Peak Copper

I firmly believe that mining, once we get past this fossil-fuel addiction, will not occur on Earth. There are huge quantities of metals floating in space between Mars and Jupiter. And instead of fouling our air and ruining our landscape, it would be done on lifeless rocks, hundreds of millions of miles from Earth.

I realize that it's a little pie-in-the-sky, but as launch costs drop and demand for materials rise, there's no reason not to mine asteroids

However, I would imagine that a lot of the demand for copper is in massive transformers that are needed to transmit power over long distances. If we had localized generation, the number of transformers would be decreased quite a bit. Also, the development of a high-temperature superconductor would eliminate the need for copper for energy transmission and stop losses to resistance.

Peak phosphate always scares the hell out of me, there are only two mines in the world for it and if we’re lucky we’ve got another 50 years supply. To Icelander: rocket fuel is neither independent of fossil fuels nor clean.

I am intriged by the figure. I would like to be a bigger version on a link to a source.

Thanks!

==== author's response ====
Are you looking for an artist credit for the etching, which is very old? I don't have one but you can find it through Google image search and see if you can read the language of origin for hints.

Or are you looking for a reference copy of the full research paper? Unfortunately, full copies of the paper are only available to subscribers of NAS. Perhaps you can obtain one through your library or by sending a message to the author's.

We're reaching peak everything: oil, minerals, metals, nat'l gas, etc. Vital resources are continually depleted and befouled by industrial civilization. As environmental activists, our work is largely symbolic, and has not been successful in stopping the acceleration of depletion. We've got to stop hoping for substitute fuels and focus on undoing the capitalist economy.
==== author's response follows ===
Or teaching capitalists about good design so they can make money more sustainably.

I have fath that some enterprising companies will start "Mining" copper out of landfills in the future if the price point becomes too much of a concern due to demand and decreased supplies from mining. There is no reason (that I know of), why copper can't be recycled just as steel, Aluminum etc..

Wouldn't it be interesting if the mines of the future are on old land-fill sites?

As the costs of metals rise and the chances of new ore discovery declines, why wouldn't this happen?
==== author's response follows ====
Well you could if conditions were right.. The practical problems are several. In landfills, base and nobel metals alike are soldered and sandwiched and coated on diverse electronics and wrapped amongst construction debris (wires and appliances) and would need a very pyrolytic process (with massive energy inputs per unit mass extracted) to extract them. It would be like mining poor grades of ore. Because of the energy cost, it would be like chasing your tail into the future: the longer you wait for the econmics to be right, the higher the cost of energy due to peak oil/gas. There could be a good crossover point for economics but I can't predict it. The second problem is the landfills that recieved the bulk of the stuff I described above will by the time someone takes an interest be surrounded and covered by human development. "Brownfield development" is already well underway. Because there would be no legal claim to mineral rights per se, you'd have to kick a lot of people off it at substantial cost.

Suppose there are 5 tons of copper in an 80 acre landfill covered with a park and some slab-grade recreational buildings and maybe some solar panels (also starting to happen in several cities). You buy out the facilities on top, dig up and haul the contents to a benefaction and smelting site at distance from the development, extract the metals, return the slag to the landfill and reclaim it for some beneficial use. Now you have maybe 4.5 tons of copper. Let's say the future price is $200.00/pound. That's worth a little under two million dollars. Think it will profitable? I dont't.

When they mine the landfills for Bio-mass to turn into Oil (thermal depolymerization) or to gassify and make into electricity, that's when the scrap metals buried there will be finally reused. It will not be as far into the future as most people think.

