1. Surface mining also has environmental consequences which have to be weighed against the costs of deep sea mining. An area impacted by surface mining can recover in just a decade, but it takes intensive environmental restoration efforts on the part of humans (https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/05/mine-remediation.html). If similar techniques could be developed for deep sea applications, it could reduce the impact of deep sea mining.
2. Researchers are developing robots with advanced propulsion systems which could dramatically reduce the disturbance to sea-floor sediment by mimicking the ways that rays move. (https://interestingengineering.com/culture/new-autonomous-su...) Of course, this is still an active area of research, and it would probably take regulation to force deep sea mining companies to adopt these measures.
3. Nodules are much easier to process, reducing the carbon footprint of deep sea mining vs. surface mining by up to 80% for some metals. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...) This study even tries to account for the secondary effects of mining such as the different impacts that surface and deep sea mining have on carbon sequestered in the ecosystem.
4. Surface mining is more harmful to humans than deep sea mining is because it can leach dangerous chemicals into fresh water supplies. (https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...)
The effects of deep-sea mining on ocean ecology are much less well understood than the effects of surface mining. While I do think there's good reason to be optimistic about the benefits of deep-sea mining, especially if it can displace surface mining, we shouldn't assume we understand what will happen. I hope the industry continuous to be forced by regulators to move forward cautiously and allow time for environmental studies to take place.
edit: These people are trying to build a deep sea miner that doesn't destroy the seafloor: https://impossiblemetals.com/
What will actually happen is both types will be happily used at the same time, so there's little point in weighting one against the other.
Any other rationalization misses the fact that this is an extremely poorly understood environment (especially if we do compare with surface mining). It's never a good idea to tinker with unknown at scale without understanding it first, let alone commercializing it. Mining history is practically written in mistakes like that.
sigh. If only we put this much funding into solving our exploding e-waste crisis which could also help alleviate the problems of rare metals
For example, as more folks move to electric cars, a smart grid would allow chargers to charge less at periods of intense demand.
We've historically focused exclusively on adjusting supply to meet demand - which is clearly very difficult and very expensive (especially if you look at gas peaker plants) - but we instead (or in addition) can adjust aspects of the demand curve to smooth out variability in load. This should be easier and significantly cheaper.
(This has the big advantage of buying time to decarbonize things like concrete, cattle and airplanes.)
Also, your numbers are way, way off. 1 kg of U-235 can produce about 24,000,000 kWh of energy. There's no way you're going to store that in 1 kg of lithium batteries.
You don't mine U235. You mine 99.3% U238 and then leave a third of your U235 in enrichment tailings (or burn it straight in a CANDU).
And storage of a given time duration is indexed by power. 1kW of diurnal storage is enough storage to provide 1kW over daily variation.
Extracting 1kg of Uranium nets you 1kW for a few years.
Extracting 1kg of Lithium nets you enough storage to run 1kW of solar + wind for several times as long.
The solar panel is made of about the same amount of sand as goes into the nuclear power plant. It is less limited by Silver than the control rods are limited by indium, silver and cadmium.
You don't know the difference between energy and power, nor between energy production and energy storage.
That's not "misdirection" of any kind.
Worse still, you were attempting to confuse "power" (actually energy) storage with "power" (actually energy) production. That's not even apples and oranges -- more like apples and poetry.
It's like saying that because a refrigerator can hold 100 kilograms of food, buying a refrigerator is same as actually growing 100 kilograms of food. The two are not comparable in any way.
P.S. the ad hominem means that you lose. Sorry.
We're done.
Nor does having a tantrum over having the lie called out. Instead it just makes you look like a cry-bully.
The constant stream of lies and whining when those lies are called out from nuclear "advocates" would reflect incredibly poorly on the industry if it weren't obvious it was just a tactic to keep fossil fuels relevant for a little longer.
We actually put much more funding into e-waste recycling. Allseas most recent funding round was $150m, and they're the only major player in the deep sea mining space. But Redwood materials, one of many e-waste recycling startups, has raised $700m in their most recent round.
The only critical mineral not yet eliminated for the most commercially viable upcoming option is silver which requires about one ounce per net kilowatt with state of the art processes.
Unless you meant cheap energy will subsidize mining, in which case you are correct and this is a problem.
On 1: The study you have referenced refers to the difficulties of remediating historical abandoned sites, often run under inadequate regulations typically in the 1850's - 1960's. Modern sites are no joke to remediate, but regulators are beginning to pick up on what causes problems to occur and how to ensure these costs are factored into the mining operation. The difficulty of applying effective regulations to international undersea areas is enormous.
On 2: That's great -- lots of things could happen to improve technology in both terrestrial and submarine mining.
On 3: Carbon footprint is not everything when determining the appropriateness of mining. The study cited by the Science article assumes tailings deposition at sea -- mines are not permitted to do this. The article also swans repeatedly over how "high grade" nodules are, but makes no direct reference to their actual grade. The underlying paper suggests a grade of 1.3-1.4 weight percent which is on the bottom end of mid-grade.
On 4: This point can not be concluded without further study. While terrestrial mining has had more historical impacts to humans, this does not allow for comparison on future terrestrial mining vs. a relatively unknown ecosystem impact from aquatic mining. Mining is also not assessed on purely anthropocentric impacts. We've begun to appreciate that systems are interconnected and humans are only one receptor. Enormous caution is required, certainly more than "lower emissions = good".
I'm don't disagree with your points - there's a lot of uncertainty around all of this research. But, from what I can see, regulators are doing the right thing and being very cautious to do environmental studies at each step of the way. Maybe I'm way off about that.
(how much affected by drag net fishing might give a ballpark figure)