Lithium found in fracking waste water

[brenthutch 444]

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-vast-untapped-source-of-lithium-has-just-been-found-in-the-us

 Faustian bargain time for environmentalists 

[JoeWeber 2,859]

Just now, brenthutch said:

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-vast-untapped-source-of-lithium-has-just-been-found-in-the-us

 Faustian bargain time for environmentalists 

Only for us'n's? Time may be like an arrow but that's it. Everything else is up for periodic direction change, no soul searching required. I, myself, am cheered. I'm hoping that fracking waste water is thick as minestrone soup with lithium bits that can be extracted with naught more than a french coffee press. He who laughs Faust, right?

[billvon 3,088]

8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Only for us'n's? Time may be like an arrow but that's it. 

Wait till he finds out that there's lithium in his breakfast cereal, in sewage, in seawater and even in bald eagles.  The trick is, of course, finding it in concentrations that make economic sense for extraction.

And then wait until he finds out that the most promising high density lithium found in fluids in the US is in the brines they pump for geothermal energy.  More EVs and more geothermal energy right here in the US - sounds like a republican's worst nightmare.

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Wait till he finds out that there's lithium in his breakfast cereal, in sewage, in seawater and even in bald eagles.  The trick is, of course, finding it in concentrations that make economic sense for extraction.

And then wait until he finds out that the most promising high density lithium found in fluids in the US is in the brines they pump for geothermal energy.  More EVs and more geothermal energy right here in the US - sounds like a republican's worst nightmare.

Geothermal is insignificant. One or two or even a hundred geothermal wells pale in comparison to the thousands of fracking wells in Pennsylvania. As one of your fellow lefties put it “quantity has a quality all its own”

[JoeWeber 2,859]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Geothermal is insignificant. One or two or even a hundred geothermal wells pale in comparison to the thousands of fracking wells in Pennsylvania. As one of your fellow lefties put it “quantity has a quality all its own”

I suppose you could say Stalin was a leftie. Not sure if Solzhenitsyn would agree.

[brenthutch 444]

On 6/8/2024 at 6:23 PM, billvon said:

And then wait until he finds out that the most promising high density lithium found in fluids in the US is in the brines they pump for geothermal energy. 

Lithium and sulfur, chlorides, silica compounds, vanadium, arsenic, mercury, nickel and other toxic heavy metals. 

[olofscience 489]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Lithium and sulfur, chlorides, silica compounds, vanadium, arsenic, mercury, nickel and other toxic heavy metals. 

Wait until you hear about what burning coal releases...

 

"The majority of anthropogenic mercury emissions are from coal burning and gold mining, accounting for 24% and 37% of total output respectively"

 

Coal burning doesn't just release mercury:

Quote

Many of the heavy metals released in the mining and burning of coal are environmentally and biologically toxic elements, such as lead, mercury, nickel, tin, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium

It's easier to handle heavy metals in brines, than if they're in tiny particles or even gases released from coal burning.

[brenthutch 444]

23 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Wait until you hear about what burning coal releases...

 

"The majority of anthropogenic mercury emissions are from coal burning and gold mining, accounting for 24% and 37% of total output respectively"

 

Coal burning doesn't just release mercury:

It's easier to handle heavy metals in brines, than if they're in tiny particles or even gases released from coal burning.

Very interesting but has nothing to do with this post. 

[olofscience 489]

50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Very interesting but has nothing to do with this post. 

Yeah because you're not really concerned about toxic heavy metal pollution  where'd saint Brent go?

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, olofscience said:

Yeah because you're not really concerned about toxic heavy metal pollution  where'd saint Brent go?

More useless drivel, do you actually have anything substantive to contribute?

[olofscience 489]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

More useless drivel, do you actually have anything substantive to contribute?

It's spelled "substantiative".

You're welcome.

Edited June 23, 2024 by olofscience

[brenthutch 444]

31 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's spelled "substantiative".

You're welcome.

More useless drivel. 

Edited June 23, 2024 by brenthutch

[olofscience 489]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

More useless drivel. 

I'll take that you don't understand chemistry either which is why you're sounding like a broken record  Have a nice day

[brenthutch 444]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I'll take that you don't understand chemistry either which is why you're sounding like a broken record  Have a nice day

Then why don’t you opine on chemistry?

[olofscience 489]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Then why don’t you opine on chemistry?

I did: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/287115-lithium-found-in-fracking-waste-water/?do=findComment&comment=5034338

 

[wmw999 2,558]

Guys, you sound like a couple of 8-year-olds. Cut it out  

Brent, if you want people to say something specific, you’re going to have to direct them, and expect them to post what they want to anyway. For one thing, the OP didn’t specify on topic. If you consider the topic to be the unique evils of renewable power waste, and absolutely nothing else, why post? Because obviously the only response you’d accept is “either yes, master,” or something like piling it on. Those people don’t post here. 