Most landfills are only a step or two from becoming the next new natural gas source. A lot of them are already collecting the methane offflows and converting them to electricity, or as feedstocks for other processes.

are you saying that copper is the only thing worth mining out of landfills? don'tyou think there are other things that you would be able to make money from. I hoep people start mining landfills....

oh, and we ought to add coltran to the things that are going to peak

are you saying that copper is the only thing worth mining out of landfills? don'tyou think there are other things that you would be able to make money from. I hoep people start mining landfills....

oh, and we ought to add coltran to the things that are going to peak

When I was a kid I remember going to the dump with a trailer load of yard waste and garbage. I remember seeing old tires, appliances, steel etc. I have thought for years now that they will be the mines of the future. Even if people just went after the easy stuff there would be money to be made.

I recycle all the metals I can from my house. I even save short pieces of copper wire, pipe and old fittings that can't be reused from any plumbing job. Scap dealers pay for copper and some other metals. I bring along any other metals and dump them in their bins so it's sent off for recycling.

"When they mine the landfills for Bio-mass to turn into Oil"

Even if thermal depolymerization does take off, nobody is going to go to the effort of digging up old trash to use as a feedstock. At best the current waste stream will be directed into such processes instead of landfilling.
Aj

To Some Guy: Although rocket fuel is today derived from fossil fuels, there is nothing inherent in rocket technology that requires that.

Rocket engines such as the Space Shuttle main engines can run on pure hydrogen and oxygen. The cost of fuel is essentially zero as a fraction of current launch costs, meaning that fuel made from water electrolisis using solar or wind power would not impose a significant additional cost.

Metallic asteroids are so pure that space mining would be very efficient and would not require the kind of ore processing used on Earth. Basically, an Asteriod would be cut with lasers into cubes which would be covered with a reentry shield and launched to earth with an electric rail gun. The gun wouldn't even need to be that powerful, since asteroid gravity is close to 0.

A single, one-mile asteriod contains a trillion tons of various metals, which means very few mining operations would be required.

I thought that carbon nano-ribbons would replace copper wires and do a better job of electrical transmission too. I haven't seen much in about 6 mo about them though.

"Even if thermal depolymerization does take off, nobody is going to go to the effort of digging up old trash to use as a feedstock. At best the current waste stream will be directed into such processes instead of landfilling."

Think again. It's already a waste material. If Coal can be strip mined economically, what about trash. 4000 pounds yeild s a barrel of oil, that makes it roughly $30 a ton. Coal's been mined for years at less market prices than that. Not only that but that's a sustainable barrel, the process powers itself.

Beyond the 4000 pounds, which would be a small scoop for a dozer, and about 2 minutes of work. The fuel is already in one place. Co-site a TD plant and have at it. Can't have a more ideal location, becuase the NIMBY group is going to protest what? Removing an existing landfill?? Removing toxic and dangerous waste and providing oil and power? (or hydrogen if we go that direction..)

Keep an open mind. Someday someone might just pay you for your garbage.

All that trash is just energy waiting to be found again. It's all biomass, except for th eparts that can be recycled. TD just takes it a step further and makes the end product oil, or electricity, or synthetic natural gas, etc. CWT has done some impressive work on breaking down dioxins, PCB's, and flourocarbons in their process. garbage in = water, phosphates, and a mixed derivative of Oil, Synthetic Natural Gas, or Hydrogen out.

The only things that TD doesn't work with? Metals and Glass. They'll be recycled (hopefully onsite with cogenerated electricity and using waste heat...)

This isn't magic, it's just what happens deep in the Earth's crust accelerated.

For those commenting about land fills being future "mines"...

Scrap heap owners made a fortune back in WWII. The demand for metal was higher than what could be dugg out of the ground
==== author's response follows ====
Same just happened when the price of scrap steel spiked last year due to Chinese demand. Anyone who squirrels away reclaimed copper or platinum for 30 years is going to have a great retirement package.

Yep, just another reason to STOP HAVING CHILDREN. Adopt all you want, but stop procreating as the planet cannot handle it. Resist the base simian urge to multiply and allow your sentience to rule your behavior.

Think buying green electricity, recycling your cans, and using low-flow shower heads makes a difference? That ain't nothing compared to the scientifically proven difference it would make NOT to have a child. Hell, if you chose not to have a kid in favor of driving a Hummer all over town for the rest of your life, you'd have a bigger positive environmental impact on the planet than most of the people here. That's right, time to wake the hell up and make a REAL difference.

Chingy,
With an attitude like that towards people, it looks like your family reached that conclusion one generation too late.

For those thinking I am being too offensive or attacking Chingy, at least my remark was limited to one person, instead of targeting anybody who might actually fight against their selfish natures and have children and try to teach them well, and share in the love of a happy family, as following some "base simian urge."

Well, Old Wolf, thanks for the insult. I assume you have no issue with my simply being the messenger about the raw fact that having a child is the single worst thing you can do to the environment. I guess you were unable to resist the simple simian urge to lash out at me, but at least you accept reality. Odd combo, though.

As for teaching your children well, that changes the negative environmental impact not at all. Seems you are just spinning your wheels rather than facing facts. Hopefully your kind will be marginalized in favor of the more sentient who wander this plant's surface.

One question, why is it so important that you pass on your genes rather than adopt? Are you such a selfish narcissist that you must bless the planet with some bizarrely perceived legacy? Are the millions of adoptable children just not "good enough" for the likes of you?

Condoms: the single best thing you can do for your planet.

I don't think we'll hit peak copper before we have a suitable replacement. Carbon nanotubes are much more electrically conductive, stronger, and are made from... Carbon! You can even make them out
of thin air and reduce global warming at the same time by using CO2 as the primary carbon source.

The ideal setup would be to use CO2 from the air to manufacture carbon nanotube-based solar panels. Talk about green energy!

-Riskable
http://www.riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
==== author's response follows =====
All good prospects, hypothetically, I agree. But sheer strength, compressibility, maleabilty, and tensil strength are independent variables that all would factor into replacing an above ground copper wire with some sort of carbon nantube matrix ribbon. Of all theses, low tensile strength seems like it would be the biggest obstacle. You'd have to support the carbon network with other materials. Don't know enough to make a definitive statement about it though.

"I assume you have no issue with my simply being the messenger about the raw fact that having a child is the single worst thing you can do to the environment."

I think Mother Earth is pretty glad that Amory Lovins' parents procreated.

Hey Joe, waddya know! Not sure what your comment conveys, though. You saying we should all keep popping out kids since a very small percentage might rise to greatness? I hope not since anyone can raise an adopted child to greatness if they try hard enough.
So anyone have a compelling argument as to why you should have a kid rather than adopt, accepting all the environmental harm it will do?

Chingy, this is just not very good logic. What does it mean? The environment created humans, you know. Our intelligence and instincts are an evolutionary product of environmental pressure.

The environment, like capitalism, is unstable. It is always out of balance. Otherwise evolution would not take place, species would not become extinct, and entire ecosystems would not be destroyed periodically, given a meteor or a major volcanic eruption, or continental drift, or any number of natural events.

So far, humans are having a substantial impact as an extinction event. I'm an environmentalist not because I think this state of affairs is inherent, and that our very existence is the problem, but rather because I believe this situation is mostly due to stupidity, carelessness, selfishness, and lack of maturity as a species. Most of the damage we do is simply not necesary. We don't need to depopulate give up having our own children (within reason), to reduce our environmental footprint.

We have made great strides. Only 50 years ago, the environment was simply a non-issue outside of a few experts and pioneers. 100 years ago, environmentalism meant setting aside some land for a national park. 200 years ago, it meant nothing at all to anyone, not even bilogists.

We will win through. Of this I have little doubt. But unless we do away with ourselves, humans will always have an impact.

And if we do get rid of ourselves, Earth's lifeforms are all doomed anyway, as is the entire planet. By some estimates the oceans have about 700 million years left before they evaporate or drain into the crust, which would mean that either way, most of the natural history of the planet is already behind us. Think about that.

Only humans or our descendants have any chance at all to preserve the bilogical heritage of the Earth.

