When the lead runs out: what next?

[natman]

There's no need to worry about running out of lead.

They'll outlaw it on environmental grounds long before that happens.

I wish this were a joke.

[44 AMP]

I am in favour of guns, but am also a proponent of environmental protection initiatives: I think this a very important things and part of the legacy to hand on to future generations...

This (and you other posts) show that you are, at least in part, a rational clear thinking individual. Congratulations. That puts you in a different category from the "bunny huggers/tree huggers" and other extremists in the environmental movement.

And that is the basic problem we have the "environmentalists". Over the past 4 decades or so, every wackjob that couldn't find a home in any other "cause" (or got kicked out of such groups) found a home, in the environmental movement. And they got a welcome from others of like minds there.

I have always found it rather sad, since I come from a family where actual proper environmentalism was the moral thing to do. And by proper, I mean conservation. NOT "preservation" the way so many use it today.

Listen to their rhetoric. Its all about how we have to "preserve" the environment. Preserve the forest, preserve the wetlands, etc.,...do you know how to "preserve" something? You kill it, and put it in a jar. (strawberry presever are quite tasty!)

Their answer to how to maintain our natural resources & environment is to preserve them, primarily by keeping people out, and banning things and actions they see as harmful.

They don't want managed use of natural resources, they want NO use of those resources, so they will be preserved for future generations, who won't be allowed to use them, either!

[Regular Joe]

I did a bit of research about this awhile back. Let's start at the ONLY sensible place!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodi...rge_version%29
Click on the element symbol, and you go to the Wiki page about that element.
Soon enough, you find that we have an estimated 30 years remaining of lead. That doesn't include further mining.
We find that Bismuth is a by product of lead refining, so it's a bit of a moot pursuit.
Cadmium and Zinc have toxicity issues, and they're very light.
Copper is the obvious choice. It has to be machined to make bullets, so it's a bit more expensive that way. Behind Iron, it's the most abundant metal on earth. As long as there is earth, there is copper.

[Sparks1957]

Behind Iron, it's the most abundant metal on earth. As long as there is earth, there is copper.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. You might be thinking of aluminum.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

And it's even not true of aluminum. Or even oxygen, for that matter.

If we spread aluminum so thin into tens of thousands of landfills in itty bitty pieces, it's effectively non-recoverable / non-recycleable, in which case, when the mines run out, it's out.

When the earth's rotations slows down the point (and it will because it's always slowing) where the electro-magnetic field generated by this rotation combined with the nickel-iron core of the earth is significantly-reduced in power, then the solar winds (coronal mass ejections) will wipe our atmosphere clean, like the moon, and there will be no air.

There are many things which won't be around when the earth is still here in few billion more years, including homo sapiens.

Or in the case of metal minerals, they'll still be "here" somewhere, but depleted by being strewn far and wide all over the crust (in the vestigial remnants of what was our landfills and such). Won't matter a great deal, though, as it's unlikely that the living species remaining will have the intelligence to utilize them. The 2nd most advance species on earth behind humans, the bonobo, never harvests anything more sophisticated than rocks and sticks to use (for tools).

[BobCat45]

Ok this is so off-topic that it will get deleted, but before that happens:

I had a Metallurgy professor who claimed landfills would be the next mining boom. Dig the landfill up, put it (bit by bit over time) into a huge ceramic-lined vessel, leach it with HCl, and a lot of what you'd get would be mixed metal chlorides in aqueous solution.

Dry them, melt them, and condense the individual metal chlorides out - like fractional distillation but at much higher temperatures. They all melt at different temperatures, vaporize/condense at unique temperatures, so they are separable.

Now you have pure iron chloride, aluminum chloride, cupric / cuperous chloride, lead chloride, tin chloride, and so forth. These can be reduced (by electrowinning or other extractive techniques) to pure metals for re-use.

His point was that there is no point in the chain where it is "too late" to recycle / re-mine these elements, as long as they are not physically dispersed (like, shredded and scattered). Having them in a landfill is like money in the bank.

[Pond, James Pond]

This (and you other posts) show that you are, at least in part, a rational clear thinking individual.

Damn, you've seen through the smoke-screen!!

Their answer to how to maintain our natural resources & environment is to preserve them, primarily by keeping people out, and banning things and actions they see as harmful.

I see what you're saying and yes, banning without cause is unhelpful: granted.
However, if people can't exercise restraint in how they manage themselves, they need to be taken by the hand. Western society's behaviour oft reminds me of a teenager who's been left home alone: no restraint at all!!!

The longer society waits to act sensibly, the more extreme and draconian the laws will have to be to try and redress a semblance of balance.

Without wishing to hijack my own thread, I will say that vast swathes of the human population have little respect/understanding for the natural environment which, if left to its own devices can manage itself perfectly well. Those who have no respect for the natural environment damn well should be kept out of it. So using resources in a sustainable fashion? Sure. But it would also be nice to have areas that are left truly wild.

In Europe, the industrialisation and population density has meant that it can be a major expedition to find some real wild landscapes. I mean hours on the road and even them "man-sign" is plentiful. That is one thing I love about Estonia: there is lots of unmolested wilderness, namely forest: no paths, no jogging trails, no picnic spots, just forest. Still occasionally find piles of garbage though .

You still have a lot of wilderness in the US, I understand. Treasure it. Once gone, you won't get it back, regardless how many "plant a tree" schemes there are.

The other problem is that people see either profit or protection. Many see them as opposing sides which they need not be. For example I find the concept of green economics very interesting. However, those making the money would need to change their ways or risk not making as much and so it is seen as an adversarial movement.
These points sum up my personal view.

Meanwhile, back to lead, I notice many folks are still seeing this as a lament for lead, but it was actually about the worthiness of tungsten and how that would affect future calibres.

Dig the landfill up, put it (bit by bit over time) into a huge ceramic-lined vessel, leach it with HCl, and a lot of what you'd get would be mixed metal chlorides in aqueous solution.

An interesting notion, but surely it is cheaper, less energy intensive, easier and more logical to just sort metals at home, so they can all go to the suitable recycler rather than burying them over a large area, only to dig them up again...

[BobCat45]

An interesting notion, but surely it is cheaper, less energy intensive, easier and more logical to just sort metals at home, so they can all go to the suitable recycler rather than burying them over a large area, only to dig them up again...

Absolutely! That's why the impact berms get mined for lead and copper, that's why we sort aluminum drink cans, aluminum catfood cans, steel cans, and other recyclable stuff (including various numbered plastics) at home before we take them to the recycler.

But his point was that these metals do not ever "go away" in the sense of ceasing to exist. As long as you have some idea where you put them, you can get them back. At great cost in effort and energy, but we are swimming in energy. Think about it - if we really do have "global warming" it means we are absorbing more solar energy than we are radiating, for a net gain. What we need to do is figure how to utilize the extra energy to do useful work. Extracting metals from ores (or from landfills) is one way.

Anyway - we are not going to run out of lead any time soon, if anything it will become more abundant because it will be so taxed and regulated that the price will rise above that of competing metals.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Hear Hear, Mr. Pond.

Interesting, Bobcat.

[44 AMP]

I will say that vast swathes of the human population have little respect/understanding for the natural environment..

I will say that vast swathes of the human population have little respect/understanding for anything outside of their immediate personal desires.

I would like to point out that, economically, we are never going to "run out" of lead, or any other natural resource. What we can run out of is available resources at an affordable price.

With about 2/3 of the earth's surface covered by water, the simple fact is that there is a huge amount of the earth that has never been explored, let alone mined. Logic suggests that there are the same deposits of minerals under the oceans as there are on dry land. We've been mining the land since the Copper Age, and haven't "run out" yet. With (possibly) twice as much raw materials still under the sea, I doubt running out will happen. But running out of affordable resources is a different matter.

As something gets more scarce, supply & demand raise the price. When the price reaches a certain point, something else will be substituted. Its really that simple.

The moon could be made of solid gold (or cheese), and we do have the ability to mine it (we already have - moon rocks), but the cost to do so is so far above the return that no one will do it.

We aren't even going to run out of lead, or any other raw materials. But we could run out of lead (for example) that you or I could AFFORD.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

I would like to point out that, economically, we are never going to "run out" of lead, or any other natural resource. What we can run out of is available resources at an affordable price

That's true, even with oil/gas/coal, but as a practical matter, that *IS* "running out" for all intents and purposes for the burnable ones (unless they're abiotic). If there's oil deep below the Marianas trench, it would never be cost-effective to pull it out. But if all the cost-effective stuff is gone, then we've "run out". Well not really, because the cost-effective equation changes over time - so I'd say that if a resource is not cost-effective to remove from the earth at point X, nor will it ever be cost-effective at any future time after point X, then we've in essence "run out" - at least with things you burn, like coal, oil, nat gas. Metals (non-hydrocarbons) that aren't "used up" by burning are different.

[Pond, James Pond]

I will say that vast swathes of the human population have little respect/understanding for anything outside of their immediate personal desires.

I agree and it is something I see day in, day out and it fills me with a real sense of hopelessness for the future.

Apathy truly is opposite of love, be it for one's spouse or one's friends or one's environment.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

I agree and it is something I see day in, day out and it fills me with a real sense of hopelessness for the future.

Yes. I really cannot fathom why any thinking person would willingly bring a child into this world.

[BobCat45]

Gentlemen, the future has always looked bleak when examined carefully.

In the 1950s we grew up being told that Russian bombers would be coming over the pole any day and we'd all be radioactive dust before long.

During the first (that I recall) oil embargo in 1973, learned authorities on the TV solemnly proclaimed that "By the year 2000, the World will be out of oil." Maybe their warning prompted the current oil boom.

Earlier, in around 1972, the popular buzz was that food production could never keep up with world population growth, and widespread famine was inevitable. Google the phrase "zero population growth" for a laugh. These days we see that famines are failures of distribution networks, not shortages per se.

Whether or not to bring a child into the world is your choice. If you choose to do so, put aside weapons for the child to use when s/he is old enough to use them, start a bank account for college money - whatever it takes to feel that you've provided the closest to a winning hand that you can. Teach the child self-reliance and things like how to change a tire and a diaper, their oil and filter, and how to head-shoot a rabbit so as not to spoil much meat.

But don't let the gloomy spoil your enjoyment of Life or your (presumably "unrealistic") hopes for the future. Life is short enough, and for many people in the World and throughout History - tough enough - that you are wise to enjoy what you can, while you can.

---and if you're sick of my preaching, too bad. I'm a bitter old geezer who has made most of the not-immediately-fatal mistakes that anyone can make, and I've earned the right to be optimistic in the face of disaster.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

I'll just say that I'm very glad that YOU are optimistic.

[Art Eatman]

It seems a consensus that any problems for firearms and lead are political, not physical.

So, enough for now.