Scientists have found a cost-effective way of harvesting lithium from seawater – why is it necessary

it is thought that the worlds oceans hold 2.6 x10^11 tonnes of lithium. that works out at 325 tonnes of lithium for every person on the planet. Even if every vehicle on the planet went electric we would still have probably 95% of it left.

Ah, you say, but we have not found a way to extract it.

That is the news: despite being 0.2 parts per million in the ocean, a team at King Abdullah university of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia have found a way of extracting lithium at far lower prices. While the ocean contains 5000 times more lithium than on land, it is still a very small fraction. They found by using a very carefully designed electrochemical cell containing a ceramic membrane made from lithium lanthanum titanium oxide. When this and several other processes have occurred, the lithium reaches concentrations of more than 9000 parts per million. By then adjusting the ph of this solution, solid lithium phosphates containing only trace other elements are formed. these are pure enough for battery manufacturers to take over.

Incredibly, this method would only take $5 of electricity to create 1 kg of lithium (and the hydrogen and chlorine that are by-products are already worth this amount. One kg of lithium is currently worth about $35, making this a very profitable venture.

Carbon credits to save rainforests not currently fit for purpose

In the last few months I have read 3 articles from the Guardian (one of the few UK “broadsheets” which put a significant amount of money into its environmental journalism (I would argue that this is concerning, given the large number of threats that are currently future problems for humanity).

The carbon credits idea is incredibly simple. By paying for a rainforest to not get cut down, or something similar, you cancel a load of carbon emissions somewhere else, thereby offsetting your emissions
Continue reading “Carbon credits to save rainforests not currently fit for purpose”

Dairy without the animal?

In the west, for a large portion of the population a not insignificant proportion of their nutrients come from dairy. Unfortunately, though, this dairy requires various livestock to be kept, which are causing the methane emissions that are such a problem.

I have written before about milk without the cow, but this appears to be making some progress.

A company called Imagindairy is using a technique called precision fermentation. In a similar way to brewing beer, it uses microorganisms that have been genetically modified to produce casein and whey proteins, which is what makes up milk. A similar company called perfect day, is already creating similar products in the USA. However, with no lactose, hormones or cholesterol, which might one day make foods such as mozzarella or cream cheese a healthy option to eat. With the capacity to cut emissions on dairy products by as much as 97% it could also make it as good for the environment as vegetables.

Currently Meat, Dairy and rice production will push the earth past 1.5°C on their own, are we doomed?

The human race has set itself the target of keep temperature rises to under 1.5°C. It is therefore an issue if just 3 of the food products could push us past this target.

Why are these 3 foods such a problem? Methane!

While it breaks down in the atmosphere over a matter of a few decades, until it does, it has a warming impact many times greater than carbon dioxide. A study has found, that if current food emissions continue to the end of the century, they will result in another 0.7°C of emissions, on top of the estimated 1°C that food production has already caused.

However, the same study found that this rise could be cut by 55% by cutting meat consumption in rich countries – to what is medically recommended, by reducing emissions from livestock and their manure (I have spoken in the past about an additive from seaweed which could be added to cattle diets, which would greatly reduce their methane production.) and by using renewable energy in the food system (this last one should be guaranteed, though unfortunately it isn’t, because the whole earth should be converting to 100% renewable.

According to an expert, despite political decisions stating 20 cheetah will be reintroduced into Kuno reserve however prey is too depleted

Kuno national park in India has been chosen to reintroduce cheetah to India. This is (to be clear) good news. Cheetah were an important part of the Indian fauna, but were driven to extinction by human hunters.

One of the translocated cheetah standing in the Kuno reserve

So what is the problem?

Well quite simple. The area is thought to be able to support 20 cheetah based on the area. However, unfortunately at the moment, Chital density is roughly 20 per square kilometre. While this sounds very healthy, in actual fact, the park hosted an average of 60 Chital per square km in just 2014.

This means that for what-ever reason, the Chital population are heavily depressed. This population needs to be able to rebound if it is to support 20 cheetah.

At the current time, this expert suggests that the reserve cannot support more than 15.

These cheetah are due to be released from their large enclosures into the greater Kuno in the next few weeks. Annoyingly, a tiger has been seen in the area (the reserve is not perfect habitat for a tiger, so there is no permanent tiger population) so some delay will occur to allow this animal to move on.

Might a raise in the minimum age for lion trophy hunting help?

At the moment, in most areas, male lions can be hunted from the age of 6. Unfortunately as the age of the lion is regularly over-estimated, this means that lions as young as 4 are often shot.

I dont see any bravery of hunting lions, as such I do not want to publicize any current hunters

A recent proposal is to increase the age to 8. This would mean that young lions are not shot regularly, and will give lions a chance to reproduce before the end of their lives. With male lions naturally living to 12-16 years, this change would be a positive one.

Continue reading “Might a raise in the minimum age for lion trophy hunting help?”

Beavers are returning to London

Beaver reintroduction projects are occurring all over the UK. Given that back in October 2022 the beaver was recognized as a native species once again in England, it becomes far easier to reintroduce them into places that would benefit from their presence.

You might ask why a country would declare an animal non-native after it being pushed to extinction by humans? I share this bafflement. In the UK (as with many countries across the globe) once the species has officially been declared locally extinct it ceases to be a native mammal. This should change – it is absurd that in a country where a native species is driven to extinction, there needs to be any discussion about whether it is native – indeed I would argue that this is simply done to make it politically easier to argue against reintroduction.

Anyway, the return of beavers to London will occur in Ealing’s Paradise Fields, an eight-hectare site of woodland and wetlands minutes from Greenford Tube station. While the whole site will be closed while the beavers settle in, it will then continue to be a green space for locals to enjoy.

Admittedly low resolution, but this is an ariel view of the site that the beavers will move into

The beavers behaviour is expected to manage water more effectively, and thereby greatly reduce or indeed eliminate the risk of flooding in the local area.

News in brief – roundup of politics in the way of action, fossil fuel problems and positive moves

Huge extra emissions because of “cutting the green crap” The level of gas imports in the UK are around 13% higher than they would have been, had the Conservative government not “cut the green crap” one decade ago. It is estimated that this would account for 65 terawatt hours of gas that we will have to burn that would not have needed to burn without the foolish move of David Cameron and the cabinet around him. This is an astounding amount of extra emissions that are only emitted because it was politically helpful.

Crude oil pipeline from Uganda to Tanzania will emit 25 times the host nations combined emissions This pipeline will emit 379 million tonnes of climate pollution. The main backers of this project is Total, the French oil company. This project is considered a midlevel carbon bomb, one of many that need to be avoided to get control of climate heating.

24 banks, and 18 insurance refuse to be involved in the project in question. This quite simply still the problem. If we can halt western finance institution from paying for this behaviour it will be harder for it to happen. At the current time there are probably institutions in China that would step in, but we have to end all of it.

Four deep geothermal Plants are planned for the UK These projects will produce enough power to run 45,000 houses, with a further 20mw of heat for the area. All carbon neutral. The company in question makes it clear that this is just a first step, with the intention of producing in excess of 500mw of power from geothermal resources in the next 20 years. This is one of the best forms of baseload power in the UK – that is, the power that is needed all day long, when you get rid of any peak demand. This project is extracting steam at 175 degrees C, 5.1km below ground, and is on schedule to deliver 3MW of power to the national grid by the end of the year. The water stays in the system, with a heat exchanger used to extract the heat, before it is pumped back underground. There are only certain parts of the UK that is suitable under the UK, namely Cornwall and Devon.

Not all the country is capable of accessing this sort of energy, but it is reasonable to expect that in 20 years, a great deal more operators might be enacting similar projects, all over wales and other parts of the UK where suitable. There are obviously other countries in the world where far more energy could be got from this form, and this is a very useful baseload provider, though whether we will help finance this important infrastructure is another issue.

Lithium supply in this ground source geothermal water A recent discovery of the highest concentration of lithium found in geothermal fluid, may make geothermal energy far cheaper. If we start to reach a point where geothermal heat and electricity are both free positive biproducts, in the search for lithium, it cuts the cost dramatically. It is thought that the 4 drill sites talked about above, might lead to about 4000 tonnes of ithium extraction a year. The one plant already constructed is thought to be able to produce 1500 tonnes of lithium by the end of 2023 (just over 1 year ago). In a tesla battery, at the moment roughly 900g of lithium is required per kwh of storage. This means that each tonne of lithium is capable of creating roughly 1.1 mwh of batteries. While this is not large compared to the huge amount of batteries required, it will dramatically change the cost of geothermal energy.

