thebestaquaman

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

The currently most viable counter to artillery in Ukraine today appears to be either fpv drones, which have relatively short range and limited payloads, or counter-battery radar + artillery, which exposes your artillery by putting it in range of enemy artillery.

Ukraine typically has more accurate artillery than Russia, and seems to win more artillery duels, but of course still has an issue because of Russias huge volume of guns.

Targeting the drone operators is definitely something both sides do- they were considered priority targets last time I heard someone mention it. The issue, as someone else pointed out, is locating and hitting a small, highly mobile person or group that can operate from behind cover and concealment. That turns out to be pretty hard. Just consider that an infantryman's primary survival strategy is "stay hidden when you can, covered when you can, and move as fast as possible when exposed", and that drone operators are doing exactly that, while also not needing to stick their head out to be effective.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (6 children)

The issue with cruise missiles and bombers as a response to artillery fire is the response time and air defences.

A cruise missile launched from well within Russia takes long enough to reach the target that mobile artillery has sufficient time to get out. You also need a significant amount of missiles if you want to get any through the air defences.

Bombers struggle to get in range for conventional bombs without being shot down. They also have the issue of response time.

Cruise missiles and bombers are more suited to rather stationary targets, like a command Center, FOB, strongpoint or trench system.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Vertical video platform

I'm stealing this term

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I'm all for age of consent, but considering that you can have graduates as old as 19-20, and teachers as young as 23-24, I have to admit it seems a bit strange to put restrictions on what they can do outside of (1) what is legal, and (2) what effects their job (like having a relationship with a current student, especially one that you teach).

Like, I know several people in my graduating high-school class that were with someone older than our youngest teacher, a couple of which are still together with the person 10 years later.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

No they're not. Go read the actual article classifying them.

Also stop moving the goalposts. Fin whale catching has been heavily regulated, even in countries that still permit whaling (go read the source you linked in your other comment). You can't start with "Whales [in general] are endangered, and are being hunted for food" and jump to "This specific specific whale that is very heavily regulated, also by countries that permit whaling, is not quite endangered but vulnerable", and act like you have a counter argument to anything.

What you're running here is a masterclass in bad faith arguing: Moving goalposts, mis-citing sources, and jumping from bastion to bastion. All while nobody has even disagreed with your major opinion (whales shouldn't be hunted) but just pointed out that what you're saying is factually wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Come on... you're even linking the sources yourself at this point, just take some time to read them.

First of all, you explicitly stated "endangered", while the source you're linking says "vulnerable", which is a category specifically made for species that are threatened but not endangered.

Secondly, the source states that Japan has no reported fin whale catchings since 2019.

Finally: You can't accuse me of cherry-picking when you've stated that "Whales [in general] are endangered", and I respond with sources stating that seven of the most commonly hunted species are "least concern", when you then cherry pick an example of one species that is heavily regulated, even by the countries that permit any catch at all, and that species isn't even endangered but vulnerable. What you're doing is pretty much the definition of cherry picking: Finding a single example that almost supports the claim you're making.

You're free to argue that you don't like the idea of people eating whales. I'll leave it to you to explain why. What I won't let stand unopposed is when you're basing your argument on disinformation, and back-tracking or moving the goalposts when confronted.

Just yell "save the whales" and be done with it. And stop acting like it's based on some objective fact that doesn't apply to every other animal that's hunted for food. It's not- it's a sentimental thing, and that's completely fine, just be honest about it.

Note that I have not once in this thread defended whaling, or the hunting of endangered species. All I've done is point out that you're spreading falsehoods to make it seem like what is in essence a sentimentally based opinion has backing in facts.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They did? They said that about a governmental form that was documented as 2000 years old at the time, and which has been used in some shape or form by some human civilisation for as long as we have had civilisation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Anarchists always seem to ignore the fact that out of the plethora of governmental forms that have been tested by various human civilisations throughout the millennia, anarchism is not one that has ever survived prolonged contact with other civilisations with a different form of government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

You do realise that most functional democracies are consensus based, and not based on 51 % ruling 49 %?

In a functional democracy, you have representatives of various groups forming coalitions, such that most cases are passed by a relatively large majority. Of course, some stuff is pushed through by a slim majority as well, but if it's sufficiently unpopular it'll just be reversed after the next election cycle. In most cases, the part(y/ies) that hold the majority seek support from at least one opposition party to ensure that their bills aren't immediately reversed once they lose power.

