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

161–170 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#161

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #111
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely. Add in some greed, corruption and ignorance and you've got a recipe for where we are today. And yet people blame environmentalists?

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#162

Post by algo_trader »

jacquesm wrote: post #136
algo_trader wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is aluminum an option for your structural loads? If so I would pick that before I'd even look at steel. Check out 6061 if that will work for you. Here is a nice little article comparing two common marine grade aluminum alloys: https://www.marinealu.com/a/marine-grade-aluminium-5083-vs-6...

thanks!!

So many helpful responses here.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#163

Post by m463 »

jacquesm wrote: post #14
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…

Volvo led the way in this long before Japan got even close to figuring this out. That's why you still see ancient Volvo's drive around in numbers that are just way higher than any other brand.

I wonder if this is because Volvo comes from a country with strong winters? (although japan is an island with probably lots of salt water corrosion)

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#165

Post by bradstewart »

capableweb wrote: post #143
game-of-throws wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference between "reconsider" and "reduce"?

"Reduce" would imply "Do less of" while "reconsider" would imply "Maybe something else fits better". Instead of reducing your usage of plastic bags, reconsider if maybe paper bags works as well?

Which would reduce your use of plastic bags.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#167

Post by kibwen »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #7
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?

There is a steel called Corten where the rust develops a protective layer similar to aluminum and won't rust all the way through. The only issue is it isn't good when exposed to constant water as the rust will wash off and not protect.

The USX Tower ("The Steel Building") in Pittsburgh is made entirely of Corten, designed to showcase the material when it was first developed. Other than turning all the sidewalks black when it was first weathering it seems to work great, as long as you're into the industrial aesthetic.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#169

Post by qwytw »

justinator wrote: post #124
Majestic121 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Toyota has their fair share of similar scandals. Maybe none at such as scale as WW, but still.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#170

Post by throwaway0x7E6 »

hristov wrote: post #115
throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protec…

why not? it does inhibit air/moisture exposure

the magic compound in the product you've linked doesn't cover the entire surface of the part you wrap in it, and it doesn't create a perfect seal, so it functions exactly as that oiled paper I saw did

I saw some pretty intricate automotive parts preserved that way. granted, they weren't exposed to the elements, but still - pristine. shiny like factory-new

Post reply on HN