HackerTube.dev

Assoc Prof Simon Michaux - The quantity of metals required to manufacture just one generation of...

Sustainable Minerals Institute UQ · 122.1K views · 2022-08-19 · 1:12:38

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Associate Professor Simon Michaux presents estimates of the metals needed to build one generation of renewable technology to replace fossil fuels. He argues current production and reserves fall far short, with copper a key shortfall.

On Hacker News

Cited in energy transition threads for ballpark numbers on mineral demand, though some commenters criticize its assumptions.

Recommended by 1 HN people across 1 months · HN mentions 2022–2023

Topics

Search by tags

What people said

SinParadise · 2023-09 · Recommendation

[VIDEO] Long video, but informative. TLDR: We don't have enough minerals (including reserves) to completely switch our energy from ff to renewables, assuming our current energy consumption flatline, and our renewable technology efficiency and mineral consumption remain the same.

Read the original HN comment ↗
SinParadise · 2023-09 · Criticism

Based on his calculations from a video a year ago. He projects that we would need 940M tons of lithium, while 2022 reported reserves is 95M tons.[0] Are we going realistically find enough undiscovered lithium reserves that is the same size as our known reserves as of 2022, even assuming that he is off by a factor of 4? [0] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
MSFT_Edging · 2023-07 · Reference

While obviously an opinion piece,these kinds of deranged articles are dangerous IMO. Between the two authors, one is a spokesman for a free-market thinktank, the other is a pop scientist known for writing books on the debunked parallel universe theories. This kind of "oh we'll figure it out" kind of attitude is why every major nation's plan for climate change includes the imaginary technology of carbon capture. We have about 20% of mineral reserves required for a full green energy conversion.[1] These type of think tank grifters(I'm sorry I cannot think of a better term for these people) have a single goal, to throw us all over the cliff of climate change while enabling their patrons to extract as much value from us on the way down. Due to this prevailing "we'll figure it out" opinion, every major country in the world has increased their carbon emissions, continues to destroy environments, and overall has done very little to counter pollution, emissions, and fossil fuel usage as a whole. Oh you're going to mine at the bottom of the ocean? Sure, that sounds about as likely as Musk actually sending himself to Mars. But here's the thing, we didn't figure it out! The polar vortex jet stream has been interrupted, we've broken an extremely important meteorological system due to the endless search for growth, and these people want us to do more growing! more profit! At what cost? We still pretend like carbon capture will save us, that telling the average joe to recycle will save us,

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Sustainable Minerals Institute UQ, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources