Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Global Cost of Corrosion

impact.nace.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#111

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #83
Aloha wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually we'll run out of elsewhere. Like pushing our pollution into the developing world is both immoral and harmful to our economy.

How much is pushed vs pulled?Many resource extraction projects are cancelled because they wouldn't be economical with all the added costs to ameliorate pollution. Perhaps if the developing world had higher standards and better enforcement, it would cost more and thus not undercut local production.

Sounds like a race to the bottom. If a poor community upheld its dignity and required additional costs to keep the environment from harm, it would get outbid by a more exploitative seller.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#112

Post by JohnBooty »

Arrath wrote: post #10
countvonbalzac wrote: post #3

Why aren't bridges and ships made out of stainless steel? Is it too expensive, or not as strong as regular steel?

Cost, primarily. I'm not certain but I believe joins and welds also need further attention to ensure the corrosion protection isn't impaired. Anyway, O&M is the problem for the guy trying to get the next decade's budget approved so if the upkeep is more expensive, hey at least I got this thing built.

    Anyway, O&M is the problem for the guy trying to get 
    the next decade's budget approved
This is why democracy, while far better than the alternatives, still absolutely sucks.

It's a system explicitly designed to be short-sighted. There is massive disincentive to produce systems and infrastructure that will actually work some distance into the future. The only incentive for politicians is either (a) merely look like they're doing something (b) produce the fastest, cheapest possible thing that they can take credit for when they're up for re-election.

Democracy would only really thrive if the public valued the future, and had some reliable way of judging how our politicians' solutions actually benefit the future. (ex: I value the future, but if we build a bridge today I have no way of judging if it's built to last for 5 years or 500 years)

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#113

Post by [deleted] »

mattnewton wrote: post #100
ajkjk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well perhaps "retain" should be added. Making something last longer isn't quite "reduce" or "reuse".

Isn’t it reuse? Reduce - don’t buy another car, reuse - keep using your car, or buy a used car, recycle - sell your old car for scrap.

[deleted]

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#114

Post by algo_trader »

lbrindze wrote: post #47
jacquesm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stainless steel is not 'rust proof' it is mostly rust retardant, it has a chromium coating that reduces oxidization but does not stop it completely. The more chromium, the better the rust resistant properties. https://www.pennstainless.com/resources/product-information/... Is pretty good stuff and https://www.cralloys.com/alloys/17-chrome/ is possibly better still. If you want (much) better rust resistance than that…

I was not familiar with these grades, very interesting reading and finding out about them. The most common grades of stainless I have encountered in the marine industry is either 316 (best) or 304 (budget, requires regular cleaning to keep rust free). Both have issues with crevice corrosion and are also very expensive compared to zinc-plated equivalents (which I would never use on a boat since they will effectively d…

What would u use for a floating scaffolding or buoy that you want to last in sea water?

(Yes, we can tow it to shore for inspections, but would rather not)

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#115

Post by hristov »

throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #68
hristov wrote: post #8

This is an important issue. People keep talking about recycling, but much more important than recycling is just being able to use a thing for longer before you are even thinking about recycling it. Japanese automakers did the world a great favor when in the 80s and 90s they made much longer lasting cars and made longevity and resale value an important consideration in the purchasing decision. They did this mostly by…

that's a poor example of "modern". I've seen tools/parts that have been lying around wrapped in oiled paper since the 1930s, without a hint of rust.

The parts lying in oil paper were probably also covered in oil or more likely grease. Oil paper by itself does little to prevent rust. There are costs associated with covering parts with grease. You have to apply it everywhere, for many applications, you have to remove it before actually using the part, etc.

The product I linked automatically emits a chemical which clings to the metal and creates a microscopic protective barrier. The layer is so thin it does not affect the mechanical properties of the metal so it does not have to be removed. Although it will go away by itself several hours after the part is taken out of the special packaging.

Anyways, I am not trying to sell the stuff, just letting people know what is available out there.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#116

Post by imchillyb »

boringg wrote: post #31

Isn't this like corrosion engineers validating their own industry? I mean it's a fair talking point but also like asking VCs how good their returns are?

> https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/11/15/...

> …Public investment in U.S. infrastructure as a share of GDP has fallen by more than 40 percent since the 1960s. The World Economic Forum now ranks the United States 13th when it comes to the overall quality of infrastructure...

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#117

Post by buildsjets »

JohnBooty wrote: post #95
bradfa wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everybody smartened up and now things are much better, to the point that there hardly are cars made that have serious rust issues. I find this entertaining. Come to upstate NY, USA where we liberally salt our roads in the winter. Definitely not "everybody" smartened up as it's still very common to find vehicles here that after 10 years should be declared unsafe to operate due to rust-through of critical structural…

Do aftermarket "anti-rust coatings" actually work? Y'know, the kind people are always trying to sell you at auto dealerships and the like?

They typically make rust and corrosion WORSE, not better. They remove factory lee plugs to spray their anti-corrosion goo in, then often fail to reinstall them or do it poorly. Their goop can clog the engineered drainage paths and cause water to accumulate and sit. Some places even drill additional holes thru virgin metal to access hidden areas, which damages the finish and exposes unprotected areas.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#118

Post by wbsss4412 »

jacquesm wrote: post #89
wbsss4412 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never meant to say that Volvo isn’t Chinese. It’s just odd that people really feel the need to bring it up, despite the fact that operationally little is different. It’s Chinese in the same way that Jeep/ram/dodge/Chrysler are Dutch now. No one ever seems to bring that up when they are mentioned, though.

> I never meant to say that Volvo isn’t Chinese. Accepted. > It’s just odd that people really feel the need to bring it up, despite the fact that operationally little is different. It was merely for completeness' sake, and to indicate that since the days that Volvo pioneered this sort of thing the company had changed ownership. > It’s Chinese in the same way that Jeep/ram/dodge/Chrysler are Dutch now. That's a tax do…

Stellantis really is a European company, which was the point. I felt the need to choose a country so I chose where they’re headquartered. Regardless, most people would identify those brands as “American” cars, which was the overarching point.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#119

Post by jacquesm »

algo_trader wrote: post #114
lbrindze wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not familiar with these grades, very interesting reading and finding out about them. The most common grades of stainless I have encountered in the marine industry is either 316 (best) or 304 (budget, requires regular cleaning to keep rust free). Both have issues with crevice corrosion and are also very expensive compared to zinc-plated equivalents (which I would never use on a boat since they will effectively d…

What would u use for a floating scaffolding or buoy that you want to last in sea water? (Yes, we can tow it to shore for inspections, but would rather not)

> that you want to last in sea water?

How long?

Under what kind of load?

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#120

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #17
countvonbalzac wrote: post #3

Why aren't bridges and ships made out of stainless steel? Is it too expensive, or not as strong as regular steel?

Stainless steel is not 'rust proof' it is mostly rust retardant, it has a chromium coating that reduces oxidization but does not stop it completely. The more chromium, the better the rust resistant properties. https://www.pennstainless.com/resources/product-information/... Is pretty good stuff and https://www.cralloys.com/alloys/17-chrome/ is possibly better still. If you want (much) better rust resistance than that…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN