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

121–130 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#121

Post by JohnBooty »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #32
jtlienwis wrote: post #4

The environmentalists killed a zinc mine in my state due to pollution concerns. Of course every pound of zinc not mined meant more steel without zinc protection, and hence more rust and more mining of iron ore. Arguments like this were completely lost on them.

So you mean that the mine should be allowed to pollute so long as the pollution is offset elsewhere?

Depends on the offset.

It's the environmental version of the trolley car problem, except you have an unknown number of people on each part of the train tracks.

Is it a 1:10 offset, where (holistically speaking) the zinc mine will cause 10x environmental damage as it prevents? Then maybe it shouldn't happen anywhere.

Is it 1:1 offset and we're merely insisting that the environmental damage should happen in a poorer country instead of our own?

Is it 10:1 or 100:1 where every kilogram of zinc means that's 10kg or 100kg of steel that won't prematurely rust and need to be replaced, with another 10kg of 100kg of iron ore being mined elsewhere and transported at great environmental cost to replace it? Then from an environmental standpoint it's a huge win and we should probably do it.

It's extremely difficult to know.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#122

Post by ghastmaster »

mattkrause wrote: post #24
bilsbie wrote: post #6

This is why I get scared when I see articles about people developing plastic eating bacteria. Sure it is great for reducing waste but it’s a dangerous game to be playing for sure.

Those microbes require very specific conditions: precise pH and osmolarity, high temperature (50-70˚C), long contact times, feedstock that's been literally pulverized, etc. These probably aren't going to occur anywhere outside of a bioreactor, so our action figures are likely safe...for now!

> These probably aren't going to occur anywhere outside of a bioreactor, so our action figures are likely safe...for now!

This article, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/14/bugs-acr..., posted here a while back describes evidence that real world evolution is happening. "for now!" indeed.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29579337

> The study is the first large-scale global assessment of the plastic-degrading potential of bacteria and found that one in four of the organisms analysed carried a suitable enzyme. The researchers found that the number and type of enzymes they discovered matched the amount and type of plastic pollution in different locations.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#123

Post by algo_trader »

jacquesm wrote: post #119
algo_trader wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, the payload has a 20 year life time.

Solar panels, navigational lights, etc. Hopefully very little physical contact with other man made objects.

A decade of sea life before some sort of land refurbishment would be a nice value for the excel.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#124

Post by justinator »

Majestic121 wrote: post #93
kreeben wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyotas cost nothing compared to Porches, so 1-0 Japan vs rest of the world.

VW is an affordable brand.

VW has been caught lying about the capabilities of their cars, then the executives blamed the engineers to cover their asses. If one needs a reason to forget about VW.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#126

Post by justinator »

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.

Perhaps we should add, "Reconsider" as in, "Reconsider purchasing the item, when it's not needed, or a better alternative exists".

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#128

Post by photochemsyn »

jtlienwis wrote: post #4

The environmentalists killed a zinc mine in my state due to pollution concerns. Of course every pound of zinc not mined meant more steel without zinc protection, and hence more rust and more mining of iron ore. Arguments like this were completely lost on them.

You can greatly reduce pollution associated with mining by taking various precautions, but they all have one thing in common: they're expensive to implement. For example, ore-hauling trucks in Alaska could use covered trailers to transport ore to reduce lead/cadmium dust, which gets into local food chains, for example in Alaska:

> "A 2001 National Park Service report documented elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc in vegetation along the road, as well as near the storage area by the port. Concentrations of lead and cadmium, the National Park Service report stated, exceed levels found in “many of the most polluted countries in Central and Eastern Europe and all areas of western Russia.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/most-toxi...

Usually mining companies respond by saying that requiring them to implement such solutions ('regulation') is anti-free-market and makes them uncompetitive, as they then have to sell their ore on global markets at higher prices or accept much lower profit margins.

I've never actually seen an industrial pollution problem that didn't have a technical (if sometimes expensive) solution. Making those solutions the norm (kind of like requiring all homes to have toilets, etc.) is the reason why regulation is a good idea, it flattens the markets so noone can undersell using dirty methods.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#129

Post by jacquesm »

riversflow wrote: post #110
jacquesm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, plastic was the mistake. That was the dangerous game, those plastic eating bacteria are one way to restore some of the natural order and hopefully at some point they'd run out of food.

How is “plastic was the mistake” any more reasonable than “electricity was the mistake” Plastic is indispensable just like electricity.

Plastic is indispensable completely unlike electricity is indispensable.

Plastic is a huge pollutant, with breakdown stats that make you cry once you start thinking in terms of tons of absolutely indestructible stuff that makes it into our environment every day. Only a very small fraction of that stuff really needed to be made from plastic. Mostly it is just done because it is cheap and mechanically well understood. And because - tadaaaa - it lasts longer than most other materials. But the result is that the plastic invariably outlasts everything else, and it is super hard to recycle it efficiently unless it was expressly made to be recycled, which it rarely is.

Electricity is a highly fungible form of energy, in every way that matters unlike plastic and for which we do not have any alternatives that come close to having the same kind of properties for everyday use.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#130

Post by jacquesm »

buildsjets wrote: post #117
JohnBooty wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Some places even drill additional holes thru virgin metal to access hidden areas, which damages the finish and exposes unprotected areas.

That's an exceptionally bad idea for another reason: cabling is often sandwiched in between two layers of sheetmetal to protect the loom from mechanical damage. If you start drilling holes in box members there is a fair chance that you'll end up doing damage to whatever is enclosed. And of course the debris from the drill is an excellent way to start the oxidization process.

Post reply on HN