Dave, you might want to update your information. Aotearoa New Zealand has since voted in a regressive government that wants to "fast track" and place sea bed decisions in the hands of a single MP without the need for environmental checks and balances. They have rolled back all sorts of environmental protections already.
@@jnawk83most a sheeply agreeing to any s h i t s ,entities come up with,to destroy our planet😅 After nucklear testing,Ring of Fire should deal with this s h i t..😂 At least they are not hiding😊
@@MrDino1953 sadly, we just make better crafted empty soundbites truth be told. Frik, a kiwi telling an strayan not to feel bad coz we're worse... black is white, up is down & kiwis having a " we fuck up more things pissing match". The joys of living in a post truth world, eh? :( ...I saw a vid of Australia dumping old wind turbines in the outback - I was surprised you didn't put them in the desert, but regardless, wind turbines are a flawed idea but at least you have lots of land you can dispose of them into without being a major drama, which I know is not the point... however, the shaky isles on the other hand....
Very interesting research. I'm not a chemist but an engineer. From my limited understanding of the electrolysis of seawater is that hydrogen and oxygen are released as well as chlorides being broken away from the salts in the water. This then leaves a load of sodium, magnesium and potassium which can react with free hydroxide ions to become sodium hydroxide etc. What is great about that is that these hydroxide compounds can react with CO2 in that they swap out the hydroxide with CO2 and become sodium carbonate, magnesium carbonate etc. In short what I mean is that with further research it may show that this process is linked to the oceans ability to absorb CO2 which would once again show the incredible importance of these nodules.
I thought that with my limited chemistry passing a current through brine, the mix breaks down in to NaOH, Cl2, H2, or for normal folk "Sodium hydroxide", "Chlorine", "hydrogen". which electrode produces the oxygen and where does the spare oxygen come from? You can see the oxygen moves from the H2O (water) to the sodium to form a hydroxide as the sodium chloride and water breaks apart. this leaves hydrogen and chlorine gas to bubble up. Now I've not done this for many years, but remember never being told don't add salt to water to reduce it's resistance if you want to pass current through it. Chlorine is not very nice to breath in. But normal disclaimer I could be wrong 🙂
Tsk tsk tsk @@hg2. At least give a comparison that makes sense. Farming was already a well established practice. One could say that mining is already a well established practice too. So you've got a good starting point, but it's nothing but the bread. Now to create humor with the comparison, you would need to adjust the correlation with the novel, typically in a way that is unexpected. In this case, the novel concept being something that is highly profitable and previously thought impossible. So, you would want to say something like "If this guy were around in 1600, he'd be against climbing Mount Everest." Or "If this guy were around in 1600, he'd be against the British East India Company." The first being an uplifting example of human ingenuity, and the second being a sinister dig at the domino effect that led to chattel slavery.
@@hg2.It's a completely different case here and then guess... I'm an agronomist and everything we're trying now is to reduce the bad effects of the "green revolution" 🤣
If we didn't have independent analysis and reporting from channels like JHAT, nobody would know what is going on and bad actors would be free to cause damage. Well done, Sir.
It's been reported absolutely everywhere. USA today, CNN, popular mechanics. It's all over the Internet on all the major news outlets. This is not a piece that's getting pushed under the rug.
I think it is quite likely that these nodules are not just passively precipitated concretions. In order to keep producing a voltage, something must be replenishing the redox imbalance to both grow the nodules and keep that voltage from decaying. I highly suspect that the active component is bacterial colonies reducing something like sulphur compounds in the silt, and oxidising metal ions. Sulphur reducing bacteria are common everywhere, and definitely exist in benthic silts. The end result is something akin to a stromatolite colony, but without the air-water interface so they just grow spherically (or potato shaped).
Could be the natural potential of the earth as well. The earth is a huge dynamo that interacts with the sun, seeing as to how this area is far closer to the core, maybe the magnetic field and the interactions of all that have something to do with it as well?
@@effervescentrelief Probably not, tbh. The earth’s magnetic field is pretty weak. In the ocean, salt water is quite a good conductor, so any voltage difference, whether caused by chemical or magnetic processes is severely limited in range, to at most a few millimetres. Also, to produce a voltage, magnetic fields have to be rapidly changing, not constant intensity like the Earth’s magnetic field. I think we can be fairly confident this is just an electro-chemical process but it’ll be fascinating to learn more about the details.
It would seem odd how the reaction could go on for thousands of years if someting wasn't adding energy to the system, replenishing the anode/cathode and/or exposing new material. Since we know the nodules grow slowly over the millenia, there must be some mechanism to deposit new minerals and new potential energy. The seawater in essence short circuits the metal compounds in the nodule and discharge the potential energy from them as seawater is fairly conductive. Even if there is a lot of resistance in the nodule surface, how can they keep electrolyzing significant quantities of water over millenia without some form of energy input without depleting themselves?
I’ve seen many of videos posted on these nodules the past week and no one addresses the fact that this process needs energy. They aren’t magic rocks. Your theory is interesting that there is a biological process going on as well.
Ok, I'm going to read the paper. Naturally, your Duracell will discharge and the reaction inside the cell will stop along with the reduction of oxygen from water going on outside the cell. For these nodules to produce a voltage implies that they are being oxidized while the H20 is being reduced. And yet the nodules are slowly growing, implying that metal oxides are being reduced to elemental metals, which are added to their mass. You can't have reduction of the metals AND reduction of the oxygen both going on. That is an obvious violation of the second law of thermodynamics. So what on earth is going on here? Off I go now to read the paper.
Exactly. This is clearly bad science making the rounds and it's really bothering me. Are the nodules the poop of bacterial colonies, and the bacteria are producing oxygen?
It seems that the nodules aren’t pure metals at all. They’re highly oxidised. So if you have Fe(II) and Mn(II) ions in seawater, they’re getting oxidised further, to solid oxides Fe(III), Mn(III) and Mn(IV). Same goes for nickel and cobalt I guess. Still, it’s an odd reaction. Part of it seems to be due to depth and pressure, where the metal carbonate-forming reaction is less thermodynamically preferred to direct oxidation. I do wonder if a biological process is a contributing factor though. The paper does mention some nodules in some areas are at least partly biologically formed, but says this is a minor part and only in some small areas. More research needed?
_Maybe there are other mechanisms reducing the metal oxides back to lower oxidation forms, or back to the metallic state?_ _Maybe microorganism action (bacteria, algae...)?_
The company was so convinced that their mining them would be completely harmless they paid for it. I really don't blame them for feeling this way, if you look at the abyssal sea floor it really looks like a barren desert. fascinating stuff.
1 thing remains constant, all mine operators & commercial fish farms claim no harm to the environment. Their denial has been debunked over & over. Basically all large scale human activities are bad for the environment IMO!
As long as the people trust govt. of protect anything except their interest, our species might become extinct. This concentration of power attracts the psychopaths, who dominate politics. If you vote or support the present political paradigm that exists worldwide, you are self-enslaving, endangering yourself and me. STOP IT! Grow up! Act like an adult and self govern for maximum protection of everyone. It's only logical.
Apparently these nodules provide minerals for the ocean life. The nodules on the seabed, particularly polymetallic nodules, are rich in minerals like manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt. While they are of interest for potential deep-sea mining due to their metal content, these nodules also play a role in the ocean ecosystem. They can also serve as habitats for various marine organisms, contributing to the biodiversity of the deep-sea environment.
Even before this research came out, there were no good reasons to permit seabed mining since so many major players have pledged not to buy minerals obtained that way and transition technologies are rapidly removing the need for many such minerals in the first place. Promises from the mining interests to do no damage and take only the minimum necessary ring very hollow; how many times has such altruism overcome simple greed in the past?
Thus the very reason Capitalism will never usher in green technology efficiently nor effectively. There is not profit in renewables unless one exploits the environment to exhaustion.
@@carlthor91 In the next 50 years? No way, even if we have fairly fast exponential growth in low earth orbit and the asteroids. Any significant cargo mass is not realistic even when thinking SpaceX style. Moving a thousand tonnes of refined copper to Earth from the asteroids and gently lowering that down from orbit is still science fiction for all intents and purposes. The costs would have to come down many orders of magnitude even from Musk's visions for that to be possible. You need massive infrastructure in space before any of this is possible. I however do not see any alternatives to this. The ores planet-side will run low we just keep polluting and destroying in a cumulative manner.
@@carlthor91 Blah, youtube keeps deleting my long answer. Anyway, I agree with that. I am talking about massive orbital and deep space infrastructure with a scope of 100 years and more. I fail to see how a technological society could ever stop accumulating pollution and destruction unless the mines and factories are moved outside the biosphere.
That is where the environmentalists need to put all their energy. Our seas are what keep us going on land. Keep polluting them and it could be catastrophic for us in the future.
because when you cut down trees, the environment tend to start regenerating almost imediately. but if we remove those nodules, we basically make life as we know it impossible in that part of the ocean floor.
Isn’t that the surface of the ocean, not the deep, and maybe algal? (From memory) Spoiler: we are messing with the oceans. Even AGW CO2 is changing the alkalinity.
It's so nice when papers are published openly. It's frustrating when all I can do is read a journalist's take on a paper without having the capacity to read it myself, as I haven't the benefit of access through institutional subscriptions.
... There goes the undersea environment, just like all the other environments corporations have destroyed, leading to the end of humanity, as we know it!
@@paulmorris7735Finally someone willing to stick to stick up for the poor blameless corporations. All they want to do is make as much money as possible. That obviously and clearly always leads to the most ethical solutions. That is at least until those greedy dumb consumers get involved. If only we had something to influence their behavior. Unfortunately corporations just lack any real power.
@@nNicokNo, consumer tech we don't have to buy in the first place. Educating people so they are not so stupid to go after a slightly better camera than their current model. Some people, I'm certain of it, buy a device purely for the fact it is the latest, whether or not it is anything more than marginally better. A necessary additional cost added to each device (as decided by each country) for the proper recovery of 'all' valuable metals in all devices once they are considered waste matter would be helpful. Okay, that might be quite an extra charge, but as there are plenty of people daft enough to pay out several hundred pounds for such things, and extra sum won't hurt them too much.
Naive idealism? That is a very interesting way for the mining companies to describe anything, given their claims about deep sea mining are certainly "overly optimistic", with a "lack of realistic consideration of potential outcomes", a profound "failure to account for complexities", underpinned by a "tendency to believe that good can come from anything, without critically evaluating the situation". Not only is this literally an industrial scale example of projection, but it is behaviour apparently linked to the adolescent stage of human development. Interesting that this really underpins the entire approach of capitalism to unquestioningly take what it needs from nature regardless of the impact, just to make more money. Let's not forget that "green transition" is a euphemism for "must maintain private property and ownership of the means of production".
Would be interesting to understand more about the composition and how it creates oxygen and how much of that oxygen can we safely breathe in other environments. These nodules provide essential clues that we can not and must not remove or disturb if it harms sea life.
Not always the case. I work with many mining companies, and reducing carbon footprint, minimal environmental impact and safety are very high on the priority list. Several have goals to produce "green" metal, through the use of battery powered mining equipment, renewable sourced electricity, non-nitrogen based explosive agents, alternative mineral processing methods etc etc. Where there are regulations to meet, and corporate responsibility and accountability - we can mine very clean. If there are issues with costs, then we develop new solutions to offset those costs (e.g. automation of equipment, more efficient mining methods etc). However there are a lot of companies out there that only have profit on their agenda (and politicians willing to be bought). Trump's idea to close down a lot of the US's regulatory bodies if he gets back into office is scary (e.g. EPA). For me... mining the sea floor is madness. You cannot control movement of material, sediments etc. Plus as this segment points out... these nodules may well be a lot more than dumb "metal golf balls".
Aside from genocidal agricultural practices, you have the military, fossil fuel companies and plastics industry all relying on mining companies for the raw resources. Combine that with many clearly still ongoing neocolonizer practices and methods on oppressed countries who are placed heavily in debt by the imf to clean up and deal with the health issues FROM THESE SAME PRACTICES, the forgone opportunities to develop free from ill health and debt slavery, and that's not mentioning religious tensions, gender issues and More stemming from these activities. And thats not going into the PAST atrocities that still haven't been compensated for, let alone acknowledged and forgiven. Because what company can actually have the strength to admit it's weaknesses? It must appear strong, even if that means killing and maiming millions upon millions. No issue, hands clean. 🩹🩺 If we say it in legal sounding words in a court room and don't get called out, why, there must be good evidence than, right? /$
You mentioned sharks as part of the food chain affected. It is worth noting that 90 per cent have already been eliminated through overfishing. This may have been one of your most significant eposodes so far in terms of the survival of life on our fragile and beautiful planet.
This can't be regular electrolysis - if the nodules were battery cells the batteries would be dead in a few days, but they are up to millions of years old. My guess is that the nodules host communities of micro organisms that produce O2 as a side product in the presence of a catalyst. In other words - Magic.
Excellent explanation, thanks. Indeed, hands off our oceans. Environmental deregulation and consequent degradation has gone quite far enough already wouldn't one say ... ?
Very interesting. Totally agree with you, lets not muck around with the seabed anymore than we already have without a good understanding of what we are doing.
We are told that using electrolisis for desalination of sea water it's not feasible because of the toxic chemicals it releases. So I think the why this process only makes oxigen and not the rest it's the real value of this discovery
Agreed, but if the dangers to the marine ecosystem are great, then the results could be disastrous for us all. This requires laws with real teeth, backed up if need be by real force.
That's a clever joke I hope you don't mind, that as someone who actually studied historical geocentricism in college, I always feel the need to clear up a certain popular misconception about geocentricism every time I see it brought up. Such microbes would be almost as silly as *I* was when I misunderstood the implications of geocentricism when it was actually believed. People thought that the Earth was the bottom of the universe's trash heap. All the celestial bodies were "above" Earth, better than it, and ultimately perfect. Copernicus realized no one would accept the idea that something as awesome as the Sun could be the center of the universe (bottom of a sphere) so he reimagined what center even means: he posited that the center is the proper place of a *commander* which *directs* the motions of other objects. The theoretical work of Kepler and Newton ultimately proved so successful that we can't imagine the significance of the center being any else. On second thought, without actually studding the history itself, it's actually not so silly, because it's natural for us to assume that they would feel the same way about centers as we do. Of course, they also didn't have as much light pollution as we do now; they saw the Milky Way/Celestial River *every* night. They knew just how small and insignificant they were by comparison (the famous geocentricist astronomer of Late Antiquity, Claudius Ptolemy pointed out that Earth must be imperceptibly small compared the entire rest of the Universe in order for observations of the "fixed stars" - everything except the planets, Sun and Moon - to work out). I guess the microbes should feel the same way, considering that everything else is swimming above them and they're currently at the mercy of mysterious surface-dwellers and their weird technology. Someone should turn this into a cosmic horror story.
Thanks for the excellent update, Dave. The proposition for mass-scale seabed mining was out of the question to begin with, and now even more so. A few days ago, I saw an episode on this recently released discovery; I was surprised to see, Dave, that Geo Girl is not in your list of other recommended online educators. For anyone who doesn't mind a bit more technicality, and would like to get a somewhat deeper understanding of the possible processes behind the O² producing Electric Potatoes, I recommend checking it out.
Reminds me of the French people who made pulse fishing prohibited. Right now they are destroying the bottom of the entire ocean and on top of that, they need a lot of energy to actually do that. The Dutch somehow found out a technique where they put a little bit of electricity through some wires out there, it's called pulse fishing and then the fish come out of the bottom in a very similar way as destroying the bottom. It's very safe, you don't have to destroy the bottom of the ocean any more and it get's a lot less expensive once you have the technology. The Dutch fishermen invested in this technology and performed awesome. Partly because energy is very expensive in The Netherlands and this way they didn't need a lot, but also because they do care about the environment. The French fishermen on the other hand didn't care about the environment at all and got a disadvantage because they never invested in new technologies. Obviously France is much bigger then The Netherlands and had a much bigger vote within the EU. Because of this, they simply asked the EU to make this technology illegal and all the Dutch fishermen could essentially throw their boats away. The French lied about just about everything around it and to the day of today destroy the bottom of the oceans. It's disgusting what French people and especially their politicians in charge at the time are like. Without the French, the bottom of the oceans would have been a lot more healthy, especially in and around the entire EU.
And this is how the world works. The Clipperton zone will be mined out. No small % of temporary oxygen generation is going to save it from destruction. We need economic growth or we can kiss our wealthy lifestyles a great farewell
This deep-sea stuff sounds more and more like an episode of Gerry Anderson's old 'Thunderbirds' TV series. Another disaster waiting to happen. One of those nodule mining vehicles (Vacuumatron 5) is going to blunder across a gigantic rubber bung at the bottom of the ocean; it'll get caught up in an enormous chain, then pull the plug and let all of the world's water go rushing down a monstrous plughole, thus scuppering Lady Penelope's plans to host a boating regatta and garden party in distant Henley-on-Thames. International Rescue will arrive at the site of the deep-sea catastrophe; Thunderbird 2 will release Pod 6, containing Thunderbird 4 and Brains's latest bit of techno-kit which will descend to the ocean floor and deploy an aquatic Mole fitted with a robotic mastic gun... Meanwhile, arch-villain The Hood will - Sorry. Got a bit carried away, there...
You and me both on the crappy crazy Idea about sea bed mining. The Japanese are considering doing the dastardly deed themselves. And yes the scientist studying O2 at the sea floor and couldn't figure out why the O2 was high when it should be less and it wasn't. Then the light bulb came on. Until they can pluck the nodules without disturbing the surrounding sea bed it's an absolute NO.
It's still a no, unless we can demonstrate that even carefully removing the nodules won't harm the seafloor ecosystem. The fact that they produce oxygen is the game changer here.
its clear this will have untold side-effects, so what if regulators immediately focus on sustainability regulation while they figure out the full consequences of large-scale mining? similar to selective logging rather than forest clearcutting. like "OK mining companies, you can only mine X percentage of each nautical square mile of seabed and leave a gap of X meters between sections you vacuum"
(Electro-)chemical reactions tend toward equilibrium. I read the bulk of the research paper and it left me wondering if changing ocean acidity due to CO2 absorption is the energy source for the reaction. My electro-chemistry lectures were over 5 decades ago so I have no idea if this thought has any “legs”! If acidity is driving the reaction it would be another impact of climate change.
Thank you for presenting this new paper and the context surrounding it. It has been suggested that two modules touching could increase the electrical potential difference. I'm curious regarding the fate of the H2 that may also be released. I look forward to further research regarding this non-solar source O2 in that ecological system.
I work in an extraction industry, and I realize the need for these minerals and materials for our current way of life around the world. But I have been growing increasingly concerned by what I feel is an excessive extraction of materials globally to support unbridled consumption from all extraction/commodity industries. I get that many people and nations around the world want the things that are available, especially those nations just now becoming industrialized and digitized, and so many of those people do not care about many ecological concerns and such. But I feel we are just ready and willing to destroy any and all ecosystems in a desperate attempt to have the good finer things in life, while at the same time destroying our own futures. I have to wonder if there's not another way we should be living that is more in harmony with nature, uses our resources better, while at the same time isn't sending ourselves back to the stone age and or totalitarian dystopias to do it? Wind and solar isn't the fix here, there are things we need and can only get from oil. Mining will have to continue too, but is there a better way? Something to ponder on.
I agree. I spent a career in Co, Ta, Nb ("coltan") metals uses, capacitors, containers, catalysts. Wonderful materials if you intentionally remain happily unaware of where they come from, the mines, the people, the corruption, the devastation. We are inexorably replacing any beauty of the natural world with ugliness. Look around, the most gorgeous natural wonders are only accessible with timed tickets and shuttle buses. There is even tourism beginning to Antarctica. There is no tech fix to human behavior.
Concerning metalic compoud only: what do you recon? (I ask for an educated guess) how much of the demand could be met with effective and smart recycling?
The planetary functions being destroyed are essential for us to live. The functions provided by those processes are not. Simple as that. We do not need more shiny addictive crap. I hope this whole dystopic tech obsession collapses completely and we go back to direct interaction with the living world. We have grown more advanced, but mental health has been dropping in direct relation to our acquirement of excessive luxuries. Anna Lembke made it clear that the mindless quest for pleasure has consequences. It'd be nice to halt this destructive momentum and shift our goals to actual needs.
@@rebny7801 Good question. It's a concentration gradient. For Ta, very little is recycled. We dilute it so much (e.g., 20mg in a cell phone), vs how Nature presents it, it's easier to dig it up. Au/Ag/PGMs are recycled a lot, but mining still goes on.
Everything has batteries and computer chips in it nowadays, and these objects are then thrown away instead of repaired. Think of all the wasted minerals...
It seems a bit odd that research on metal noodles found out that catalysts can decrease the generally accepted absolute minimum voltage required for splitting water, after billions and billions of dollars/pounds have gone into research about electrolysis. The minimum required 1.23 volt is considered the "theoretical limit". Catalysts can potentially help make meaningful electrolysis happen closer to that limit, passing the limit requires magic.
@@UsualYaddaYaddaNah, the anodic and cathodic sites are very close together, as tiny little patches scattered all over each nodule. Two nodules touching wouldn’t really make a difference. These aren’t like your standard AA battery…
Shoutout to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Anybody else thinking about conservation of energy and increase in entropy? I find the paper's statement "Whereas questions remain concerning this potential mechanism such as the identity of the energy source(s)..." wholly unsatisfying. Maybe we should identify where the energy comes from before the science media inserts the idea into the public consciousness.
"Dissimilar metals and alloys have different electrode potentials, and when two or more come into contact in an electrolyte, one metal (that is more reactive) acts as anode and the other (that is less reactive) as cathode. The electropotential difference between the reactions at the two electrodes is the driving force for an accelerated attack on the anode metal, which dissolves into the electrolyte." Anyone with a basic understanding of physics should know the "why". However, I doubt that those nodules will produce large amounts of oxygen while undisturbed.
@@Mp57navyThere are no metals here. Metal ions and oxides, but no pure metals or alloys as we would use in batteries. This is a rather different process and the paper openly admits they don’t really understand it.
Those nodules provide minerals for the ocean life. The nodules on the seabed, particularly polymetallic nodules, are rich in minerals like manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt. While they are of interest for potential deep-sea mining due to their metal content, these nodules also play a role in the ocean ecosystem. They can also serve as habitats for various marine organisms, contributing to the biodiversity of the deep-sea environment.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
I'm not fan of sea floor mining, and I'm glad we are looking for the proof that it's a bad idea. This article has gotten a lot of coverage lately and there is one thing that bugs me. It seems we have "batteries" that do not need charging to do work separating hydrogen from oxygen. That seems a lot like free energy, or perpetual motion. How are the batteries charged? If it's a chemical reaction and not an electrical process, where do those chemicals come from for millennia? I also noticed that we talk about increased oxygen being found, but not hydrogen, maybe an oversight but if electrolysis is separating water, where's the hydrogen? I look forward to your future coverage of this topic, and to learning more about these new processes.
@@XGD5layer It cant be either or the effect wouldn't be observable on the surface. the electricity comes from the nodules electrons moving about thanks to various process within the metal. There's definitely nothing in it for power generation and we don't really need it anyway. The battery tech that uses these metals is going out of date and mining these things is only being suggested for the metals.
Have to admit, when I first heard about these nodules I thought it was a grea tidea to collect them. Then I found out about the method and changed my mind. But this now is surely the end of the matter.
The problem I have, is that nobody has talked about the nodules that are below the levels of the vacuum system. There should be millions and millions of years of nodules, setting on layers and layers of sediment. It's no different than the idea that man has collected all of the gold, because it no longer just sits on the surface, where prospectors were able to just walk along rivers, streams and find nuggets just sitting on bedrock. Far too many people, who don't understand mining, and prospecting, don't understand that there is much more to be had, than what is seen on the surface, or even just below the surface. As an example, the biggest nuggets ever found, were dug out by mining and excavating. With the size of these deep bed fields, there should be enough surface material, that is easily accessible, to reduce surface mining for many years to come. Allowing the land to heal.
Pleas excuse my non-educated question. I supose the battery you droped in the glass of water was charged and will electrolyse the water until it is fully discharged, then the reaction will stop. If I am right, what "recharges" the deep sea nodules?
Potential difference between chemical elements, the same reason you can't connect aluminum and copper. The metals in nodules are very, very slowly corroding. When they're consumed completely, the oxygen production would stop.
You understood perfectly. We have no idea where the energy for growing the nodules is coming from. They are discharging at a high enough rate that they should have stopped long ago. Something else is causing them to keep growing despite this reaction. I would think that it is deep sea Sulphur bacteria which are causing them to grow.
There's an alternative explanation regarding the DOP surge, the increased silt itself. Potentially, the source of the energy could be organic decomposition of silt material by bacteria. Going out on an absolute limb, it may be broadly analogous to nitrogen fixing bacteria. They do it for their own purposes, but results in excess nitrogen production. Perhaps the system has evolved to generate oxygen that way for biological purposes, it just does so in excess of need.
THAT was one of the coolest things I've watched in ages! The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …” - Isaac Asimov
@@titahibayflier3160 Yes, it is possible to generate a couple of volts. The issue is the energy (not voltage) that is required to crack water. Energy must come from somewhere, and be constantly replenished as the 'battery' runs down, or it stops working.
@@Devo491 I don't know if you know this but almost everything stores an enormous amount of Energy. its just not usually harnessed as a low voltage output only. The metals these are made from are packed full of energy to give. and plenty of electrons to move around and cause things to happen for a very long time.
@@Sgt.chickens I can't think of any process that would harvest this boundless source of energy, other than radioactive decay. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Discovering the mechanism in detail might help us develop new catalysts for cracking water. On the other hand geologists think they have already accounted for most of the O2 in the oceans, so this might be a small contribution. Still a terrible idea to strip mine it
I first became aware of these nodules' existence 50 years ago. Our high school debating topic was international regulation of scarce world resources. I've been interested that although debating about the mining of these nodules was happening back then. Nothing seemed to happen with exploiting the metallic nodules. But the discovery of oxgen generation by these nodules is just astounding!
Hopefully the need for such undersea minerals will vanish as we continue transitioning to better battery chemistries, and ideally begin mining in space.
So the nodules provide a catalyst. An they somehow generate an electrical potential. But for an ongoing endothermic process we still need continuous energy input. Where does the energy come from? That crucial bit does not become obvious, unless I am missing something?
Remember that movie where they discovered a species of ants in the jungle that produced a chemical that cured cancer or something, but then the habitat of the ants was destroyed by people for farming, and the ants all died. Sean Connery was in it
Maybe it depends on how the nodules are mined. Vacuuming might not be the best way to to it. I have seen proposals to use some sort of pick up sticks as an alternative to vacuuming. Iy might also make sense to leave some nodules behind. What we are talking about is vast areas and relatively small amount of extraction. I am not so keen on land mining and it's enviromental destruction. There apears to me that there is enough area here that experments in mining can be carried out to determine the enviromental impacts and possible medication procedures needed keep enviromental impacts to a minimum. I would say it makes sense to do some mining to find out what the effects are and see if such mining should continue or expand.
Perhaps you missed that that is what the first paper reports on... 26 years later, no recovery. *How* I extract the oxygen from your atmosphere makes no difference to your capacity to breath and live... I doubt further ecocidal research, to see how much harm we can translocate both out of sight and mind, is necessary.
a huge ammount of the critical bacteria and microbes in the ecosystem live ON the nodules. we cant remove them and there is no sensible economic reason too.
Oh wow, this is so cool! And if it's true (as it certainly seems to be) this should be the death knell for underwater mining. This dark oxygen production almost seems like a natural cycle... Almost. But unlike the nitrogen cycle, it sounds like the undersea life here depends upon the nodules for oxygen production but can't influence the creation of the nodules in any way. The process of precipitation is completely inorganic, so there's no feedback effect. I don't know how likely it is that anyone will do this, but an obvious next step to me would be to create our own artificial nodules, and put them in the spots that were denuded by the experimental mining. The artificial nodule wouldn't have to be exactly like the real thing, maybe it could be as simple as sturdy, waterproof batteries that have a voltage in the same range. Put them down there where the real nodules used to be, and see if the ocean life starts to return to the area.
during my studies at the university (I studied mining), I calculated the AVG travel distance of an AVG sized/formed deep sea floor sediment particle for the common setting/fluid mechanics in the clarion clipperton zone. It was an investigation to select the less harmful but still profitable way of mining an exemplary field of manganese nodules. My results were that on average a particle would travel 3.1 miles (5 km) until it settles which would even increase the area that is affected by the deep sea mining machines (crawlers with a suction pipe). The avg area that is covered would kill around 92% of living species known from the floor of the ocean that can be found in that zone as prior studies had discovered need to be exposed to the clean water above the floor. I recommended that it might be profitable but definitely not worth it based on the trend of the rare earths and metals that the nodules contain. I did that study in 2014 and now seeing these results amazes me a lot! This got me straight into supporting the counter movement to deep sea mining.
Hopefully mining on land in the western countires (Americas, Europe, Greenland, Australia, other) will increase quickly so electrification can continue. Recent reports on minining on land in Indonesia has caused significant harm to farming in remote portions of this country. Need to quickly find these minerals for production of batteries.
I had read this in an ECO magazine I get, and I have no doubt that destructive mining in this zone will be just as bad, if not worse, that what is done above sea level. I also believe that the mongrels that run mining companies will not care one bit about the ecology down there if it stands in the way of making money. We have a segment of humanity that will never prioritize our environment over potential profit even to the point where they know that they are causing serious harm to the long-term habitability of the planet. I know we are all responsible in some way because we create the demand that makes these mining ventures viable and that is another area where work has to be done. Because these nodules are in the open ocean and belong to no one country it makes it more likely that a company can illegally harvest them, and I am in no doubt this will happen. The more time goes by the more I believe that humans are acting like any organism that breeds up to plague proportions and they will suffer the same fate, using up all the resources that give them life till there is no more and then entering a mass dieback and maybe extinction.
This is amazing. The implication this has for marine ecosystems are huge - and therefore it is of upmost importance that we keep on working to expose the flaws and dangers with deep sea mining. Keep on spreading this message so that we hopefully can avoid deep sea mining.
Try google scholar and look up ‘bacterial batteries’. They’ve been researched for a long time and operate on similar principles. The amount of energy they can deliver is very small though, and the rate they can deliver it at is extremely slow so it’s not likely they will be contributing to grid storage or EVs or anything. One possible use is to help remove toxic heavy metals in sewage processing plants by harnessing the energy produced by bacteria breaking down sulphates from detergents and food waste to power a system which precipitates heavy metals as oxide particles which settle and can be easily filtered out, without needing to use any grid power.
I don't see anything in the paper about them accounting for pressure during the reaction? From what I find activation overpotential is reduced at higher pressures while it pushes current density up a lot. If these are cause/effect I do not know but there certainly is an effect already at a few bars, and at 8-10bar it is already significant.
Where is the energy coming from, the energy that is going into separating the oxygen from the hydrogen? Is some other reaction releasing the energy and, if so, what are the reaction products? You would think these nodules are relatively stable, having had a long time to reach equilibrium. Electrolysis of water requires a lot of energy as we all know.
"Grandpa, was there still life on Earth when you were a boy?" "Yes, son there was." "Why didn't you stop it from dying?" "Because, I didn't want to give up comfort, great returns on my investments, or a system that I thought was the best thing man ever invented..." "So, you knew it was dying?" "Sigh... I did... We all did... Now, you get to sleep lil one. We need our rest, so we can go outside tomorrow and patch the shelter before our air starts leaking out..."
One way to protect these modules (or at least to lower their economic value) is to promote research into using other metals (e.g. sodium) for EV batteries
Excellent scientific report, thx a lot! It helps, so I don't have to read all those white paper from Nature magazine😉 Great benefit of all those precious metals is that they can be neverendingly recycled and returned back to the market and reused again. This is probably the BIGGEST benefit in comparison to fossil fuels which once burnt r gone in the atmosphere causing climate change. The only problem is to find the MOST efficient and LESS harmful way to extract them from earth. I am sure we have thrown many of them in the landfill so maybe we should look there as well😁before digging new holes and creating next mines. Regarding deep sea mining we should agree on what is sustainable and what isn't. I am sure nature is OK if we take some, but it's definitely NOT OK if we take over too much and with it destroy delicate balance which hold things together in this amazing supersystem. It's great to watch us humans going through this VERY IMPACTFUL as well as revolutionary transition. As Hopi natives from America mentioned in their drawing we will get to crossroad which one leads to death and suffering and other to survival and great growth of humanity. The decision is completely in our hands so don't blame god😉
As a sustainability professor who has looked closely at this, I have concluded that all manner of biospheric degradations will be necessary to achieve net zero. Put simply, we are in the unfortunate position of either being able to protect the biosphere and the species with which we co-habit the planet, or we can strive to achieve net zero. We cannot do both. Unfortunately, the notion of moving purposefully towards ambitious net zero targets whilst treading lightly on fragile habitats is for the birds. Watch this space, the next 15 - 20 years will involve some quite horrendous compromises on our ecological principles whilst we strive to extract the minerals necessary to ensure our long-term survival. The diminishing mineral reserves and the sheer scale of operation needed to extract those minerals from sources of decreasing purity will necessitate disrupting more and more precious habitats. The real issue we have is that some of the richest remaining mineral reserves are also located in some of the last remaining ecologically viable terrains. Frankly, I'm sick of feeling ashamed of being human. I'm ready to live differently - even if it means living with very little electricity or modern comforts.
Sustainability Professor... sounds oxymoronic. We can't sustain 'this' or even something close to this. I'm glad that my job is not to seriously consider the vapid. Ensuring our long term future is, as you hint at the end of your post, less technofuturist. I reckon that the wise thinking is on unscaring ourselves of a different future narrative. Check out The Dark Mountain Project, for example.
It’s a shame that to come to these conclusions, a rather large amount of knowledge and experience is needed. The vast majority of humans don’t have that, but really like shiny things and going vroom. We’re probably doomed as a result. Oh well.
@@UsualYaddaYadda I write for Dark Mountain. Glad to hear you're a fan. You'll also find my musings on Mongabay which is equally worthwhile. And yes, the role of 'sustainability professor' in a world heading towards inevitable collapse is indeed oxymoronic (and, increasingly, just simply moronic).
I think your laughing if you think nickel balls for battery tech that's becoming outdated it "critical for our survival" every car becoming and electric car will not Save the planet or make any meaningful dent in our impact on the environment. Cars also produce the most CO2 and other contaminants when they are created, Its cleaner to invest in synthetic fuel technology and keep old cars running than it is to replace every car with an EV. EV's have their place, but they are not a be all end all and no serious science is suggesting they are in any form.
This also opens up questions for the first life on earth,the first terraforming,giving rise to sponges and calcium carbonate creatures de-acidifying the ocean's allowing for more evolution of us,and perhaps under ocean's on many many moons and planetoids in the solar system and beyond
I really hope that you will have a follow up on thus topic as it is absolutely fascinating! It raises so many questions like; how long does a given nodule remains active in oxygen production, can these nodules ‘recharge’ in some fashion, what conditions are necessary for the creation of these nodules and why don’t they ‘discharge’ already during their apparently slow creation … just from the top of my head.
I wouldnt be surprised at this point if some tech sector entrepreneur eventually makes a billion dollars burning off all the oxygen on earth & killing off all life on the only planet with life.
Thank you for all your great work. A lot of the channels focused on new technologies that will have an impact on our current climate crisis tend to focus on the positives and not reflect on the long-term consequences of each approach, that's never the case with your videos you really help us have think!
The rover landing found also be releasing trapped Oxygen from the sediment. There is also a very high pressure present. That will affect the mechanisms responsible for the production of nodules, the nodules structures, and the electrolytic processes.
The catalyst idea would neatly explain the ability to split water at a lower voltage, but how can these batteries still be active if they have been there for millions of years?
they have to be growing from some other process. someone suggested Sulphur bacteria might be reducing the metal ions as a byproduct of their metabolism. I would think that the nodules could be the habitat for such bacteria. like coral being the habitat for smaller organisms which then grow the coral; these nodules could be that habitat and are similarly grown by bacteria. If that is the case, we would know to leave some nodules to recolonize the region mined. That is assuming bacteria are the energy source for the nodule growth. Another issue is if it would even be problematic to remove them given that coal, oil, and gas formed from organic matter being trapped in an oxygen poor environment. If nodule mining removes oxygen from the deep sea then any organic matter that was deposited there would not be converted into co2. thus a large co2 sink would have formed.
This seems to make the rounds. First I heard it from LPIndie (german science channel), then Anto Petrov, GEO GIRL, now Dr Ben Miles, and of course you. Thanks for explaining the technical details in even more detail, like the meaning of cavities inside the manganese balls, and water turbulence.
Dave, you might want to update your information. Aotearoa New Zealand has since voted in a regressive government that wants to "fast track" and place sea bed decisions in the hands of a single MP without the need for environmental checks and balances. They have rolled back all sorts of environmental protections already.
Ah we are so collectively stupid.
I expect better from New Zealand. You are usually way ahead of us Australians when it comes to environmental and many other issues.
@@jnawk83 it’s quite a bit nicer on the natural timeline. This one is a bit… umm… incesty… 😒
@@jnawk83most a sheeply agreeing to any s h i t s ,entities come up with,to destroy our planet😅
After nucklear testing,Ring of Fire should deal with this s h i t..😂
At least they are not hiding😊
@@MrDino1953 sadly, we just make better crafted empty soundbites truth be told.
Frik, a kiwi telling an strayan not to feel bad coz we're worse... black is white, up is down & kiwis having a " we fuck up more things pissing match". The joys of living in a post truth world, eh? :(
...I saw a vid of Australia dumping old wind turbines in the outback - I was surprised you didn't put them in the desert, but regardless, wind turbines are a flawed idea but at least you have lots of land you can dispose of them into without being a major drama, which I know is not the point... however, the shaky isles on the other hand....
Very interesting research. I'm not a chemist but an engineer. From my limited understanding of the electrolysis of seawater is that hydrogen and oxygen are released as well as chlorides being broken away from the salts in the water. This then leaves a load of sodium, magnesium and potassium which can react with free hydroxide ions to become sodium hydroxide etc. What is great about that is that these hydroxide compounds can react with CO2 in that they swap out the hydroxide with CO2 and become sodium carbonate, magnesium carbonate etc. In short what I mean is that with further research it may show that this process is linked to the oceans ability to absorb CO2 which would once again show the incredible importance of these nodules.
I thought that with my limited chemistry passing a current through brine, the mix breaks down in to NaOH, Cl2, H2, or for normal folk "Sodium hydroxide", "Chlorine", "hydrogen".
which electrode produces the oxygen and where does the spare oxygen come from? You can see the oxygen moves from the H2O (water) to the sodium to form a hydroxide as the sodium chloride and water breaks apart. this leaves hydrogen and chlorine gas to bubble up.
Now I've not done this for many years, but remember never being told don't add salt to water to reduce it's resistance if you want to pass current through it. Chlorine is not very nice to breath in. But normal disclaimer I could be wrong 🙂
Please don't let them suck these up ...
We did that in the 1980s and haven't seen anything grow back in that area since.
If this guy were around in 1600, he'd be against farming.
Tsk tsk tsk @@hg2. At least give a comparison that makes sense.
Farming was already a well established practice. One could say that mining is already a well established practice too. So you've got a good starting point, but it's nothing but the bread.
Now to create humor with the comparison, you would need to adjust the correlation with the novel, typically in a way that is unexpected. In this case, the novel concept being something that is highly profitable and previously thought impossible.
So, you would want to say something like "If this guy were around in 1600, he'd be against climbing Mount Everest."
Or
"If this guy were around in 1600, he'd be against the British East India Company."
The first being an uplifting example of human ingenuity, and the second being a sinister dig at the domino effect that led to chattel slavery.
@@Sugar3Glider
So?
He's still an anti-progress, anti-human, obstructionist.
@@hg2.It's a completely different case here and then guess... I'm an agronomist and everything we're trying now is to reduce the bad effects of the "green revolution" 🤣
@@petrektek1385
Like those idiots in Holland and Sri Lanka?
If we didn't have independent analysis and reporting from channels like JHAT, nobody would know what is going on and bad actors would be free to cause damage. Well done, Sir.
The mining companies will get their way😢
The whole industry is monitored and policed by ISA (a UN organization). It is highly regulated.
You do realise that the study he is described was made for and paid by a deap sea mining company....
@@MaartenVanNuffel Yeah and they(The Metals Company) are trying to dispute it. Similar to Exxon's reaction to their own early global warming studies.
It's been reported absolutely everywhere. USA today, CNN, popular mechanics. It's all over the Internet on all the major news outlets. This is not a piece that's getting pushed under the rug.
I think it is quite likely that these nodules are not just passively precipitated concretions. In order to keep producing a voltage, something must be replenishing the redox imbalance to both grow the nodules and keep that voltage from decaying.
I highly suspect that the active component is bacterial colonies reducing something like sulphur compounds in the silt, and oxidising metal ions. Sulphur reducing bacteria are common everywhere, and definitely exist in benthic silts. The end result is something akin to a stromatolite colony, but without the air-water interface so they just grow spherically (or potato shaped).
I love this hypothesis. We really need a 10 year moratorium at least!!
Could be the natural potential of the earth as well. The earth is a huge dynamo that interacts with the sun, seeing as to how this area is far closer to the core, maybe the magnetic field and the interactions of all that have something to do with it as well?
@@effervescentrelief Probably not, tbh. The earth’s magnetic field is pretty weak. In the ocean, salt water is quite a good conductor, so any voltage difference, whether caused by chemical or magnetic processes is severely limited in range, to at most a few millimetres. Also, to produce a voltage, magnetic fields have to be rapidly changing, not constant intensity like the Earth’s magnetic field.
I think we can be fairly confident this is just an electro-chemical process but it’ll be fascinating to learn more about the details.
It would seem odd how the reaction could go on for thousands of years if someting wasn't adding energy to the system, replenishing the anode/cathode and/or exposing new material. Since we know the nodules grow slowly over the millenia, there must be some mechanism to deposit new minerals and new potential energy. The seawater in essence short circuits the metal compounds in the nodule and discharge the potential energy from them as seawater is fairly conductive. Even if there is a lot of resistance in the nodule surface, how can they keep electrolyzing significant quantities of water over millenia without some form of energy input without depleting themselves?
I’ve seen many of videos posted on these nodules the past week and no one addresses the fact that this process needs energy. They aren’t magic rocks. Your theory is interesting that there is a biological process going on as well.
Ok, I'm going to read the paper. Naturally, your Duracell will discharge and the reaction inside the cell will stop along with the reduction of oxygen from water going on outside the cell. For these nodules to produce a voltage implies that they are being oxidized while the H20 is being reduced. And yet the nodules are slowly growing, implying that metal oxides are being reduced to elemental metals, which are added to their mass. You can't have reduction of the metals AND reduction of the oxygen both going on. That is an obvious violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
So what on earth is going on here? Off I go now to read the paper.
Feel free to post back your understanding after reading the paper (for those of us who likely can't comprehend it).
Something with the pressure of the deep????
Exactly. This is clearly bad science making the rounds and it's really bothering me. Are the nodules the poop of bacterial colonies, and the bacteria are producing oxygen?
It seems that the nodules aren’t pure metals at all. They’re highly oxidised. So if you have Fe(II) and Mn(II) ions in seawater, they’re getting oxidised further, to solid oxides Fe(III), Mn(III) and Mn(IV). Same goes for nickel and cobalt I guess.
Still, it’s an odd reaction. Part of it seems to be due to depth and pressure, where the metal carbonate-forming reaction is less thermodynamically preferred to direct oxidation.
I do wonder if a biological process is a contributing factor though. The paper does mention some nodules in some areas are at least partly biologically formed, but says this is a minor part and only in some small areas. More research needed?
_Maybe there are other mechanisms reducing the metal oxides back to lower oxidation forms, or back to the metallic state?_
_Maybe microorganism action (bacteria, algae...)?_
Amazing that Sweetman was able to publish a paper that goes against the interest of the company sponsoring his research.
Yeah bcoz exxon hid the papers when it's scientists discovered the consequences of burning fossil fuel
Do you remember the Koch brothers sponsoring The Berkeley Earth Project? The funding stopped as soon as the result were published.
The company was so convinced that their mining them would be completely harmless they paid for it. I really don't blame them for feeling this way, if you look at the abyssal sea floor it really looks like a barren desert. fascinating stuff.
1 thing remains constant, all mine operators & commercial fish farms claim no harm to the environment. Their denial has been debunked over & over. Basically all large scale human activities are bad for the environment IMO!
It's okay. The grave is big enough for everyone!
John Oliver just did an episode on this
Agreed.
We're destroying everywhere we go.
As long as the people trust govt. of protect anything except their interest, our species might become extinct. This concentration of power attracts the psychopaths, who dominate politics. If you vote or support the present political paradigm that exists worldwide, you are self-enslaving, endangering yourself and me. STOP IT! Grow up! Act like an adult and self govern for maximum protection of everyone. It's only logical.
Apparently these nodules provide minerals for the ocean life. The nodules on the seabed, particularly polymetallic nodules, are rich in minerals like manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt. While they are of interest for potential deep-sea mining due to their metal content, these nodules also play a role in the ocean ecosystem. They can also serve as habitats for various marine organisms, contributing to the biodiversity of the deep-sea environment.
Even before this research came out, there were no good reasons to permit seabed mining since so many major players have pledged not to buy minerals obtained that way and transition technologies are rapidly removing the need for many such minerals in the first place. Promises from the mining interests to do no damage and take only the minimum necessary ring very hollow; how many times has such altruism overcome simple greed in the past?
Thus the very reason Capitalism will never usher in green technology efficiently nor effectively. There is not profit in renewables unless one exploits the environment to exhaustion.
It's starting to look more and more like we need to move mining and heavy industry into space.
@@wombatillo Having worked in mining all of my adult life.
Riight, in a few hundred years, it will be a done deal.
In the next 50 years, meh, NO.
@@carlthor91 In the next 50 years? No way, even if we have fairly fast exponential growth in low earth orbit and the asteroids. Any significant cargo mass is not realistic even when thinking SpaceX style. Moving a thousand tonnes of refined copper to Earth from the asteroids and gently lowering that down from orbit is still science fiction for all intents and purposes. The costs would have to come down many orders of magnitude even from Musk's visions for that to be possible. You need massive infrastructure in space before any of this is possible. I however do not see any alternatives to this. The ores planet-side will run low we just keep polluting and destroying in a cumulative manner.
@@carlthor91 Blah, youtube keeps deleting my long answer. Anyway, I agree with that. I am talking about massive orbital and deep space infrastructure with a scope of 100 years and more. I fail to see how a technological society could ever stop accumulating pollution and destruction unless the mines and factories are moved outside the biosphere.
This is THE coolest scientific news I have heard in a long time!
I'm hoping this leads to a breakthrough in passive cheap hydrogen generation for fuel maybe. That would be huge.
or perhaps a forever battery
@@Oxygenep12 Hydrogen is the future!, problem is it will always be the future.
We cut down a lot of trees already.
But the ocean produces the most amount of oxygen. I hope they better not mess with the ocean
That is where the environmentalists need to put all their energy. Our seas are what keep us going on land. Keep polluting them and it could be catastrophic for us in the future.
Bingo! You two are right on point and even this guy seems to not mention in his video.
The ground takes a long time to lead to the water. The oceans will remain relatively less polluted and can serve as a safe haven.
because when you cut down trees, the environment tend to start regenerating almost imediately. but if we remove those nodules, we basically make life as we know it impossible in that part of the ocean floor.
Isn’t that the surface of the ocean, not the deep, and maybe algal? (From memory)
Spoiler: we are messing with the oceans. Even AGW CO2 is changing the alkalinity.
It's so nice when papers are published openly. It's frustrating when all I can do is read a journalist's take on a paper without having the capacity to read it myself, as I haven't the benefit of access through institutional subscriptions.
sci hub
@@OilUp2024I thought they’d killed that?
@@OilUp2024 Thank you! I will check it out.
@@QuestionMan you need thor browser though or a vpn because it might be blocked :)
Googling "sci-hub mirrors" usually brings up those that are available at the time. That's worked for me almost without exception for several years now
... There goes the undersea environment, just like all the other environments corporations have destroyed, leading to the end of humanity, as we know it!
Its consumer demand that inspires and finances corporate activity, Stop blaming the symptoms and address the causes. Our consumer habits!
@@paulmorris7735 You mean consumer demand that's manufactured by corporations that sell tech that doesn't last so you have to buy more?
@@nNicok"have to"?
@@paulmorris7735Finally someone willing to stick to stick up for the poor blameless corporations. All they want to do is make as much money as possible. That obviously and clearly always leads to the most ethical solutions. That is at least until those greedy dumb consumers get involved. If only we had something to influence their behavior. Unfortunately corporations just lack any real power.
@@nNicokNo, consumer tech we don't have to buy in the first place.
Educating people so they are not so stupid to go after a slightly better camera than their current model. Some people, I'm certain of it, buy a device purely for the fact it is the latest, whether or not it is anything more than marginally better.
A necessary additional cost added to each device (as decided by each country) for the proper recovery of 'all' valuable metals in all devices once they are considered waste matter would be helpful.
Okay, that might be quite an extra charge, but as there are plenty of people daft enough to pay out several hundred pounds for such things, and extra sum won't hurt them too much.
Naive idealism? That is a very interesting way for the mining companies to describe anything, given their claims about deep sea mining are certainly "overly optimistic", with a "lack of realistic consideration of potential outcomes", a profound "failure to account for complexities", underpinned by a "tendency to believe that good can come from anything, without critically evaluating the situation".
Not only is this literally an industrial scale example of projection, but it is behaviour apparently linked to the adolescent stage of human development. Interesting that this really underpins the entire approach of capitalism to unquestioningly take what it needs from nature regardless of the impact, just to make more money. Let's not forget that "green transition" is a euphemism for "must maintain private property and ownership of the means of production".
I suspect it's the "dark production" of oxygen (as opposed to by photosynthesis), rather than the production of "dark oxygen".
"Dark" here means "nature unexplained", like dark matter, dark energy or dark stars (now black holes)
so with oxygen generation, and warmth from geothermal vents...
could life exist with no sun light at all?
Anaerobic dead zones played major roles in past mass extinction events.
Plot twist. Destroying Ecosystem has consequences
Whoa! Didn't see that coming...
Maybe there was a clue but perhaps I was munching popcorn and missed it.
@@UsualYaddaYadda yeah there was some foreshadow with that whole ozone hole thing.
If this guy were around in 1600, he'd be against farming.
Balances required or maybe we should just go live in the caves again
@@hg2.Stupid argument.
Would be interesting to understand more about the composition and how it creates oxygen and how much of that oxygen can we safely breathe in other environments. These nodules provide essential clues that we can not and must not remove or disturb if it harms sea life.
it is so omnious, this power of large companies. Of all branches, Mining companies have the lowest standards of integrety, if they have any at all
Not always the case. I work with many mining companies, and reducing carbon footprint, minimal environmental impact and safety are very high on the priority list. Several have goals to produce "green" metal, through the use of battery powered mining equipment, renewable sourced electricity, non-nitrogen based explosive agents, alternative mineral processing methods etc etc. Where there are regulations to meet, and corporate responsibility and accountability - we can mine very clean. If there are issues with costs, then we develop new solutions to offset those costs (e.g. automation of equipment, more efficient mining methods etc).
However there are a lot of companies out there that only have profit on their agenda (and politicians willing to be bought). Trump's idea to close down a lot of the US's regulatory bodies if he gets back into office is scary (e.g. EPA).
