USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

ugh i really don't want people to mine in the mobile basin. that's one of the most diverse ecosystems in north america. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9coyJeB4Q

It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear.

Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.

> It seems backwards, but pretty much the only fuel that protects ecosystems on a large scale are fossil fuels and nuclear.

This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining. Nuclear seems likely, though as the other commenter noted it's not a magic bullet either.

> Global reforestation is almost entirely the result of households switching from wood to coal in the 20th century.

This is a European phenomena mostly, and is a result of urbanization mostly.

> This is ludicrously off-base for fossil fuels, even if we're only talking about local pollutants from the plants themselves, nevermind things like Exxon Valdez or the pipelines or the act of mining.

The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy.

> is a result of urbanization mostly

Urbanization, made possible by the economical source of energy that is fossil fuels.

> The energy density of fossil fuels means that those side-effects would be worse with other sources of energy.

Can you expand on this? How does the density of fossil fuel make them a better source of energy than say wind?

One oil well can produce an amount of free energy (24/7) that a 100 acre wind farm can only produce sporadically, assuming the well is a reasonably high volume producer. It depends on the specific well/geology.

The issue with fossil fuels is that they liberate fossil carbon, which has larger macro effects on the global environment. (It injects a lot of ‘new’ carbon into the carbon cycle)

They also do sometimes have some medium sized local effects from spills or contamination. But those can usually be controlled.

Geothermal is also usually ‘low footprint/high value’, but is only viable in specific limited locations.

Solar, wind, hydropower, tidal energy all have large physical footprints for the amount of energy they produce. Aka ‘low density’. All are also somewhat tied to specific, and often limited geology.

For solar for instance, areas with a lot of desert or other open ‘non productive’ land nearby, it’s great (assuming decent insolation). In areas where land is at a premium for other uses, or is very rugged/high maintenance, it definitely is a problem. Aka cities, certain types of high intensity farmland, heavily forested areas, high snow load/storm areas, etc.

Solar is not an awesome economic choice in Siberia, for example. It is an awesome economic choice in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, etc.

For areas with geography that supports it (typically the right kind of mountain ranges) and rainfall, hydropower is awesome, though has serious side effects on wildlife and river health. For a place that doesn’t have the right geography (say England), it’s a non starter.

> One oil well can produce an amount of free energy (24/7) that a 100 acre wind farm can only produce sporadically, assuming the well is a reasonably high volume producer. It depends on the specific well/geology.

Except it can't, a 100 acre wind farm can produce energy indefinitely while a oil well will eventually run dry.

The idea that fossil fuels are more ecologically favorable because it's 'dense' needs to address not only external factors, but that fossil fuels are non-renewable.