What tmc wants to do is so clearly more ecofriendly than all other types of mining it baffles me to have such baseless protest. We are going to need metals one way or another, No deepsea mines means more pit mining and strip mining. Tmc is helping the planet.
*All practical tests of ground-based small wind turbines show the same thing: 1) They hardly produce any electricity. 2) They do not last long!* With solar panels, you can generate at least 10 to 20 times more green electricity with the same investment! Reliable and almost maintenance-free. Moreover, the wind is extremely gusty, which almost always greatly reduces the service life. 9 out of 10 systems stop working after a few years. With the KiteX WindCatcher, I bet that 9 out of 10 systems are defective after just a few months of continuous operation. Better to use flexible solar panels!
What you want to invest in is the first company that can develop an LED for this. If it is this company then great. But to me, that is the question you should be asking.
Yes and our skin virus who keep us well and our dermal get blasted dead too ... That is why they use this already in hospital to clear rooms when no one is inside ! It will age plastics making white plastic go yellow too, so you can not use this all the time
Went shopping. Cheapest recessed light is $2100+. One wonders what it costs to make. No good for home until cheaper. Pity. Unreasonable or necessary? Hard to know.
Should this be installed in the AC system? This way you are targeting all air in a house or office. Because having one per room might be too expensive to be realistic.
Wow, this was a very informative episode of Disruptive Investing for me as I’m looking into a special disinfectant chemical business. I picked up a lot of important things to consider in this line!
I'm only two minutes in, but when do they integrate that into the regular lighting so that we don't need to have separate fixtures for this. If it works, I want all my light bulbs to be disinfecting!
The trick is the price. If you want this to go from something in critical areas in a hospital to every single elevator and office building its got to be 1/10th or less the price listed on their website now. How can they scale this to be a mass-manufactured cheap plastic deal?
A lot of people decry this industry because of its *potential* damage to ecosystems. Meanwhile, marine ecosystems are currently being destroyed by industries like commercial fishing, and I hear no calls to end that terribly extractive industry. Some may argue that fishing is a necessary industry, and I'd argue that precious metals are similarly (if not more) necessary. I haven't eaten fish in about 5 years now (my diet is plant based, with very few exceptions), but I use my phone and laptop every single day. The truth is that China and other countries (including a few of the Asian Tigers and even some Pacific Island countries) are already capitalizing on this potential industry. China, the largest economy in the world, *will* be collecting these nodules. They currently hold the most contracts from the International Seabed Authority for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Extraction is almost certainly going to go ahead, with or without The Metals Company and American companies. If economic decoupling is the name of the game, then beating China to the punch here is going to be the only way the Western economy will not be solely reliant on Chinese manufacturers. There is no world where the precious metals we need can come without detriment to the environment. So let's try to do the *least* damage to the environment that we can in the process. If you think deep sea mining is more environmentally damaging than the numerous terrestrial strip mines that level swathes of rain forest and employ child slave labor in Africa and Indonesia, I honestly don't know what to say.
For all the people stating "But the nodules are creating oxygen", this research has been criticised and its results refuted. If there was any electrolysis by these rocks, there also should be hydrogen gas formed. However none of this was found. Also toxic chlorine gas should be formed by electrolysis of seawater due to the presence of chlorine ions(from NaCl) in salt water, and as far as I know this wasnt found.
Time and Truth will prevail that dark oxygen is a hoax - Battery metals with a lighter touch will be the future, the days of tearing down rainforests and child labor in mines will come to an end
TMC The Metals Company says they would be able to collect 3000 tons a day. The market price for 3000 tons of polymetallic nodules would vary depending on the location, the grade of the nodules, and the current market conditions. However, a rough estimate would be in the range of $100 million to $200 million. Here is a breakdown of the potential value of the metals in 3000 tons of polymetallic nodules: Nickel: $40 million to $80 million Copper: $20 million to $40 million Cobalt: $10 million to $20 million Manganese: $5 million to $10 million Molybdenum: $1 million to $2 million Zinc: $0.5 million to $1 million The total value of the metals in 3000 tons of polymetallic nodules could be even higher if the nodules contain high grades of the metals. For example, nodules that contain 1% nickel or more could be worth up to $500 million per 3000 tons. They say there Nickel grade is 3%. Thanks to goolge's A.I. Gemini for the break down.
There's a lot of concern about deep-sea environments being unfamiliar and the potential risk to slow-growing species. Sure, caution is necessary when exploring new territories, but let's not ignore the obvious: we know exactly how much damage land-based mining is doing, and it's massive. We're talking about destroyed forests, polluted rivers, displaced communities, and entire species wiped out. The idea that deep-sea mining (DMS) is uniquely dangerous is missing the point-land-based mining is already incredibly destructive, and we can't just ignore that. Deep-sea mining, unlike terrestrial mining, has some clear mitigating factors. The areas we're targeting-like polymetallic nodule fields-aren't exactly teeming with diverse ecosystems. The seabed here is different from the biodiverse hotspots on land. And unlike the massive deforestation and destruction of habitat that traditional mining requires, DMS is more site-specific and focused. Plus, advancements in technology make it possible to monitor these areas before, during, and after operations, ensuring minimal impact. If anything, this level of precision is something land-based mining can't offer. There's also been talk about the lack of recovery on the seafloor, pointing to an example off the Eastern US coast where there's supposedly been no recovery for decades. Fair enough-but let's not forget the Amazon rainforest, where entire sections have been destroyed and might never grow back. Just because there are still marks on the seafloor doesn't mean the ecosystem hasn't recovered; visible scars don't automatically equal lasting damage. The truth is, we see lasting damage both on land and underwater-acting as though one is worse is missing the forest for the trees. And then there's the concern that we "lack sufficient literature" to fully understand the impacts of DMS. Sure, we’re still learning, but let’s not pretend that land-based mining has a clean bill of health. It comes with documented impacts: deforestation, pollution, biodiversity loss, human rights abuses, and more. The so-called unknowns of DMS should be weighed against the well-documented, known destruction from terrestrial mining. Given that, pursuing a less invasive alternative, with strict regulation, actually seems like a pretty rational path forward. Another point brought up is that we should be prioritizing recycling and reducing consumption-and I completely agree. But until we get to the point where recycling fully meets our needs, we have to find ways to source materials responsibly. Deep-sea mining offers a way to reduce the burden on ecosystems and people. It's not about ignoring alternatives-it's about making smarter choices while we transition.
A great investment opportunity occurs when a marvelous business encounters a one-time huge, but solvable problem I see this as a gift to the world. This is going to help transition humanity to a greener world.
your skid-plate, and your lytehorse is so light, that if it gets hit by a mine, it will throw the warfighter and your cheap scooter up in the air and kill the rider.
Basically no one drives more than the range of their EV in a single day in their work commute. If you charge at home, your EV battery is full every morning. There is zero value to these silly local chargers. The only thing chargers are needed for is long highway trips. But charging an EV is and likely always will be, far to slow to deal with on a long trip. These silly things are fine if you live an apartment and need a home charger. But sticking chargers in random places like shopping malls is just totally unneeded.
Deep sea mining would destroy the deep sea ecosystem. This company and others in the industry should be banned from doing any mining other than small scale testing until that ecosystem is fully understood, which will take decades, and even then it is highly unlikely (imo) that harvesting nodules will not harm the ecosystem.
What we need is to stop using so much Cobalt in batteries so that it isn’t profitable to undertake such operations. I am afraid to destroy our oceans and we do not know enough about it and are doing dangerous modifications to areas that were previously untouched.
We already know the effect of commercial fishing, and we still do that. Commercial fishing is one of the biggest contributors to the destruction of marine ecosystems, yet I don't hear general calls to stop it because of the damage.
Eh? Not too sure what you're trying to say. But to be clear; we already know the extensive damage we have done to the land during some mineral extraction. We have the opportunity to prevent a similar problem with the sea. We are already causing significant changes to the sea and habitats therein with warming etc. We need to make sure we don't make things worse.
This does need to be done carefully, but what this group is doing is what helps us get that understanding (measuring & monitoring what they're doing, going back to check on areas later, etc).
Seems its mostly speculation at this point (as to source). But since they're down there, would be interesting to see some tests being done. Source-finding would be nice. Then their re-visits for impact of nodule remove, which is the key bit.
The electro chemical properties of these nodules could open up a way to restore Ocean Dead Zones. Decisions whose impact can be reversed quickly should be done quickly however decisions whose impact is hard to reverse should take time and be given due consideration. Recreating these rocks with equivalent electro chemical properties could be a considerable challenge so reversing course on mining them would be difficult. The current generations are having to deal with the consequences of climate change because earlier generations gave no considerations to the long term impact of using fossil fuels despite Eunice Newton Foote's warning in the 1850's let us not repeat that mistake. There is no rush to mine these nodules because: 1- The recycling of batteries is able to recuperate about 85% of the metals they use. 2- These metals can be obtained from the continents, geothermal water, fracking water, mine tailings ponds, water pumped from defunct mines, Tar Sands, coal ash (of which there is plenty even if no new coal was burned),.ash from burned trash also contain metals which could be used for Battery production. 3- Ride Sharing options such as UBER and Lyft make it so that people can get around with fewer cars so estimates of needed cars need to take this in consideration. 4- Battery technology for EV's is advancing quickly, the minerals needed today to make batteries may not be the same that are needed in the future. Sand Batteries are being looked at for example: Sodium-Ion, Iron-Air, Iron Redux, Microbial fuel cells.
Yes, it seems they are responsible for generating oxygen in the deep sea. But... we could solve that. Like sprinkling the seafloor, after vacuuming, with nuclear diamond batteries that will do the same work for tens of thousands of years... and maybe some nucleation site things (if the diamonds don't function like that) to restart and maybe speed up the formation of new nodules.
Is it wise to collect these rocks ? They've been found to produce O2 at ocean depth via electrolysis. The result of collecting these stones could be dead zones in the ocean.
The fraction of oxygen they produce is insignificant, The sea has collaborated all the garbage over time into a ball so we can take it which is the most sustainable mining ever😮
No this is what make them grow bigger, I suppose you like destroying the planet the way we current mine , maybe you sure go see a modern day mine see how horrifying what they do to the earth is
@@scoobyblu5815 in contrast to your assertions, the oxygen produced is quite significant. One article stated: "In 2016 and 2017, marine biologists visited sites that were mined in the 1980s and found not even bacteria had recovered in mined areas,” Geiger said. “In unmined regions, however, marine life flourished. Why such ‘dead zones’ persist for decades is still unknown. However, this puts a major asterisk onto strategies for sea-floor mining as ocean-floor faunal diversity in nodule-rich areas is higher than in the most diverse tropical rainforests."
@@HepCatJack over thinking creates problems that don't exist it's a pity they didn't do that when they started morning oil and all the other dangerous minerals but now with internet everyone's an expert. And the oil giants control just about everything you read so they pay for the test they get the results they want and not necessarily that plain and straightforward cuz it is always hidden That's why they r so f****** rich you could be one of them 🥸
Huge n truly hopeful! Go get’ em! Think what we as an individual or Taiwan as a tech power house can be inspired n contribute in any such eco initiatives, big o small.
