People may one day drill for copper as they now drill for oil(economist.com)
economist.com
People may one day drill for copper as they now drill for oil
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/07/07/people-may-one-day-drill-for-copper-as-they-now-drill-for-oil
12 comments
> "it has been estimated that 65%-80% of all copper ever mined is still available (having been repeatedly recycled)."
Any more info on this? The Wikipedia source is a broken link. What would make copper not available anymore? Do they just mean it is sitting in a landfill somewhere?
Any more info on this? The Wikipedia source is a broken link. What would make copper not available anymore? Do they just mean it is sitting in a landfill somewhere?
Or it has been used in something disposable, like a bullet or a herbicide.
This article is writing about this publication: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.2021...
Wow, that is intensely dense. Thanks for the link! I find that of all the science disciplines I read the least, geology is up there. As a result reading geology papers always gives me new and interesting threads to follow.
> “pretty much all of the non-ferrous natural resources that we exploit come ultimately from ancient volcanoes.”
Is this literally true? As in our non-ferrous ore deposits were all sites of ancient volcanoes? Or is he talking about magma in general that may or may not have been released by an actual volcano?
Is this literally true? As in our non-ferrous ore deposits were all sites of ancient volcanoes? Or is he talking about magma in general that may or may not have been released by an actual volcano?
Earth had a youthful phase of being a molten ball of liquid magma.
That naturally leads to the heavier elements settling at the center, and the thin non magma crust we call home being made of the lighter non metal elements.
Which means all/most of the heavier metals on/near the surface today comes from volcanos or asteroids.
[I'm not a geologist, and have probably misstated something semi important.]
That naturally leads to the heavier elements settling at the center, and the thin non magma crust we call home being made of the lighter non metal elements.
Which means all/most of the heavier metals on/near the surface today comes from volcanos or asteroids.
[I'm not a geologist, and have probably misstated something semi important.]
It's somewhat more involved than just "volcano lava."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_copper_deposit Porphyry copper deposits are copper ore bodies that are formed from hydrothermal fluids that originate from a voluminous magma chamber several kilometers below the deposit itself. Predating or associated with those fluids are vertical dikes of porphyritic intrusive rocks from which this deposit type derives its name. In later stages, circulating meteoric fluids may interact with the magmatic fluids.
There's also this idea: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/studies-re-examine-how...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_copper_deposit Porphyry copper deposits are copper ore bodies that are formed from hydrothermal fluids that originate from a voluminous magma chamber several kilometers below the deposit itself. Predating or associated with those fluids are vertical dikes of porphyritic intrusive rocks from which this deposit type derives its name. In later stages, circulating meteoric fluids may interact with the magmatic fluids.
There's also this idea: https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/studies-re-examine-how...
I suppose that they have used the word "non-ferrous" in a rather loose way, i.e. referring to the classic non-ferrous metals and to the other metals similar to them, which accumulate into sulfides, not into oxides.
The lithophile metals, which have higher affinity for oxygen, e.g. aluminum, magnesium, titanium etc. are not particularly abundant around volcanoes. Such metals could be separated from minerals only starting with the 19th century, so before that all the "non-ferrous" metals were obtained from sulfides or alteration products of sulfides. Some continue to use "non-ferrous" with the ancient meaning, not with its literal meaning.
The sulfide minerals and a few other minerals associated with sulfides are byproducts of magma cooling, either by phase separation from magma or by dissolution and precipitation in hot fluids, in actual volcanoes and also in places where the raising magma did not reach the surface.
There are a large number of important metals, e.g. copper, zinc, lead, molybdenum, silver and many others, which come almost exclusively from sulfide minerals or from minerals produced by atmospheric alteration of former sulfide minerals, so those may be said to be mostly of volcanic origin.
The lithophile metals, which have higher affinity for oxygen, e.g. aluminum, magnesium, titanium etc. are not particularly abundant around volcanoes. Such metals could be separated from minerals only starting with the 19th century, so before that all the "non-ferrous" metals were obtained from sulfides or alteration products of sulfides. Some continue to use "non-ferrous" with the ancient meaning, not with its literal meaning.
The sulfide minerals and a few other minerals associated with sulfides are byproducts of magma cooling, either by phase separation from magma or by dissolution and precipitation in hot fluids, in actual volcanoes and also in places where the raising magma did not reach the surface.
There are a large number of important metals, e.g. copper, zinc, lead, molybdenum, silver and many others, which come almost exclusively from sulfide minerals or from minerals produced by atmospheric alteration of former sulfide minerals, so those may be said to be mostly of volcanic origin.
