Could Deep-Sea Mining Solve the Energy Crisis?

[@SciShow]

JMP offers a 30-day free trial for anyone, anywhere. Go to www.jmp.com/scishow to see the benefits of visual statistics for yourself.

[@ahickey]

So the science channel just took money from a company that had their presenter say "You don't need to know what you're looking for before you begin.". Sounds very scientific, almost like saying "With our program, you could find whatever answer you need to sell to your clients.". Now I am sure that is not what the program sells itself on, but when you throw a bunch of number in this not knowing what you are looking for it would seem that the program could preset information that MAY be contrary to more informed data.

[@seanhewitt603]

​@@ahickeyThe strategic information isolation of all concerned allows for a greater profit margin...

[@GuardianOfUltima]

Jmpin on this free trial

[@n00by90]

@@ahickey tbf "knowing what youre looking for before you begin" is probably a bad thing considering confirmation bias... the presenter was basically saying that the data will speak for itself when you organize it properly, which is for the most part a healthy way to analyze results.

[@isdeirinnme]

I’m glad this video focused so much on the downsides and the unknowns. To add to it: areas where these have already been mined are basically undersea deserts where even years after mining, zero life has returned - it’s completely barren. This unfortunate result further confirms the finding that these produce oxygen for deep sea life to thrive.

[@huldu]

I remember an area where they were mining gold from the ocean floor many years ago, like you said after they were done it was an area void of life and even after all these years nothing has changed.

[@Blaze6108]

Also, it’s still deep-sea mining, meaning it’s unlikely to be cheap. It might allow us to eke out some more batteries but it will never make them cheap enough for some sci-fi energy revolution.

[@grapes4832]

These ecosystems probably took millions of years to establish themselves. Whatever we take, future generations of scientists will never see or study it again. I hate it here

[@nolanwhite1971]

We probably shouldn't mine the ocean. However, if we don't (the US and/or Australia) then someone else surely will (China or possibly Russia). We'd at least TRY to limit environmental damage. Anyone else is unlikely to give a damn.

[@grapes4832]

@@nolanwhite1971 ah yes, America and Australia, famous for their good treatment of the environment and preservation of biodiversity

[@Brown95P]

I'm sorry, but I'm just much more interested at the fact these rocks can *_literally create oxygen out of deep seawater_* than the fact they can be used as car/phone batteries; is it normal for me to think that?

[@osmia]

+

[@ShirinRose]

+

[@djfuggi]

Actually that “study” was actually debunked. They do not produce oxygen.

[@korbindallas4552]

Think about it. They have the metals we need to make batteries. In some small way they are actually batteries, but not as strong as the ones we make with purified materials. Electricity in water creates hydrolysis, separating the hydrogen and oxygen from a water molecule. So the nodules create more free oxygen in the water. The maximum voltage they saw from a nodule was around 0.95 V (950mV). But the average is much less than that. Also they can't produce electricity constantly so the oxygen production is "intermittent" at best.

[@Brown95P]

@@korbindallas4552 As intermittent as it may be, the fact these nodules can produce oxygen through hydrolysis/electrolysis as they are, with little to no pollution to their surroundings, is still much more interesting to me than if they were turned into mere phone batteries.

[@nickrider5220]

Helping one environment by possibly destroying another....sounds like something we'd do !

[@Dee-jp7ek]

"Why would you wanna save it?" "BECAUSE IM ONE OF THE IDIOTS WHO LIVES IN IT!!"

[@Mith420420]

If we mine up all of those oxygen producing rocks they found on the bottom of the ocean it might totally end up ruining the planet.

[@grapes4832]

@@Mith420420 plus, we have no idea what the effects of moving that much heavy metal onto the surface could have.

[@grapes4832]

@@Mith420420for all we know, these environments could be acting as a sink for heavy metals, keeping them out of the rest of the food chain

[@xpkareem]

It's all one environment tho, we'd just be wrecking ourselves trying to save ourselves from ourselves.

[@Sugar3Glider]

5:30 It took 30 years and there's still no sign of life where the nodules were mined. That's a fair bit different from suggesting it takes 30 years for things to start growing back.

[@korbindallas4552]

The video stated 30 years for the "dust" cloud to settle. I say "dust" because it's very wet.. I thought dust was dry?

[@Sugar3Glider]

@@korbindallas4552 the video uses language that _suggests_ things are "back to normal" after 30 years, but the reality is that the site isn't back to normal (or really even started) and it's been 30 years since the mining operations occurred. This is a strip within the nodule pile, so it'd be like not growing your hair back after your brother took a strip of hair off your head with the clippers 6 years ago, and now your baby brother wants to chase you around with those same clippers. Oh! Regarding the "dust" I think it's ocean sediment at that point. It's weird to think about, but look up Marine Snow... It's made of many things.

[@Lily-cx1vo]

Scientists: We need more data! Big Business: YOLO

[@lovewenwin]

😂😂😂

[@djhalling]

Yup, the magic words are right there at 1:38

[@ThatEntityGirl]

A tale as old as capitalism itself

[@nathanlevesque7812]

@@ThatEntityGirl incidental bc science was barely existent before capitalism

[@06blackmetal]

We could invest more into research for better battery technology that doesn't require metals like cobalt and lithium. Also we need to recycle more of the batteries we have already produced

[@kkplx]

you can't research your way out of physics.

[@EnkiduShamesh]

@@kkplx We already know how to make batteries with different elements, it's just a matter of making them more efficient. Physics isn't the limitation here, our lack of knowledge is.

[@Dyejob01]

Agreed! I also thought green energy was about sustainable energy. If these take millions of years to be created, they aren't a sustainable resource.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

For getting rid of cobalt and nickel, we already have LFP and LMFP batteries, which are equal or better than NCM cathode lithium ion in most applications. Lithium isn't a huge problem, it's just that we actually have to learn how to refine lithium clays instead of just the specific rock deposited we're been working with up to now, and there are plenty of people already working on it. If you want to go without lithium, there are a plethora or other energy storage options in development or commercially available that would see more use if lithium got too expensive, but none of them are going to beat lithium in terms of specific energy.

[@goosenotmaverick1156]

"Disposable" vapes should be illegal across the world. They all contain lithium cells and just get tossed.

[@the_once-and-future_king.]

Mining the deep ocean floor. Do you want Godzilla? Because that's how you get Godzilla.

[@faytleingod1851]

Lana?. LANA!? LAAAAAAANNNAAAAAA!!!!!!!

[@DevanK-rg3td]

Personally I'm not a loser that views every thing through the lense of fictional media

[@Chicanery_Artifice]

Correct. You're simply a loser.

[@JacquelineDGreen]

Analytical chemical engineer here. Love that JMP is sponsoring SciShow. That would make me choose them over Minitab. ❤

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I will go so far as to say we shouldn't mine these nodules. there is nothing in them that we actually need. Grid storage batteries are already quickly moving to LFP chemistries that don't need cobalt, and there are plenty of chemistries under development or early-stage deployment that don't even use lithium, and there are plenty of practical non-battery energy storage solutions currently being deployed and scaled up too. Even electric cars have been moving away from cobalt-containing batteries to save money because LFP batteries are just good enough for a practical electric car now, and soon there'll be LMFP batteries that would relegate NMC batteries to stuff like long-distance trucking and short-haul aviation, which is just not that big in total. The main high value product from deep-sea nodules is cobalt, and the only places where cobalt is could be considered limiting resource for the energy transition is certain smaller segments of transportation, and magnets for some offshore wind turbine generators. And we don't need any new cobalt production to satisfy that because currently most of the world's cobalt goes to oil refining, so we can just move that over as we transition off oil, and it'll be fine. And there are alternative technologies that don't use any cobalt in both cases, and since deep sea mining is going to be much more expensive than mining on land, there's no guarantee it could even compete with the alternatives even if we did start to "run out" of economically accessible cobalt on land.

[@WentzCraft]

Most electric cars don't use cobalt (LFP) but most cell phones. A larger use than both of those is in refining oil.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

This is such an important point that most people miss. if we just took the cobalt we use for oil refining and put it towards the batteries that have to be NMC for performance reasons, we wouldn't need any new cobalt mining.

[@WentzCraft]

@@thamiordragonheart8682 I know that while refining they can reuse the Cobalt and it's not considered a consumable though there is a very slight loss with each cycle. I believe if we had just what they've lost in that process it would fill all of the future Cobalt needs until it's no longer required for any EVs at all. To my knowledge There's no study to support my feelings in this regard.

[@squireltag1000]

🤯

[@Dee-jp7ek]

Scishow is obviously not arguing in favor of this but it is important to know more about these things. When these greedy corporations go forward with this we'll be educated on the subject and be able to speak out more quickly and effectively. Like "hey pay attention, this material will return on the quiz"

[@markchapman6800]

Batteries for storage of excess solar and wind power don't even need to be made from lithium. If weight isn't a consideration, then sodium (which we have *lots* of) should do as good a job or even better.

[@ezmoore27]

I really felt that belabored "...okay..." at 6:56

[@nathanandsugar5252]

Capitalism go brrrr... giving out licenses when we know confidently how to REMOVE THE PRODUCT (in 1 of 4 areas studied).

[@ravensdotter6843]

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

[@Wicked_Knight]

_'Leave the ocean potatoes alone!'_ Haven't we damaged the planet enough?…

[@dc9926]

Answer…. Greedy people/corporations don’t care about out anything but bottom line and they have the money to push things through. So ecosystems will be destroyed. Even if they benefit the world, and are necessary.

[@Memiceelfandeye]

‼️

[@StarStrider99]

I'm sorry, but this comment added nothing useful to the conversation here. If someone has suggestions on how to prevent this outcome, like how to keep money from corrupting the process of regulating mining activities or develop alternative technologies that solve this issue, I'm all here for it. I understand if you feel powerless in this situation, but this defeatist doomer garbage just encourages negative sentiment and discourages us from finding solutions, if they do exist. EDIT: Looking back at this comment, it occurs to me that despite my best efforts, the way I worded it comes across as unkind and uncharitable, and I apologize for that. I feel that our conversation should be more focused on solutions, as we are already all too familiar with the corruption and perverse incentives in our system. This is why I think venting about such things in KZbin comments is counterproductive if it doesn't lead to a call for reform. I was too hasty in my response though, and I really am sorry about how it came across. Thank you for understanding.

[@Fenriswaffle]

@@StarStrider99 It is useful to point out that a perverse incentive is present. We can discuss ways to prevent the worst excesses of the exploitation but these mean little if the companies that stand to benefit from this potentially immense resource are also well positioned to ensure the fewest of those regulations are put in place. As for discussion? We would do well to consider the myriad potential battery solutions that don't involve Cobalt and Lithium...oh and there's a Lithium deposit in the US...if we feel like uprooting Indians...again.

[@mobilemarshall]

@@StarStrider99 don't say you're sorry, you're not.

[@squireltag1000]

​@@StarStrider99you about had me until the "this defeatist doomer garbage.." bit. Then you lost me.

[@mal9369]

We don't know how mining will affect the deep sea organisms? I do. Negatively. Just like mining always does

[@kagitsune]

The sponsors you get for these episodes are so interesting! First cloud servers and now SAS! I learned JMP this summer and it was the best stats software I’ve used so far. ^_^

[@Otis151]

Can you please do a video on Evidence Based Management? Is it always in the context of ecology?

[@fernbedek6302]

We can save a lot of our demand by using bikes, buses, and trains instead of electric cars. Especially because trolly buses and trains won't need batteries at all.

[@sohendo2211]

Good luck making people who are used to driving cars start to ride bikes

[@flueder]

​@@sohendo2211 sure, you can't convince everyone but if the infrastructure was more focused on bikes an public transport, over time less people would use cars for short trips and the public would be healthier over all.

[@DM9_eyo]

Yeah, that is the big problem. I most of the US, the infrastructure really isn't there for busses, bikes, and trains to be a viable option. If I were to drive to my parents' house from where I live, it's only 25 minutes. If I were to bike, it would be 2 hours. If I were to bike and take the bus, it would be 1 hour and 50 minutes. I'd love it to be a viable option in my area, but it isn't. The other problem with public transportation is the cost. I'm poor, so I do a lot of cost analysis. If I were to take public transportation every day to school and work I would spend roughly $80 more a month than if I paid for my car insurance, gas, and oil (My car burns a liter every 300 miles. I'm looking to fix it. Just need to borrow an engine hoist.). I would love to take public transportation, but like I said earlier, it doesn't make sense here yet.

[@kenrickman6697]

@@sohendo2211 This logic boils down to “It can’t be done that way because it isn’t done that way.” Which, if you think about it, is utter nonsense. Much better would be to ask *how* a change might be possible, or to try to understand how things got to be the way they are. Habits can be changed. Humans didn’t evolve to need many tons of steel powered by explosions just to get food, after all. What cannot realistically be changed is human nature. People are lazy, so they will tend to take the easiest path in almost all cases. If that’s driving a car half a mile to get fast food, then welcome to America. But if that’s something else, like walking, buying and hooking real food, etc., then that’ll do that - and they doing places where this is the case.

[@DemonXeron]

Also, encouraging working from home and moving people closer to where they work via rent control and affordable housing programs will help too.

[@brandonvasser5902]

We ALSO learned like, TODAY, that theres a lithium deposit discovered in Arkansas that has as much as 9 times the current proven reserves on the world. We can get lithium.

[@iamachine]

Will there be strip mining? What will that do to the area? How dense is it?

[@YukiteruAmano92]

I just finished listening to The Wild Robot Protects yesterday. All about deep sea mining and its potential catastrophic environmental impact. Funny timing!

[@swolpertinger5004]

Back in the 90's a close family friend converted a station wagon into an electric car. It didn't have the same HP that modern ones do so freeway use wasn't advised nor going up BIG hills. It could go highway speed though and was a great "local" car. In the back bed was a box that stretched the width of the seats. That box was jammed full of Duracell batteries. He designed it in such a way that it could be plugged directly into a regular house outlet for charging. The plug was sticking out of the grill and the cord was tensioned to spool back inside when not in use. My mom hated the thing because it was quieter than a bike so if he was pulling up in it to visit, she had no idea he was outside. Iirc, it cost him less than 8K to convert.

[@notyesbetothefallssorcerer3272]

I remember from a "the Jetsons" movie, they were mining resources from asteroids. However, turns out there's inhabitants living inside the asteroids and the mining was destroying their homes. The profit from the mining is absolutely worth it, but you gotta consider the environment and what you could do to keep it safe or give them an additional benefit. I think this applies to wind and solar farms as well as they take a lot of space as well, there's no guarantee the local ecosystem won't be affected. There're already multiple issues with dams being in the local ecosystem of fish and aquatic creatures. A fish ladder helps with the salmon and other fish traveling upstream. But that's not enough to ensure the rivers and lakes don't become toxic because of the sediments being held back by the dam instead of being carried into the ocean as it normally would.

[@faenethlorhalien]

Just what we needed, to destroy YET another environment and make life a living hell for more animals.

[@MichaelWalker-hh2xp]

Good episode 👍

[@tigerhawk84]

If the only ways we can get the lithium and cobalt needed to have "green energy" and getting those materials completely destroy the environment which they reside(it does) can it really be called green at any point.

[@hikari_manekineko]

"Avoid CO2 emissions at all cost" is really not a smart environmental strategy.

[@MrDhalli6500]

NO we should not, leave them where they are.

[@twonumber22]

seems more like postpone than solve

[@FNLNFNLN]

Since when has catastrophic environmental destruction stopped people from making a quick buck?

[@jarodbeukelman6893]

Its worth noting though, the answer is shouldn't be a definitive yes or no, its viewed as a trade off. Which is worse, the risk of destabilizing or destroying this ecosystem below the sea, or the risk of not building sustainable energy technologies fast enough to stop climate change from destabilizing or destroying all the rest of the ecosystems on the planet?

[@oldmare444]

@@jarodbeukelman6893 There are other ways to deal with these problems. We can't keep living the lifestyle we have. We must cut back.

[@CountJeffula]

@@oldmare444speak for yourself. If you want to live like a peasant, more resources for the rest of us.

[@unktheunk1428]

the sheer exhaustion with the topic on display here kinda says everything that was explicitly said twice over

[@tropicalbluwaters]

We could build geothermal plants all around Yellowstone National Park and power all America with electricity for decades. We wouldn't need any more solar and wind farms and nuclear power plants. Perhaps freeways and major roads could have electric rails installed in them to power electric cars with much smaller batteries for driving around neighborhoods. We could also develop alternative materials for electric batteries storage. Perhaps we could designate a sacrifice zone far out in the Pacific Ocean as a test For retrieving modules and study the impacts Over several years? We could also build robots with arms and hands to individually pick up each module and place them in bins which would float up to the surface once released. That would minimize the damage of sediments floating all over the place. There are so many things we can do if we consider all the other alternatives first.

