Do you support lithium mining at Thacker Pass, NV?

[John Dule]

That's your prerogative; we are all entitled to our own subjective valuations. We are not, however, entitled to present our subjective valuations as objective facts.

It's not my subjective valuation. Emissions affect both the global atmosphere and environmental problems on a local level-- fires, floods, and other natural disasters will be objectively worse without the reduction in emissions that lithium extraction allows for. This affects the entire planet (yes, including rural Nevadans), so there is no honest environmentalist argument against the exploitation of these resources aside from a reflexive antipathy towards any solutions of any kind. I understand the counterintuitive nature of having to destroy a very small portion of nature in order to better preserve the environment as a whole, but that's what a trade-off is: Weighing the pros and cons. And here, the pros objectively outweigh the cons.

How important is this site to global carbon emissions, compared to other sources of this material? Can you quantify the emissions reductions that will be caused by mining lithium in Thacker Pass relative to mining lithium somewhere else?

Please provide your answer in Gt CO2, and show your work. I assume this will be a trivially easy calculation — since, after all, you have objectively weighed the costs and benefits here — but I would still like to see how you do the math.

Are you suggesting that you'd be more amenable to mining lithium in other places? Why would any other site be significantly better in your eyes, since the lithium extraction process would be the same?

You're dodging the question. How much will mining lithium in Thacker Pass reduce global carbon emissions?

I'm not dodging the question-- I'm just curious as to why you asked it, when you apparently wouldn't support any alternatives anyway. The exact figure is impossible to calculate without knowing what purpose the lithium will be used for. But let's use our brains here, for the sake of argument: Of all total greenhouse gas emissions in the US, emissions related to transportation are the largest contributor, comprising ~30% of all emissions. Because our urban and suburban transportation is a car-dependent disaster, the vast majority of that 30% is a result of cars and trucks (I don't have an exact figure; let's call it 25% of overall US emissions). The Biden administration has set a target of 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030. If half of the trucks and cars contributing to that 25% were electric, those transportation emissions would drop to 62.5% of their current threshold; down to about 15.5% of total US carbon emissions. The US is the second-largest polluter on the planet, with about 11% of global carbon emissions. Thus, the switch to a half-electric nationwide vehicle fleet would lower global emissions by about 1.7%.

That may not sound like much, but that's just from a half-switch in a particular subset of one category of pollution in one country. Incremental changes like this, when taken in aggregate, will have demonstrably positive effects. But these changes cannot happen if lithium does not become less expensive. Mass-producing lithium batteries and electric cars will create economies of scale that will make green products much more accessible for consumers, but only if we actually exploit the limited lithium resources we have.

The better argument against this proposal is that electric cars aren't the best use of our lithium-- and I actually agree. All this needs to be taken in conjunction with a massive nationwide movement towards denser cities, walkable and bikeable communities, investment in public transit, removing freeway lanes, multipurpose zoning, and various other policies that will make car ownership less of a necessity. I hate cars (even electric ones), but so long as they are necessary for American life, we should strive to make them as green as possible.

[Donerail]

Are you suggesting that you'd be more amenable to mining lithium in other places? Why would any other site be significantly better in your eyes, since the lithium extraction process would be the same?

You're dodging the question. How much will mining lithium in Thacker Pass reduce global carbon emissions?

I'm not dodging the question-- I'm just curious as to why you asked it, when you apparently wouldn't support any alternatives anyway.

I don't see how you reached that conclusion from anything I've said. There are proposed lithium sites across the country, including (as already mentioned in this thread) cleaner alternatives to traditional mining. You seem very insistent on the idea that "it's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium [at Thacker Pass, Nevada] were extracted."

To your earlier question, there are presumably significant differences between proposed sites for lithium mining. For example, there's been little opposition to the lithium mining operation on the other side of the McDermitt caldera in southeastern Oregon, which broke ground last month (though I believe it's significantly smaller than the one planned for Thacker Pass). Proposals to generate lithium from brine, such as the project planned for the Salton Sea, also obviously have less environmental impact than traditional mining — the Salton Sea is already an environmental disaster after centuries of ag runoff, so it's not like the proposed operations would damage much. Not so for a big chunk of BLM land in Nevada.

The exact figure is impossible to calculate without knowing what purpose the lithium will be used for. But let's use our brains here, for the sake of argument: Of all total greenhouse gas emissions in the US, emissions related to transportation are the largest contributor, comprising ~30% of all emissions. Because our urban and suburban transportation is a car-dependent disaster, the vast majority of that 30% is a result of cars and trucks (I don't have an exact figure; let's call it 25% of overall US emissions). The Biden administration has set a target of 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030. If half of the trucks and cars contributing to that 25% were electric, those transportation emissions would drop to 62.5% of their current threshold; down to about 15.5% of total US carbon emissions. The US is the second-largest polluter on the planet, with about 11% of global carbon emissions. Thus, the switch to a half-electric nationwide vehicle fleet would lower global emissions by about 1.7%.

That may not sound like much, but that's just from a half-switch in a particular subset of one category of pollution in one country. Incremental changes like this, when taken in aggregate, will have demonstrably positive effects. But these changes cannot happen if lithium does not become less expensive. Mass-producing lithium batteries and electric cars will create economies of scale that will make green products much more accessible for consumers, but only if we actually exploit the limited lithium resources we have.