Consensus is at the absolute core of a functioning democracy, just not the absolute consensus that anarchists for some reason push for. You can't have one person in a population of millions blocking a resolution. What about ten? One thousand? A well functioning democracy naturally finds this limit through the formation of coalitions that pass bills with a broad enough consensus that they more often than not survive when power changes hands.

 

I don't really know if this fits in this community, if not just take it down. The map is from the BlackBird group.

Regarding the recent strikes on the Seim river crossings, I've been speculating what Ukraines plans are. Not too long ago, the Ukranian advance around Korenevo slowed a bit. Then they started systematically hitting the Seim river crossings, of which ISW assesses there is only one left.

If the goal was to encircle and trap Russian units, I would assume that Ukraine would make a hard push through Korenevo to the river. As it looks now, it seems like they are leaving a small corridor open. Whether that is due to Russian resistance or Ukrainian planning I have no idea.

This makes me wonder whether they are intentionally leaving a small opening (See: Sun Tzu) to try to make Russian forces low on resources funnel through the opening where they can inflict heavy casualties, or whether they are trying to force the Russians to expend resources trying to prevent being cut off before they close the net.

In any case, I can see Ukraine wanting to secure another major road towards Korenevo that they can use to supply the offensive.

Of course, I don't want anyone to reveal anything that could violate OPSEC, everything I read is based on OSINT. I'm just interested and would like to hear other peoples speculations.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

What whales? No whale of any kind had anything to do with Denmark signing an extradition treaty with Japan or with Denmark arresting someone who's wanted for committing a crime, which is what the comment was about.

Did you respond to the wrong comment?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Let's take a look at what the actual facts say about the conservation status of some of most commonly hunted species that are regulated under international whaling conventions:

Go on, back-track some more, I can't wait to watch.

Or, you know, make your argument that you don't think people should eat whales without relying on either being uninformed or knowingly spreading disinformation. You don't really have an excuse here: You're very clearly just stating falsehoods as if they were fact and building your non-existent argument on that. You can do better.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If you have an extradition treaty with someone, you can typically arrest people if they've been charged for something in the country you have a deal with, even if they haven't violated your laws.

Regardless: What the person is charged with is unrelated to them being a whaling activist as far as I can tell, but to them causing harm while acting as an activist, which I suppose is also a crime in Denmark.

 

I'm looking to set up a server of some kind that I can use to store more or less arbitrary files on demand.

While I have quite a bit of programming experience, I have little-to-no experience in the server-space, so I don't really know where I should be getting started/what kind of pitfalls I should be looking out for/what kind of design choices I should be making early on.

In short: I want some system that allows me to take more or less arbitrary files, send them from either my laptop or phone, and have them stored on a drive that I can have lying around somewhere hooked up to some setup. I don't need any automatic backing up, sending files manually is sufficient. The individual files I'll be sending probably won't be exceeding the MB range of sizes. Remotely downloading files from the storage is not an immediate requirement, if I need to retrieve them I can plug directly into the disk. What I want to protect myself against is the "freak accident" type of thing where all the devices I currently have copies of a file on are lost in a fire, while travelling, or something like that.

Does anyone here have any tips for where I should be looking to get started?

 

I lys av sakene i Sverige og Danmark har dette blitt dagsaktuelt i Norge også. Jeg vil høre hva folk tenker. Stikkord er:

  • Ytringsfrihet / misbruk av ytringsfrihet
  • Respekt for folks religion / følelser
  • Grensesetting mellom beskyttede og ubeskyttede religioner / følelser
  • Sikring av Norge og nordmenn mot vold og sanksjoner.
 

Her er jeg helt klart i statistisk mindretall, så jeg håper noen kan fortelle meg hva de tenker. Jeg mener vi helt klart må bygge vindkraft på land hvis vi ønsker å nå noen som helst "klimamål" (altså unngå at verden brenner/drukner). Jeg får alt for ofte inntrykk av at "alle" er enige i at vi må bygge mer fornybar energi, mens de samtidig kjemper med nebb og klør mot de tiltakene som er realistiske, gjennomførbare, og kan fungere.