(Geologist here, although not an ore expert.) This is neither literally true nor particularly accurate. You are more correct in that it is related more broadly to magma (by definition not released by volcanoes, as it would then be lava; magma is subterranean).
The metals in most ore deposits are, originally, present in magma but concentrated in solution in superheated fluids (mostly water, but also CO2, H2S, H3SO4, etc., or any chemically stable mix of these). These fluids are expelled from magma as the magma cools and are mobilized through fracture networks and pore spaces in the ambient rock, both in the igneous rocks that have just cooled and crystallized, as well as in the surrounding rocks. As the fluids cool, the metals (and other solutes) come out of solution and precipitate as minerals. Some of these will be 'native' gold, copper, etc. that are mostly pure metals, but with the exception of gold, most of the metals will be in different oxides, silicates, sulfides, and other compounds.
These minerals may be re-dissolved at any time in the geologic future when conditions are right. This is usually when there is infiltration of hot, potentially acidic fluids deep in the crust from later magmatism or other geologic processes (the rock could be buried many kilometers during sedimentation or mountain building episodes, which will heat it up dramatically). The re-mobilized fluids can travel tens or hundreds of kilometers along fracture networks in the crust, and then as they cool, they re-deposits the ore as new minerals (not necessarily the same type). This can, and does, happen repeatedly so that the ore deposits of interest could be many generations, thousands of kilometers and millions of years from the original magmatic source.
In other instances the ores may form at the Earth's surface due to weathering of rock that contains the elements of interest. The most prominent example is probably aluminum ore, which is typically a rock called bauxite that was originally a soil formed from the weathering of highly aluminum-rich igneous rocks in tropical conditions. Bauxite requires an enormous amount of processing to separate out the aluminum, which is why aluminum recycling is so economical. The energy requirements for bauxite refining are enormous so the ore has historically been transported halfway across the world from the tropics to places like the Columbia River hydropower facilities in the US Northwest and the geothermal powerhouse of Iceland (this is part of why Seattle became an aerospace center).
The prodigal gold and silver mines of the Sierra Nevada are also the result of surface weathering. The ore (I think mostly native silver and gold but I am not sure) was actually in little flakes in river beds in Nevada some 40 million years ago when Nevada was a high plateau higher than the Sierra (which was probably not as high then); the rocks in the river headwaters weathered to sand and clay and little bits of metals, and the rivers spilled down into California and left big sedimentary deposits at the base of the mountains, big alluvial fans and stuff. Then Nevada got broken apart by tectonics into a bunch of rifts and the rivers went away. The California miners just had to separate the very heavy gold and silver particles from the much lighter sand and gravel using flumes, rather than crushing and chemically separating solid ore like we typically think of with mining.
The metals in most ore deposits are, originally, present in magma but concentrated in solution in superheated fluids (mostly water, but also CO2, H2S, H3SO4, etc., or any chemically stable mix of these). These fluids are expelled from magma as the magma cools and are mobilized through fracture networks and pore spaces in the ambient rock, both in the igneous rocks that have just cooled and crystallized, as well as in the surrounding rocks. As the fluids cool, the metals (and other solutes) come out of solution and precipitate as minerals. Some of these will be 'native' gold, copper, etc. that are mostly pure metals, but with the exception of gold, most of the metals will be in different oxides, silicates, sulfides, and other compounds.
These minerals may be re-dissolved at any time in the geologic future when conditions are right. This is usually when there is infiltration of hot, potentially acidic fluids deep in the crust from later magmatism or other geologic processes (the rock could be buried many kilometers during sedimentation or mountain building episodes, which will heat it up dramatically). The re-mobilized fluids can travel tens or hundreds of kilometers along fracture networks in the crust, and then as they cool, they re-deposits the ore as new minerals (not necessarily the same type). This can, and does, happen repeatedly so that the ore deposits of interest could be many generations, thousands of kilometers and millions of years from the original magmatic source.
In other instances the ores may form at the Earth's surface due to weathering of rock that contains the elements of interest. The most prominent example is probably aluminum ore, which is typically a rock called bauxite that was originally a soil formed from the weathering of highly aluminum-rich igneous rocks in tropical conditions. Bauxite requires an enormous amount of processing to separate out the aluminum, which is why aluminum recycling is so economical. The energy requirements for bauxite refining are enormous so the ore has historically been transported halfway across the world from the tropics to places like the Columbia River hydropower facilities in the US Northwest and the geothermal powerhouse of Iceland (this is part of why Seattle became an aerospace center).
