Yes, alternative energy sources require a lot of resources to produce - but so do petrochemicals (I suggest you take a look at what's left behind when you strip-mine coal or when a oil/gas well finishes production). The difference is that when you mine rare earth metals to make a wind turbine's magnets that environmental impact is spread out over the 20+ year lifetime of the turbine, but fossil fuels can only be burned once.
You are correct in the impact of some fossil fuel mining- the way that Germany stripped old growth forest to get filthy lignite coal to burn (so they could stop using safe nuclear) for example. Utterly bonkers but supported by the German Green Party. On the other hand, North Sea gas extraction as carried out by Norway and UK has been generally low impact and I doubt most people even notice the existence of the oil/gas extraction wells in the south of England.
Equally, a wind turbine will also leave some pollution behind, we currently cannot recycle the composite blades for example, and there's a lot of concrete required for the base (energy, limestone required to make cement plus sand and aggregate). There's also the cost of the materials to build it (aside from the turbine assembly which uses a lot of rare earth magnets because that allows a design without gearbox which is more efficient and less prone to failure).
Plus with wind turbines y
ou still need a back-up power source to maintain grid stability when the wind isn't in the generation speed range. Which means you need all those gas-fired stations available. So, if you want to lose the back-up gas turbines you need an interruptible supply, i.e. certain users only get lekky when the wind is right. To promote education in this I believe we need consumers on SmartMeters (which can cut people off and ration lekky) but go it on basis of "if you want a renewable tariff, fine- but you can be cut off when we run out of renewables." (Yes, there are some grid batteries going in but these have limited capacity).
At which point maybe we'd get some sensible alternative power investment such as into nuclear and tidal which are predictable and reliable. Also some real focus on energy saving.... which also links to stuff like property ownership...... and again, lifestyle choices to be made.
Similarly, if we add a lot of electric cars into the grid it gets interesting......... wonder how many folks would like to come out to a depleted car battery in the morning because it was used to balance the grid overnight?
If we need a stop-gap- and I suggest that energy use patterns indicate we do need one if the lights/heating are to stay on- then IMO it's least-worst short-term option to extract what we need from our own reserves in a controlled manner as opposed to (for example) importing energy (or gas or oil) from a country that makes it by burning strip-mined lignite. Similarly, if the old nuclear fast-breeder technology was dusted off there's potential to burn the plutonium waste stored at Sellafield and kill two birds with one stone- render old nuclear waste less harmful and extract energy whilst we do so.
Eventually, fossil fuel will need to become more costly to discourage profligacy, but first we should make it
possible for all people to be frugal with small changes. Insulate roofs, walls and have shutters on windows (warm in winter, cooler in summer). Perhaps a "right to buy land and build" so long as your build was an energy efficient earth-sheltered house with minimal grid use and water-harvesting. (I'd also get rid of street lighting, but then I grew up in a dark rural place and like the dark.)
That is a widely accepted fact, that increased demand for rare elements for battery components etc are far outstripping supply/reserve of these materials. There are growing calls for a comprehensive recycling industry as a lot of this stuff just ends up in landfill due to the ‘throwaway tech’ culture that we currently seem to have. (Apple, I’m looking at you!)
Edit: here’s a helpful article that I dug up with a simple Google search.
To contribute to limiting the global use of rare earths, manufacturers could consider replacing their traditional linear economy model with a circular model. In the circular economy model, products and materials are recovered and regenerated at the end of their service lives.
www.altenergymag.com
Indeed.
This:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rare-Metals-War-digital-technologies-ebook/dp/B085RMQNLC/ref=sr_1_3?crid=E1BJ378UBDI5&keywords=rare+earth+metals&qid=1660134212&s=books&sprefix=rare+earth,stripbooks,60&sr=1-3 is really quite an interesting read, as is this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Elements-P...watch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1660134691&sr=8-28
Hopefully these tomes will provide a good starter for those who always ask for references. (They also contain good references within them)
Wonder how many people realise that radioactive thorium is a waste product of refining some rare earths? Of that the cobalt required for batteries has the main source a war zone in the Congo where it's dug out by hand by children? Lithium has its own challenges as
@Wilts Wanderer notes. [As do other "consumables-" and things such as fast fashion which is
really inexcusable]
We don't see anything in the news about rare earths as journalists who stick their noses into things the Chinese govt doesn't want them to don't have a very good survival rate. Plus the average journo is an arts graduate who probably hasn't got much idea what a rare earth element is and has a poor understanding of the scale of modern infrastructure and supply chains. And even if they did know, how many listeners/viewers/readers would be interested? Always easier to mouth platitudes than learn/do something difficult or which causes us discomfort from cognitive dissonance or in other ways- that's part of the human condition. (Which, in my original analogy, is why many people say they want to be fit and climb mountains but very few do the difficult things required to be able to).
If you're serious about zero carbon and understand all this and are seriously working towards using less energy (directly or embedded in objects or even food) and are happy to be on a genuinely green interruptible electricity supply and pay high energy prices- fair enough, good for you, I truly respect those who put their money where their mouth is. BUT- if not, please think about plans vs goals, and instead of talking about goals, start to have a good look at the underpinning science and engineering (that's an understanding of basic principles I mean, not just picking articles you agree with the most) so you can contribute usefully to the conversation about proper plans for
how we de-carbonise. And if you have an ounce of fairness, think about how we can do this without hurting the most vulnerable in our society.
This is all doable technologically, but unless a reasonable proportion of the population start understanding the underlying issues with the various means of achieving the de-carbonisation goals, I fear it will in the end come down to market forces manipulated by those who stand to gain from the situation.
TPO