Running on Empty: Copper
Postedabout 1 month agoActive26 days ago
thehonestsorcerer.substack.comNewsstory
informativeneutral
Debate
40/100
Dependency_managementEnvironmental_impactEnvironment
Key topics
Dependency_management
Environmental_impact
Environment
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
10m
Peak period
35
0-12h
Avg / period
12.8
Comment distribution64 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 64 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 8, 2025 at 4:54 PM EST
about 1 month ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 8, 2025 at 5:04 PM EST
10m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
35 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 15, 2025 at 2:42 PM EST
26 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46198177Type: storyLast synced: 12/15/2025, 2:50:24 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> Bah! Who needs copper anyway, when we have so much aluminum?! > Have you thought about how aluminum is made? Well, by driving immense electric currents through carbon anodes made from petroleum coke (or coal-tar pitch) to turn molten alumina into pure metal via electrolysis. Two things to notice here. First, the necessary electricity (and the anodes) are usually made with fossil fuels, as “renewables” cannot provide the stable current and carbon atoms needed to make the process possible. Second, all that electricity, even if you generate it with nuclear reactors, have to be delivered via copper wires.
This seems to be trying to say that we can't make aluminum without copper, but that seems nonsensical. First, no, power can be delivered by wires made out of aluminum and indeed, it often is, I don't think that much of the transmission grid is copper). Second, the comparatively tiny amount of material needed for electrodes is a completely wacky argument. And renewables not being able to provide "the stable current" needed for smelting?
I'm not cherrypicking here, there's a lot of assertions of this type in the article. Essentially, everything is doomed and there's nothing we can do, because we're going to run out of copper. And fossil fuels. And there's absolutely nothing that can replace them, ever. And therefore, we shouldn't build AI datacenters? That's what it says...
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwai_Point_Aluminium_Smelter
Seconded, aluminum works just fine as a conductor. I’m pretty sure that all overhead utility distribution conductors are a steel core wrapped with aluminum conductors and air for insulation, and I’d bet that underground distribution conductors are also aluminum.
SER cable from the utility transformer secondary to your meter socket also uses aluminum conductors.
You usually need to go up a couple of sizes for aluminum vs copper (#1/0 Cu ~= #3/0 Al) but it depends on the specific ampacity.
That's the classical setup, but there's been some innovation. These days there's also stuff like aluminium alloys which don't need steel reinforcement, or aluminium reinforced with carbon fiber.
But indeed, copper is vanishingly rare.
https://www.prioritywire.com/specs/acsr.pdf
Cables in that table are rated for between 105 to 1,751 amps under these conditions:
"Current ratings based on 75˚C conductor temperature, 25˚C ambient temperature, emissivity 0.5, 2ft/sec wind in sun"
Stopped reading right after that nonsense.
Considering how energy-intensive it is, this means there is quite a big future for using aluminium smelting to soak up dirt-cheap excess renewable energy. Renewables not being stable has suddenly become a feature.
Aluminum is actually a (far) superior conductor to copper per unit mass. It would be used on transmission lines even if it was the same price as copper, because the towers can be cheaper and farther apart. It's in increasing use in EVs due to the lower mass.
Copper is still used when the conductive density matters, like the windings of an electric motor. But if copper prices increase further, manufacturers will make sacrifices to efficiency and power density in order to save cost. And they'll figure out how to better balance the use of Al vs. Cu, perhaps using Cu only for the conductors closest to the core.
We also use copper for transformers, which are fairy "dumb" in their usual design. Solid-state transformers exist, which use much less copper, but are currently more expensive. They will no longer be more expensive if the price of copper goes up too much. And they'll probably get cheaper in the long run anyway, regardless of copper price, in the same way that switch mode power supplies have totally replaced linear supplies in the consumer space.
I've seen increasing use of copper in fairly mundane uses, like computer heat sinks, that used to be aluminum. The performance is a little better, but it won't be worthwhile if copper gets way more expensive. They'll just go back to aluminum, or use some other innovation (carbon heat spreaders, etc.) if price becomes an issue.
Copper heatsinks go in and out of style... Copper heat pipes have stayed en vogue, but typically embedded in aluminum blocks.
At any rate, one should expect many of these trades to go the way of Al if Cu gets more expensive (which it might not). Not all of them, but we'll probably see a bias towards physically larger systems in cases where space isn't at a premium. And also a bias towards active systems over passive, liquid cooling over air, and so on.
This product combines the advantages of both materials - low price and mass, stable connection, can be soldered etc. while using a small fraction of copper. It's making inroads into aviation and motor vehicle harnesses, and will probably be the default low cost option for new homes in a few decades.
The far better argument is that, if it were simple to replace copper with aluminum, this would create a ceiling on the price of copper. However, this hasn't happened. Many applications of copper can theoretically be replaced by copper, but in practice the reactivity and thermal performance issues of aluminum can be challenging. Aluminum wiring in homes, for example, has a very bad reputation.
This isn't fatal, but it is a problem. And if society doesn't plan for it, it could become a more painful problem.
