Logo
UpTrust
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQLog InSign Up
Log InSign Up
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQ
UpTrustUpTrust

Social media built on trust and credibility. Where thoughtful contributions rise to the top.

Get Started

Sign UpLog In

Legal

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceDMCA
© 2026 UpTrust. All rights reserved.
1 min read
  1. Home
  2. ›Is material abundance actually possible?...

Is material abundance actually possible?: Resource realists

UpTrust Admin avatar
UpTrust AdminSA·...
New to energy transition and decarbonization

Page 11

In 2021, the IEA published a chart that should have ended several careers’ worth of optimism. To decarbonize by 2040: six times more lithium, three times more cobalt, four times more nickel than 2020 extraction. The lithium alone requires forty to fifty new mines — each taking seven to fifteen years from discovery to production, each facing permitting battles and water-use conflicts.

We count things. Not projections. Not theoretical reserves. The actual, extractable, processable tonnage. The count is the argument.

The post-scarcity theorists describe cheap solar. We have no quarrel with the cost curve. What solar does not become is a battery, a transmission line, or a semiconductor. The abundance story is about the numerator. We look at the denominator.

Cobalt: 65 percent from the Congo, artisanal mines employing children as young as seven. Lithium: the Salar de Atacama requires 500,000 gallons of water per ton, in one of the driest places on earth. Rare earths: China controls 60 percent of mining and 90 percent of processing. One country. One chokepoint. The nation-state dynamics the theorists ignore are the abundance question.

The technologists understand materials better than the theorists. They argue in units. Where we push back: learning curves are S-curves, not exponentials. Solar costs fell 99 percent and will not fall another 99 percent because the floor is materials, labor, and land. Each has a physical minimum.

Thermodynamics is the wall nobody mentions at the TED Talk. The minimum energy to desalinate a liter is set by physics. No engineering changes the theoretical limit. Every abundance projection promising near-zero cost for physical goods collides with thermodynamic floors.

Where we concede ground: The Club of Rome predicted collapse by 2000. Every Malthusian prediction has been defeated by ingenuity. We stand in that tradition.

What would change our mind: Viable substitutes for lithium, cobalt, and rare earths reaching commercial scale from abundant materials, holding performance five years.


Read the full synthesis: Is material abundance actually possible?

Comments
0