What happens when we run out of ores?

[Delong]

I'm just wondering what is the long term effect of mining in general. I have read a lot of the immediate effects of mining to the environment that are mostly bad but I was wondering what happens in the long term if we keep mining. We will run out of minerals or is there so much that it would not be a problem? Also if would it matter if we run out of minerals since we can just recycle the ones we already have? Do we eventually return the minerals we have to the Earth or do we keep them in our economy/technology forever once we have mined them? Thanks.

 

[cobalt124]

Reminded me of this, heard a program about it recently:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phosphorus-a-looming-crisis

 

[klimatos]

I was wondering what happens in the long term if we keep mining. We will run out of minerals or is there so much that it would not be a problem? Also if would it matter if we run out of minerals since we can just recycle the ones we already have? Do we eventually return the minerals we have to the Earth or do we keep them in our economy/technology forever once we have mined them? Thanks.

The only difference between a useful ore and a useless rock is the relation between the value of the mineral content and the cost of extracting that mineral. As the price of the mineral goes up or the cost of extraction goes down, more and more useless rocks become useful ores. Consequently, we will not run out of ore until we run out of rock.

It's like petroleum--it'll never run out; it will simply become more expensive.

 

[Newai]

How expensive can that get? Will there eventually be some great divide between income groups?

 

[klimatos]

How expensive can that get? Will there eventually be some great divide between income groups?

There already is.

 

[Newai]

There already is.

Let me ask that again. How much can that gap possibly increase?

 

[klimatos]

Let me ask that again. How much can that gap possibly increase?

You are asking me to predict the future. I cannot. It would appear that the American people have an almost infinite capacity to be deluded into believing that this inequality is somehow right and just. As long as they believe this, the gap will continue to grow. The gap between the rich and the rest of us is already the greatest that it has ever been in the history of the United States.

"They earned that money!" No, most of them inherited it.

"Taxing the rich stifles the economy!" Under Republican President Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 92%. It remained in the 90's throughout the prosperous 1950's. During the thriving 1960's, it never fell below 70%. Today it is 35%, the government is out of money, and the economy has tanked. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Let's not make this a political discussion about tax policy and income inequality.

Newai, the important thing is not the difference in income between rich and poor, it's the difference in price between petroleum and suitable alternatives. Once petroleum becomes more expensive than some other commonly available alternative, most everyone will start to switch, rich and poor alike.

 

[klimatos]

Once petroleum becomes more expensive than some other commonly available alternative, most everyone will start to switch, rich and poor alike.

My oldest daughter wrote her doctoral dissertation on petroleum pricing theories. She currently works as a consultant in biodiesel engineering. She is quite familiar with all of the current alternative fuels. She believes that there will be no competitive unsubsidized alternative automotive energy source to petroleum products in our lifetimes.

For non-automotive energy sources, coal is still king.

Of course, she may be wrong. A good many people are working hard to prove her wrong. Time will tell.

 

[darksociety]

I'm just wondering what is the long term effect of mining in general. I have read a lot of the immediate effects of mining to the environment that are mostly bad but I was wondering what happens in the long term if we keep mining. We will run out of minerals or is there so much that it would not be a problem? Also if would it matter if we run out of minerals since we can just recycle the ones we already have? Do we eventually return the minerals we have to the Earth or do we keep them in our economy/technology forever once we have mined them? Thanks.

I would hope that reprocessing comes online within the next 50 years as a consequence of increased environmental awareness.

Apart from that, however, as an exploration geologist working in Canada, I cannot forsee any shortage of mineable, terrestrial ore on the scale of 200-300 years (obviously that's a very tenuous estimantion because it's stilll uncertain what humanity's technological and engineering arc will take over that time frame). Canada has very extensive government surveys, federally and provincially, and some of the most intense hard-rock exploration on the planet and we're still at the stage of having Johnny Twosmokes stumble over a showing while hunting for moose/tending his marijuana patch. There's a lot of untapped shield out there which still needs to be mapped at a scale of less than 1:50 000, to say nothing of extensive drill programs that come with locating and defining a deposit.

In some cases, we have known, significant reserves of chromium in layered mafic intrusions, but haven't had the economic impetus to develop them because other deposits (i.e. Bushveld complex, South Africa) are decades away from depletion. Rare-Earths are unexplored and Canada, and have only hit our radar in the past year or two since an awareness of China and the political aspects of supply have risen to our consciousness.

Bottom line: the resources are there.

Off into the future, rising economic costs and increased technology will likely allow us to explore near-Earth objects, be they asteroids, the Moon, or even Mars. That's pure speculation; though, in my mind, reasonable.

 

[g33kski11z]

..Also if would it matter if we run out of minerals since we can just recycle the ones we already have? Do we eventually return the minerals we have to the Earth or do we keep them in our economy/technology forever once we have mined them? Thanks.

