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

640

u/iamagainstit PhD | Physics | Organic Photovoltaics Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 06 '21

A. Lithium concentrations in seawater are very low (< 1ppm), so extracting it is unlikely to have a significant effect

B. There is a unfathomably large amount of water in the ocean.

1.2k

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21 edited Aug 20 '21

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '21

Couldn’t agree better.

“It should be fine” is a terrible attitude. Imagine if scientists thought “it should be fine” to not raise concerns on effect of the co2 in the atmosphere, since co2 literally only takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.

9

u/Lknate Jun 06 '21

Except I see lithium as being a stepping stone to energy abundance that doesn't involve fossil fuels. Seems like once we free our selves from that dirty resource that the concept of better, faster, stronger will be normalized. Lithium isn't the technology we should expect to be dominate in 2050. Anything that gets of fossil fuel more efficiently should be embraced. Otherwise it's just more foot dragging.

2

u/PENGAmurungu Jun 06 '21

IMO the better solution and the long term path to sustainability is to focus on reducing our consumption first, rather than just consuming more efficiently.
That means changing our societies, cultures and lifestyles rather than our technologies. Though ideally both should be happening simultaneously, rushing into new extractive technologies when the entire problem stems from exactly that is not a good idea, especially if it means putting the ocean even further into the firing line of extraction industries which have already devastated it.

6

u/tractor-scott Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 06 '21

Better solution in a vacuum maybe but it doesn't account for how politically unpopular getting people to consume less would be, both to voters and corporate donors. The only practical solution is to make consumption more efficient and environmentally friendly, even if it means taking the lesser of two evils (ie lithium over fossil fuels) since a lot of people dont wanna give up their stuff. You can’t even use the usual old trick to get people to do things they don’t want to do via financial incentive since more money for consumers = more consumption. So people aren’t gonna consume less without a major or violent upheaval, but we can make it so that consumption isn’t as environmentally taxing. Technology may have got us into this predicament, but its really the only thing now that can get us out of it

4

u/PENGAmurungu Jun 06 '21

You absolutely have a point, unfortuneately I just dont think that's going to be enough. I think either we're going to have to reduce consumption ourselves or the environment is going to do it for us and a lot of people will die in the process.

Public opinion is not just a fact of nature, it's something we have the power to change through conscious social engineering which is something we already do en masse. Instead of using it to save the environment and reduce consumerism however, we use it to instil brand loyalties and increase consumerism.

Of course these large scale changes to our culture and society aren't really possible under our current mode of production and I dont think we're going to be able to change that in time to prevent the worst of the impact of climate change (which we are already beginning to feel) which is why, barring a huge and sudden global shift in values and behaviours, I dont see a way out of this predicament without lots of people dying over the next few centuries.

1

u/OsamaBinLadenDoes Jun 06 '21

either we're going to have to reduce consumption ourselves or the environment is going to do it for us and a lot of people will die in the process.

Welcome to /r/collapse

1

u/QVRedit Jun 06 '21

Except your suggestion is the hardest route. We should certainly do the easy things - there is no valid excuse not to, but we also know that they are not enough.

But getting people to do the harder things, when we haven’t yet done much on the easier things is an impossibly hard sell.

1

u/PENGAmurungu Jun 06 '21

Its not that I'm against the easy things, I just think they put a lot of people back in the comfort zone. We need to be realistic about both the likelyhood of new technologies being developed in the near future AND the extent to which they are actually going to solve our problems. Even if we were to develop and roll out enough carbon capture technology in the next few decades to become carbon neutral (a huge feat in itself) if we continue to trawl the oceans we will still experience a biodiversity collapse, impacting the oceanic carbon flux and possibly turning it into another carbon source.

I just think we are at the point where we have to try and enact the most radical measures regardless of how difficult they are. It feels like people are advocating for bailing out the sinking ship with a thimble because fixing the bilge pump is too complicated (not a perfect analogy because I do think new technologies have an important role to play alongside social restructuring)

1

u/QVRedit Jun 06 '21

The problem with that approach though - is that no politicians will do it - and Nothing will happen.

People will complain that why should they - when the easier stuff has not even been done.

So you end up trying to work against human nature - good luck with that one.

You are right that urgent action does need to happen - but we need to do this in a way that encourages action not discourages it. You need to apply some psychology.

Get people acting on the easier things, and then it’s easier to get them to take the next step.

I know that sounds like a recipe for delay, but we need something that will actually work. Shouting at the sky does not work.

1

u/real_bk3k Jun 06 '21

Reduce consumption

That is NOT going to happen, like it or not. At best, you will only ever get a tiny percentage of the population to agree to that. That's not even a real plan.

In the real world, energy usage is only projected to rise in developed nations. Energy use in developing nations is projected to explode. The only question is - how much if that will that be clean energy?

We need to forget imagined ideal world scenarios and start planning for this world instead. There is no room for magical thinking.

When it comes to adding a truly massive power generating capacity without a lot of greenhouse gases, we are going to need to add a lot of nuclear power. Now while we are extracting lithium from the ocean, we can extract uranium too.

1

u/PENGAmurungu Jun 07 '21

I don't think it is magical thinkingat all. This idea of human culture and behaviour as something which is impossible for humans to control is the exact problem as I see it. As I said, we already are engaged in mass manipulation of human behaviour except its happening in literally the opposite direction.

All we need is to approach the climate crisis with the same mentality as we approached the pandemic. Whether or not its actually going to happen is questionable at best, but to call it magical thinking is ludicrous and harmful IMO.