It has an undeserved bad reputation. The problem wasn’t the aluminum conductors themselves, it was the terminals on wiring devices. The material the terminals and screws were made out of worked fine with copper, but the thermal expansion profile did not work well with aluminum conductors. That caused arcing and fires, so the wiring device manufacturers figured out a material that works well with both copper and aluminum for wiring device terminations. If you look at the terminals of a light switch or receptacle, it will say Cu/Al on it, signifying it is suitable for use with either type of conductor. This was solved 50 years ago.
That being said, I’d still wire a house with copper because you can use #14 Cu for a 15A circuit but you need #12 Al for the same circuit, the NEC does not allow use of #14 Al romex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_building_wiring
> In North American residential construction, aluminum wire was used for wiring entire houses for a short time from the 1960s to the mid-1970s during a period of high copper prices. Electrical devices (outlets, switches, lighting, fans, etc.) at the time were not designed with the particular properties of the aluminum wire being used in mind, and there were some issues related to the properties of the wire itself, making the installations with aluminum wire much more susceptible to problems. Revised manufacturing standards for both the wire and the devices were developed to reduce the problems. Existing homes with this older aluminum wiring used in branch circuits present a potential fire hazard.
That said I think the wiring there is still thick aluminum.
Not sure I really have a point - all things equal I'd prefer copper, but it seems like aluminum can be fine when done right too - just riskier when done to the quick and dirty homebuilder standard.
I know nothing about grease, but it's pretty obvious that a fuse was missing. You might want to check that such of correct rating is in place now.
Not just in homes. The U50C tried aluminum wiring in railroad locomotives. That also got a bad reputation.
This is indeed a massive red flag. You need conductors, but the material they are made of is pretty much irrelevant.
These days you'd have to search quite a bit to find not-ancient copper conductors in the larger electric grid. Aluminium might have a slightly higher resistance, but when you can just use a thicker wire it's almost always the more attractive choice.
If you don't even know that the grid mostly uses aluminium, you probably shouldn't be making big claims about what is and isn't possible with copper wiring.
These ideologies are normally used as “problemist” lead ins to the ideology the author is really pushing. For the left it’s usually Marxism or anarcho-primitivism of some kind. For the right it’s cultural authoritarianism, racism, and anti-feminism.
Because it’s problemism, there can be no solution other than what the author advocates. We can’t engineer our way out of scarcity. Only giving up on tech, or maybe a planned economy, can save us. We can’t prevent demographic decline by importing immigrants, heavens no, or by subsidizing reproduction the way we subsidize other long term needs. No, we have to take away women’s rights and push a return to ultra-orthodox religion. It’s the only way.
As Rick and Morty pointed out, aluminium ore is 15% of the earth's crust. Making it into aluminium metal is the original product embodying energy in its value.
> Even though the industry would be willing to pay top dollar for each pound of metal delivered, there is simply not much more to be found. Copper bearing formations are not popping up at random, and there is no point in drilling various spots on Earth prospecting for deposits, either. The major formations have already been discovered, and thus the ever increasing investment spent on locating more copper simply does not produce a return.
How do we "know" there isn't any major formations we haven't found yet? I find it hard to believe we've prospected every possible area.. or are deposits more predictable than it seems?
But the article is garbage.
For example, there are only so many places significant masses of porphyry copper deposit will be found (although these aren't the only types of copper deposit).
For people interested in subscribing, there are databases such as the S&P portal that scratch some of that industry knowledge.
https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/market-insight...
although they seem to have backed off from a public page about the GIS portal to the mining databases they purchased.
So; pretty much most areas have been scratched - Antartica is still open, the Artic has possibilities .. but should we.
There are known untapped masses of copper, eg: in the US there's a mass that will take 64 years to mine .. that's on Indian land so, you know, it'll be US history all over again poking that one.
Copper is 60 ppm of the crust. As long as the price keeps going up, we'll never run out.
But I would like to see improvements in copper recycling and in breeding of copper hyperaccumulator plants.
Companies also have strong incentives to sandbag reserve estimates from existing mines. Anecdotally I’ve heard rumors that whisper reserves for copper specifically have materially expanded in recent years, driven by market demand that justifies that effort.
There may be other deposits, as yet undiscovered or confirmed, that can also be produced at the current market price, but those don't get included in "reserves".
> “renewables” cannot provide the stable current and carbon atoms needed to make the process possible
This is untrue. Iceland has a huge aluminum industry, using mainly geothermal power: https://energytransition.org/2023/03/geothermal-iceland-this...
Iceland alone accounts for 1/10th of global aluminum production! https://www.riotinto.com/en/operations/iceland/isal
You do need constant, reliable power, as even a brief interruption makes a huge mess when the aluminum/slag freezes in the processor.
Any place with significant volcanic activity (e.g. Hawaii) could probably do geothermal power if they wanted to.
The energy (electricity) they use to smelt aluminium mainly comes from hydropower, around 70% of it. The geothermal boreholes are mainly used for district heating, which is quite a big energy drain in Iceland. And that means that geothermal is the source of around 65% of the energy used in Iceland.
On the other hand: it has a gigantic thermal mass. Combine this with the energy requires to melt it, and you end up with molten aluminium being trucked over our highways [0]. A brief interruption isn't a big deal when it takes ages to solidify.