Thread drift happens. As someone  who contributes to it in other threads, you should understand.

Olof, goading Brent is reeeeeal close to trolling  

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

As usual you are the voice of reason, I will stand down.

[olofscience 489]

11 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Olof, goading Brent is reeeeeal close to trolling  

Ok the post about his spelling was a bit unnecessary, but he was already so triggered way before that post 

All I posted about were facts, and seems like reality makes him angry (even though he was the one who started talking about toxic heavy metals). Ironic given how he thinks he's giving "reality checks" here as a reality denier.

 

Here's another fact: leaded gasoline has exposed more people to heavy metals than anything else in modern history. It's still the case around general aviation airports. (like Happy Valley, maybe?)

Now that leaded gasoline is mostly obsolete, guess what has replaced it as a major source of lead? Coal burning.

Lead in Children’s Blood Is Mainly Caused by Coal-Fired Ash after Phasing out of Leaded Gasoline in Shanghai

 

Again - liquid geothermal brines, like billvon mentioned as on topic to this discussion, are more easily handled than gaseous/tiny particle emissions so the risk of heavy metal pollution is lower. Brent had no answer to this point and instead just chose to lose his temper.

[brenthutch 444]

54 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Ok the post about his spelling was a bit unnecessary, but he was already so triggered way before that post 

All I posted about were facts, and seems like reality makes him angry (even though he was the one who started talking about toxic heavy metals). Ironic given how he thinks he's giving "reality checks" here as a reality denier.

 

Here's another fact: leaded gasoline has exposed more people to heavy metals than anything else in modern history. It's still the case around general aviation airports. (like Happy Valley, maybe?)

Now that leaded gasoline is mostly obsolete, guess what has replaced it as a major source of lead? Coal burning.

 

Again - liquid geothermal brines, like billvon mentioned as on topic to this discussion, are more easily handled than gaseous/tiny particle emissions so the risk of heavy metal pollution is lower. Brent had no answer to this point and instead just chose to lose his temper.

The OP had nothing to do with coal, it had to do with fracking water. It’s noteworthy that you have to set up a straw man instead of dealing with my actual point. It reveals intellectual weakness.

[olofscience 489]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The OP had nothing to do with coal, it had to do with fracking water. It’s noteworthy that you have to set up a straw man instead of dealing with my actual point. It reveals intellectual weakness.

Now you're trying to copy Coreece when you actually avoid saying your actual point.

And...that's not what a straw man argument is  I did not make it up that you're hugely in favour of burning coal. You, on the other hand...

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Now you're trying to copy Coreece when you actually avoid saying your actual point.

And...that's not what a straw man argument is  I did not make it up that you're hugely in favour of burning coal. You, on the other hand...

Yeah, it's amazing how often HE throws out strawman arguments and changes the subject when his 'facts' are shown to be fabrications.

Yet another reason not to engage him.

[brenthutch 444]

21 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yeah, it's amazing how often HE throws out strawman arguments and changes the subject when his 'facts' are shown to be fabrications.

Yet another reason not to engage him.

Olof can’t help himself 

[brenthutch 444]

26 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I did not make it up that you're hugely in favour of burning coal. 

The globe is hugely in favor of burning coal.
 

“Coal 2023 sees global demand for coal rising by 1.4% in 2023, surpassing 8.5 billion tonnes for the first time.”

[gowlerk 2,259]

29 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yet another reason not to engage him.

Ya don't say?

[Phil1111 1,149]

14 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Guys, you sound like a couple of 8-year-olds. Cut it out  

Brent, if you want people to say something specific, you’re going to have to direct them, and expect them to post what they want to anyway. For one thing, the OP didn’t specify on topic. If you consider the topic to be the unique evils of renewable power waste, and absolutely nothing else, why post? Because obviously the only response you’d accept is “either yes, master,” or something like piling it on. Those people don’t post here. 

Thread drift happens. As someone  who contributes to it in other threads, you should understand.

Olof, goading Brent is reeeeeal close to trolling  

Wendy P. 

People here need to keep in mind that many, many similarly inclined Americans think the same way as Brent. Brent poorly chooses his arguments and seems to delight in debasing higher ideals.

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The globe is hugely in favor of burning coal.

“Coal 2023 sees global demand for coal rising by 1.4% in 2023, surpassing 8.5 billion tonnes for the first time.”

This is a good example. The expanding use of coal by poor countries arises out of necessity for cheap power. When better alternatives are not available. Only two countries are expanding coal use at scale, China and India. While 84 countries have pledged to phase it out entirely. Nuances like this are not discussed in conservative circles. The circles of thought which Brent likes to frequent.