Best mining companies for alternative energy

[FrodosPet]

Building a green energy future based on solar, wind, and tidal sources is going to require a LOT of copper, steel, and aluminum. Not to mention cadmium, lithium and magnetic rare earth materials.

Has anyone researched these companies? Right now, I am too broke to even pay my cell phone bill, but I am hoping beyond hope that some combination of sending out resumes and networking will eventually give me a job that makes enough extra money to invest in what I see as a growth industry.

Can anyone recommend any mining companies that are both profitable and environmentally responsible?

[GliderGuider]

1. "Environmentally responsible mining" is an oxymoron.

Choose profitable ones - they're the only ones that will survive. In fact, for survivors in this kind of industry in the coming decade or two, you might be better off picking the ones with the poorest environmental track record - they'll be more likely to remain profitable as the shit hits the fan.

Depends on whether you want to sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror in the morning. Personally I wouldn't invest in mining companies, but that's just me.

[FrodosPet]

2. It is a dilemna

I guess the way things are going - my health is failing and my job prospects are shrinking every day - that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I will be able to keep living indoors, much less have investment money.

But in the larger picture, it literally becomes pick your poison. No energy source is a truly GREEN source. It comes down to the choice: Is the damage localized or global?

[AverageJoe90]

3. Re: "It comes down to the choice: Is the damage localized or global?"

Very true, FrodosPet, very true.

[FrodosPet]

4. I've been an advocate for alt energy ever since I knew what alt energy was

Transitioning to alternative energies is vital. But I've encountered a lot of people who seem to believe that it is "Free" and "Clean" energy.

Physics is what it is. The ugly truth of technology and modern civilization is that it scars and poisons the Earth.

[AverageJoe90]

5. Very true,

Hemp, btw, is just one good alt-fuel that really should have been considered a long, long time ago.

[NoOneMan]

7. re: biofuels

(which oil is in fact)

One of the kings is palm oil (I've seen research suggesting hemp could produce a higher joule per acre yield). But to just examine palm--the crop's versatility has made it very popular, so swaths of jungle are being destroyed for palm planting (thereby threatening the orangutan's existence). If this biofuel became a primary driver of economic activity, it is unconceivable as to the amount of land we must cultivate to fuel growth (and there would be no end if it fueled cheap growth).

relevant link included: http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0117-biofuels.html

Google "biofuel promote deforestation"

Having a renewable source of fuel doesn't mean we are solid if we are exploiting the land to produce more and more of it, breaking down the biosphere. The amount we need to replace oil is staggering. Its absolutely nuts to think that after tapping into 3.5 billion years of biofuel production and building our civilization on it that we could fuel that with on demand, year to year, biofuel production.

[FrodosPet]

8. Sometimes it almost feels good to be approaching the finish line

Not really. I fear for the children's children. What kind of crap hole are we leaving them?

[AverageJoe90]

10. That may be a problem with palm oil, but what about hemp?

I'll get back to you ASAP.

[NoOneMan]

12. I did a post below on hemp running the global economy

Sure, its possible, but requires massive farm infrastructure and massive deforestation. At optimal energy conversion (impossible) it would require so much land that there would be none left for a real economy, homes and the natural world. Fine by me (besides the nature part), but itsn't that what you are scrambling against? Don't you want to leave the buildings to make things in and the roads to drive stuff around on?

[AverageJoe90]

15. Again, think about distribution.

If it were just grown in the Americas, I could see a problem, especially if it's intended to support the entire global market. But in reality, I betcha it'd likely be more spread out across the world, at least to a point. I could definitely see Russia, India and MAYBE a less corrupt China as possible prime growers of the stuff.

[NoOneMan]

16. For the love of God

Of course it would be spread out! I was giving you an example land area. But when you consider that 10% of every square inch of the entire land mass (with assumed 100% yield and 100% conversion efficiency) of earth (not even excluding land like deserts, mountain, glaciers and such), it doesn't leave room for nature, people and business and potential growth. You want to talk about fantasy...thats beyond it to the point of religion. Its not viable. Its a waste of time, energy and forests

[NoOneMan]

9. hemp biofuel quick math

FYI, we run on 300 000 000 000 kilojoules a year and growing. Lets generously assume hemp puts out 82 kigajouls and acre. So to fuel all industrial activity, we need at least 3.5 billion acres or 14 million Ksq of cultivated land (not considering loss of energy in converting hemp to different types of fuel types we need today). This is also know as covering every square inch of United States and double Mexicos in pure hemp (sorry, no room for your house). Plausible? More so than reducing energy consumption?

[AverageJoe90]

11. Reducing consumption could work in the short term, up to a point.....

But as I've pointed out to others, that by itself will do little to help us, especially in the long term.

And as for hemp, it can be grown just about anywhere. And it doesn't have to be just grown in America, either: for example, there are vast swaths of Russia that can be used to grow the crop.

And of course, hemp isn't the only alternative fuel out there that can be used, either.

[NoOneMan]

13. Reducing energy consumption "will do little to help us, especially in the long term"

Why?!? Why, Why, Why?

Thats the very problem. Over consumption of energy! We have lowered the carbon intensity of energy by multitudes in the last few decades (40%), but atmospheric carbon levels have continued to increase (due to consuming more and more energy). There is really one simple answer here.

[AverageJoe90]

14. It can help, but again, not alone.

It's a start, but as I've stated, that, alone, may not really help us. We need to go farther than that. Carbon sequestration is just one thing we can consider(and unfortunately, may soon be mandatory!).

[NoOneMan]

6. Will their bulldozers run on solar?

How many oily chickens does it take before they start laying some eggs