The whole point of protecting the environment, in my mind, is that we define ourselves by how we treat our home and our family. The Earth is our home, and living things are our family. It comes down to values; a moral framework and the ability to feel empathy for our conscious fellow creatures as well as future generations of people.

To you, this may all seem anthropocentric, but environmentalism is a human concept. Don't forget that.

"You saying we should all keep popping out kids since a very small percentage might rise to greatness?"

No, I'm saying that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (pun intended). Having a child is a very personal choice, and it's spitting in the wind to think that railing against it will stop people from doing it. And the point of what I was specifically saying is that humans aren't just some generalized cancer on the planet. Some of us make the world better, some of us don't. Some make a huge difference compared to their impact as an individual organism which consumes and wastes - Mr. Lovins being an excellent example of it.

"I hope not since anyone can raise an adopted child to greatness if they try hard enough."

Raising a child is a crap shoot. No one has all the answers on what it takes to create a "great" person. If so, we'd all do it, wouldn't we?

"So anyone have a compelling argument as to why you should have a kid rather than adopt, accepting all the environmental harm it will do?"

First of all, I still reject your premise that a human being necessarily "does environmental harm". We all live and effect the world in a small way, just like other living things. Plants give us oxygen and we give them CO2. So I don't think that giving life to plants should be considered "environmental harm".

The problem is that the human systems we have established are harmful. But you need to differentiate that from the very personal nature of an individual existing, making choices, etc. Your view is very grim, in that it paints us all as negative beings.

As for the question of adoption versus making your own child - that's also very personal. I'm adopted, for example, so I can appreciate and be grateful that people adopt and that I was fortunate enough to be raised by a wonderful family.

But I can also see the benefit of keeping my genes in circulation.

The thing you need to understand is I don't necessarily disagree with you about the need to be conscious about human population, the benefits of fuel alternatives, or whatever. But the way in which you come off on these topics turns more people off then turns them on, and if you really are concerned about these things, you might want to rethink your communication approach. You rush to judgment very quickly.

If you can piss off your allies and judge them incorrectly, imagine how people will respond to you who aren't already sold on the notion of the value of environmental sustainability.

Fair enough. But a few points:

Simple Google search will bring up the studies which show the single biggest negative impact you can have on the planet is to have a child. Numbers don't lie.

If you're so into personal choice over everything else, then I don't want to hear a peep about people who choose to drive a Hummer, own a yacht, and consume vast quantities of meat. Its their choice, isn't it?

When there are no longer tens of millions of children in need of a home and the current "human systems" have been changed for the better, the "choice" to have a child will be a sentient choice. Right now, there is no excuse. Sorry, your specific genetic makeup is not special, unique, or invaluable to future generations. Get over your bad self and become an agent of change.

One last thing. You realize we're talking about PEAK COPPER!?!? My god, how many Peak "X" must we reach for you all to figure it out??? I mean...PEAK COPPER, the stuff there is so much of on Home Depot racks.

In case anyone thinks I'm off base with the "having a child is the worst thing you can do" position, here's what you need to wake up to:

Certainly without more Americans. In 1994, Charles Hall, an ecologist at SUNY Syracuse, performed a life-cycle analysis of the average American by determining each person's lifetime share of the nation's total consumption of various resources. It's the kind of study usually undertaken for assessing the impacts of a new product or policy, and the results are unsettling.

Hall and his colleagues found that a single new American born in the 1990s will be responsible, over his or her life, for 22 million pounds of liquid waste and 2.2 million pounds each of solid waste and atmospheric waste. He or she will have a lifetime consumption of 4,000 barrels of oil, 1.5 million pounds of minerals and 62,000 pounds of animal products that will entail the slaughter of 2,000 animals.

Here's the actual study:

http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/pdfs/Hall_etal_1994_population_envi.pdf

Now that was 12 years ago. Its only worse now.

"Get over your bad self and become an agent of change."