For me... mining the sea floor is madness. You cannot control movement of material, sediments etc. Plus as this segment points out... these nodules may well be a lot more than dumb "metal golf balls".
Aside from genocidal agricultural practices, you have the military, fossil fuel companies and plastics industry all relying on mining companies for the raw resources. Combine that with many clearly still ongoing neocolonizer practices and methods on oppressed countries who are placed heavily in debt by the imf to clean up and deal with the health issues FROM THESE SAME PRACTICES, the forgone opportunities to develop free from ill health and debt slavery, and that's not mentioning religious tensions, gender issues and More stemming from these activities. And thats not going into the PAST atrocities that still haven't been compensated for, let alone acknowledged and forgiven. Because what company can actually have the strength to admit it's weaknesses? It must appear strong, even if that means killing and maiming millions upon millions. No issue, hands clean. 🩹🩺 If we say it in legal sounding words in a court room and don't get called out, why, there must be good evidence than, right? /$
You mentioned sharks as part of the food chain affected. It is worth noting that 90 per cent have already been eliminated through overfishing. This may have been one of your most significant eposodes so far in terms of the survival of life on our fragile and beautiful planet.
This can't be regular electrolysis - if the nodules were battery cells the batteries would be dead in a few days, but they are up to millions of years old.
My guess is that the nodules host communities of micro organisms that produce O2 as a side product in the presence of a catalyst. In other words - Magic.
Better than some 2 bit De Vinci attempt. Excellent graphics and indepth analysis
Ol lispy himself. I can’t stand listening to that grifter.
Oh the pun…
You can almost always rely on Dave to bring this kind of content!
Excellent explanation, thanks. Indeed, hands off our oceans. Environmental deregulation and consequent degradation has gone quite far enough already wouldn't one say ... ?
Very interesting. Totally agree with you, lets not muck around with the seabed anymore than we already have without a good understanding of what we are doing.
We are told that using electrolisis for desalination of sea water it's not feasible because of the toxic chemicals it releases. So I think the why this process only makes oxigen and not the rest it's the real value of this discovery
I always thought you got hydrogen & chlorine when you electrolysed sea water,
Maybe instead of photosynthesis we have electrosynthesis?
The chemicals come from the anodes and cathodes used. Exotic materials are used for max efficiency.
California stopped desalination since the residuals are mainly very salty sludge, which is killing the surrounding sea live.
@@billferner6741obviously you shouldn't do desalination in nature
The problem, as always, is that the people who don't sign the treaty will just do whatever they want.
Agreed, but if the dangers to the marine ecosystem are great, then the results could be disastrous for us all. This requires laws with real teeth, backed up if need be by real force.
Yes. Also a danger of having a similar effect to the naval treaties of the 1930's. It's no use if everyone doesn't have to comply.
Like whale killing
.
Just imagine all the silly microbes living on those little spheres thinking they are the center of the universe.
That's a clever joke
I hope you don't mind, that as someone who actually studied historical geocentricism in college, I always feel the need to clear up a certain popular misconception about geocentricism every time I see it brought up.
Such microbes would be almost as silly as *I* was when I misunderstood the implications of geocentricism when it was actually believed. People thought that the Earth was the bottom of the universe's trash heap. All the celestial bodies were "above" Earth, better than it, and ultimately perfect. Copernicus realized no one would accept the idea that something as awesome as the Sun could be the center of the universe (bottom of a sphere) so he reimagined what center even means: he posited that the center is the proper place of a *commander* which *directs* the motions of other objects. The theoretical work of Kepler and Newton ultimately proved so successful that we can't imagine the significance of the center being any else.
On second thought, without actually studding the history itself, it's actually not so silly, because it's natural for us to assume that they would feel the same way about centers as we do. Of course, they also didn't have as much light pollution as we do now; they saw the Milky Way/Celestial River *every* night. They knew just how small and insignificant they were by comparison (the famous geocentricist astronomer of Late Antiquity, Claudius Ptolemy pointed out that Earth must be imperceptibly small compared the entire rest of the Universe in order for observations of the "fixed stars" - everything except the planets, Sun and Moon - to work out).
I guess the microbes should feel the same way, considering that everything else is swimming above them and they're currently at the mercy of mysterious surface-dwellers and their weird technology. Someone should turn this into a cosmic horror story.
@@jeffbenton6183that was some good deep shit for a random comment lol
🤣🤣
@@jeffbenton6183 plenty of movies and TV episodes about aliens going around, sucking up planets for their raw materials.
I guess that would be a bit of projection, eh?
Thanks for the excellent update, Dave.
The proposition for mass-scale seabed mining was out of the question to begin with, and now even more so.
A few days ago, I saw an episode on this recently released discovery; I was surprised to see, Dave, that Geo Girl is not in your list of other recommended online educators.
For anyone who doesn't mind a bit more technicality, and would like to get a somewhat deeper understanding of the possible processes behind the O² producing Electric Potatoes, I recommend checking it out.
Reminds me of the French people who made pulse fishing prohibited.
Right now they are destroying the bottom of the entire ocean and on top of that, they need a lot of energy to actually do that.
The Dutch somehow found out a technique where they put a little bit of electricity through some wires out there, it's called pulse fishing and then the fish come out of the bottom in a very similar way as destroying the bottom. It's very safe, you don't have to destroy the bottom of the ocean any more and it get's a lot less expensive once you have the technology.
The Dutch fishermen invested in this technology and performed awesome. Partly because energy is very expensive in The Netherlands and this way they didn't need a lot, but also because they do care about the environment.
The French fishermen on the other hand didn't care about the environment at all and got a disadvantage because they never invested in new technologies. Obviously France is much bigger then The Netherlands and had a much bigger vote within the EU.
Because of this, they simply asked the EU to make this technology illegal and all the Dutch fishermen could essentially throw their boats away.
The French lied about just about everything around it and to the day of today destroy the bottom of the oceans.
It's disgusting what French people and especially their politicians in charge at the time are like.
Without the French, the bottom of the oceans would have been a lot more healthy, especially in and around the entire EU.
Wow
Dutch govt..couldn't fight back?? EU.. biggest gangster wins..
And this is how the world works. The Clipperton zone will be mined out. No small % of temporary oxygen generation is going to save it from destruction. We need economic growth or we can kiss our wealthy lifestyles a great farewell
That is absolutely incredible!!! And what a great video. Well done!
Seen around five channels reporting this. I was hoping you'd cover it in your inimitable and vitally honest way.
This deep-sea stuff sounds more and more like an episode of Gerry Anderson's old 'Thunderbirds' TV series. Another disaster waiting to happen.
One of those nodule mining vehicles (Vacuumatron 5) is going to blunder across a gigantic rubber bung at the bottom of the ocean; it'll get caught up in an enormous chain, then pull the plug and let all of the world's water go rushing down a monstrous plughole, thus scuppering Lady Penelope's plans to host a boating regatta and garden party in distant Henley-on-Thames.
International Rescue will arrive at the site of the deep-sea catastrophe; Thunderbird 2 will release Pod 6, containing Thunderbird 4 and Brains's latest bit of techno-kit which will descend to the ocean floor and deploy an aquatic Mole fitted with a robotic mastic gun...
Meanwhile, arch-villain The Hood will -
Sorry. Got a bit carried away, there...
That was F.A.B. father.
You and me both on the crappy crazy Idea about sea bed mining. The Japanese are considering doing the dastardly deed themselves. And yes the scientist studying O2 at the sea floor and couldn't figure out why the O2 was high when it should be less and it wasn't. Then the light bulb came on. Until they can pluck the nodules without disturbing the surrounding sea bed it's an absolute NO.
It's still a no, unless we can demonstrate that even carefully removing the nodules won't harm the seafloor ecosystem. The fact that they produce oxygen is the game changer here.
Japan also ignores any moratoriums around whales hunting. Unless someone forces them to observe this.
@@incognitotorpedo42 we allready know we cant. much of the ecosystem lives on the nodules themselves.
its clear this will have untold side-effects, so what if regulators immediately focus on sustainability regulation while they figure out the full consequences of large-scale mining?
similar to selective logging rather than forest clearcutting. like "OK mining companies, you can only mine X percentage of each nautical square mile of seabed and leave a gap of X meters between sections you vacuum"
You can't sustain ecocidal extraction. Time for a rethink.
(Electro-)chemical reactions tend toward equilibrium. I read the bulk of the research paper and it left me wondering if changing ocean acidity due to CO2 absorption is the energy source for the reaction. My electro-chemistry lectures were over 5 decades ago so I have no idea if this thought has any “legs”! If acidity is driving the reaction it would be another impact of climate change.
Thank you for presenting this new paper and the context surrounding it. It has been suggested that two modules touching could increase the electrical potential difference. I'm curious regarding the fate of the H2 that may also be released. I look forward to further research regarding this non-solar source O2 in that ecological system.
Yes, that's what I thought throughout... nodules in series, raising the voltage.
I work in an extraction industry, and I realize the need for these minerals and materials for our current way of life around the world. But I have been growing increasingly concerned by what I feel is an excessive extraction of materials globally to support unbridled consumption from all extraction/commodity industries. I get that many people and nations around the world want the things that are available, especially those nations just now becoming industrialized and digitized, and so many of those people do not care about many ecological concerns and such. But I feel we are just ready and willing to destroy any and all ecosystems in a desperate attempt to have the good finer things in life, while at the same time destroying our own futures. I have to wonder if there's not another way we should be living that is more in harmony with nature, uses our resources better, while at the same time isn't sending ourselves back to the stone age and or totalitarian dystopias to do it? Wind and solar isn't the fix here, there are things we need and can only get from oil. Mining will have to continue too, but is there a better way? Something to ponder on.
I agree. I spent a career in Co, Ta, Nb ("coltan") metals uses, capacitors, containers, catalysts. Wonderful materials if you intentionally remain happily unaware of where they come from, the mines, the people, the corruption, the devastation. We are inexorably replacing any beauty of the natural world with ugliness. Look around, the most gorgeous natural wonders are only accessible with timed tickets and shuttle buses. There is even tourism beginning to Antarctica. There is no tech fix to human behavior.
Concerning metalic compoud only: what do you recon? (I ask for an educated guess) how much of the demand could be met with effective and smart recycling?
