What is this publication and who finances it because this section is incredibly sus:
Copper use is not carved in stone. Hybrid cars, which pair small batteries with gasoline engines, need far less of the metal than fully electric vehicles.
Power grids that mix nuclear, wind, solar, and a pinch of natural-gas backup can slice the copper bill dramatically compared with battery-heavy systems.
“First of all, users can fact-check the study, but also they can change the study parameters and evaluate how much copper is required if we have an electric grid that is 20% nuclear, 40% methane, 20% wind, and 20% hydroelectric, for example,” Simon said. “They can make those changes and see what the copper demand will be.”
Like you think we can transition to an increasingly electrified world, where all power comes from electric utility lines, and you think our copper usage will be … just in renewable power plants?
This reads like straight fossil fuel propaganda. In an electrified future the majority of copper use comes from distribution lines and products that use electricity not the type of power plants generating electricity.
I’m not defending the article, but I think most overhead power lines are aluminium, which is probably good as it’s abundant compared to copper.
deleted by creator
That’s incorrect. Aluminium is about 30% worse by volume than copper, meaning you need to go up a size. What stopped it being used for houses was that the terminations weren’t good enough, because aluminium has different thermal expansion and corrosion properties, plus they were using much worse alloys. That’s now mostly fixed and if you’re in the US, there’s a very good chance that your service main is aluminium, and there’s talk of allowing copper-clad aluminium (CCA) for subcircuit wiring.
Per mass, aluminium is a better conductor, which is why it’s almost exclusively used overhead and in pretty significant volumes underground. The power grids were built on ACSR.
-
The article is shit, the study is about copper used for reducing fossil-fuel power generation. It is basing the projected use of copper on windmills and especially large batteries.
-
Those high-powered and long distance power lines are made aluminium and steel.
- Distribution doesn’t just include long distance distribution. It includes all the wiring between transformers and houses and all the internal wiring of the house and all the devices inside etc.
-
You’re wrong in terms of long distance power lines being mostly copper, but this does seem a lot like fossil fuel propaganda.
Motors, generators, and transformers can be built using aluminium; they’re just a bit bulkier and less efficient. Very common practice.
It looks like CCA might be making its way back into house wiring in the near future, with much lower risks than the 70s aluminium scare.
The big thing is that batteries really should be a last resort, behind demand response (using power when it is available, rather than storing it for later), long distance transmission, and public transport instead of private vehicles.
Heh. My batteries are flooded lead-acid, all 1320ah of 'em. No copper guilt here.
You’re wrong in terms of long distance power lines being mostly copper, but this does seem a lot like fossil fuel propaganda.
Motors, generators, and transformers can be built using aluminium; they’re just a bit bulkier and less efficient. Very common practice.
What I mean is that the bulk of current copper wiring goes towards distribution and consumption, not generation.
The big thing is that batteries really should be a last resort, behind demand response (using power when it is available, rather than storing it for later), long distance transmission, and public transport instead of private vehicles.
This isn’t a big thing. This is a constant thing in every system. It’s the push and pull between efficiency and resiliency. More storage capacity is less efficient when things are going well, but is more resilient and adaptable when they’re not.
What I mean is that the bulk of current copper wiring goes towards distribution and consumption, not generation.
Yes, but big batteries everywhere is going to effect that if there’s copper in lithium batteries, and apparently there is.
This isn’t a big thing. This is a constant thing in every system. It’s the push and pull between efficiency and resiliency. More storage capacity is less efficient when things are going well, but is more resilient and adaptable when they’re not.
Excess storage capacity, sure.
But inflating the base battery capacity to cover people having showers at 5pm because it’s easier than storage water heaters and time/remote controls is stupid. You can reduce the base need for batteries by reducing the need for electricity in the first place and reducing the use of vehicles that need to carry batteries in place of e.g. overhead catenary.
But inflating the base battery capacity to cover people having showers at 5pm because it’s easier than storage water heaters and time/remote controls is stupid. You can reduce the base need for batteries by reducing the need for electricity in the first place and reducing the use of vehicles that need to carry batteries in place of e.g. overhead catenary.
A solution that doesn’t take into account human nature isn’t a solution.
The original study abstract is a little more clear. The main concern is grid storage batteries and EV batteries.
Given that the sharp increase in copper demand is primarily driven by batteries, the extra copper needs for electrification can be significantly reduced if the need for electrical storage is minimized. This can be achieved by generating electricity through a mix of nuclear, wind, and photovoltaics; managing power generation with backup electric plants fueled by methane from abundant resources of natural gas; and transitioning to a predominantly hybrid transportation fleet rather than fully electric vehicles.
Or you use pumped hydro, or compressed air, or gravity batteries, or any of the other energy storage technologies that aren’t chemical batteries.
Most electrical transmission lines are aluminum because it’s cheaper and lighter
https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/conductor-types-used-for-overhead-lines
Do they think the copper is consumed? Like, renewable resources burn copper?!
deleted by creator
Your argument against the article that talks about copper usage is founded on incomplete knowledge of where copper is actually used?
🤦
It’s founded on the article not making a cohesive argument. Current copper usage is primarily in consumption and distribution, not generation.
This smells a little funny, as others have suggested. I read an article a while ago that suggested that we’re not running out of raw materials; we’re thinking about the problem wrong:
Chachra proposes that we could – we must – treat material as scarce, and that one way to do this is to recognize that energy is not. We can trade energy for material, opting for more energy intensive manufacturing processes that make materials easier to recover when the good reaches its end of life. We can also opt for energy intensive material recovery processes. If we put our focus on designing objects that decompose gracefully back into the material stream, we can build the energy infrastructure to make energy truly abundant and truly clean.