[@jacobjohnson8069]

Or we could just except the reality that we arn't the only species on this planet for ones, seriously when will enough be enough.

[@Shatterverse]

Molten Salt if largely better for immobile power storage. No need for valuable metals and best off all, heat is a requisite for them to work correctly. Any heat will do, meaning that waste heat is optimal, and pumping heat out of data centers and other high heat producing industries is perfectly fine. And they don't explode if they fail or break; they just cool down and need to be heated back up to work again.

[@TheStickCollector]

Wouldn't it be easier to improve even further on nuclear? At least it is a proven technology that is close if not green already and especially if there was a way to further reuse/recycle the waste then it would be perfect

[@TescoValueMemes369]

But nuclear is scary /s

[@Toastmaster_5000]

The problem is convincing people nuclear is safe (it is, when it's not regulated by communists)

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

that may happen anyway with some of the big tech companies trying to jumpstart nuclear redevelopment in the US for their own purposes.

[@Quinnnard]

@@TescoValueMemes369it really isn’t, you’re just uneducated

[@daniellemurphy9755]

THORIUM!!!!!!!!!

[@yuvalne]

about that commercial, isn't "you don't need to know what you're looking for when you start" one of the most common forms of p-hacking?

[@NoctiliaGrah]

idk man why are you asking me?

[@RayApollo]

This comment made my day

[@Avendesora]

Gonna be real sad when they inevitably change the title to not be a question anymore

[@TheCatcherofBalls]

Obviously, it's because you haven't played Subnautica and this video talks about mining underwater which is a Subnautica reference

[@NoctiliaGrah]

@@Avendesora true. i'm just glad i managed to snipe the first comment.

[@davidellsworth2178]

Not sure if it’s the right thing or not mining the nodules. But I have a thought, cobalt is one of the ferromagnetic elements. Can they be picked up with a magnetic 🧲 system for a less impactful method?

[@SathReacts]

6:57 is an entire mood

[@StardogTheRed]

Instead of dredging the sea floor, we could build more electric public transportation with non-lithium off-site energy storage solutions, and for the off-grid vehicles, we can do hydrogen fuel cell technology.

[@Sellyei]

There are so many other Solid State battery technologies in development, that by the time we figure out how safely to mine it ( if at all), we will have great alternatives on hand already.

[@seanhewitt603]

Whats the total acresge of the nodule "outcrop(?)"... I'd imagine their removal would be akin to the clearcut deforestation of an equivatent potion of dry land. Not a good look for a green energy movement to make...right?

[@blaarghwee]

Okay. That's my favourite word of the week. Nodule ^_^

[@AaronGeo]

Oil corporations: 👨‍🦯👨‍🦯👨‍🦯

[@EnergyTRE]

Nikola Tesla beat that long ago.

[@djhalling]

What oil companies hear when listening to this video: "Blah blah blah... *whoever does it stands to make a lot of money* ...blah blah blah"

[@EnergyTRE]

@@djhalling it change society as we know it. You think this is the greatest power transfer the globe has ever known. You're in for a surprise.

[@fiveminutefridays]

as someone who knows basically nothing about this subject: these take millions of years to form, but so did diamonds before we figured out how to make them artificially. Maybe someone will find out how to make something that accumulates these elements from seawater more quickly? Its obviously a VASTLY different process so maybe that's literally impossible, but I hope someone out there is seeing if thats a possibility

[@iamachine]

Nice out of the box thinking!

[@korbindallas4552]

I like the way you think. But the minerals in these nodules aren't particularly concentrated. I'm not knowledgeable enough to give you a real timeframe

[@Iammrspickley]

We will never learn....the only thing in which we truly excel is making a bloody mess of things and being unable to control it

[@jursamaj]

Gravity power storage is nice… for large scale power plants. You'll still need batteries for vehicles.

[@theodoretibbitts9538]

feel like it makes more sense to mine rare metals by evaporating saltwater than extracting these nodules. I’m sure its a much smaller amount and a bigger land cost, but we can do it without potentially destroying an ecosystem we know nothing about

[@sg5184]

We could try just not using Terra Watts of power on AI and just increasing efficiency requirements instead of murdering the ocean.

[@ffc1a28c7]

Fun fact. The oceans contain around 66 million metric tons of gold. Humans have mined around 200000 tons in all of history. There is enough gold in the oceans to make a 150 meter by 150 meter cube.

[@rahmanauf4345]

I think the renewable energy storage system should be upgraded with a hybrid non-cobalt base element battery with an aluminum super capacitor. Rare metals are used only for high-density energy storage. We do not require high energy density storage; we only need the most optimal possible energy density storage solution. When a battery is combined with an aluminum super capacitor, it creates an immediate recharge energy storage system. The marine ecosystem is very important to us. Imagine that all of the oxygen we breathe today was produced by photosynthetic plankton millions of years ago, when the earth's atmosphere had no source of oxygen.

[@awebuser5914]

FYI, here's a strong turn away from cobalt in Lithium-Ion EV batteries. Progressive cell development has drastically reduced the amount of cobalt used, and in the case of LiFePO4 cells (about half of Tesla's production), none at all! Other than for very high-performance uses, cobalt is probably going to be completely phased-out in 5-10 years.

[@Emcron]

we gotta super-size those claw game machines to safely pluck these nodules

[@saiynoq6745]

Energy crisis just sounds so funny to me, how much energy do we actually “ need” vs how much do we use for fun an conveniences we don’t need. But that whole whatever culture that is dominant in our local lives keeps us like sheep just the wool is what little frog skins we have.

[@rohansampat1995]

We do not have the energy required for many things. We cannot defend ourselves in an interstellar war. We can "maybe" survive an asteroid impact. We canot produce energy needed to travel the stars. We cant even meet our demands when fossil fuels run out. We NEED more energy for all of our advancess, especially AI.

[@CountJeffula]

The goal should be to harness ass much energy as possible. You don’t want to be wrong when the stakes are this high.

[@rohansampat1995]

@@TheGIGACapitalist When was the last asteroid impact ? When was the last time one of our planets was gobbled by the sun

[@jacobjohnson8069]

We don't want to use human power for anything even if it's not that mutch, on top of that U S cities are so far spread out it takes miles of power lines just to get from point A to point B, and the design of houses and buildings hear arn't ment to take advantage of natural convection and things like sky lites arn't used mutch any more, and then their's the city block layout witch causes people to want to drive more because their not restricted buy it, the with of streats and highways etc, the way America is designed in jeneral is terrible for any green energy.

[@rohansampat1995]

@@jacobjohnson8069 duh but also we as a species need more energy. Our current consumption is not even enough to generate antimatter. All you "green" folks while pointing out correct deffeciencies are very annoying pricks. I talked to a guy from france who was trying to buy a LESS powerful computer "for the environment". FRANCE HAS SOME OF THE CLEANEST POWER IN THE WORLD. Using energy effeicently is different than reducing our quality of life for the environment. I think that distinction should be made.

[@Rubikorigami]

People have developed sodium-ion batteries now ! They alleviate the need for rare earth metals in some use cases. They are heavier than Li-ion, but still, they're a very hopeful solution

[@SteveGillow]

I'm old enough to remember all the stories about ocean floor mining, until we found out it was all the cover story for the Glomar Explorer to salvage a Russian sub.

[@arnulfolopez2167]

Jurassic Park said it best: before we even knew what we had, we patented it, packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunch box.

[@GamePois0n]

how is enable consuming more helps to solve a consumption issue?

[@crimsonraen]

Oh gosh, I really hope people don't try to remove these, and just finish off the ocean... -_- Apparently we just found a big lithium reserve in Arkansas, so maybe that'll be at least a little better than ravaging the ocean?

[@hitesman1]

Wasn't this the premise to the horror movie, Underwater? Lmaoooooo

[@eligoldman9200]

We don’t really need to harvest lithium in the ocean. It’s an extremely common element and it’s very common in the Australian outback.

[@josephd.5524]

feels rather like the question we need to answer before we set off another Great Filter event...

[@Bambi_Sapphic]

There is more than enough REMs on the surface and accessible in locations we already do extraction, this wont stop mining in these surface areas this is just arguments used by the same groups who want to be able to drill for crude and mine for REMs in the great barrier reef and marine protected zones on top of surface mining

[@cherenkov_blue]

Honestly I think the only people still seriously debating the impact of this are tech bros who stand to gain from this mining.

