we want leaders and policy makers only listening to 'hard core physical scientists' , as we only have a relatively narrow view point and field of expertise and are not always the best at communicating our ideas to lay people. This is where the folks who have a broader skill set with enough training in physical science to understand the scientific output, but also training in economics to be able to understand the economic impact of policy, and social sciences to be able to understand the societal impacts of both climate change and policies to address climate change come in. Many of these folks may have graduated from Environmental Science or Environmental Studies programs.

 

[AWG_Pics]

During the last 11 years of my working life I managed a small group of scientists that included usually a couple of PhDs, and several professionals with Masters degrees. Additionally I worked closely with an Independent Scientific Advisory Board, whose purpose was to look at broad ranging science questions related to ecosystems, fish and wildlife related challenges in the Columbia River Basin. I also worked with an Independent Scientific Advisory Board whose charge was to review the scientific efficacy of hundreds of fish and wildlife restoration projects, usually related to habitat restoration and fish rearing in the Columbia River Basin. Both these Independent Science groups are comprised of senior scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences. I also developed tasking for an Independent Economic Advisory Board, comprised of senior economists with natural resources experience.

We regularly engaged with tribal and State and Federal government scientists during project review and issue document preparation.

As a result of this very close association with working scientists, young and old, I reject any argument suggesting current science education is somehow not as rigorous as it was in "the good old days." It is a silly argument that cloaks the realization among most practicing scientists that we as a society and as a species are trying to understand and confront some deeply complex issues. No one, except politicians, will waste time on red herring arguments that 'things haven't really changed' or 'climate science is still uncertain'.

Serious scientific investigations are now focused on how to mitigate environmental problems that have non-stationarity attributes.

I am grateful for the great number of highly trained scientists, mostly young, some old, working on these issues. My biggest concern is the political process will not be up to the job.

 

[Foy]

Gentlemen,

Great, great stuff, and much appreciated.

Foy