This is all outlined in the book How Infrastructure Works from Deb Chachra.
That would be great except for one problem: capitalism. Proper recovery and recycling of materials will never happen so long as production of new materials is cheaper.
Also capitalism’s need for infinite growth has lead us to impose engineered “demand creation” (through advertising) and now even “growth hacking” to supercharge this process. It has made us more wasteful than ever. We are headed into a wall.
This is an article about scarcity, insufficient supply to meet demand.
Artificial demand creation isn’t necessary, or even productive, when the existing demand already outstrips supply.
And if it is the case that demand is much higher than supply, that’s a baked in financial incentive that rewards people for efficient recycling.
Capitalism is bad at pricing in externalities. It’s pretty good at using price signals to allocate finite resources to more productive uses.
Ever since the crisis of over production, MAJOR, unceasing psycho-social campaign have been continuously been running not just to foster demand but to ensure it exceeds the planned supply and ensure the price margin always remains on the right side of the curve.
This is the central reason why nearly everyone works ceaselessly to buy things they don’t need and dont have the time nor energy to use.
What does this have to do with how the world distributes useful copper? Nobody is buying up copper because of being tricked by advertising, so I’m not sure what the relevance of your comments are, to the topic at hand.
I don’t think you’re wrong, I just don’t think this thread really raises the issues you want to talk about.
I think this kind of artificial demand creation is the main driver for all resource consumption
We are all literally being tricked into bringing home more copper.
I bought a whole ass Samsung S25 In February, only to discover in March that a $6 part and $20 bucks of labor made my S22 perfectly serviceable (needed new USB charging port)
But like a dumbass I bought a phone after 3 years of waiting, and was giddy about it and I’m literally typing on the older phone now.
I have been trying to trick myself into letting devices grow into a more full obsolescence before replacing them, and have had very poor luck in doing so.
Plenty of this is my own impulse control, but plenty of this is by design and marketing, and if enough people are satisfied with their three years old cell phones bad things happen to your 401k and to my friends employed in South Korea.
I realize that this is an infinitesimally smaller amount of copper, Even all-in with accessories, and the institutional and industrial requirements for copper.
But if we don’t start to figure out some sort of degrowth, we’re going to hit that wall as others have mentioned, and it all seems to start with the marketing demand and design.
Copper is a material that is used in many more orders of magnitude for infrastructure and basic development. It’s technically “consumption” to eat food everyday and have running water and electricity in your home, but the type of materialist luxury consumption you’re talking about doesn’t factor into global copper demand. There are 7.2 billion smartphones in use, and about 14g of copper in each one. That’s about 100,000 metric tons of copper, when the article talks about 110 million as a baseline (11,000 times as much), and above 200 million (20,000 times as much). So no, consumer electronics aren’t going to move the needle on this scale of a problem.
If you’re going to tell the developing countries that they need to stop developing, that’s morally suspect. And frankly, environmentally suspect, as the article itself is about moving off of fossil fuels and electrifying a lot of our energy needs in both the developed and developing nations, whether we’re talking relatively clean energy source like natural gas or dirtier sources like coal, or even dirtier sources like wood or animal dung.
The problem is the cost of each. Right now material is dirt cheap and energy prices are going up. And we are not good at long term planning.
This all suggests that we keep producing, wasting and manufacturing things infinitely without ever recycling, reusing or re purposing everything that we are mining out of the ground. The article notes that this includes recycling but only at the rate we have now.
If we keep running our world the way we are now for the next hundred yes … than yes, we are going to run out of everything because we live in an absolutely wasteful society that only runs in a way to produce things designed with planned obsolescence to break down in a short amount of time so that we can produce more junk to sell and drive a stupid economy to make a small group of idiots even more wealthy. The whole system is designed to run on making infinite money by producing infinite junk that doesn’t last long.
Yes at the rate we are going and the way we are producing things and the way we shape our economy and the way we base our manufacturing … we are definitely going to run out of everything.
We can change our economy and the way we produce and manufacture things - and get rid of this stupid structure of society of just endlessly making money for a small group of morons … or we can keep doing things the way we are now until we run off a cliff and destroy everything and drive our species into extinction.
When we run out of things, it’s we who run out of things but not those with power to get what they need and kill excess population.
So preaching to them is useless.
The article notes that this includes recycling but only at the rate we have now.
The original study says they assumed an annual increase of 0.53% as observed over the last 20 years.
-
this website is cancer. I’m I’m mobile and counted 6 ads in my view with space left for 3 lines of text. Don’t post crap like this. Yes, i normally use an ad blocker but this is inside the connect app
-
it could be theess of a website but i saw no link to a peer reviewed publication, so i think its safe to assume were good with he cooper
-
Abolish copper coins. Job done :-)
Have they tried pulling it out of the walls of abandoned buildings? There’s a lot left in there that no one uses anymore. /s
they just need Detroit crackheads. five guys and a week and they’ll have every building in Houston stripped.
It’s ok just 3D print it :)
Well the earth is already developed enough so i guess the copper was enough???
Catch me in Uganda
Yeah but maybe instead of wasting all pur fucking resources on phones which we buy every year we could pour some of that into developing critical infrastructure in places that need it. Also aluminium, if youre desperate, is a pretty good replacement for copper. I have a really hard time believing copper would be an actual bottleneck in this.