[@rohansampat1995]

Really? We do not have the battery tech to meet clean energy goals. People wanting minerals to store clean energy, which would make things like wind/solar and other renewables more reliable while also challenging "on the go" fuels like oil, are not just profit seekers. Though a lot of them are, taking a serious look at the gains and losses of this is warranted. Obviously more info is needed to make a good desicison, remember the amount of species that are poisoned by climate change

[@roberthiltz2741]

This is the second video I’ve watched on this topic, we desperately need to understand more about the ecological impact before mining- just look at our history of biological contamination due to over mining and you will understand how far later we realized that we have done things wrong in the past and now there are areas of our world that are uninhabitable

[@fariesz6786]

2:13 "at that depth exploration is dangerous, difficult, and expensive" oh i'm sure some dashing entrepreneur is going to come up with an affordable solution 🎮

[@Florkl]

There is a risk that you’d set off some chain reaction, but nature is durable and I’m more concerned about known dangers to ecosystems near humans than potential dangers to ecosystems far away.

[@Kickilia]

I think one really important thing you touched on is how we historically have just taken the lazy way out and continued using the same finite resource until we destroyed everything around it or the consequences are so massive we have global destruction going on (e.g. oil). If we already have options to avoid mining an ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM we know NOTHING about, I would like to loudly and resolutely say DO NOT do it. It is almost surely going to cause us massively more harm than benefit in the long run. I am not sure the short-term benefits are worth it. Push all that money into the development of more non-cobalt, non-lithium batteries and components instead.

[@JayPea7204]

I just saw on the news that a huge store of lithium was found in Arkansas just a few days ago that could fill the demand for lithium for many years

[@saoirsecameron]

Remember how we just learned that oxygen is generated in the deep ocean? Surely nothing can go wrong from disturbing it (sarcasm)

[@soccerandtrack10]

It makes sense if you know about each 1.

[@gravestone4840]

Sodium based batteries are almost ready for market. They have the potential for double the current amount of storage capacity and use super abundant metals like sodium. We do not need to destroy another ecosystem when we have a solution to limited rare earth availability.

[@gravestone4840]

For large scale power storage we could also invest more into more physical forms of energy storage such as using surplus energy during down time to spin up giant flywheels or to lift large weights which can be released to put energy back into the system with magnetic breaking during peak hours. Connect every exercise bike in the country to the grid. Build kinetic sidewalks in large cities. There are solutions to our energy problems everywhere but we aren't taking advantage of basic physics and things we already do or use that create and store kinetic potential or that can create energy directly.

[@michaelwatts1810]

Sadly as brought up by other commenters where mining was done the sea is still barren after 30 years. To make matters worse the sea bed she is referring to has already been leased out by the UN with the majority of the area going to China. Based on China's past environmental record (they are still building coal fired power plants) they will mine the seabed and possibly destroy the Pacific Ocean in the process.

[@yortgq]

Perhaps Luna mining, with a Luna settlement working in conjunction with orbital platforms around both Luna and earth would be more feasible and less destructive

[@kuntamdc]

Third video ive seen about these nodules.

[@kingkingg7868]

This is all from massive Canadian private mining companies, and they actually even paid for this research, but of course they didn't expect the 'negative' results in helping them acquire rights to mine, and even tried to bury these studies somewhat. I'm glad this video focused on the gained knowledge, though I wish a finger was pointed

[@DKofDAH]

We don’t even know much about the ecosystems in the deep see and how we might depend on them in various ways. There are other alternatives.

[@Rabaheo]

well supposedly they just discovered a lithium deposit under southwest arkansas so that might prove more viable at least for that metal. Invasive resource extraction in an otherwise undisturbed natural reserve would be absolutely terrible and mark a continuation of exploitative human behavior against our long term interests.

[@kahazaba]

Why do I have the "don't look up!" movie plot before my eyes...

[@hibrooell]

Yes

[@route2070]

Good news, major cache of lithium has just been found on land! Mostly in Arkansas.

[@ShaunakDe]

To have a sustainable future, we don't need to mine the sea, we need to reduce consumption. A truly sustainable future isn't an electric car, it's developing great mass transit.

