Did you know that to mine enough minerals to meet the production needs for all the new batteries, windmills, etc. in going “green”, we will need to open hundreds of new mines. Yet, it takes an average of sixteen years to open a new mine, not one new mine is being proposed and the mining industry is decreasing it’s investments in new mines. Yet somehow, for all of the gladhanding of our political class and the stary eyed activists, this one fundamental fact, this one overwhelming need is never discussed.
But it does get better. Suppose through some miracle, the huge investment cost of all the new mines became available, and suppose that the environmentalist did not file hundreds of lawsuits to stop the mines, the fact remains that given the projected need for batteries and the change in the infrastructure, we would exhaust the world’s supply of copper in one year. And, no, there is no known replacement for copper.
The plans for going “green” also happens to ignore one small fact: the need for energy will only increase. Before the auto was invented, there was no need for more energy, but once the tires hit the road, the need for energy became apparent. The same is true for the airplane, the computer, the television, the dishwasher, etc. Today, the energy needed to operate the “cloud” demands more energy than the entire commercial aircraft fleet of the world. How much energy will AI require? Or, is the answer to stop man’s natural instinct to move forward, to find a better way to do a job, to create more opportunities to create a higher standard of living by creating wealth around the world? The poverty rate of the world has decreased due to the availability of greater energy.
The link below to the excellent video of Mark Mills of the Manhattan Project points out those simple facts and many others which show that for all the fuss, fire and proclamations, the current dreams of doing away with fossil fuels is an unreachable dream. Unreachable due to time, costs, mineral availability, and the natural increase in the need for energy as humanity moves forward. Or is the answer really to move boldly into the fourteenth century as the “green” movement demands?