The planetary functions being destroyed are essential for us to live. The functions provided by those processes are not. Simple as that. We do not need more shiny addictive crap. I hope this whole dystopic tech obsession collapses completely and we go back to direct interaction with the living world. We have grown more advanced, but mental health has been dropping in direct relation to our acquirement of excessive luxuries. Anna Lembke made it clear that the mindless quest for pleasure has consequences. It'd be nice to halt this destructive momentum and shift our goals to actual needs.
@@rebny7801 Good question. It's a concentration gradient. For Ta, very little is recycled. We dilute it so much (e.g., 20mg in a cell phone), vs how Nature presents it, it's easier to dig it up. Au/Ag/PGMs are recycled a lot, but mining still goes on.
Everything has batteries and computer chips in it nowadays, and these objects are then thrown away instead of repaired. Think of all the wasted minerals...
It seems a bit odd that research on metal noodles found out that catalysts can decrease the generally accepted absolute minimum voltage required for splitting water, after billions and billions of dollars/pounds have gone into research about electrolysis. The minimum required 1.23 volt is considered the "theoretical limit". Catalysts can potentially help make meaningful electrolysis happen closer to that limit, passing the limit requires magic.
Nodules touching could be considered cells in series... raising the voltage...
@@UsualYaddaYaddaNah, the anodic and cathodic sites are very close together, as tiny little patches scattered all over each nodule. Two nodules touching wouldn’t really make a difference. These aren’t like your standard AA battery…
3:55 Squids and Octopuses are very intelligent as well, even if they aren't mammals.
Fun fact, Octopus has three proper plural forms in the English language.
Octopi
Octopuses
Octopodes
Fun fact, calamari is a very tasty dish.
as usual -you are factual and focused giving me great pleasure to listen ,and not wasting my time 🤩
Shoutout to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Anybody else thinking about conservation of energy and increase in entropy? I find the paper's statement "Whereas questions remain concerning this potential mechanism such as the identity of the energy source(s)..." wholly unsatisfying. Maybe we should identify where the energy comes from before the science media inserts the idea into the public consciousness.
"Dissimilar metals and alloys have different electrode potentials, and when two or more come into contact in an electrolyte, one metal (that is more reactive) acts as anode and the other (that is less reactive) as cathode. The electropotential difference between the reactions at the two electrodes is the driving force for an accelerated attack on the anode metal, which dissolves into the electrolyte."
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics should know the "why".
However, I doubt that those nodules will produce large amounts of oxygen while undisturbed.
@@Mp57navyThere are no metals here. Metal ions and oxides, but no pure metals or alloys as we would use in batteries. This is a rather different process and the paper openly admits they don’t really understand it.
Those nodules provide minerals for the ocean life. The nodules on the seabed, particularly polymetallic nodules, are rich in minerals like manganese, nickel, copper, and cobalt. While they are of interest for potential deep-sea mining due to their metal content, these nodules also play a role in the ocean ecosystem. They can also serve as habitats for various marine organisms, contributing to the biodiversity of the deep-sea environment.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
There's wonder working power in following Kingdom principles on giving and tithing. Hallelujah!
But then, how do you get all that in that period of time? What is it you do please, mind sharing?
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
And thanks to my co-worker (Michael) who suggested Ms Susan Jane Christy
How can I start this digital market, any guidelines and how can I reach out to her?
I'm not fan of sea floor mining, and I'm glad we are looking for the proof that it's a bad idea. This article has gotten a lot of coverage lately and there is one thing that bugs me. It seems we have "batteries" that do not need charging to do work separating hydrogen from oxygen. That seems a lot like free energy, or perpetual motion. How are the batteries charged? If it's a chemical reaction and not an electrical process, where do those chemicals come from for millennia? I also noticed that we talk about increased oxygen being found, but not hydrogen, maybe an oversight but if electrolysis is separating water, where's the hydrogen? I look forward to your future coverage of this topic, and to learning more about these new processes.
If it's powered by earth's magnetic field, then it's virtually free energy. Similarly if the energy comes from the immense pressure in the area.
@@XGD5layer It cant be either or the effect wouldn't be observable on the surface. the electricity comes from the nodules electrons moving about thanks to various process within the metal.
There's definitely nothing in it for power generation and we don't really need it anyway. The battery tech that uses these metals is going out of date and mining these things is only being suggested for the metals.
People need to keep their ideas and actions out of the ocean- end of story!
some aren't harmful, like adding more olivine to beaches
@@AmonTheWitch Except you get to get it there by dirtiest fuel repurposed tankers. :D
@@BOBK-jf4qx it would still be a net negative, the current problem is just the unforeseen environmental impact
It would be an interesting formation process as well. Have to wonder how they're all so relatively uniform in size.
Brilliant episode! Thank you!
Have to admit, when I first heard about these nodules I thought it was a grea tidea to collect them. Then I found out about the method and changed my mind. But this now is surely the end of the matter.
If the oxygen comes from water electro decomposition, what happens to the hydrogen generated?
The problem I have, is that nobody has talked about the nodules that are below the levels of the vacuum system.
There should be millions and millions of years of nodules, setting on layers and layers of sediment.
It's no different than the idea that man has collected all of the gold, because it no longer just sits on the surface, where prospectors were able to just walk along rivers, streams and find nuggets just sitting on bedrock.
Far too many people, who don't understand mining, and prospecting, don't understand that there is much more to be had, than what is seen on the surface, or even just below the surface.
As an example, the biggest nuggets ever found, were dug out by mining and excavating.
With the size of these deep bed fields, there should be enough surface material, that is easily accessible, to reduce surface mining for many years to come. Allowing the land to heal.
if it took millions of years to develop the noduels- i would not call that "sustainable"!
That's like Americans calling burning trees in power stations a "green technology" because they'll regrow. :D
Thank you for uploading this.
I was struggling to really read that nature paper. 😊😊
Pleas excuse my non-educated question. I supose the battery you droped in the glass of water was charged and will electrolyse the water until it is fully discharged, then the reaction will stop. If I am right, what "recharges" the deep sea nodules?
Potential difference between chemical elements, the same reason you can't connect aluminum and copper. The metals in nodules are very, very slowly corroding. When they're consumed completely, the oxygen production would stop.
The ox is slow, but the earth is patient.... next question..
You understood perfectly. We have no idea where the energy for growing the nodules is coming from. They are discharging at a high enough rate that they should have stopped long ago. Something else is causing them to keep growing despite this reaction. I would think that it is deep sea Sulphur bacteria which are causing them to grow.
There's an alternative explanation regarding the DOP surge, the increased silt itself. Potentially, the source of the energy could be organic decomposition of silt material by bacteria.
Going out on an absolute limb, it may be broadly analogous to nitrogen fixing bacteria. They do it for their own purposes, but results in excess nitrogen production.
Perhaps the system has evolved to generate oxygen that way for biological purposes, it just does so in excess of need.
someone else suggested that Sulphur bacteria might be reducing the metals as a byproduct of their metabolism.
THAT was one of the coolest things I've watched in ages!
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …”
- Isaac Asimov
Between preserving nature even to avoid the possibility of extreme harm and the prospects of a quick buck, far more often than not nature looses.
So where do the nodules go to recharge?
It takes a lot of energy to crack water, we could just plug in to their charging ports.
it only takes 1.25 volts. a few nodules together in sea water is enough for electrolysis.
@@titahibayflier3160 Yes, it is possible to generate a couple of volts. The issue is the energy (not voltage) that is required to crack water. Energy must come from somewhere, and be constantly replenished as the 'battery' runs down, or it stops working.
@@Devo491 I don't know if you know this but almost everything stores an enormous amount of Energy. its just not usually harnessed as a low voltage output only. The metals these are made from are packed full of energy to give. and plenty of electrons to move around and cause things to happen for a very long time.
@@Sgt.chickens I can't think of any process that would harvest this boundless source of energy, other than radioactive decay. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
@@Devo491 I would not describe this energy as boundless lmao. it produces very little over a long period of time. and its not infinite.
Enceladus could also have oxygen under all that ice in its deep oceans through the same mechanics.
Discovering the mechanism in detail might help us develop new catalysts for cracking water.
On the other hand geologists think they have already accounted for most of the O2 in the oceans, so this might be a small contribution. Still a terrible idea to strip mine it
I first became aware of these nodules' existence 50 years ago. Our high school debating topic was international regulation of scarce world resources. I've been interested that although debating about the mining of these nodules was happening back then. Nothing seemed to happen with exploiting the metallic nodules. But the discovery of oxgen generation by these nodules is just astounding!
Incredibly interesting!
Thank you for the link to the paper. As a material scientist and engineer, I have always been fascinated by catalytic reactions.
Hopefully the need for such undersea minerals will vanish as we continue transitioning to better battery chemistries, and ideally begin mining in space.
Already LFP chemistry doesn’t require cobalt nor nickel, nor the manganese (maybe).
So there goes 90% of the demand driver.
@@iandavies4853 Vast improvements to be sure!
So the nodules provide a catalyst. An they somehow generate an electrical potential. But for an ongoing endothermic process we still need continuous energy input. Where does the energy come from? That crucial bit does not become obvious, unless I am missing something?
Remember that movie where they discovered a species of ants in the jungle that produced a chemical that cured cancer or something, but then the habitat of the ants was destroyed by people for farming, and the ants all died. Sean Connery was in it
Medicine Man, 1992
Maybe it depends on how the nodules are mined. Vacuuming might not be the best way to to it. I have seen proposals to use some sort of pick up sticks as an alternative to vacuuming. Iy might also make sense to leave some nodules behind. What we are talking about is vast areas and relatively small amount of extraction. I am not so keen on land mining and it's enviromental destruction. There apears to me that there is enough area here that experments in mining can be carried out to determine the enviromental impacts and possible medication procedures needed keep enviromental impacts to a minimum. I would say it makes sense to do some mining to find out what the effects are and see if such mining should continue or expand.
Perhaps you missed that that is what the first paper reports on... 26 years later, no recovery.
*How* I extract the oxygen from your atmosphere makes no difference to your capacity to breath and live... I doubt further ecocidal research, to see how much harm we can translocate both out of sight and mind, is necessary.
Octupii are intelligent. Could train them to pick them up 4 us.
a huge ammount of the critical bacteria and microbes in the ecosystem live ON the nodules. we cant remove them and there is no sensible economic reason too.
Oh wow, this is so cool! And if it's true (as it certainly seems to be) this should be the death knell for underwater mining.
This dark oxygen production almost seems like a natural cycle... Almost. But unlike the nitrogen cycle, it sounds like the undersea life here depends upon the nodules for oxygen production but can't influence the creation of the nodules in any way. The process of precipitation is completely inorganic, so there's no feedback effect.