All true, none unique to Thacker Pass. How much more expensive will lithium be if this project is defeated?

[John Dule]

Are you suggesting that you'd be more amenable to mining lithium in other places? Why would any other site be significantly better in your eyes, since the lithium extraction process would be the same?

You're dodging the question. How much will mining lithium in Thacker Pass reduce global carbon emissions?

I'm not dodging the question-- I'm just curious as to why you asked it, when you apparently wouldn't support any alternatives anyway.

I don't see how you reached that conclusion from anything I've said. There are proposed lithium sites across the country, including (as already mentioned in this thread) cleaner alternatives to traditional mining. You seem very insistent on the idea that "it's an objective fact that the environment would be better off if the lithium [at Thacker Pass, Nevada] were extracted."

To your earlier question, there are presumably significant differences between proposed sites for lithium mining. For example, there's been little opposition to the lithium mining operation on the other side of the McDermitt caldera in southeastern Oregon, which broke ground last month (though I believe it's significantly smaller than the one planned for Thacker Pass). Proposals to generate lithium from brine, such as the project planned for the Salton Sea, also obviously have less environmental impact than traditional mining — the Salton Sea is already an environmental disaster after centuries of ag runoff, so it's not like the proposed operations would damage much. Not so for a big chunk of BLM land in Nevada.

The exact figure is impossible to calculate without knowing what purpose the lithium will be used for. But let's use our brains here, for the sake of argument: Of all total greenhouse gas emissions in the US, emissions related to transportation are the largest contributor, comprising ~30% of all emissions. Because our urban and suburban transportation is a car-dependent disaster, the vast majority of that 30% is a result of cars and trucks (I don't have an exact figure; let's call it 25% of overall US emissions). The Biden administration has set a target of 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030. If half of the trucks and cars contributing to that 25% were electric, those transportation emissions would drop to 62.5% of their current threshold; down to about 15.5% of total US carbon emissions. The US is the second-largest polluter on the planet, with about 11% of global carbon emissions. Thus, the switch to a half-electric nationwide vehicle fleet would lower global emissions by about 1.7%.

That may not sound like much, but that's just from a half-switch in a particular subset of one category of pollution in one country. Incremental changes like this, when taken in aggregate, will have demonstrably positive effects. But these changes cannot happen if lithium does not become less expensive. Mass-producing lithium batteries and electric cars will create economies of scale that will make green products much more accessible for consumers, but only if we actually exploit the limited lithium resources we have.

All true, none unique to Thacker Pass. How much more expensive will lithium be if this project is defeated?

If minimizing local environmental problems is your goal, then Thacker Pass should certainly be exploited. The area is home to the largest lithium deposit in the US-- one of the largest in the world, in fact. Building one mine in this remote, uninhabited, otherwise useless land will yield lithium equivalent to every other such mine in the United States, and any environmental degradation will be concentrated in that specific isolated area. While I'd love to see us do something useful with the Salton Sea, the technology for extracting that lithium is not yet fully developed-- and if you're seriously worried about pollution, why would you prefer the Imperial Valley to Thacker Pass? Tens of thousands of people live just a few miles from the Salton Sea. I'm not saying lithium mining is particularly dangerous to life around it, but since you keep bringing up the local viewpoint, I don't understand why you'd prefer to mine 30 minutes from Coachella instead of 8 hours from Pahrump.

There are always reasons not to undertake individual projects like these. But when conglomerated, those reasons stall and delay all of the projects combined, resulting in waste and lost progress. Lithium demand is going to increase by a magnitude of 10 by 2030. Maybe instead of wringing our hands over every little sacrifice we need to make, we should actually get out ahead of this problem for once.

[Donerail]

If minimizing local environmental problems is your goal, then Thacker Pass should certainly be exploited. The area is home to the largest lithium deposit in the US-- one of the largest in the world, in fact. Building one mine in this remote, uninhabited, otherwise useless land will yield lithium equivalent to every other such mine in the United States, and any environmental degradation will be concentrated in that specific isolated area. While I'd love to see us do something useful with the Salton Sea, the technology for extracting that lithium is not yet fully developed-- and if you're seriously worried about pollution, why would you prefer the Imperial Valley to Thacker Pass? Tens of thousands of people live just a few miles from the Salton Sea. I'm not saying lithium mining is particularly dangerous to life around it, but since you keep bringing up the local viewpoint, I don't understand why you'd prefer to mine 30 minutes from Coachella instead of 8 hours from Pahrump.

Because the land proposed for the mine is remote, uninhabited, and "otherwise useless." That is precisely why I do not want to put a large mine on top of it. My central priority is keeping it as remote and uninhabited as possible. A place like the Salton Sea is already none of those things.

There are always reasons not to undertake individual projects like these. But when conglomerated, those reasons stall and delay all of the projects combined, resulting in waste and lost progress.

Yes. You can make a career out of it if you want I plan to

[West_Midlander]

The environment is very important to me but I will actually say yes so we can depend on ourselves for lithium and not on China.