Some minerals can be recycled, but I don't think 'all' of them can be. But you do bring up a good point. What happens in +100 yrs (or longer) when all of our resources are mined and used. (meaning no recycle option)... what happens then??

...She currently works as a consultant in biodiesel engineering...

She believes that there will be no competitive unsubsidized alternative automotive energy source to petroleum products in our lifetimes.

Who does she work for? (BP, Exxon?) kidding, but seriously, I'm curious how she came to the conclusion.. I was under the impression that petroleum alternatives would be commercially available in my life time (I'm 33 btw).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I was under the impression that petroleum alternatives would be commercially available in my life time (I'm 33 btw).

I think the key thing in the conclusion seems to be unsubsidised and competitive. All I can think of as viable alternatives to petrol is electric (if and only if cheap, rechargeable batteries with more watt per kg than petrol are developed) or something more esoteric like fuel cells. Whether or not these can be made to be competitive remains to be seen, IMO an electric car engine more efficient than petrol would almost be forced to succeed (at least here in europe) by government spending however that would mean subsidies.

This thread reminds me of one that was going on last week concerning elemental transmutation! In the long run we are going to run out, the Earth is finite

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=482836

 

[klimatos]

Who does she work for? (BP, Exxon?) kidding, but seriously, I'm curious how she came to the conclusion.. I was under the impression that petroleum alternatives would be commercially available in my life time (I'm 33 btw).

She runs her own consulting firm. Most of her clients are entrepreneurs who are interested in biodiesel production. They seek feasibility studies, engineering studies, and marketing studies. She was a project manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL) for many years, and has headed all kinds of projects in alternative fuels. Her specialty is the economic sides of these projects.

Petroleum alternatives (ethanol, biodiesel, electric) are already available. Most are highly subsidized in a wide variety of ways. Others appeal to our "green" support. Any number of studies have been done showing that vehicles using these alternatives never really amortize their added costs over the expected life of the vehicle. Their owners are simply willing to pay that premium to support the green lifestyle.

In recent months, speculators have driven up the cost of gasoline (It's over $4.00 a gallon here in California). This price reflects world political conditions rather than supply and demand. It will come down again. Even if it doesn't, it is still cheaper than the alternatives.

Like any good scientist, she cheerfully admits she could be wrong. If she is, demand for her services will increase!

P. S. The oil companies are amongst the biggest providers of funding for alternative fuels research. Whatever the fuel of the future is, they intend to produce it and distribute it.

 

[Delong]

I forgot about this thread until today. HA. Thank you guys for the answers. Basically what I got is: mineral supplies are virtually unlimited but will continue to get more expensive until we can no longer afford to mine them. Then we move on to different rocks. But what if we mine everything? If that can't happen why not? Also I read that a lot of minerals are recycled in society but some are not. Which ones and why? Interesting responses so far.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I forgot about this thread until today. HA. Thank you guys for the answers. Basically what I got is: mineral supplies are virtually unlimited but will continue to get more expensive until we can no longer afford to mine them. Then we move on to different rocks. But what if we mine everything? If that can't happen why not? Also I read that a lot of minerals are recycled in society but some are not. Which ones and why? Interesting responses so far.

If things start becoming to expensive then we'll innovate round the problem with better recycling, more efficient mining or using a different material for the same job. Eventually Earth could be completely made devoid of resources but I doubt it, even if it did we could harvest elsewhere (at considerable expense however)

 

[Huttate]

This is something I am very interested in.

There is something called the Perfect Storm, which appears to be on the horizon. That is the fact that many of the Earth's resources appear to be on the brink; peak oil, peak, water, peak whatever.

It does not seem conceivable to me that the Earth's population can increase by 50% by 2050 [many sources] and be sustained by ever diminishing finite resources.

Google "A cubic mile of oil" to see how we use and might replace oil - or not!

I also find "The most important video you will ever see [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY] to be very instructive.

There is, beyond this, the fact that 'economic growth' is actually 'debt growth', which is also exponential.

These factors lead me to believe that the economy as we now know it is not sustainable in the short term and that the world of 2050 might be very different from today.

There is an alternative argument that we will always find a new way and that doomsayers have been claiming the end of the good times are near for the past few decades. My opinion is that the bad times have only been delayed due to human resourcefulness and that the time when throwing more money and more technology at problems does not solve them is now very near.

 

[Delong]

If things start becoming to expensive then we'll innovate round the problem with better recycling, more efficient mining or using a different material for the same job. Eventually Earth could be completely made devoid of resources but I doubt it, even if it did we could harvest elsewhere (at considerable expense however)

I see. So it seems like Earth has so many resources that the possibility of us running out will not happen anytime soon (at least for ores). If things get too expensive we will simply just mine more efficiently or recycle better. If we did run out of resources we will either mine elsewhere or reuse what we have or both. I wonder what are the number one reasons we need these ores. I suppose we need Iron and nickle for steel and copper for copper wires. A lot of other similar metallic substances around society.