The prodigal gold and silver mines of the Sierra Nevada are also the result of surface weathering. The ore (I think mostly native silver and gold but I am not sure) was actually in little flakes in river beds in Nevada some 40 million years ago when Nevada was a high plateau higher than the Sierra (which was probably not as high then); the rocks in the river headwaters weathered to sand and clay and little bits of metals, and the rivers spilled down into California and left big sedimentary deposits at the base of the mountains, big alluvial fans and stuff. Then Nevada got broken apart by tectonics into a bunch of rifts and the rivers went away. The California miners just had to separate the very heavy gold and silver particles from the much lighter sand and gravel using flumes, rather than crushing and chemically separating solid ore like we typically think of with mining.
It certainly needs some further qualification to be accurate - I can immediately think of coal, limestone, and rock salt (as well as - pedantically - all manner of things we don't even mine such as sunlight and ocean wildlife, which is not excluded by that wording) . Perhaps "non-ferrous metallic ore" might be more accurate.
Right I guess I was assuming metallic off the bat. But is that even true? Basically every non-ferrous metallic ore deposit is the site of an ancient volcano?
Even with a super generous interpretation of "most non-ferrous metallic ore natural resources" - there's Lithium and other alkali metal salts, mined of dried lake beds. I think Group 2 is similar. Also aluminum from bauxite, which is sedimentary. Too lazy to keep googling counter-examples.
That line needs a lot of qualifiers to be correct. Unless they are using "non-ferrous" in some super bizarre way.
That line needs a lot of qualifiers to be correct. Unless they are using "non-ferrous" in some super bizarre way.
Igneous rocks, generally, are the site of ancient volcanos, or at least active undersea cracks. Igneous rocks tend to have the interesting minerals in them. Take the gold deposits of southeast alaska. When they were formed, geologists think, they were probably black smokers near undersea cracks that belched out plumes of gold bearing minerals. Several million years of continental drift and they are strata under mountains
The entire planet could be described as an ancient volcano, so this discussion is a bit misleading.
It's wrong, since "non-ferrous natural resources" includes a lot of things lighter than iron, notably aluminum, but it's not really misleading, it's got the right general idea. Before the Earth formed a solid crust, heavier elements settled out of the outermost layer of liquid and fell inward toward the core. Only where convection plumes have brought magma to the surface from deeper in the mantle do we find high concentrations of heavier elements in the Earth's crust.
I think he meant to waffle about kimberlite pipes, diamond mines.
Otherwise no that sounds crazy
Otherwise no that sounds crazy
Aluminum and silicon is very common in the earth’s crust, so I don’t believe it is correct. Maybe there’s some jargon definition at play, like astronomers referring to anything heavier than hydrogen/helium as «metal».
I think "non-ferrous natural resources" is a garbled translation of "elements heavier than iron", which would be accurate. Iron is the heaviest element that is relatively abundant in the crust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...
I've been following this story for some time now so I can do what I can when it comes time to stop this mine:
The two men, each slim with a goatee, stepped out into the enveloping silence of southwest Alaska’s wilderness. Before them stretched two of the wildest river systems left in the United States. Beneath their feet lay the world’s biggest known untapped deposit of copper and gold.
This Alaska mine could generate $1 billion a year. Is it worth the risk to salmon?
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-23/pebble...
The two men, each slim with a goatee, stepped out into the enveloping silence of southwest Alaska’s wilderness. Before them stretched two of the wildest river systems left in the United States. Beneath their feet lay the world’s biggest known untapped deposit of copper and gold.
This Alaska mine could generate $1 billion a year. Is it worth the risk to salmon?
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-23/pebble...
Is there a possible compromise where the damage is mitigated for a modest increase in extraction costs?
I feel like "stop" is not terribly productive. Copper will probably be mined somewhere at some point, and saying "stop" just makes it happen in other places (which could be worse) or with a delay of ~10 years.
But if we focus on better extraction methods, it means we can keep domestic production, control the environmental impact, and improve tech that can be used for cleaner extraction everywhere.
I feel like "stop" is not terribly productive. Copper will probably be mined somewhere at some point, and saying "stop" just makes it happen in other places (which could be worse) or with a delay of ~10 years.
But if we focus on better extraction methods, it means we can keep domestic production, control the environmental impact, and improve tech that can be used for cleaner extraction everywhere.