Jeg vil gjerne at noen som er imot vindkraft på land opplyser meg litt: Hva mener du vi bør gjøre i stedet? Hvorfor ikke gjøre det i tillegg? Tror du andre tiltak alene er nok? Er det ikke en realitet at det hjelper lite å beskytte lokalmiljøet mot vindkraftutbygging nå, hvis det uansett blir ødelagt av flom, tørke, forsuring av vannet, fremmedarter pga. temperaturendring, jordskred (mer ekstrem nedbør), osv. om 30-50 år?

Linket artikkel:

Flere ordførere har lukket døren for vindkraft på land. – Ta debatten på nytt, sier NHO-sjefen.

Kun to av ti nordmenn ønsker vindkraft på land. NHO-sjef Ole Erik Almlid mener resten må tenke seg om.

Norge kan ha for lite kraft allerede i 2027.

Skal vi unngå det, bør det bygges 5–10 terawattimer (TWh) med vindkraft på land. Det slo Energikommisjonen fast i februar.

Men selv om åtte av ti er enig i at Norge må bygge ut mer fornybar energi, mener kun to av ti nordmenn at det bør gjøres med vindkraft. Det viser en ny undersøkelse fra Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon (NHO) (se graf nederst i saken).

Administrerende direktør i NHO, Ole Erik Almlid, mener vi må ta vindkraft-debatten på nytt.

– Det store løftet som skal gjøres, klarer vi ikke uten vindkraft på land, sier han.

Vil akseptere vindkraft

I flere år har motstanden mot vindkraft på land vært sterk. En kartlegging gjort av Nettavisen viste at kun to av 79 ordførere ville si ja til vindkraft i sin kommune. Tall fra Cicero viser at motstanden er fallende, men fremdeles er 35 prosent helt imot vindkraft på land.

NHOs undersøkelse viser derimot at langt flere er villig til å akseptere det, hvis politikere og næringsliv sukrer pillen (se graf under).

Vindkraft i industriområder

NHO spurte nordmenn hva som skal til for å akseptere vindkraft på land. 33 prosent vil si ja hvis vindturbinene blir bygget på områder som allerede er regulert til industri.

Det er i tråd med Energikommisjonens forslag om å bygge nærvindmøller.

I tillegg vil nordmenn at vindkraften skal sikre mer inntekter til kommunen og flere arbeidsplasser.

– Jeg er veldig glad for å se at vindkraft på land har så stor støtte, under gitte forutsetninger. Det viser at bildet kanskje er mer sammensatt enn vi har trodd, sier Almlid.

Ifølge ham åpner dette et rom for å diskutere vindkraft på lokalbefolkningens premisser, fremfor å avvise det blankt.

18 prosent vil ikke gå med på det under noen omstendigheter.

I Møre og Romsdal og Vestland er henholdsvis 28 og 24 prosent av befolkningen helt imot vindkraft. Fem av de 13 områdene NVE har pekt ut for vindkraft ligger helt eller delvis i disse fylkene.

Ordfører-duell om vindkraft

Almlid oppfordrer landets mange ordførere og ordførerkandidater til å løfte debatten i årets lokalvalgkamp.

– Ta diskusjonen om det er mulig å ha vindkraft i deres kommune. De som har sagt nei, ta en ny diskusjon. Men gjør det på en ordentlig måte, og gjør det i dialog med befolkningen.

Almlid tror flere kommuner kan ombestemme seg fordi situasjonen er annerledes nå. Med kraftunderskudd vil strømprisene bli høyere, og allerede nå er det bedrifter som ikke blir etablert fordi de ikke har tilgang til kraften de har behov for.

Han mener tror flere vil kunne si ja til vindkraft hvis de får mer igjen for det.

– Jeg har veldig tro på gulrot.

Positive sider

NHO representerer bedrifter innen kraftkrevende industri, kraftprodusenter og offshorenæringer som skal elektrifisere. Likevel mener Almlid det er langt flere enn hans medlemsbedrifter som vil nytte godt av vindkraften.

Han mener politikere og næringslivsledere må bli bedre til å fremheve hvordan vindkraft kan gi noe tilbake til samfunnet. Et eksempel er at utbyggingen kan skape arbeidsplasser og levende lokalsamfunn.

– Den type utbygging som vindkraft på land innebærer, må gjøres i godt samarbeid med lokalbefolkningen. Og det må gjøres på en måte som sikrer inntekter til kommunen og verner sårbare områder.

Skjære gjennom

Men det haster å ta en avgjørelse. Det er fire år til Norge kan gå med kraftunderskudd, og utbygging av vindparker kan ta lang tid.

