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.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
What is this publication and who finances it because this section is incredibly sus:
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.
carbs@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
Geodad@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
The problem with aluminum is that it gets REALLY hot when current is run through it. It used to be ised to wire homes, but is now banned because it wasn’t safe.
raltoid@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The article is shit, the study is about copper used 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.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
In a lot of cases you can also use Aluminum instead of copper. You need thicker wires and it’s less flexible, but it’s doable and cheaper. Some old electric motors from the eastern block used aluminium coils for that matter, because copper was much more expensive there.
frezik@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
The US is allergic to it, but needs to get over it.
Aluminum wire was tried in the 1970s due to a spike in copper prices. The problem was that they just tried to swap it right in. Aluminum and copper have different rates of expansion. Over time, that would slowly loosen the connectors, and the wires would pop right out and cause a fire.
You can design connectors to handle both, and you’ll see many electrical things today specify that they’re good for aluminum or copper wire. It still has a bad reputation among electricians; they haven’t unlearned the problem yet.
Now, one place it’s more of a problem is in things like transformer windings. There are kilometers of wiring in any of them, so the higher resistance of aluminum is a problem.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Aluminium is actually a better conductor than copper when you judge it by mass, not volume. I think also by tensile strength.
In any case there’s a reason that large overland wires aren’t copper, but steel-cladded aluminium. Copper will always have its applications but so does gold and yet we’re not running out of gold to plate connections with.
In cases like windings requiring more volume is actually an issue, in the case of PCBs… no, despite Apple’s insistence, it’s actually fine to have a phone that’s 0.2mm thicker.
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 3 weeks ago
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.
r_deckard@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Heh. My batteries are flooded lead-acid, all 1320ah of 'em. No copper guilt here.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
What I mean is that the bulk of current copper wiring goes towards distribution and consumption, not generation.
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.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
it sounded like they were trying to say battery grid storage is going to be the main problem here:
except the article they linked is about lithium-CO2 batteries and does not mention copper at all.
Even if we really do need to reduce grid storage to save copper, we can do that with more baseline nuclear power, no need to keep involving fossil fuels.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Or you use pumped hydro, or compressed air, or gravity batteries, or any of the other energy storage technologies that aren’t chemical batteries.
brown567@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Most electrical transmission lines are aluminum because it’s cheaper and lighter
electrical-engineering-portal.com/conductor-types…
douglasg14b@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Your argument against the article that talks about copper usage is founded on incomplete knowledge of where copper is actually used?
🤦
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
It’s founded on the article not making a cohesive argument. Current copper usage is primarily in consumption and distribution, not generation.
_stranger_@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Do they think the copper is consumed? Like, renewable resources burn copper?!