I don't know how likely it is that anyone will do this, but an obvious next step to me would be to create our own artificial nodules, and put them in the spots that were denuded by the experimental mining. The artificial nodule wouldn't have to be exactly like the real thing, maybe it could be as simple as sturdy, waterproof batteries that have a voltage in the same range. Put them down there where the real nodules used to be, and see if the ocean life starts to return to the area.
You do great work, sir! Thank you for posting this video and the link to the related scientific paper. 🙏
during my studies at the university (I studied mining), I calculated the AVG travel distance of an AVG sized/formed deep sea floor sediment particle for the common setting/fluid mechanics in the clarion clipperton zone.
It was an investigation to select the less harmful but still profitable way of mining an exemplary field of manganese nodules.
My results were that on average a particle would travel 3.1 miles (5 km) until it settles which would even increase the area that is affected by the deep sea mining machines (crawlers with a suction pipe).
The avg area that is covered would kill around 92% of living species known from the floor of the ocean that can be found in that zone as prior studies had discovered need to be exposed to the clean water above the floor.
I recommended that it might be profitable but definitely not worth it based on the trend of the rare earths and metals that the nodules contain.
I did that study in 2014 and now seeing these results amazes me a lot!
This got me straight into supporting the counter movement to deep sea mining.
Hopefully mining on land in the western countires (Americas, Europe, Greenland, Australia, other) will increase quickly so electrification can continue. Recent reports on minining on land in Indonesia has caused significant harm to farming in remote portions of this country. Need to quickly find these minerals for production of batteries.
I had read this in an ECO magazine I get, and I have no doubt that destructive mining in this zone will be just as bad, if not worse, that what is done above sea level. I also believe that the mongrels that run mining companies will not care one bit about the ecology down there if it stands in the way of making money. We have a segment of humanity that will never prioritize our environment over potential profit even to the point where they know that they are causing serious harm to the long-term habitability of the planet. I know we are all responsible in some way because we create the demand that makes these mining ventures viable and that is another area where work has to be done. Because these nodules are in the open ocean and belong to no one country it makes it more likely that a company can illegally harvest them, and I am in no doubt this will happen. The more time goes by the more I believe that humans are acting like any organism that breeds up to plague proportions and they will suffer the same fate, using up all the resources that give them life till there is no more and then entering a mass dieback and maybe extinction.
This is amazing. The implication this has for marine ecosystems are huge - and therefore it is of upmost importance that we keep on working to expose the flaws and dangers with deep sea mining.
Keep on spreading this message so that we hopefully can avoid deep sea mining.
Am I the only one thinking that this could lead to a breakthrough in battery tech? Like, what is charging those batteries to produce 1V?
Try google scholar and look up ‘bacterial batteries’. They’ve been researched for a long time and operate on similar principles. The amount of energy they can deliver is very small though, and the rate they can deliver it at is extremely slow so it’s not likely they will be contributing to grid storage or EVs or anything. One possible use is to help remove toxic heavy metals in sewage processing plants by harnessing the energy produced by bacteria breaking down sulphates from detergents and food waste to power a system which precipitates heavy metals as oxide particles which settle and can be easily filtered out, without needing to use any grid power.
Hands off our oceans!
I’ll be honest I did not expect “finding electrolysis batteries in the abyssal depths” to be on my 2024 bingo card
I have a problem with the digging and creating massive foundations for huge continental shelf windmills.
I don't see anything in the paper about them accounting for pressure during the reaction?
From what I find activation overpotential is reduced at higher pressures while it pushes current density up a lot. If these are cause/effect I do not know but there certainly is an effect already at a few bars, and at 8-10bar it is already significant.
You are by far the best channel out there (that I know of). Cutting edge, interesting rigorous, unbelievably relevant.
As above, so below. Wouldn't it just make sense that everything has a sense of symmetry. Beauty.
Where is the energy coming from, the energy that is going into separating the oxygen from the hydrogen? Is some other reaction releasing the energy and, if so, what are the reaction products? You would think these nodules are relatively stable, having had a long time to reach equilibrium. Electrolysis of water requires a lot of energy as we all know.
"Grandpa, was there still life on Earth when you were a boy?"
"Yes, son there was."
"Why didn't you stop it from dying?"
"Because, I didn't want to give up comfort, great returns on my investments, or a system that I thought was the best thing man ever invented..."
"So, you knew it was dying?"
"Sigh... I did... We all did... Now, you get to sleep lil one. We need our rest, so we can go outside tomorrow and patch the shelter before our air starts leaking out..."
One way to protect these modules (or at least to lower their economic value)
is to promote research into using other metals (e.g. sodium) for EV batteries
All the things we don't know! Thanks for bringing that to our attention!
Excellent scientific report, thx a lot! It helps, so I don't have to read all those white paper from Nature magazine😉 Great benefit of all those precious metals is that they can be neverendingly recycled and returned back to the market and reused again. This is probably the BIGGEST benefit in comparison to fossil fuels which once burnt r gone in the atmosphere causing climate change.
The only problem is to find the MOST efficient and LESS harmful way to extract them from earth. I am sure we have thrown many of them in the landfill so maybe we should look there as well😁before digging new holes and creating next mines. Regarding deep sea mining we should agree on what is sustainable and what isn't. I am sure nature is OK if we take some, but it's definitely NOT OK if we take over too much and with it destroy delicate balance which hold things together in this amazing supersystem. It's great to watch us humans going through this VERY IMPACTFUL as well as revolutionary transition. As Hopi natives from America mentioned in their drawing we will get to crossroad which one leads to death and suffering and other to survival and great growth of humanity. The decision is completely in our hands so don't blame god😉
Fascinating! Thanks for your continued work.
As a sustainability professor who has looked closely at this, I have concluded that all manner of biospheric degradations will be necessary to achieve net zero. Put simply, we are in the unfortunate position of either being able to protect the biosphere and the species with which we co-habit the planet, or we can strive to achieve net zero. We cannot do both.
Unfortunately, the notion of moving purposefully towards ambitious net zero targets whilst treading lightly on fragile habitats is for the birds.
Watch this space, the next 15 - 20 years will involve some quite horrendous compromises on our ecological principles whilst we strive to extract the minerals necessary to ensure our long-term survival. The diminishing mineral reserves and the sheer scale of operation needed to extract those minerals from sources of decreasing purity will necessitate disrupting more and more precious habitats. The real issue we have is that some of the richest remaining mineral reserves are also located in some of the last remaining ecologically viable terrains.
Frankly, I'm sick of feeling ashamed of being human. I'm ready to live differently - even if it means living with very little electricity or modern comforts.
Sustainability Professor... sounds oxymoronic. We can't sustain 'this' or even something close to this. I'm glad that my job is not to seriously consider the vapid.
Ensuring our long term future is, as you hint at the end of your post, less technofuturist. I reckon that the wise thinking is on unscaring ourselves of a different future narrative. Check out The Dark Mountain Project, for example.
It’s a shame that to come to these conclusions, a rather large amount of knowledge and experience is needed. The vast majority of humans don’t have that, but really like shiny things and going vroom. We’re probably doomed as a result. Oh well.
@@UsualYaddaYadda I write for Dark Mountain. Glad to hear you're a fan. You'll also find my musings on Mongabay which is equally worthwhile.
And yes, the role of 'sustainability professor' in a world heading towards inevitable collapse is indeed oxymoronic (and, increasingly, just simply moronic).
Our environmental principles... hmmm... now where did I put them exactly..??
I think your laughing if you think nickel balls for battery tech that's becoming outdated it "critical for our survival"
every car becoming and electric car will not Save the planet or make any meaningful dent in our impact on the environment. Cars also produce the most CO2 and other contaminants when they are created, Its cleaner to invest in synthetic fuel technology and keep old cars running than it is to replace every car with an EV.
EV's have their place, but they are not a be all end all and no serious science is suggesting they are in any form.
We do in fact have such nodules in shallow fresh water lakes that are made of iron.
This also opens up questions for the first life on earth,the first terraforming,giving rise to sponges and calcium carbonate creatures de-acidifying the ocean's allowing for more evolution of us,and perhaps under ocean's on many many moons and planetoids in the solar system and beyond
I really hope that you will have a follow up on thus topic as it is absolutely fascinating! It raises so many questions like; how long does a given nodule remains active in oxygen production, can these nodules ‘recharge’ in some fashion, what conditions are necessary for the creation of these nodules and why don’t they ‘discharge’ already during their apparently slow creation … just from the top of my head.
Thanks for helping to connect these dots, really helpful information.
If they going to mine those nodules, then they also have to bring up the disturbed sediment.
I wonder to what extent this discovery changes our understanding of the Great Oxidation Event.
I wouldnt be surprised at this point if some tech sector entrepreneur eventually makes a billion dollars burning off all the oxygen on earth & killing off all life on the only planet with life.
Thank you for all your great work. A lot of the channels focused on new technologies that will have an impact on our current climate crisis tend to focus on the positives and not reflect on the long-term consequences of each approach, that's never the case with your videos you really help us have think!
I saw Anton Petrov talking about this but good to get more info and see it talked about even more!
Thanks for the clear explanation, very important that people get informed about these topics in a way we can understand it easily and quickly:)
The rover landing found also be releasing trapped Oxygen from the sediment. There is also a very high pressure present. That will affect the mechanisms responsible for the production of nodules, the nodules structures, and the electrolytic processes.
You deserve millions of subscribers! Thank you for the hard work you put into all of your videos. It's massively appreciated 💚✌🏽
The catalyst idea would neatly explain the ability to split water at a lower voltage, but how can these batteries still be active if they have been there for millions of years?
they have to be growing from some other process. someone suggested Sulphur bacteria might be reducing the metal ions as a byproduct of their metabolism. I would think that the nodules could be the habitat for such bacteria. like coral being the habitat for smaller organisms which then grow the coral; these nodules could be that habitat and are similarly grown by bacteria. If that is the case, we would know to leave some nodules to recolonize the region mined.
That is assuming bacteria are the energy source for the nodule growth.
Another issue is if it would even be problematic to remove them given that coal, oil, and gas formed from organic matter being trapped in an oxygen poor environment. If nodule mining removes oxygen from the deep sea then any organic matter that was deposited there would not be converted into co2. thus a large co2 sink would have formed.
This seems to make the rounds. First I heard it from LPIndie (german science channel), then Anto Petrov, GEO GIRL, now Dr Ben Miles, and of course you.
Thanks for explaining the technical details in even more detail, like the meaning of cavities inside the manganese balls, and water turbulence.