There's a perfect example - I *am* an agent of change. In my personal life, i do a whole host of things to make my personal consumptive impact as minimal as possible. And in my work life, I have been dedicated to sustainability for almost 20 years now.

You're just blindly lashing out at everyone and assuming you live some kind of morally superior life. You don't.

So, again, I ask you the question - if you really do care about the things you say you care about, then why don't you consider better ways of effecting change than demonizing every single person who engages you? You must realize at some level that you're actually *harming* your causes by doing that, right?

Oy Vey! Pot calling kettle black based on some of the gems you've posted here and other places. Look, slick, at no point did I directly call people who choose to procreate anything other than selfish and narcissistic. Based on current facts, that assessment is spot on. The time for PC, diplomatic discourse on this subject is long gone. We are at, if not just beyond the tipping point where anything we do cannot prevent the mass extinctions and drastic climate change that is to come. So now its up to us as to how long this period will last. Have a kid, curse everyone (including the kid) to a longer period of unpleasantness. If that's not the textbook definition of "selfishness", I don't know what is. Telling me that I think I'm somehow morally superior is your own issue, you made that up on your own, I don't claim to be. I'm a simple human who can see the numbers and come to a very simple conclusion.
Of course you can argue with me on my presentation and use that as a convenient excuse to ignore the message...yea...that'll help.

"f you're so into personal choice over everything else, then I don't want to hear a peep about people who choose to drive a Hummer, own a yacht, and consume vast quantities of meat. Its their choice, isn't it?"

This is ridiculous, you are equating a child with conspicuous consumption.

Further, your statement that "a single new American born in the 1990s will be responsible, over his or her life, for" X, Y or Z consumption and waste is flat false. You are, assuming the study is accurate and no significant change in environmental policies take place over the life of that American, talking about the average American.

Those of us who do something about the environment are not average, and neither will our children be. I refuse to forego having children -who happen to live with a light environmental footprint-, so that George Bush's or Ken Lay's progeny can travel a few thousand extra miles on their corporate jets.

My genetic makeup is absolutely special, to me. Further, studies of twins clearly show that not only physical attributes, but personality traits have a strong genetic component. Adoption is a good thing, but having one's own children is good too.

Not to mention the sobering fact that in the US, conservatives are outbreeding liberals by three to two. The political impact of that by itself will be of tremendous harm to the enviroment. I'd suggest it already is.

If your most creative solution to address the problem implied by the study you cite is population reduction, I would ask you why you don't start with yourself. Think of the thousands of barrels of oil you will save.

I can think of better ways to have a positive impact, both in personal choice, and preferably in community action or through the workplace, where achivement is multiplied. I can say that had I not been born, more energy would be used now than otherwise. I've more than offset my personal use (not by buying some piece of paper, by the way), and I'm just getting started. I will teach my children to do the same.

Chingy.
I wasn't agreeing with your premise, was just using an off-color way of saying the world is better off without someone with such an attitude. It was one step short of what I really wanted to say, that if you believe your very existence to be so bad, you have the option to remove yourself and reduce your impact on the environment.

In reality, I believe an attitude change would be better for the cause of improving the environment The numbers for the barrels of oil consumed you provided, for example, might be reduced by educating people on reducing consumption, encouraging the use of renewable energy. The slaughter of animals for food does not really concern me. I do feel people are more important than other animals, and I am by nature an omnivore. That does not mean that the eating of meat should be excessive.

With regard to adoption, I praise those who adopt, and my wife and I decided that if we weren't able conceive, that we would adopt rather than try fertility treatments. We are aware of the children in need, as my wife is a social worker and works for a foster care agency, helping children get adopted. Her parents adopted one child, and we are considering adoption in the future, but figured we might wait until we have a bit more experience parenting before adopting a child or children which might come from situations which will require special concern, more patience, and greater skill.

"Of course you can argue with me on my presentation and use that as a convenient excuse to ignore the message...yea...that'll help."

You don't listen.

I know everything you're preaching at me. You're not informing me of anything I don't already know.

I also don't personally have any children. So I'm not sure what you're preaching at me about that, either.

Again, I ask you - do you really care about what you say you care about? Why won't you answer that?

Because if you do, you need to ask yourself a few things. The first is - what is the most effective way of achieving what you say you want? Is it to insult people endlessly? Is it to not seek to understand them as individuals? In your experience, is that actually effective? In my experience, it results in just the opposite -- people getting turned off.

There really isn't much point in belaboring this further, since you're obviously more concerned with screaming at me and everyone else, rather than acknowledging that we all can see the problem you're speaking about and are concerned about it as well.

Also, I doubt you'll digest this concept, either, but here goes -- what I do, what you do, what any individual does has absolutely no discernible effect on the planet. None. It's statistically meaningless. I could have 50 kids and it wouldn't change the direction of the "population problem". I could drive Hummers 24/7 -- wouldn't change a thing. I could live in a 100,000 square foot house with the air con cranked and all the windows open -- wouldn't change things.

This is a very hard pill to swallow, but seeing as you're seemingly so concerned with acknowledging hard truths, I would think you would be honest enough to realize that's true.

And because it's true, every individual struggles with the sense that what they personally do won't make a difference, so they look to things that are personal and can make a difference. And for some people that means they choose to have a child, love him or her the best they can, and raise the child to be a good person.

All the screaming and badgering isn't going to do a darn thing to make things better. It certainly is completely pointless when people already know what you know and by-and-large agree with you.

Joe, check out Alonso's enlightened response and you'll understand why many people need a good dressing down on this subject. He's got the "smoker's attitude". That is, up until very recently, smokers felt it was their personal choice to smoke, regardless of the direct negative impact it had on those around them. Hell, most of them did not even believe in second had smoke, just like Alonso doesn't believe the study, just like many gov't scientists didn't believe in global warming and some still don't. I'm glad we agree in principle, but I will continue to put fourth my opinion on this in the most "in-your-face" way I can. There simply is no more time to hand hold people.

Chingy, I'm sorry but you are being plain dishonest. I did not say I don't believe the study. I said you misrepresented it -even if it were true, which it very well may be-, by omiting the word "average". Nowhere it is written that every particular individual will consume 4,000 barrels of oil or any of the other statistics you mention. These are averages; statistical constructs. Neither me nor my family consume anywhere near the US average.

You misrepresent what I say, and you misrepresent the significance of the study's findings. You seem to believe it is somehow ordained by destiny that every person must, by the very act of existing, consume absurd amounts of resources, as if we didn't have plenty of options available both individually and as a society.

Your narrative is equivalent to the religious idea of being born in sin; your approach is akin to that of a fundamentalist zealot who makes no attempt whatsoever to engage the problem rationally. You further damage the environmental cause by asking people to renounce a basic human need, which you compare to smoking or driving Hummers.

Lastly, like zealots usually do, you take an inherently hypocritical position, since it would only be self-consistent if you did away with yourself, a question posed by two of us which you naturally refuse to address, since your logical approach cannot handle it.
=== author's response follows ====
Suggest that the interested parties consider reading "Tragedy of the Commons" as a pretext to further comments on this thread, which has gone considerably astray of Peak Copper, interesting though it may be.

Alonso, I misrepresent nothing. I simple cut and paste from here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/11/16/gree.DTL

Talk about zealotry, you are the one mentioning killing (as in I should kill myself). Only zealots or lunatics go down that road. I would suggest therapy. Again, this is all about YOU. YOU want YOUR genes to be passed on. YOU want YOUR OWN children and don't want to adopt. Your position is basically: ME, ME, ME. You, and the multitudes like you are why were are at the point of total ecological disaster. FACT: you create a child, it will consume. FACT: you adopt a child and you are theoretically resource neutral. SIMPLE MATH. When the human population growth goes negative, then you can think about creating a child. Until then, you are selfish and care nothing for your fellow human.