[@ODISeth]

Even if we do start mining them, completely ignoring all the environmental harm that act alone could cause, the face that they’re a non-renewable resource means it wouldn’t be solving the crisis, just delaying it. It’s still important to research,

[@brandon2755]

I feel like we've had several movies about why deep sea mining is a bad idea

[@mossydog2385]

Humankind will kill itself off in pursuit of the only things that are vital to life itself....getting obscenely rich, and convenience. This will be great news for every other life form on the planet, which bodes well for finally, in the distant future, intelligent life to finally form.

[@Echo81Rumple83]

i consider the ocean the second in line of exploration for humanity (where space is supposedly the final frontier). getting to explore what's down there would be leagues cheaper and easier than muskarse's SpaceX(...crement) that's essentially Star Tours for the too-rich-for-their-britches class. regardless, unless there's a sure fire way to not make too much of an impact within that biosphere, it's better to just look but don't touch, and bring home samples for further research. we still have a diverse options of renewable energy, and there's more coming each day. all we have to do is vote for the Blue Lotus and her allies 💙🗳☑🌊

[@ChrisHarmon1]

We just have to wait for James Cameron to find Cameronium on the ocean floor.

[@sparticuzj19]

It’s a crazy idea that should never be allowed to happen. Do you know the amount of damage it will cause the that fragile ecosystem?

[@ursaltydog]

The climate crisis still isn't fully understood as not all parameters are included in the data sets for computer modeling. But what we DO know, is that we pollute... and megatons of it. And not CO2. In a recent study that backs up older studies, plants and trees take up more CO2 than previously thought. DAta sets do NOT include enough solar weather science that is actually the cause of the warming of the earth by the destruction of the ozone layers above both poles, allowing joule heating of our atmosphere all the way down, by energetic solar particles and heavy proton bombardments along with ultra high UV. A layer of our ionosphere, F is already depleted in large swaths over the earth. That is not caused by CO2. Solar energy breaks apart O-3 easily, and that is the protector of our planet. It takes years for it to recover, and it cannot be replaced at the pace it's being destroyed. Couple that with the earth's magnetic shield having decreased up to 20%.

[@robertbackhaus8911]

If mining the deep ocean means less mining fewer fragile and rare on-shore ecosystems, then of course we should mine the deep oceans. It's also realistically the only way we are going to look at the deep oceans.

[@orioneverett128]

I think asteroid mining is a better idea. Devaluing some of our rarest metals is only a problem for money-minded businessmen. The abundance of these metals in space would be VERY good for humanity and scientific advancement as a whole.

[@bekkaanneee]

replacing our current fuel system based on a virtually non renewable resource, that takes millions of form into usable quantit, that has immense potential, and the harvesting which would irreparably change it’s natural habitat? sure that sounds great source of energy for cars

[@thomasgoodwin2648]

We spend untold wealths ensuring we don't contaminate another world, yet how cavalierly we most often let greed dictate our choices in the alien depths of our own world. 🖖👽✌

[@miker_c137]

more Cobalt is used by the oil industry than the electric car industry. They use it to remove sulfur from the oil.

[@gracielags6826]

I have to agree with the overall sentiment that we shouldn’t mine the deep sea. The unknown consequences, the fact that it will take decades to recover, if it recovers, and the fact that it would be expensive! The fact that it is expensive would probably make green energy that uses it more expensive (to cover the cost of mining the deep sea) making green energy unaffordable for most people, and it would make it so that only a few companies can mine there. Less affordable green energy and more monopolies is the last thing we need. Plus the deep sea is one of the last places on earth with minimal human interference, why would we damage that sort of ecosystem?

[@pinkace]

Lithium isn’t hard to find. It’s the third most abundant element in the UNIVERSE.

[@maartenjansen3393]

Isn't this the spot of the weird wave bubbles in recent months/years with skyscraper high waves?

[@GetTheFOutOfMyWay]

7:05 What do we do? They've already made their minds up. Full on full speed ahead avatar style! #Murika! 😂

[@Alexander_Kale]

Alternatively, we could just scrap the whole sea-rocks-to-batteries idea and build more nuclear power plants.

[@WackJack187]

We need to develop emotionally before we can even hope to utilize most energy sources

[@marcopohl4875]

We should study them so we can find a way to replace them for the ecosystem first!

[@dasstigma]

"Buut... None of this will directly affect MY ass, so I'm gonna mine them because money!" - Homo Sapiens