Debatt er bra, men til slutt må noen skjære gjennom. Såpass er Almlid tydelig på.

Han bruker motstanden mot vannkraftutbygging på 1970- og ’80-tallet som eksempel.

– I dag er alle glade for at vi har vannkraften. Om mange år vil også mange være glade for at vi har både vindkraft, vannkraft og solkraft.

Vindkraftdebatten krever at næringsliv og politikere tar tydelig lederskap, mener Almlid.

– Vi må lære av det vi gjorde på åttitallet, da vi synliggjorde hvorfor vannkraften var viktig. Men det viser også at det å skjære gjennom, er viktig for å få til de langsiktige målene man satt, sikre arbeidsplasser og rimelige strømpriser.

Almlid understreker at det å si nei til vindkraft, også får konsekvenser.

– Sier vi ja, så har det en kostnad, og da må vi bøte på det best mulig. Men hvis vi sier nei, så har det en kostnad også.

Nei til atomkraft

Undersøkelsen viser også stor støtte til utbygging av atomkraft. Almlid har derimot ikke tro på at Norge skal bli en stor atomkraft-nasjon.

– For å nå 2030-målene, så er ikke atomkraft svaret på kort sikt. Det er for langt frem og kommer til å være kostbart.

Han vil heller ha mer av alt annet.

– Svaret på utfordringen som Energikommisjonen har løftet frem, er både og – ikke enten eller. Det er vind på land, vind til havs, mer vannkraft, mer solkraft og mer energieffektivisering.

 

Back in the day, on other forums than this one, there were tags to differentiate between porn (nsfw) and gore (nsfl). This was nice for people browsing new that had no problem seeing tits, but wanted to avoid degloved hands.

Throughout the years, the NSFL tag went out of use. What happened?

 

I remember back in the day when people would "Jailbreak" iPhones, but never really picked up on what they were doing other than that it let them do stuff that those of us with "non-jailbroken" iPhones couldn't do.

Are they just booting another OS, e.g. android? Also: why haven't I heard of it in a while? Is it not possible on newer iPhones?

 

Det har kommet frem noe jeg ikke var klar over i forbindelse med aksjehandelsaken til Ola Borten Moe: En stortingsrepresentant har (per grunnloven) ikke lov til å trekke seg, men er nødt til å bli sittende ut perioden. Det er (slik jeg forstår det) heller ikke lov å skrive ut nyvalg/oppløse stortinget i løpet av en stortingsperiode, slik som man kan i mange andre land.

Jeg ser at det er gode argumenter både for og mot dette, og er interessert i å høre hva folk synes om det. Bør en politiker kunne trekke seg / utvises fra stortinget hvis de misbruker folkets tillit? Bør det kunne skrives ut nyvalg hvis stortinget går i vranglås og ingen klarer å samle flertall for noe?

Nedenfor er det Aftenpostens leder har å si om saken:

Å sitte på Stortinget er ingen straff

Ola Borten Moe må nok jobbe med motivasjonen. Men han ba om tillit fra velgerne. Da må han stå løpet ut.

Det kom et lite hjertesukk fra Ola Borten Moe fredag. Han varslet at han går av som statsråd, trekker seg som nestleder i Senterpartiet og ikke stiller ved stortingsvalget i 2025. Men han slipper ikke ut av Stortinget før denne perioden er over.

Moe virket ikke spesielt motivert for en slags åpen soning på Løvebakken. Det er mulig å forstå. Men hverken hans eget parti eller andre bør lytte til oppfordringen han kom med om å se på dette regelverket på nytt.

Moe peker på at andre land gir folk mulighet til å trekke seg fra nasjonalforsamlingen.

Ulike demokratier har forskjellige løsninger både når det gjelder dette og andre ting. Norge skiller seg fra mange andre, også ved at det ikke er mulig å oppløse parlamentet og skrive ut nyvalg. Det er en styrke for det norske demokratiet. Partiene tvinges til å finne løsninger sammen når velgerne har sagt sitt. Det har bidratt til en kultur med brede forlik om viktige saker som blant annet pensjon.

Plikten til å stå løpet ut for den som velges til Stortinget, er grunnlovsfestet. Unntak er blitt gitt for representanter som får internasjonale toppverv, som da Jens Stoltenberg (Ap) ble generalsekretær i Nato i 2014.

En generell mulighet til å trekke seg ville ha flere uheldige sider. For velgerne ville det blir mindre forutsigbart hvem de egentlig stemmer på hvis en toppkandidat plutselig kan trekke seg etter valget og noen andre rykker opp. Partier kan fristes til å toppe listen med kjendiser som etterpå finner ut at de har morsommere ting å gjøre enn å sitte i komitémøter og votere til langt på natt, mens andre nyter lyse sommerkvelder i juni.

En risiko er også at velgernes avgjørelse undergraves. Det kan oppstå press i offentligheten for å få en representant til å trekke seg. Hvis det lages en nødutgang fra Stortinget, kan også partiene få enda mer makt ved at brysomme representanter kan skvises ut.

Moe sa på pressekonferansen at han er innstilt på å gjøre en jobb de neste to årene for velgerne i Sør-Trøndelag som ga ham tillit i 2021. Det er fullt forståelig om motivasjonen hans akkurat nå ikke er på topp. Men han vil trolig – og forhåpentlig – klare å mobilisere sine sterke sider som politiker igjen.

Den som har sagt ja til å stille til Stortinget, og som får velgernes tillit, må stå løpet ut. I gode og vonde dager.

 

I'm getting into trad climbing, after quite a few years of indoor and outdoor sport and bouldering. I'm very aware that trad climbing involves more risk, especially if you climb above your ability and/or are bad/inexperienced at placing runners. Does anyone here have tips on how best to practice protecting a route to the point where you feel safe enough to climb a difficult crux with only trad protection below you?

 

Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that's an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.

I'll go first: I think "Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows" was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.

 

I'm immediately sceptical to the idea of ruining even more areas of nature than we already are, but at the same time I recognise that if we want to build feasible green energy and storage, we need rare-earth metals and heavy metals. This might be a good alternative to massive deforestation.

Since the article is paywalled:

Pushed by the threat of climate change, rich countries are embarking on a grand electrification project. Britain, France and Norway, among others, plan to ban the sale of new internal-combustion cars. Even where bans are not on the statute books, electric-car sales are growing rapidly. Power grids are changing too, as wind turbines and solar panels displace fossil-fuelled power plants. The International Energy Agency (iea) reckons the world will add as much renewable power in the coming five years as it did in the past 20.

All that means batteries, and lots of them—both to propel the cars and to store energy from intermittent renewable power stations. Demand for the minerals from which those batteries are made is soaring. Nickel in particular is in short supply. The element is used in the cathodes of high-quality electric-car batteries to boost capacity and cut weight. The iea calculates that, if it is to meet its decarbonisation goals, the world will need to be producing 6.3m tonnes of nickel a year by 2040, roughly double what it managed in 2022. That adds up to some 80m tonnes of nickel in total between now and then.

Over the past five years most of the growth in demand has been met by Indonesia, which has been bulldozing rainforests to get at the ore beneath. In 2017 the country produced just 17% of the world’s nickel, according to cru, a metals research firm. Today it is responsible for around half, or 1.6m tonnes a year, and that number is rising. cru thinks Indonesia will account for 85% of production growth between now and 2027. Even so, that is unlikely to be enough to meet rising demand. And as Indonesian nickel production increases, it is expected to replace palm-oil production as the primary cause of deforestation in the country.

But there is an alternative. A patch of Pacific Ocean seabed called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (ccz) is dotted with trillions of potato-sized lumps of nickel, cobalt, manganese and copper, all of which are of interest to battery-makers (see map). Collectively the nodules hold an estimated 340m tonnes of nickel alone—more than three times the United States Geological Survey’s estimate of the world’s land-based reserves. Companies have been keen to mine them for several years. With the coming expiry, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever.

It’s better down where it’s wetter That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru, on behalf of a mining company it sponsors called The Metals Company (tmc), told the International Seabed Authority (isa), an appendage of the United Nations, that it wanted to mine a part of the ccz to which it has been granted access. That triggered a requirement for the isa to complete rules on commercial use of the deposits. If those regulations are not ready by July 9th—and it seems they will not be—then the isa is required to “consider and provisionally approve” tmc’s application. (The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed.)

tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be. Its first target is a patch of the ccz called nori-d, which covers about 2.5m hectares of ocean floor (an area about 20% bigger than Wales). Gerard Barron, tmc’s boss, estimates there are about 3.8m tonnes of nickel in the area. Since the nodules are simply sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the firm plans to send a large robot to the seabed to hoover them up. The gathered nodules will then be sucked up to a support ship on the surface through a high-tech pipe, similar to ones used in the oil-and-gas industry. Mr Barron says that his firm can break even on nodule collection at nickel prices as low as $6,000 per tonne; nickel currently sells for about $22,000 per tonne.

The support ship will wash off any sediment, then offload the nodules to a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing. The surplus sediment, meanwhile, will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life. And tmc is not the only firm interested. A Belgian firm called Global Sea Mineral Resources—a subsidiary of Deme, a dredging giant—is also keen, and has tested a sea-floor robot and riser system similar to tmc’s. Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals—are circling too, though they are reckoned to be further behind technologically.

As with mining on land, taking nickel from the sea will damage the surrounding ecosystem. Although the ccz is deep, dark and cold, it is not lifeless. tmc’s robot will destroy many organisms it drives across, as well as any that live on the nodules it collects. It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research suggests the plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed).

Adrian Glover, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, points out that, because life evolved first in the oceans and only later moved to the land, the majority of the genetic diversity on the planet is still found underwater. Although the deep-ocean floor is dark and nutrient-poor, it nevertheless supports thousands of unique species. Most are microbes, but there are also worms, sponges and other invertebrates. The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed has a smaller environmental footprint than mining in Indonesia. The harsh deep-sea environment means that, although its inhabitants may be highly diverse, they are not very abundant. A paper published in Nature in 2016 found that a given square metre of ccz supports between one and two living organisms, weighing a couple of grams at most. A square metre of Indonesian rainforest, by contrast, contains about 30,000 grams of plant biomass alone, and plenty more if you weigh up primates, birds, reptiles and insects too.

But it is not enough to simply weigh the biomass in each ecosystem. The amount of nickel that can be produced per hectare is also relevant. The 2.5m hectares of seabed that tmc hopes to exploit is expected to yield about 3.8m tonnes of nickel, or about 1.5 tonnes per hectare.

Getting hard numbers for land-based mining is tricky, for the firms that do it are less transparent than those hoping to mine the seabed. But investigative reporting from the Pulitzer Centre, a non-profit media outlet, suggests each hectare of rainforest on Sulawesi, the Indonesian island at the centre of the country’s nickel industry, will produce around 675 tonnes of nickel. (One reason land deposits produce so much more nickel, despite the lower quality of the ore, is because the ore extends far beneath the surface, whereas nodules exist only on the seabed.)

All that makes a very rough comparison possible. Around 13 kilograms of biomass would be lost for every tonne of ccz nickel mined. Each tonne mined on Sulawesi would destroy around 450kg of plants alone—plus an unknown amount of animal biomass, too.

Pick your poison There are other environmental arguments in favour of mining the seabed. The nodules contain much higher concentrations of metal than deposits on land, which means less energy is required to process them. Peter Tom Jones, the director of the ku Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Materials, in Belgium, reckons that processing the nodules will produce about 40% less greenhouse-gas emissions than those from terrestrial ore.

And because the nodules must be taken away for processing anyway, companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose places where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near where it was mined. That almost always means using electricity from coal plants or diesel generators. Alex Laugharne, an analyst at cru, reckons Indonesian nickel production emits about 60 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each tonne of nickel. An audit of tmc’s plans carried out by Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, a firm based in London, found that each tonne of nickel harvested from the seabed would produce about six tonnes of co2.

In any case, metal collected from the seabed is unlikely to entirely replace that mined from the rainforest. Battery production is growing so fast that nickel will probably be dug up from wherever it can be found. But if the ocean nodules can be brought to market affordably, the sheer volume of metal available may start to ease the pressure on Indonesian forests. The arguments are unlikely to stay theoretical for long. Mr Barron of tmc aims to start producing nickel and other metals from the seabed by the end of next year.

Correction (July 6th 2023): An earlier version of this piece said global nickel production would need to reach 48m tonnes per year by 2040, and would total 320m tonnes by 2040. The correct figures are 6.3m tonnes and 80m tonnes. Apologies for the error.

 

I remember reading somewhere that mathematical symbols make up an "incomplete" written language (or something like that). I commonly formulate problems, or complete sentences using only mathematical symbols. From a linguistic perspective, what separates mathematical symbols from "complete" writing systems?

view more: next ›