Collapse

This article is pretty much arguing a strawman and (intentionally?) fails to discuss any quantitative figures.

Sure, doing mining completely without fossil fuels will be difficult in the short term, but the real question would be: does renewable energy save more fossile fuels over their lifetime then they required to be produced, and if so: then the reduction of fossil fuel use in the general economy means that there will be plenty to do the required mining.

That article was nonsense and I feel dumber for having read it. And that's even looking past all the bullshit bombastic language where he spends half the article making fallacious emotional appeals.

Apparently mining equipment can't be powered with electricity for ~reasons~, except when it can, but even then they have to build a fossil-fuel burning power plant on-site instead of hooking up to the grid for ~reasons~. And then he talks about how the materials needed to electrify mining equipment would "cannibalize" the supply for putting them in other things enough to create a vicious cycle, doing no math whatsoever to try to prove that point. Finally, he also impugns the viability of things like fusion for ~reasons~ (that he's got a whole 'nother article of fact-free meaningless drivel about) and can't be bothered to mention fission at all. It's complete garbage that utterly fails to even try to support any point it claims to make.

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting.