A looming copper crunch and why recycling can’t fix it
mining.com
mining.com
Copper is widely used for flashing. For this application, galvanized steel, aluminum, and stainless steel can substitute. All are less expensive.
Copper is used for pipes. They are much more expensive than plastics. Arguably, depending on the particular application, one or more plastic options are as good or better. (Copper is unharmed by moderate chlorine concentrations and sunlight. It’s mechanically strong. It’s inert to water at appropriate pH. It is quite reactive to water at the wrong pH. Boiler condensate will quickly destroy it.)
Copper is used for heavy-gauge electrical wire. For many of these applications, aluminum is much less expensive and arguable superior (it’s lighter and more flexible).
Copper is used for 12 and 14 gauge branch circuits. Aluminum branch circuits are currently strongly discouraged.
In any event, a lot of copper is consumed for applications that don’t need it. If prices go up, the industry can adapt.
Maybe you're already saying this: there was a period (maybe ~70s) where aluminum was used for household wiring because of the advantages you mention. Unfortunately it oxidizes resulting in higher resistance leading to heat and potentially fire at connections. Where I am, insurers ask you if you have aluminum wiring when you buy a house (and penalize you for it), and it is generally regarded as a failed experiment.
Copper pipe for water is often specified by code in commercial construction. I've heard this is due to lobbying by plumber's unions but not sure about that. Most residential construction will use CPVC or PEX these days.
If you have well water or water from anywhere other than a utility that controls the chemistry correctly, the water can dissolve your pipes. The rainwater from my roof makes copper instantly shiny, which is a bad sign for the copper.
PEX with compression fittings is the closest thing to copper in terms of durability, but exists because of labor savings. Appropriately installed copper is the most durable interior water service and will comfortably outlast the life of the structure.
We had a city in Illinois do whole city RO and advertise the cleanest water in the country. Well it was the cleanest water going into the pipes, but if you own a house in that city the water coming out of your tap is full of old pipe!
Copper lasts 50-60 years. I believe that's type L which is used in the wall in homes in the US. The skill required to create a high quality copper joint takes time and a person may still make mistakes. A PEX compression fitting is basically just closing a tool. The probability of mistakes is lower.
I'm not familiar with the possibility of contamination in pex, is this due to the material?
The problem is there are no "L" fittings and the normal fittings used for L copper can be quite poor. For this reason and others, some people like ProPress fittings which are very high quality (and expensive).
> It’s tough to beat copper pipes for longevity, which on average last 50 to 70 years, compared to PEX, which has an expected lifespan of 30 to 50 years. PEX’s life expectancy can be shortened by the use of extremely hot household water (180 degrees Fahrenheit or higher) or if the water in the home contains high levels of chlorine.
> Copper’s life can be shortened by highly acidic water. When installed under typical conditions (i.e., your home is connected to a municipal water system), copper can be expected to outlast PEX by about 20 years. If you’re on a private well, have your water tested prior to retrofitting your water supply system. Local County Extension Offices can test well water to determine whether it’s high in acid or chlorine.
I’m a buy it for life sort of person, and will pay a premium for longevity. Future myself or others will thank me (buying or building something that will outlive me? Plant trees whose shade I’ll never sit in and all that jazz)
Wouldn't it be better to sequester the carbon in a landfill rather than return it to the atmosphere?
I learned that the hard way last year. Had PEX water lines hard freeze during the crazy February weather in Texas area last year. Thankfully no burst pipes!
It makes a ton of sense to switch to aluminum in housing though. For the same current capability the wire is significantly cheaper, lighter, and stronger.
With properly rated connectors, not a problem, but not all are, and not everyone knows it's a thing.
Copper pipe is much more durable as long as the local water isn't acidic, which is rare. CPVC has had a number of issues over the years (including leaching of chemicals and brittleness over time), and PEX is still relatively unproven. It's predecessor product had huge insurance claims due to failing connections after 10+ years.
Those were PB/Polybutylene pipes.
When? I live in Alberta.
(okay a bit tongue in cheek)
Just read an article in a local paper about banning gas connections in new housing. Had a direct quote from the union saying they aren't inherently opposed per se, but need ___ $$ to offset any job losses.
And then next graph mentioned that union was part of a lobbying pac thing fighting for the status quo
Actually, no you don't. Only wires from like 30 years ago need that. Modern aluminum wires do NOT need the coating. In fact in some places you will fail inspection if you add the coating.
Most people have not updated their knowledge on this, since they don't work in the industry.
But for big feeder wires, it’s a different story. Compare:
2 AWG XHHW-2 Al: 0.358 inches OD, 0.081 lbs per ft, $0.90/ft
4 AWG XHHW-2 Cu: 0.33 inches OD, 0.129 lbs per ft, $1.78/ft
I know which one I would pick under most circumstances. And insurance companies are just fine with the aluminum option.
Single strand solid aluminum conductors expand and contract due to heat changes from high draw, they can work themselves loose, and eventually create shorts and fires. They make special connectors so you can remedy this by attaching a small piece of copper wire (a pigtail) to the aluminum, and don't need to replace all the wiring in your house. This of course means that we could just legislate for better connectors throughout the building, as we should do anyways, and we could safely use single strand solid conductor aluminum wiring instead of copper virtually everywhere.
The aluminum wires of today are a different allow of that simply does not have the problem anymore. It's a solved issue. You don't even need anti-ox on the connection.
In addition, German Wikipedia mentions some extra paperwork and hassle German doctors have to jump through if they want to prescribe.
It already is better, this is VERY old news. Modern aluminum alloys do NOT have this problem, but it's too late, no one wants to think about aluminum wires.
But 50 Hz as a system frequency is just wrong. It results in oddities like running your railroad at 16-2/3 Hz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMmUoZh3Hq4&ab_channel=Techn...
Obviously China is still a poor country and there's a lot of housing stock being upgraded, so it's not going to be a complete collapse, but I do expect construction to slow down both in the short and long term.
The central gov will have to squander trillions of RMB to clean this mess and fast. the reactionary & corrupt friendly nature of officials showed its results
They are pushing for more development to keep the economy going. It's all a mess.
Only problem is, the guy has been peddling that story since 2002.
Btw china has its real estate sector (homes fo speculation, public infrastructure for gov) debt fueld at unsustainable levels (affecting also tax revenues at local level that are dependent or land leasing for financing themselves), the bubble is bursting, how fast and dangerously will depend from gov reaction. bail out is the most sounding solution but the gov is doing too much QE already and will have to make sacrifices here or there. Easy growth is over forever, skills are neeeded now, a problem with XI leadership.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-22/china-hou...
20 years is fine assuming all the piping is easy to get to (e.g. around a hot water heater). A lot of piping is not and would require refinishing quite of a bit of piping.
My research seems to indicate most residential plastic tubing still has a lifetime of 20 years, from what I can tell.
If there’s a significant enough problem, these construction manufacturers have a tendency to go out of business and reorganize, voiding all the warranties in the process.
Actually, I'm remembering there were some widespread failures of PEX-C. Hmm.
It's been interesting living in a new-ish apartment building. Everything in the condo was garbage (the early 80s were not kind to construction in the US) assembled reasonably well. Everything in this apartment is pretty reasonable quality assembled by a small army of blind glue sniffing idiots.
My concern with plastic pipes is wildfire. Up in the north bay the municipal water was rendered toxic and unusable after fires got things hot enough so that carcinogens were leeching into the water. That's less of a concern with individual buildings, but it's not fun when a city or water district has to rip everything out of the ground.
It seems a hard question to get an answer for, as most research I have found is clearly sponsored by the PVC industry.
[0] https://www.ipexna.com/media/3074/pvc-pipe-longevity-report....
If a product is just as good and less expensive, why aren’t builders using it already? Builders (like farmers) are pretty aware of and sensitive to their cost of inputs.
I have a slate roof that’s around 100 years old. It’s had maintenance over the years, but rock lasts essentially forever. I’m coming up on some copper replacement from wear after 100 years and it’s definitely not going to be zinc-plated carbon steel, aluminum, or low-grade stainless. I’d consider 316 stainless and will ask the contractors about it. I feel like the malleability and solderability of copper actually matters here, but I’ll ask.
According to my plumber, who now does all plastic, plastic is indeed cheaper, however, connectors are more expensive, so in the end, it ends up being about the same price. He does plastic mostly because it is easier to work with. I believe it is just manufacturers making bigger margins, it is impressive how expensive all these small parts are.
And yes, it is a sign of the industry adapting. It is just that if may not reflect on the final price the consumer pays.
https://www.kuow.org/stories/copper-versus-salmon-why-an-ala...
I've seen plastic pipes chewed through by rats too.
Rats do not chew through copper.
Getting a plumber out, replacing the pipe section, replastering, etc to deal with the fallout was substantially more expensive than laying copper pipes would have been.
For which applications? I've been told to avoid any houses with aluminum wiring because of how dangerous it is.
Also not exclusive, internal parts of gear will probably still be copper.
Superior in what way? Being lighter / more flexible? Did you account for the fact you have to upsize aluminum to carry the same amperage load as copper? When comparing Apples to Apples (Err.. Aluminum to Copper) on say a 200A service entrance cable, the difference in weight / flexibility isn’t much based on personal experience, but there are other negatives to using aluminum over copper for SER cable. One example, voltage drop over 50ft isn’t as much an issue with copper.
All the plastic pipes that I have ever seen had a too short lifetime, and when it became necessary to replace them prematurely in whatever hard to access place they had been installed, the costs were much higher than the cost of the pipes.
Even if the plastic pipes were claimed to be made of some high-quality long life plastic, instead of being made of cheap PVC or the like, such claims are difficult to verify, unlike for a copper pipe, where you do not need special instruments to verify that the pipe ready to be installed is really made of copper.
Very likely true. This is usually the case with materials, and as the article mentions it is happening.
However... this doesn't mean that adaptation is without side effects. In a lot of cases, prices will just rise and the finished products will be more expensive and scarce.
It's pretty hard to predict downstream effects, but material availability is increasingly more of an issue.
There's also all of the copper used as windings in electrical motors, fans, compressors, transformers, etc.
A "hidden" use of copper is brass which is an alloy made with high percentages of copper.
If copper becomes more expensive, people will re-evaluate the trade-offs.
Aluminum is most commonly used these days - copper is more rare, and mostly used for looks.
> Aluminum branch circuits are currently strongly discouraged.
Sort of. Aluminum made before 1975 is not safe, but aluminum wire made after that date is a new allow that is perfectly safe in branch circuits, but no one wants to use it.
It was a good choice for its time, but it's time to move on.
> Contamination of drinking water The PEX EIR found that methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) and tert-Butyl alcohol can leach from PEX in amounts that exceed taste, odor and health guidelines set by the State of California for drinking water. The PEX EIR found that PEX pipes can initially leach as much as 290 ppb of MTBE. The California Department of Public Health and the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment have established a drinking water taste and odor standard of 5 ppb for MTBE and a drinking water public health goal and maximum contaminant level of 13 ppb. One of the key issues for the California State Pipe Trades Council was the recognition that construction workers are often the first to consume water from newly installed pipes. Because the levels of MTBE contamination from PEX pipe are highest during the first month of use, workers were at risk of repeated exposure to drinking water contaminated with MTBE at levels exceeding public health goals as they moved from job site to job site. The PEX EIR found that, unlike copper pipe, outside contaminants such as pesticides, oil, gasoline, and benzene can permeate through PEX pipe into drinking water. Several studies and articles comparing potable water pipe materials, including variants of PEX, polybutylene, polypropylene, CPVC, copper and steel, have found that PEX, at least initially, displayed the strongest biofilm formation and the strongest promotion of the growth of Legionella bacteria.
For example, copper is used for water pipes. But we also have steel and plastic pipes.
Copper is also used for wiring and electrical conductors - but we can redesign circuits to use higher voltages (double the voltage needs only one quarter of the copper). Or, we can switch to aluminium for wiring, which is also a good conductor.
Plenty of users are already economical with copper. For example, have you noticed that if you buy a USB cable that's 1 meter it is less than half the price of a 2 meter cable? Don't you think that's odd, because presumably there is a fixed labour+materials cost for the connectors, and a per-meter cost for the cable itself? No... The USB specification requires a specific wire resistance, which means longer wires must also be thicker (more copper) to meet that spec. Lately, very cost sensitive USB wires have moved to aluminium conductors.
There is talk of electric cars with 800 volt (vs 400 volt) battery systems... The main reason to switch is to reduce the cost of copper wires and motor coils.
It's not just talk, a number of EVs run at 800V (Porsche Taycan, Audi E-Tron GT, Lucid Air, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6). And while there may be a cost benefit for the manufacturer, it also makes a more desirable car for the owner, since they can charge twice as fast. While most 400V EVs top out around 125 kW charging rates, the 800V EVs can hit mid-200s.
The confusion arises because a given DC charger can deliver twice as much power at 800 volts as it can at 400, assuming it's running at its max current. But that's a limitation of the charger, not the battery. This article has a brief discussion:
https://insideevs.com/news/512344/porsche-taycan-fast-chargi...
[ I used to work for a car company, programming battery charge controllers among other things ]
https://insideevs.com/news/519382/tesla-model3-82kwh-chargin...
Nope, the charging circuitry (most commonly) and/or BMS (less common) inside the car can handle this easily.
Sure, it's technically possible to do voltage conversion on the car side, but it either requires expensive and heavy hardware (A device that can convert 300 kilowatts from 400v to 800v isn't cheap!), or it requires funky use of the electric motor inverters and coils for voltage conversion instead - which in turn constrains the design and forces compromises.
In either case, you probably with have ~3% efficiency losses, which effectively increases the total energy bill for the customer over the lifetime for the car by 3%, which might be thousands of dollars.
Rings circuits[0], popular in the uk due to post-wwii copper shortages, use less wiring than the typical radial circuits. Wikipedia says about 25% less?
COVID has taught us that: people value being close to home, people value spending more time in their local communities, a sizable portion of the workforce does not need to commute to work. We should be leveraging these facts when planning towns, to reduce the reliance on cars.
I think you could easily look at people's reactions to COVID lockdowns and reach the opposite conclusion.
A lot of people hated being stuck at home, a lot of people couldn't wait to get back to normal, travelling to see concerts and sporting events, or just travelling for fun. A lot of people, despite having jobs that can be done remotely, prefer to commute to offices because they think it has other benefits.
All COVID really showed us is what is possible with regards to remote work and keeping people close to home, not is what is largely desired by people.
But regardless, I think the solution to many issues being talked about here is bette decentralised planning. We need to do away with monolithic cities surrounded by an endlessly increasing suburban sprawl. It requires every household to have at least 1 car, and it means if peool do need to spend time close to home, they suddenly miss out on many things they love or even need.
Many small towns is better than a few huge cities.
The supply chain problems, in part are a result of the Lockdowns.
So sure it "showed us" what people already knew, information workers can work from home. The final tally is still out on if that was better for companies or not, or if companies in the long term will keep work from home for employee
Hell at my company it is about 50/50 on if people want to work from home or not. I think HN being what is it tends to not recognize that here we have a strong bias towards WFH that may not be shared by large parts of the workforce
P.S - Incredibly biased as I work in Mineral Exploration.
Why would car manufacturers be limited to copper from cars? For example, there's huge amounts of copper in telecoms infrastructure that's being replaced with fibre at the moment. The originating source of the metal is irrelevant. The only things that matter at purity, contaminants, and cost. If the copper is sufficiently high quality, doesn't contain anything that would stop it being used in a battery or a motor, and it's cheap enough, then it's all good.
They were talking about it for the model Y and it was suppossed to reduce 1.5km of wire down to 100m but I dont think it's hit production vehicles yet.
They mostly talked about lighter weight and easier robot install, but should be cheaper and use less copper too if that actually becomes an issue.
There's the general overview on copper [0], annual summaries, e.g [1] for 2022, and the more detailed "yearbook" [2] which it looks like is in the process of being updated since the last official release in 2017.
for example, [1] says this about "World Resources":
> A U.S. Geological Survey study of global copper deposits indicated that, as of 2015, identified resources contained 2.1 billion tons of copper, and undiscovered resources contained an estimated 3.5 billion tons.
Note that this article is careful not to outright say "there isn't enough copper", even if it heavily implies it. It says there aren't enough mines for future demand. And in the sense that more mines should be built in anticipation of that demand, it's correct. But the idea that a copper shortage will meaningfully delay electrification is ridiculous; even if there is a shortfall, all that will mean is that EVs will become slightly more expensive while other uses of copper move to substitutes and more mines are built. The economic incentives are too strong for anything else to happen.
[0]: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-c... [1]: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2022/mcs2022-copper.pdf [2]: https://pubs.usgs.gov/myb/vol1/2017/myb1-2017-copper.pdf
Seeing as expense is currently a major barrier to adoption of EVs by the general public, I'd say that becoming even slightly more expensive provides a significant barrier to electrification in the near-term.
Googled this, and google gave me a page full of results for lithium iron phosphate batteries. Not a single mention of sulphate (or sulfate). There are people actually getting paid a salary to do this.
Double quotes still help though.
1. https://www.google.com/search?q=horse+riding+a+man
2. https://labs.openai.com/s/5iMgC0d3AxrZ2Z39A7nnSuKY
They pretend they are using transformer neural nets in search, yet fail at such a clear semantic task that should have been easy for transformers to solve.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=lithium+iron+sulfate+batteries
While there is enough copper in the world, geologically speaking, to supply the increased demand, there isn’t enough time.
It takes 10 to 15 years to get a new copper mine through permitting and construction. Twenty years is not unusual for very large projects.The average time figure quoted is best read as "typically, in the absence of the demand we see ramping up now..." and reflects a typically sedate pace for mineral projects which have 50+ year lifespans with trannational owners who overlap exploration, development, and production.
The industry voice here is for Cu projects to accelerate.
( FWiW 14+ years back I wrote a chunk of the backend of what was sold on to become S&P Min.Intell.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...
)
> In B.C., there are currently two mine expansion proposals that are close to having final investments decisions made, Goehring said – Highland Valley Copper and Red Chris — and two proposed new mines: the KSM gold-copper mine and the Galore Creek copper mine.
etc.
If copper prices triple, demand will react.
The price of copper is inconsequential to EV production, demand will be rationed elsewhere.
And thus EV demand won't react much to copper prices.
Yes, the 1 cent coins have little copper, but multiple millions are produced per year. The others have a copper core. With current inflation, 1/5/10 cent coins cannot buy anything.
The only reason for the 25 cent coin are vending machines.
We went out for a meal and discussed the feasibility of sorting the pennies by date using ML. The real gold mine would be that an AI approach might potentially identify numismatic grade pennies and really pay for itself.
[0] https://www.wikihow.com/Hoard-Copper-Pennies
[1] https://moneyning.com/make-money/how-to-cash-in-your-pennies...
Seems very simple and low tech.
You don't need to use ML, you need a comparator of the kind found in 1000s of vending machines.
In practice you need a high fidelity weight sensor and a handful of transistors.
Which works out to just over 25000 metric tons of copper per year used in US coinage.
About 2 million metric tons of copper are used in the US per year. So all coinage represents about 1.25% of US copper consumption, of which quarters are about half.
There are some good reasons to eliminate small coinage, but "it will noticeably help with a copper shortage" isn't really one of them.
I got bunch of coins when I had to use a laundromat in the US once, they only accepted quarters. Exchange $20 at a different machine and get a ton of metal. I suppose its like legacy software.
I heard the newer machines use a combination of methods, including weight and electrical resistance to test if a coin is actually the right one.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/25percent-of-us-households-a...
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984475870/unbanked-what-it-me...
For me it's a matter of principle, I use cash because I want businesses to continue accepting cash. I have credit cards and I sometimes use them out of laziness (or for anything over $200 or so, or online...) But if a business refuses cash then I'll refuse to do business with them, because I think they're disenfranchising people who don't have credit cards and I won't support that. Thankfully this is fairly rare.
You should never use a private ATM. They are prime targets for skimmers.
I rarely see someone pay with card at the supermarket and it's most likely a foreigner. Small shops and cafes don't even take cards, only cash and the rare time they do it's only for larger sums.
Also tips are common almost everywhere.
Yes, I've heard all about the benefits of cash on HN, but the millions of man years saved by not standing in line has to be worth something too. One Auchan was boasting that they got line time down to 4 minutes. In NL, anythng longer than 30 seconds is unusual.
If you come to Austrian supermarkets at rush hour, the lines will last several minutes. It not uncommon to hear disgruntled customers (usually old people ironically) yell at supermarket employees to open another till after waiting for ages.
There's a lovely under-appreciated privacy about using cash.
In Germany I paid cash for every casual snack-grade transaction, and some bigger ones like restaurant meals. It seemed totally normal and I was happy with that.
In Denmark I never saw the currency at all and I have no idea what it looks like. I never used it and I never saw anyone else use it. Contactless everywhere.
I much prefer cash and regret its disappearance from use in my own country - we are about half-way between the German and Danish experiences above, perhaps closer to the Danish end. A holiday in Germany felt more like a holiday because of this detail. What it feels like when you actually live there is another question.
But this stuff about cash is something of a distraction from the question of metal use - it's increasingly apparent that although electric cars may be an improvement on oil-driven ones, they are not in any useful way the solution. Being rid of cars and basically all powered individual transport may be both dreary and extreme, but what alternative is there?
Anthropomorphic global climate change is absolutely a real problem and we should do more to reduce carbon emissions. But reliable, high-speed personal mobility has brought about a tremendous improvement in quality of life. There's no way I'll agree to give up owning personal cars.
I understand the concerns about everything being logged digitally, but it is just so much more convenient than carrying a bulky wallet with a coin pouch, and messing around with coins at the till holding everyone up for ages. For some reason people think it's a binary choice between privacy or convenience, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I have started going out without my wallet recently, one less thing to lose, and just paying with my phone everywhere.
Small shops often prefer or only take cash, or accept card payment only from a certain amount due to fees of the processors. I heard small businesses prefer cash for tax reasons as well.
Now: while cash is still normal, just about everywhere has contactless credit card terminals. I don’t even get a second glance when I ask to pay with a card at the bakery for a 3 EUR purchase. Some food trucks won’t take cash.
However, we did pay for our 17k EUR used car with cash last year, and that is still the recommended way for private used car sales.
It has gotten better after the Pandemic.
Germans use outdated tech because it works. They use cash very rapidly and efficiently. I’d say Germans handle cash faster than paying with physical cards.
That's not a good argument for progress in general. We'd still be in the stone age with that mentally.
This is also a reflection on the lack of digitalization and IT/tech innovation in Germany and Austria in general vs other European countries that tend to adopt tech earlier.
>I’d say Germans handle cash faster than paying with physical cards.
I'd beg to differ when there's lots of change and coins involved.
Some could be fast with an abacus but that doesn't mean we're not all better off with pocket calculators.
Like with many things, just because that's how Germany does a thing, doesn't mean it's great.
//edit: Cashless might imply debit card is accepted, but not necessarily credit cards. Though these are catching up.
For groceries at the usual chains (Edeka, Lidl, Aldi,...) cashless always works, and from my POV always did. For a while many stores only accepted cashless for sales above 10 Euros, but I only know one shop that still has that antique rule. In the past paying by card was something you did for "bigger" expenses; I'm young enough to only have witnessed how that seems to have phased out, but I definitely got strange looks when I payed for an inexpensive item by card. These days most cashiers don't blink an eye when I do so for a <1 Euro item.
As a rule of thumb, the more expensive a place is and the less shady (as in "might cook the books" or "not a drinking hole"), the more likely it is to accept cashless. The "expensive" barrier is coming down ever since: 15 years ago I might have needed cash for a restaurant with the average dish costing 20 Euros, or going out with friends to drink. These days it's safe to assume "if customers are expected to sit down, and pay 10 Euro+, then cashless is probably accepted". Exceptions apply, like that one, new (post-COVID!) restaurant, which insists on cash; and also I go to other places like I did two decades ago while being a pupil or student.
When I go out in our city (six digit populace) I usually assume that I can pay cashless, though if I know the next ATM to be unpleasently far away, I make sure that me or a companion has enough cash, just in case. I still pack some cash when venturing into an unknown town/city.
Overall, I think due to COVID more cusomters now use the option to pay cashless; the only huge impact in acceptance (that I noticed) seems to have been bakeries around here.
It's important to remember that, while Germany is about the size of one of the US's states, it's much more densely populated and has vast differences in customs, traditions and subtile social norms like cash vs cashless.
But most seriously, cash payments enable tons of tax fraud, especially by business owners in the hospitality industry, making it unfair to those with jobs who pay nearly half their salary in tax, while Gastro owners will buy another Porsche or vacation home from the taxes they dodged thanks to cash payments.
I hope they ban cash, it's annoying, time wasting, environmentally unfortunately and makes life super easy for tax fraudsters to the detriment of those who have to pay their taxes fairly.
The privacy reason is some hypocritical bullshit, as those same people using exclusively cash, carry privacy invasive Apple/Android phones and constantly use spying services of Google, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, Tinder, Snapchat, etc. The real "privacy" they're referring to means privacy from the taxman for their illicit financial gains, a.k.a. tax fraud. That's the real reason, and I hope it gets cracked down.
Later, I handed the cashier two twenties and change was dispensed from a mechanical dispenser. Took ten seconds or so, plus or minus.
No, I don't use any of those shitty products you mention.
In what universe
Plus conservative population that is skeptical about new tech and strongly keeps outdated ways of working and doing business (visible in any company there). Letters are common as well and digitalization is pretty weak.
Like what's the last tech product you remember that came out of Austria?
https://www.deltadental.com/us/en/tooth-fairy/the-original-p...
I tip in cash, so that taxes aren't taken out of an already underpaid person's "wages".
EDIT: Darn, can't delete now. Yes I agree, the penny should be eliminated to save on copper.
Billions are produced per year, not millions. The mint makes on average 10 billion pennies per year, https://qz.com/1318203/making-pennies-costs-the-us-mint-mill... Varies by year.
It is still a totally irrelevant amount of copper.
One penny has 2.95g of copper in it. 10 billion pennies have 30,000 tons of copper in them. Worldwide copper production is 20 million tons. 0.015% of the world's copper is used for pennies. That's a rounding error.
Just because a number is big, doesn't mean it matters.
Sure. Get rid of the penny. But not because it will impact our copper supply in any way.
There’s always some bigger problem you can point to that seems to render the point at hand useless, but as they say, 30K tons of copper saved is 30K tons of copper earned.
This attitude is exactly why our planet is dying. Instead of investing time and effort into things that matter, people become hyper-focused on worthless things that have no impact. Like measures to conserve a trivial amount of water at home.
It's a poisonous and wasteful way to think.
> There’s always some bigger problem you can point to that seems to render the point at hand useless
That's simply not true. We have real problems to solve. The numbers are clear. This isn't one of them.
Still pretty insignificant, though.
Remember that copper's primary use is as a conductor and there are lots of conductors from aluminium to gold.
I don't expect fuel-based vehicles to go away completely because there are still use cases where fuel is better than electric. Cold conditions are still a problem for EVs. Range is another factor.
What I expect to see more of is using renewables to store energy in the form of fuel instead of in batteries eg producing methanol, methane, ammonia or kerosene. This will at least be carbon neutral. It's not currently economic to do it but the advantage comes in not needing potentially expensive batteries, being relatively easy to store and not requiring power grid infrastructure in remote or unstable regions.
It's the same thing in software with bloat even as hardware gets faster. Rather, it is precisely because hardware gets faster that software engineers have little regard for the speed of their software, since any inefficiences will be overshadowed by the horsepower of the raw silicon. What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away, I've always known, but now I see it everywhere, not just in software.
Wow this was new for me, it makes plenty of sense to reuse the batteries when they’re no longer sufficient for an automobile - but is that’s something available to the general public?
Bill Carter has written an excellent book on the business cycle of copper and some of the problematic consequences.
[0] https://www.nanowerk.com/what_is_graphene.php
[1] https://pwr.edu.pl/en/university/news/raw-materials-from-ast...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32111282
There are rich resources of high-grade copper waiting for approval 20 years... In Chile, In US... etc.
(although replacing Mining.com with Vancouver would still be true)
https://ihsmarkit.com/Info/0722/futureofcopper.html
Not sure if that's available but the same source was expecting a mild glut of copper over the next few years due to new mines opening and no one seems to predict higher prices long term, so I think this might just be standard industry whining that taxes and health and safety and environmental laws are holding them back.
> Even though a rise in demand is anticipated, this will not be enough to absorb the increase in supply, Commerzbank's commodities analyst Daniel Briesemann said in a note.
> Also, the conspicuous supply difference is due to the expected noteworthy recovery in mine output.
> According to ICSG, mine output >will rise by 3.9% due to the commissioning of several new projects and the expansion of existing mines, Briesemann said.
> This was echoed by UK brokerage Marex Spectron, which said in a research note Dec. 7 that according to CRU -- a commodity research company -- the view is that after a deficit in 2021, the following two years are expected to see a surplus.
> Aside primary copper production, an increase in secondary production, from scrap copper, was also likely to contribute to copper's surplus, Briesemann said.
We have to face the music: Converting gas cars to electric will only fix a small fraction of all the problems caused by cars. Redesigning cities so that most people won't require a car to work and live is the real solution.
I am very much against cars in cities, just like you, but this is an independent topic.
If you try to fight climate change by banning cars you will run out of time and lose both fights.
Most people, having grown up with cars from parents and peers, can't imagine anything other than a car-centric life. The distances are too far, the bus comes once an hour, and biking is too dangerous. So getting an electric car might be the only improvement that they can think of. Especially given the upfront cost of electric cars and their reduced convenience for long road trips, it's easy to feel that they made enough personal sacrifices for the sake of the common good.
While electric cars are a somewhat bitter pill to swallow, the real bitter pills are things like ending exclusive single-family detached house zoning, increasing density, allowing mixed residential-retail-office neighborhoods, converting car lanes to bike or transit lanes, building rail lines (which can easily take a decade), offering decent inter-city train service. I fear that electric cars offer an easy "personal responsibility" band-aid that exhausts people's willpower to demand more substantial collective change.
> Don't hijack the climate emergency for your political agenda.
What's with this accusation?
Those seem to be the people who push the car-less idea the most, because it meets their world view, but doesn't work once you step outside the downtown bubble.
But what I think they want are solutions to the parking, traffic, and other issues that stem from city overpopulation and/or planning mismanagement of cities.
As an outsider I agree cities need to rework how they handle cars (idling in traffic for an hour to go 10 miles, parking being hell, etc.) but it's a specific problem to cities (some more so than others)
I have a friend who lives in a small village of roughly 3k people. If you step out of her backyard, you step into a winefield. You have to close the windows when they're fertilizing the fields nextdoor with dung.
I can reach her in half an hour plus three minute walk with trains that go every 15 minutes (half-hourly after 8pm, hourly after midnight).
Somehow this is possible all over the world, except in the US where it just an inevitable impossibility, just the way things are. I dare say, the people who are actually in a bubble here are the North Americans who have never seen or lived in a city that is anything except a square mile of skyscrapers surrounded by an endless sea of car-dependent single family houses and desolate concrete parking lots.
I was lucky, since I lived in town, but my childhood friends would come to school by bus. It took them 3h to get here, the motorist had to cover all the tiny villages along the way, and time adds up. If we didn't have those buses (most of them were vans), well then, I don't think most kids would get their lessons.
Who had cars though? No problem.
But yeah, it's difficult to employ a system on a rural area.
And takes many hours to travel the same distance as a 20 minute car ride. People who say "just hop on public transportation" live in the top percent of cities where that actually makes sense.
How about less cars, less power use, and return to 1980s or 60s standards of technology?
Maybe build quality of the assembly, but definitely not the build quality of anything mechanical! Modern cars have ludicrously better reliability than anything from the 60's to 80's. A car not making it to 100k miles is a rare exception these days, even with somewhat abusive upkeep.
We don’t need to regress to solve the climate emergency. That’s attacking the problem from the wrong side and alienating people.
Agreed, we should do it for the quality of life benefits.
The climate fix is a bonus...
What kind of things were you thinking of?
The problem is that some of these are working against each other. Electric cars means much much higher electrical energy needs - perhaps needing to even double the current grid. And that works against the need to decomission fossil fuel plants.
As such, significantly reducing car usage seems like a much safer bet than achieving a 0-carbon grid that is double the size of the current one in ~15 years.
They're literally batteries on wheels.
Sure there are some ideas that EVs which don't see too much use could be used to discharge back into the grid, but that is hard to organize and destroys the battery much more quickly.
The big question is politics: even in cities where many people use transit, the political class favors cars.
[0] https://www.911metallurgist.com/scrapped-starter-motors-alte...
That is simple to say, but what does that actually mean? I think some cities simply wouldn't exist if being navigable without car was a requirement. People will never move around Phoenix like they move around Amsterdam.
There are not many cities in Europe that are predated by the ubiquity of cars.
1. Shops/bars/cafes/etc in residential areas.
2. The replacement of existing housing stock with multiple residences.
It was all built to work around the automobile as primary transport. There's no patch fix.
The question is, how disadvantaged are public transit projects given the barriers imposed by the existing choices that have been made, and the marginal cost and benefit of that project compared to existing choices?
Sprawl is difficult to cover with public transit, so you end up with a system that costs 2x as much, covers 1/2 as much area, and takes 2x as long to go anywhere. The most successful public transit systems in the world area all places where driving is car is not a viable alternative for many. In a world of 10 lane highways and free parking in a sea of strip malls, it's going to be hard to convince people to stand at a transit stop.
I agree there's a problem with cars in cities, but there's not a problem with cars elsewhere.
Electrifying cars and trucks helps diversify how they are powered and keeps the logistics industries and tourist industries humming.
It also helps public transportation, taxi services, etc.
Cars in cities is a local problem, not a federal or even state one.
What are those local solutions though? Trains for sure, use Japan as the model. Privatized but government controlled, cheap, clean, safe.
Scooters? Those are an eye sore, they are laying everywhere, but are useful. Maybe at least bike racks for them?
And a result of this inevitably will be huge winners who invest in sustainable ways of being and huge losers tied to old ways of doing things.