It's an exceptional and extraordinarily valuable ecosystem. I don't think we should risk it. As you point out, there are other copper mines, some in not so special areas.
I wonder if this will cause mining to be resumed in Michigan's upper peninsula. It is one of the few places in the US that has native copper. Mining mostly shut down in the 1900s due to strip mining being much cheaper out west, but more demand could make it viable again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_mining_in_Michigan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_mining_in_Michigan
Seems like this (a new way to extract copper from regions with active volcanoes) would make Michigan, a non-volcanic area suitable for traditional mining methods, less attractive for copper mining rather than more.
Yeah there is no need of this tech in Michigan copper mines, most of it comes out of the ground in solid metal form. Just digging through random rocks on the ground or through beach rocks of the area will quickly result in finding pieces of copper in rocks or solid nuggets. I believe the ground content of copper is suppose to be about 1% in that area.
There will never be a serious copper shortage. By the time copper starts to run low we'll have a far better means for transferring power at scale. This publication gets a lot of things wrong.
Archived link: https://archive.is/z53Or
One day, open cast mining may become unacceptable from an environmental point of view.
Then this method may be the only way to get copper.
Then this method may be the only way to get copper.
One day, hopefully.
Currently it's more acceptable to set the ocean on fire than it is to protest against the ocean being on fire.
So might be a while
Currently it's more acceptable to set the ocean on fire than it is to protest against the ocean being on fire.
So might be a while
Is mining volcanoes safe? The White island volcano (pictured) recently erupted, killing some and maiming others.
Oil drilling is pretty unsafe, as is mining underground. Mining volcanoes will probably fund a lot of research into understanding volcanoes so that mining companies can predict them better, which might make other communities that live near volcanoes more safe.
But in general it will likely be unsafe for the miners and their surroundings, like any other mining method. Initially probably much less safe than traditional copper mining.
But in general it will likely be unsafe for the miners and their surroundings, like any other mining method. Initially probably much less safe than traditional copper mining.
Does safety factor in to it? As long as the profit is enough to outweigh any death or liability payouts then the company doing it is golden.
Your statement is a contradiction.
Safety must be a factor, since "death and liability" is part of the calculation, as you state.
Safety must be a factor, since "death and liability" is part of the calculation, as you state.
[deleted]
Or just the costs of doing business.
Yes that's how economics works. The worker comp claims for when a fast food worker gets burned is also "the costs of doing business", but people don't seem to have the same visceral reaction to it.
Because of our increasing need for copper for electric vehicles, which contain about 4 times as much copper as a regular vehicle, the search is on for untapped copper reserves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IZz26dR9ik&t=3s
Copper wire (including motor windings) are easily and commonly recycled. Copper traces in a circuit board are a lot harder.
When an electric car dies I assure you it is being stripped of copper from any parts that cannot be sold.
When an electric car dies I assure you it is being stripped of copper from any parts that cannot be sold.
Yup. There is a whole industry that is involved in copper recycling.
Copper is expensive and even scrap dealers deal with copper separately.
In India, even street pickers know the value of copper.
Copper is expensive and even scrap dealers deal with copper separately.
In India, even street pickers know the value of copper.
It is valuable enough that a fair bit is stolen:
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=kil...
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=kil...
Street pickers know the value of everything. That's their daily bread-butter. FMCG companies use CSR funds to make them pickup more of less-value trash.
I knew an electrician who had a bucket of scrap next to the couch, and he'd strip wire or unravel windings while watching TV. Didn't pay as much as his day job, but it did pay (never asked if he was reporting the income or not).
Copper is good for electric vehicles but aluminium is a decent substitute for most applications if it was to become super expensive.
In some ways, it's better: lower weight relative to the current-carrying capacity. If I understand correctly, the main issue with aluminum is getting the connections right so that oxidation isn't an issue. If engineered correctly it shouldn't be a problem.
Aluminum-wound motors are apparently also a thing, though (like with aluminum power cables) they tend to be physically larger than copper-wound motors for the equivalent amount of power.
Aluminum-wound motors are apparently also a thing, though (like with aluminum power cables) they tend to be physically larger than copper-wound motors for the equivalent amount of power.
Yeah, it's great for long haul like high tension wires, not so great for houses and electromechanical contrivances. Prone to oxidation/corrosion, so you have to usually use special lugs, or wire nuts filled with this goop.
I could be mis-remembering but I also feel like it's more prone to whiskers/pest when soldered to boards, especially lead-free mixes. Either way, ends have to be crimped, so that's more steps.