[0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3h6r2e/this_truck_car...
But maybe we're still low on copper, IDK, but making aluminum should be rather possible.
Other headlines currently present from the frontpage of this same site:
> Collapse Will Look Nothing Like the Movies
> How I Came To Believe That Civilization Is Unsustainable
> 2025: A Civilizational Tipping Point
Even if you find that content compelling, it's dishonesty and objective inaccuracy in which it substantiates its points suggests you shouldn't waste your time.
We’re collectively sitting atop every piece of copper we’ve ever refined, they’re just sitting and rotting in landfills instead of mines.
If I were a gambling dinosaur, I’d wager that landfill mining in developed economies will be a decently-sized business in a few decades, as we seek to recapture minerals and materials we once felt were disposable - but whose easily-available raw amounts we’d gradually withered down via mining or extraction. Depending on how material science and metal valuation goes, it might become practical or necessary to extract those metals from water sources or industrial waste sites.
It ain’t pretty, but we were never going to be able to mine Earth indefinitely - and we’re already at a point where, as a planetary species, we need to be more organized and restrictive about the use of non-renewable resources for optimal outcomes and long device/product lifespans.
The era of disposability has passed, we just need more companies to swallow that bitter pill and start adapting.
I was with you until the 9th word from the end.
I'd say this is a governments issue rather than companies issue.
But until governments and their people acknowledge their role in dealing with the long term issues, we’re stuck with the infinite-growth perspective of Capital. Considering that’s where the accelerator is pushed down, we need to firmly rebuke and shame their yearly iteration nonsense and promote more sustainable outcomes.
* Total global copper demand has grown at a 3.1% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over the last 75 years – but this growth rate has been slowing. It was only 1.9% over the 15 years to 2021. Looking to 2035, however, we expect this growth rate to jump back to 2.6% annually.
Considering global demand expectations, electrification trends, etc. this moves to:
* Putting all these levers together, we project global copper demand to grow by around 70% to over 50 Mt per annum by 2050 – an average growth rate of 2% per year.
On the supply side, considering recycling, the aluminium usage transition point, etc:
* We estimate that the world will need about 10 Mtpa new mined copper supply in the next 10 years.
To get this ...
* Copper reserves and production are concentrated in Latin America, Australia and Africa.
* We expect supply growth over the next 10 years to be dominated by the same regions – Latin America Africa and Asia Pacific – with Africa having the highest growth rate (albeit off a much lower base than Latin America), and Latin America continuing to make the most significant contribution in absolute terms.
Existing mines are falling off (they always are!):
* Currently operating copper mines are expected to provide more than half of the copper required to meet future global demand over the next decade. Even so, we estimate existing mines to be producing around 15% less copper in 2035 than they do today.
* We expect between one-third and one-half of global copper supply to face grade decline and ageing challenges over the next decade, which will drive increased unit costs and the requirement for capital reinvestment. While an incredible orebody can make a big difference, many older operations move up the cost curve as they progress through their life cycle. Given the strong demand signals, however, we expect the industry to vigorously pursue options to extend the life of these copper mines.
Brownfield developments will expand old mines; the practice of processing satellite deposits ignored early on.
Truly new mines:
* Greenfield projects continue to attract significant excitement and interest from developers and investors. They can avoid the challenges of aging facilities and grade decline and can unlock large and higher-grade copper deposits, develop new frontiers, and allow for the application of technology advances without the challenge of retrofitting.
* But they also have potentially even greater challenges to brownfield developments, such as long lead times with environmental and social concerns needing to be navigated for the first time, and uncertainties associated with new jurisdictions or regions. And not all problems can be solved with money. For some projects, it is not a question of investability, but of executability.
* The current pipeline of ‘all possible’ greenfield deposits are generally at the higher-difficulty end of the spectrum – and many are experiencing delays. When we investigated a selection of today’s 30 largest (by expected production volume) undeveloped greenfield projects, we found that analysts (ourselves included) had continually moved the forecast supply stack out in time. We expect these projects to contribute around 5 Mtpa of copper by 2035, or 14% of total possible supply.
The report, in full, is: https://www.bhp.com/news/bhp-insights/2024/09/how-copper-wil...
There are other similar reports from the IEA and other majors.
This is the literal ever ongoing dance of extraction, exploration, and development.
Every cent that goes to exploration is whinged over and penny pinched - it's all buckets of money out the door with no return other than bluesky hope.
As prospects appear and are firmed out, speculative money starts to flow, once Technical Feasibility Reports are in the works a frenzy begins, the bets may or may not pan out when such reports land in a Prospectus seeking forward capital investment.
Googling: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003206332...
> Asteroids have since long been considered to host significant resources of siderophilic elements such as Fe, Ni, Co, Cu, that could be exploited in situ. However bulk rock mining would be largely impractical. In this paper, we report on abundance and mineral occurrences of copper in H chondrites, identify Cu carrier minerals and interpret their distribution in the context of processes that must have affected parent bodies. This leads us to suggestion that some parts of S-type asteroids contain Cu in a form and amount that would satisfy requirements of potentially economically and environmentally more efficient exploitation.