Majority of Australians want an extra tax to limit the super profits of fossil fuel companies This is not out of the ordinary, there have been many similar moves around the world. It is not thought right that fossil fuel providers have made bumper profits on the back of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The fossil fuel burning currently happening has happened before Last time, it left the earth almost lifeless for 5 million years. In this instance, a series of massive eruptions started this issue, wiping out much of life on land. 200,000 years later rapid global heating (it is not only humans capable of global warming). This was triggered by Magma being unable to erupt out of the earth, and therefore spreading sideways, and burning vast deposits of coal and other hydrocarbons that were laid down in the rocks it entered. This is thought to have triggered increases in temperature of 8-10 degrees. Part of the problem will have been that this increase in temperature will have allowed the seas to soak up more carbon dioxide which will have made them more acidic – killing many species. This lasted so long, because rainforests replaced with deserts had a hard time recolonising, which meant that the earth was bereft its usual tools to control carbon in the atmosphere.

How are we doing? Well, while having made various relatively weak promises, virtually every country on earth is going to extract as much of their fossil fuel reserves as they can. If this is to happen we will exceed our remaining carbon budget by roughly 7 fold. It is increasingly clear that human life will only go on as it is, if the population as a whole demands change. Mass abandonment of combustion engine travel, along with carbon neutral heating and electricity could quickly make these reserves largely irrelevant- they will be left in the ground if there is no reward for burning them.

UN sees no credible pathway to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C Having failed to cut our emissions over the last 3 decades, only rapid transformation of our society can allow us to limit impact. Current pledges on emissions cuts are wholly inadequate. The problem with this, is that the 1.5 degree target was not plucked out of the air, but instead came about because this is the level of warming that the world is thought to be able to stand without horrific changes to how it operates (what we will need to do to adapt, will still be enormous). Current pledges, if fully enacted, would lead to a temperature rise of about 2.3 degrees. If the long-term pledges on carbon neutrality were met, we might be able to limit warming to 1.8 degrees, but given the current snails pace of progress, make even this nightmare scenario unlikely to be met. To keep 1.5 targets alive, global emissions would have to halve by 2030 (in the next 7 years) requiring cuts of emissions of 7% a year to be sustained. Much of the problem lies in waste, often encouraged by poorly designed subsidy programs on food creation, and badly designed food tax.

UK ending electric cars exemption from vehicle excise duty from April 2025 At the moment, roughly 14% of UK cars are electric, which means that we are far from full acceptance, it seems foolish to start changing rules when the adoption is not anywhere near complete. While the RAC suggested that the move would have little impact on people switching, AA has warned that it will reduce incentives to switch. Mr Hunt the UK chancellor of the Exchequer, cited predictions by the Office for budget responsibility which predicts 50% of cars will be electric by then. Under current plans, any electric cars registered from April 2025 will pay £10 in the first year and then the standard rate after that(£165). It will also be back-dated for any car registered after April 2017. Company cars will still have a discount for electric cars. We will have to wait and see which is right, but it is certainly a foolish move. Unfortunately they have also decided to remove the exemption from the expensive car supplement, which is £355 on top of the standard rate. The problem is that electric cars tend to be more expensive upfront, with owners recouping much of the cost through savings over the year. As a result, it may well be hard to find an electric car from 2025 which does not incur charges of over £500 a year. While I recognize that the government needs to replace the huge amount of money it gets from fossil fuel tax, this is likely to be a large burden that is put in place way to soon.

USA is being looked on harshly for its obstruction over the last few decades as well as its historical emissions- larger than any other country

COP27 levelled stinging criticism on the USA. Now it is true, that China still has rising emissions (and USA wishes to remove its negative labels and pass them on). It is true that at the COP27, the USA behaved well in terms of helping fight for the behavioural change required. However, having come off 4 years of climate rubbish under Donald Trump, there is still a lot of hesitancy to trust the USA. After all, there is still a great deal of fear that the American people will repeat their foolish mistake and give Donald Trump another go at breaking the earth.

See Animals Wild