 

[Huttate]

"If things start becoming to expensive then we'll innovate round the problem with better recycling, more efficient mining or using a different material for the same job. Eventually Earth could be completely made devoid of resources but I doubt it, even if it did we could harvest elsewhere (at considerable expense however)"

What a completely rediculous statement.

Real head in the sand stuff.

Let's just keep using it all up because someone will figure it out for us.

This illustrates the complete ignorance of the vast majority.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

These factors lead me to believe that the economy as we now know it is not sustainable in the short term and that the world of 2050 might be very different from today.

No growth is sustainable, we live in a finite universe. The trick is having enough resources to grow as well as possible for as long as possible

 

[Huttate]

I agree. But we live in a world where politics demands continual growth. If the economy is not growing it becomes a huge issue.

In reality we have only been growing our economies on the back of fossil fuels and they are peaking about now. That was my point in saying 2050 will be a very different world.

 

[AtomicJoe]

The only difference between a useful ore and a useless rock is the relation between the value of the mineral content and the cost of extracting that mineral. As the price of the mineral goes up or the cost of extraction goes down, more and more useless rocks become useful ores. Consequently, we will not run out of ore until we run out of rock.

It's like petroleum--it'll never run out; it will simply become more expensive.

It will effectively run out then the amount of energy you have to put in is greater than the amount of energy you extract.

At that point you effectively run out of the mineral.

 

[AtomicJoe]

My oldest daughter wrote her doctoral dissertation on petroleum pricing theories. She currently works as a consultant in biodiesel engineering. She is quite familiar with all of the current alternative fuels. She believes that there will be no competitive unsubsidized alternative automotive energy source to petroleum products in our lifetimes.

For non-automotive energy sources, coal is still king.

Of course, she may be wrong. A good many people are working hard to prove her wrong. Time will tell.

Ultimately all subsidies are subsidised by oil (wealth) so how can the subsidies continue then there is no oil wealth?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"If things start becoming to expensive then we'll innovate round the problem with better recycling, more efficient mining or using a different material for the same job. Eventually Earth could be completely made devoid of resources but I doubt it, even if it did we could harvest elsewhere (at considerable expense however)"

What a completely rediculous statement.

Real head in the sand stuff.

Let's just keep using it all up because someone will figure it out for us.

This illustrates the complete ignorance of the vast majority.

I hope you misunderstood me because if not you are are merely an uncouth individual spouting nothing constructive.

Existence requires that we consume, there are finite consumables so eventually we come into hardships. When hardship becomes great enough we either innovate through technological or social changes. I fail to see how this is a "rediculous" (spelt "ridiculous" by the way) when it is a fundamental part of how we deal with any difficulty? I was not suggesting that we do nothing, rather I was suggesting that we must change.

 

[rena42war]

The exploitation of mines will affect land by the cancellation and has brought such a range of
influence it will more broadly.





http://www.globaljet.com.au/

 

[Simfish]

Well, truth is, a lot of things cost money because you have to motivate people to do them.

But once you bring in robots (or cyborg animals - yes - they *do* exist, and may be FAR cheaper because they can reproduce and sustain themselves), you don't have to keep paying them to do work, and the cost of extracting resources is only limited to the cost of building them/keeping them alive/fueling them. In other words, you can get them to pick up all sorts of random scraps (or to dig through garbage heaps)

 

[Nik_2213]

One way forwards may be bio-engineered plants and bacteria that will concentrate essential elements from otherwise trace levels. IIRC, some anaerobic bacteria are already used to 'harvest' ore piles and tailings dumps, generating processable leachant...

In passing, this would help to clean up the toxic 'red streams' spilling from so many abandoned mines.

Another potential source of minerals and light alloys is the sea. As more coastal communities turn towards desalination, the process waste could become the feed-stock for a chemical industry that has previously relied on deep or solution mining...

"It's over $4.00 a gallon here in California"
But £ 1.25 UKP a litre in UK. That's ~ $9 / gallon.
Fortunately, our quaint little cars are quite thrifty, but it is still robbery with insolence...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

One way forwards may be bio-engineered plants and bacteria that will concentrate essential elements from otherwise trace levels. IIRC, some anaerobic bacteria are already used to 'harvest' ore piles and tailings dumps, generating processable leachant...

I'd hate to think of what would happen if some of those bacteria contaminated urban areas or mutated or passed on the harvest genes. The last thing we need is a plague of bacteria that remove the trace elements from our machines in typical SF grey goo style...