• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    BS. You’re assuming current (or is that past) levels of renewable energy and no recycling. Sure mining and processing done rare earths is polluting and energy intensive, but it gets cleaner every year based simply on increased renewable energy. Also, most of these metals are infinitely reusable, and just aren’t yet because it’s not worth it until they’re widely used

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re assuming current (or is that past) levels of renewable energy and no recycling.

      See the 40% figure. It assumes realistically achievable goals in the EU for the next decade or two.

      most of these metals are infinitely reusable, and just aren’t yet because it’s not worth it until they’re widely used

      That’s not the problem. The problem is that it’s not economical to recycle them. You technically could recycle them in the present day but mining new resources and throwing the old stuff into a landfill is just cheaper and I don’t see that changing any time soon, especially not in undemocratic neo-“liberal” places such as the U.S.

      This argument also misses that the current demand for transport is much smaller than the future demand will likely be. We aren’t even close to putting every human on earth into their own metal box yet; that insanity is still in front of us if we continue like we have been the past century.

    • Ibex0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      most of these metals are infinitely reusable, and just aren’t yet

      Nothing is infinitely reusable. We have so much e-waste.