Just generally more annoying and expensive to work with than copper.
I could be mis-remembering but I also feel like it's more prone to whiskers/pest when soldered to boards, especially lead-free mixes. Either way, ends have to be crimped, so that's more steps.
Just generally more annoying and expensive to work with than copper.
Whiskers are due to tin, not aluminum.
Aluminum for wiring works just fine if properly engineered and can be cheaper once that engineering is amortized.
Aluminum for wiring works just fine if properly engineered and can be cheaper once that engineering is amortized.
Yes but if not properly installed it's far more prone to overheating from oxidation. Heat can often = fires.
I would never buy a house with aluminum wiring for anything other than service cable or wiring to 220V appliances. I've seen too many homes with aluminum wiring where plugs, light switches or fixtures were swapped out for fixtures that were not rated for use with aluminum wiring. I picked up a FLIR camera that attached to my iPhone - was at a friends house that had aluminum wiring. Was screwing around with the camera and noticed some hot spots on some walls - looked closer and they were outlets. Felt the outlet and it was warm to the touch. Killed power to the circuit, popped the outlet out of the wall and the terminals were crispy critters! Freaked my friend out a little - swept the rest of the house and ended up replacing a dozen outlets, a handful of switches and checking every ceiling and wall mounted fixture. What a nightmare - many of the hot products showed obvious signs of overheating.
If handled properly aluminum wiring can be effective. The problem is it's often not handled correctly :(
I would never buy a house with aluminum wiring for anything other than service cable or wiring to 220V appliances. I've seen too many homes with aluminum wiring where plugs, light switches or fixtures were swapped out for fixtures that were not rated for use with aluminum wiring. I picked up a FLIR camera that attached to my iPhone - was at a friends house that had aluminum wiring. Was screwing around with the camera and noticed some hot spots on some walls - looked closer and they were outlets. Felt the outlet and it was warm to the touch. Killed power to the circuit, popped the outlet out of the wall and the terminals were crispy critters! Freaked my friend out a little - swept the rest of the house and ended up replacing a dozen outlets, a handful of switches and checking every ceiling and wall mounted fixture. What a nightmare - many of the hot products showed obvious signs of overheating.
If handled properly aluminum wiring can be effective. The problem is it's often not handled correctly :(
Oh yup, that was tin pest and tin whiskers that I think I was thinking of.
My understanding is that Al wiring can be cheaper, but specifically in the housing domain, because virtually every fixture is copper based, it ends up being a huge PITA.
My understanding is that Al wiring can be cheaper, but specifically in the housing domain, because virtually every fixture is copper based, it ends up being a huge PITA.
Overhead electric power lines are typically aluminum-wrapped steel. They are not volume limited, so aluminum is better and cheaper than copper.
The aluminum carries the current, the steel is for support (tensile strength).
How do they keep galvanic action from eating the whole assembly? I've never been clear on that bit.
How do they keep galvanic action from eating the whole assembly? I've never been clear on that bit.
The Model 3 actually uses aluminum cabling in some places (I think the main cable between the battery and the motor/controller assembly). In certain applications where weight is at a greater premium than volume, it can actually be superior to copper as its resistivity divided by density is lower than copper. (BTW, lithium is even slightly better on that metric than aluminum, although it oxidizes extremely rapidly so has to be carefully protected, making it impractical).
Extremely long-term, sufficiently high quality graphene or carbon nanotubes can theoretically have higher mass-specific resistivity than copper or even aluminum. But in practice, CNTs and graphene have much worse electrical conductivity due to defects and the need to conduct between tubes/crystal regions/bundles.
Extremely long-term, sufficiently high quality graphene or carbon nanotubes can theoretically have higher mass-specific resistivity than copper or even aluminum. But in practice, CNTs and graphene have much worse electrical conductivity due to defects and the need to conduct between tubes/crystal regions/bundles.
For household wiring it's not so decent as it creeps, which causes arcing and fires. For other uses, wherever aluminium could be substituted, it already was, such as underground power wiring.
However, there is development in carbon nanotubes, in the lab they already make wires on par with aluminium, so hopefully that will work out.
However, there is development in carbon nanotubes, in the lab they already make wires on par with aluminium, so hopefully that will work out.
Carbon nanotubes while wonderous are not only expensive to manufacture but also seem to have issues with being asbestos-like despite their wonderous properties. I think automobiles may be a wrong application there although not as bad as break pads of the stuff.
