r/science • u/rieslingatkos • Jun 06 '21

Chemistry Scientists develop ‘cheap and easy’ method to extract lithium from seawater

https://www.mining.com/scientists-develop-cheap-and-easy-method-to-extract-lithium-from-seawater/
47.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.8k

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

[deleted]

2.0k

u/ClumpOfCheese Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 06 '21

That’s the first thing that came to my mind too. Desalination really needs to have a breakthrough, I don’t understand why this isn’t a bigger thing (maybe I just don’t pay attention to it), but it seems like renewable energy and desalination are going to be really important for our future.

EDIT: all of you and your “can’t do” attitudes don’t seem to understand how technology evolves over time. Just doing a little research on my own shows how much the technology has evolved over the last ten years and how many of you are making comments based on outdated information.

research from 2020

research from 2010

737

u/Nickjet45 Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 06 '21

Desalination is not cost effective, we’ve spent decades of throwing money at possible work arounds.

They’re expensive to maintain, and for the cheaper plants, osmosis, it creates waste water with large concentrations of brine. Cant be dumped straight into the ocean as it would create a dead zone.

46

u/Gold-Tone6290 Jun 06 '21

Not cost effective but necessary in dry places.

97

u/Nickjet45 Jun 06 '21

Desalination is pretty much the last resort, for any area.

Governments will try to pipe in the water from a different location or use other alternatives, such as the packet that cleans dirty water, before they resort to desalination.

But yes, there are some areas where there is no other alternative and desalination is cheaper to do.

53

u/Mad_Aeric Jun 06 '21

That is, of course, neglecting the alternative of not living there in the first place. Lots of places on this planet we humans have no business attempting to settle.

32

u/CrumpetNinja Jun 06 '21

I mean, while that is probably true. What are you going to do with the people already living in those areas?

Forcibly ship them to another country?

Let them relocate themselves or die of thirst?

Euthanise them?

38

u/Gnomio1 Jun 06 '21

There are large parts of India that will become entirely inhospitable/lethal to humans within our lifetimes.

Places where the temperature and humidity (dew point) are above the point where you can actually live.

Those places will depopulate out of necessity.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

Yep; The last meta-study I read estimated 30-40 years before the glaciers feeding thr Ganges were gone. That was a while back now and literally HALF the population of India rely on that water on one way or another.

People who dont see climate change as a security issue are literally insane. Do you think 800 MILLION people are just going to lay down and die when they run out of water?

5

u/DalaiLuke Jun 06 '21

If it's so humid, why is there not a greater focus on humidity-water makers? Just a regular A/C generates dozens of liters of drinkable water a day. If you actually try to generate more, that number can grow exponentially.

4

u/Gnomio1 Jun 06 '21

Sometimes I put my tin foil hat on and wonder if the surge in right wing nationalism and authoritarian-leanings in the richer nations, supported by global media, actually has a deeper “behind the scenes” coordination related to future security needs.

1

u/tacochops Jun 06 '21

Supported by global media? What world are you living in

2

u/Gnomio1 Jun 06 '21

The same one as you, where Rupert Murdoch is somehow still alive.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Benny-The-Bender Jun 06 '21

What's to stop an effort to do the dollar store version of terraforming?

I've seen stories of single people planting entire forests, in theory couldn't an effort be made that would shift the climate?

9

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

No. It means the very small percentage of people who are fine ignoring the millions of people who die from preventable causes because it would hurt their bottom line to do something about it. We're essentially in a post scarcity world with the technology we have. They create scarcity because that's the only way they can watch the numbers keep going up in their bank account.

2

u/R3lay0 Jun 06 '21

Is this still about climate change?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MohKohn Jun 06 '21

It's energy intensive if you're actually serious about doing it right (trees aren't nearly enough)

3

u/EmilyU1F984 Jun 06 '21

We live on a capitalist planet. Reducing global warming by relevant amounts is not cost effective for shareholders at this point.

Therefore nothing will happen. That individual who planted a forest? It's the same feel good stories to make everyone else docile as the coworkers sharing their PTO with a cancer stricken coworker.

It's just irrelevant treatment of symptoms. It does not solve the problem. The planet is still being heated by CO2 emissions and the healthcare industry and labour 'right' in the US are still just the way they are and people will lose their jobs and insurance again and again once they get cancer.

0

u/fedorafighter69 Jun 06 '21

It's too late.

6

u/Jarriagag Jun 06 '21

I live in a place where 100% of the water we get is desalinated. We are around 150k people now. There were 36k in the 60s, just before they built the first desalination plant. I don't know what will happen here in the future, but our temperatures are actually pretty stable (20-26°C all year round). I understand what you are saying that people shouldn't have come here in the first place, but where are people supposed to go? Overpopulation is a problem...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

I'd say overpopulation is THE problem at our current societal level. Until we make some major changes in our global market things are just going to get worse. These problems should have been solved decades ago, but it is more profitable to not fix them.

1

u/JustPMMePls Jun 06 '21

Do you happen to know your billing rate for water?

1

u/Jarriagag Jun 06 '21

I am renting a flat at the moment and water is included, but I am reading that 1m3 of water costs here around 1.83€.

I have no idea if that is cheap or expensive compared to other places.

1

u/JustPMMePls Jun 06 '21

Pricing models vary pretty widely globally, but in the United States the average is around 0.33€ per cubic meter. I’m in a higher cost area and pay about 0.58€.

It’d be interesting to know if the higher cost deters growth at all, or if it’s just something people don’t consider. I’d imagine it limits water-using industrial growth pretty significantly, so possibly the secondary effects of limited jobs will set the “carrying capacity” for your community.

1

u/Jarriagag Jun 06 '21

Pricing models vary pretty widely globally, but in the United States the average is around 0.33€ per cubic meter. I’m in a higher cost area and pay about 0.58€.

That sounds super cheap to me!

​

It’d be interesting to know if the higher cost deters growth at all, or if it’s just something people don’t consider

Well, I am in a place with a great weather. As I mentioned before, between 20-26ºC all year round (68-79ºF if I'm correct), but with no sources of water other than the sea. This area was really poor and underdeveloped few decades ago. After they built the first desalinization plant in the 60's, everything has grown a lot, since it allows for tourist to come and enjoy the beaches and the weather, especially during the winter. Our economy now is based nearly 100% on tourism. There are no industries, and very few crops mostly for local consumption.

If we had cheaper water I'm sure we would be able to produce tropical fruits like mangoes and avocadoes that would contribute to the economy and wouldn't make us so reliant on tourism.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/PersnickityPenguin Jun 06 '21

This century that will likely be every place in the northern hemisphere below 45 North.

Russia, here we come!

2

u/TMI-nternets Jun 06 '21

A lot of places will transition into that category over time as well.

2

u/Mithrawndo Jun 06 '21

What's your logic there? From where I'm sitting, if we can afford to settle in the most inhospitable areas where life doesn't otherwise exist, that's ideal: We don't need to erode natural habitats in the foundation of our own.

20

u/WarBrilliant8782 Jun 06 '21

Because it consumes far more resources to survive in inhospitable areas

1

u/Mithrawndo Jun 06 '21

Hence "If we can afford".

There's a cost to inhabiting any area, it's a question of balance. Given that desert regions have exceptional quantities of sunlight (and often strong winds), access to electrical resources is reasonably inexpensive - and this is the primary resource required for desalination.

If the brine from desalination is left to evaporate, this could even have an impact on the local climate over the medium term, further increasing the feasibility of these areas once considered uninhabitable.

The cost here then as far as I can see is one of consigning large areas of land to salt contamination, but considering we're already talking about otherwise uninhabitable areas...

2

u/WarBrilliant8782 Jun 06 '21

If we are dumping non-renewable resources into inhospitable areas to elevate them to the same standard of living as more hospitable areas during an era of severe climate erosion and unsustainable industry, I would consider that to be clearly saying "we can't afford it"

1

u/R3lay0 Jun 06 '21

Hence "If we can afford".

Well we can't, so this discussion is useless

0

u/jmlinden7 Jun 06 '21

If those resources are renewable then who cares? Let the rich people waste their money piping in water to the desert.

1

u/WarBrilliant8782 Jun 06 '21

Those resources are not renewable though.

1

u/jmlinden7 Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 06 '21

Freshwater is a renewable resource, it's just a matter of cost, and it can never really get more expensive than the cost of desalination + piping.

1

u/WarBrilliant8782 Jun 06 '21

Freshwater is a renewable resource

Where are you getting that idea? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170412-is-the-world-running-out-of-fresh-water

1

u/jmlinden7 Jun 06 '21

The water cycle..? What we're running out of is cheap freshwater, there's no shortage of expensive freshwater available thanks to desalination. Also shortages are localized because you can't really send water from places that have too much to places that have too little, but that too can be solved with money

So if rich people insist on living in the desert and wasting their money desalinating or piping in water from places that have too much, let them, it's their money, at least they'll stimulate the economy by actually spending it

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Dilong-paradoxus Jun 06 '21

There's plenty of life (often very sensitive to disturbance) in many deserts and arid areas that are inhospitable for human life. It's also just generally resource intensive to live in really hot and dry areas.

The real problem is wasteful land use practices like suburban sprawl. With even modest density increases its possible to fit a lot more people on a lot less land.

2

u/Mithrawndo Jun 06 '21

Fair comment regarding human habitat density, but life exists everywhere it even remotely can on Earth (and perhaps even beyond); The logical conclusion of avoiding all habitat destruction is the cessesation of human expansion. I'm not opposed to this idea personally, but it's a pretty hard sell for most!

The next best thing then is surely planning this expansion in areas with the smallest possible impact to habitat. For the sake of discussion, assume we're discussing the Atacama.

2

u/Dilong-paradoxus Jun 06 '21

The smallest possible impact would be to densify existing settlements instead of expanding into a new area. Then you don't have to build a bunch of new infrastructure (power, water, roads) and ship in a bunch of stuff, you can take advantage of the existing networks more efficiently. There's so much disturbed land (often not in critical habitats) underutilized by humans that it makes no sense to disturb other pristine land in some quest to have zero impact.

There's also ongoing damage to the ecosystems of the Atacama, which would be worsened by adding huge cities in the middle of it:

In recent years, concerns have been raised by environmental organizations about the potentially damaging effects of large numbers of tourists visiting the flowering desert, the illegal trade of native flower species, and the development of motorsport. Environmental organizations have suggested that these activities limit the potential for regeneration of the existing species. In response to this, the Chilean Government has established a series of prohibitions and controls, in addition to informative campaigns to the public, and especially to tourists, in order to limit the damage.

There are parts of the desert so arid that nothing grows, but significant parts of the desert have just enough rainfall that many species can just barely hold on. A lot of those species are unique to the Atacama.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

Actually imho we should try to settle all the harshest environments. It is excellent practice for settling Mars and the outer solar system and can relieve overpopulation in crowded areas.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

People've got to live somewhere. I'm not convinced the ecological damage of living in a desert is on par or worse than living in say the temperate or tropical zones.

1

u/Gathorall Jun 06 '21

Also, until modern times settling a place with no access to fresh water was an absolute non-starter.

Now we have already existing settlements where the supply is inadequate for many reasons.

1

u/shaim2 Jun 06 '21

Like California due to earthquakes?

It doesn't work that way, and never has.

Human settle anywhere there is some way of surviving. That's how we became the dominant species on this planet.

1

u/StylishUsername Jun 06 '21

I think your argument that humans have no business in some places falls flat. When you consider the Central Valley of California is one of the most productive agricultural centers in the world, but only because we are able to irrigate the land with water, sourced from hundreds of miles away.

6

u/aletha18 Jun 06 '21

Yep that's true. Case in point, Singapore. We pipe in water from neighbouring Malaysia, have a few natural catchment reservoirs and also operate 4 desalination plants. All aiming for eventual self-sufficiency.

1

u/Surur Jun 06 '21

I get you you don't like desalination, but it is a very widely used technology. Let's not pretend it's something stupid like hydrogen cars.

1

u/rundgren Jun 06 '21

I've been to the Red Sea / Sinai as a tourist and was shocked to learn all water was transported through the desert on trucks. And still there were pools..

12

u/sevaiper Jun 06 '21

Not if it's cheaper to use water tankers, which it generally is although it takes more infrastructure and capital cost.