The asbestos fear only applies to powder/chopped CNTs. But in typical fiber form (yarns and such), it’s not a hazard. It doesn’t exfoliate easily like asbestos does and so has no more risk than carbon fiber or fiberglass. The cost for good CNTs is insane, though.
Nope. They know where the best copper (among numerous other resources) is, but the cost to extract it is too high for political reasons. We are talking about known (already proven) resource deposits in the estimated $5-50 trillion range.
1. CAR/DRC
2. Afghanistan
1. CAR/DRC
2. Afghanistan
Hopefully those traditionally poverty-stricken regions can now flourish from their metal equivalent of an oil rush.
In most cases, the riches from natural resources fund a cleptocratic regime, which does very little for the actual people. Often, the riches create conflicts (wars, civil wars) between competing cleptocracies, and the people suffer greatly in result.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
An interesting NPR article /podcast episode on how Norway handled this . "How To Avoid The Oil Curse : Planet Money : NPR" https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/09/06/140110346/how-...
I think it boils down to: be Norwegian, i.e. have an already well functioning government and relatively egalitarian society.
Botswana figured it out too.
I don't know much about Botswana (I've been to other nearby countries in Africa, but not there), but just from looking at things like it's Gini index I'm skeptical. It definitely appears much better off than its neighbors though and seems to be on a good trajectory.
Botswana is generally considered one of the best-run countries in Africa, along with the island nations (Cape Verde, Seychelles, and Mauritius) and the countries in North Africa (Morocco to Egypt). For example, it's 5th in Africa the Human Development Index (behind Mauritius, Seychelles, Algeria, and Tunisia--and ahead of South Africa). In GDP (PPP) per capita, it's 4th, behind Seychelles, Mauritius, and Equatorial Guinea.
I know that, but being one of the best run countries in Africa is very far from being Norway, as I was getting at with the Gini index.
Copper is already expensive enough to have an impressive recycling rate. Over 90% last time I heard
Wouldn't there be massive amounts of copper in landfills? Might be hard to separate from the rest of the waste, but perhaps not harder than regular mining?
A quick bit of googling suggests that copper ore is between 0.4% and 12% copper [1]. Just guessing, but I'd be surprised if there was anything like that much copper in a generic landfill site which makes me think it'd be pretty uneconomical to extract copper from landfill at the moment. I suspect the price of copper would need to be a few orders of magnitude higher before it became feasible.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/technology/copper-processing/Ores
[1] https://www.britannica.com/technology/copper-processing/Ores
The US produces 200 million tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year, ignoring the parts recycled or composted. Most copper production is not from recycled metal (< 10% is recycled from post consumer waste). US copper consumption is about 1.7 million tonnes per year. So, if all the copper used ends up in MSW (which is likely an exaggeration), the landfills would be nearly 1% copper.
Houses electrical wiring is in use for decades, so it’s likely we aren’t throwing away nearly that much copper.
I think the salient point is that construction & demolition debris is not included in MSW. So copper that ends up in that waste stream is not necessarily going to MSW landfills.
The US produces 600 million tonnes of C&D debris each year.
The US produces 600 million tonnes of C&D debris each year.
House wiring is worth stripping and recycling though. Scrappers will come and buy this stuff from the demo companies.
Counterfactual: copper is extensively scavenged. To the point that e.g. parts of Arizona have a stripping problem.
That said, the quality of this debate leads me to believe an experiment might be worth it.
That said, the quality of this debate leads me to believe an experiment might be worth it.
Until we can build autonomous configurable scavenging robots at scale.
A fleet of WALL-Es perhaps.
Trash sifting robots seem like an interesting idea tbh. You would just need to identify the classes of items worth searching for.
They already exist and are used to sift incoming waste streams. At their simplest we’re talking about magnets over a conveyor belt.
It's probably one of the easier things to recover from eg used PCBs. It's not like plastic resins which decompose into carbon when you do something wrong.
Also manufactures probably throw a ton of copper (chloride?) out which they could recover copper from.
Also manufactures probably throw a ton of copper (chloride?) out which they could recover copper from.
Another interesting fact is that the recycling rate is relatively high due to its economic value, "In Europe, about 50% of copper demand comes from recycling (as of 2016)", and "it has been estimated that 65%-80% of all copper ever mined is still available (having been repeatedly recycled)."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper
[1] 1920s engineers believed the Electric Age would die a quick death https://gizmodo.com/1920s-engineers-believed-the-electric-ag...