Live data from Hacker News

The Global Cost of Corrosion

impact.nace.org

171–180 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#171

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.

Is it that the argument was lost on them, or that there are better ways to mine for zinc and better locations to mine for zinc than the one in question?

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#173
post #94

Wrt to salt water corrosion, having been around folks involved with boats and boatbuilding all my life, the 'best' material for building a boat or yacht is an ever-green topic with no resolution in sight. Of course, for factory-produced boats made in large series, GRP reigns supreme, which is why most boats out there are GRP, but for one-offs it's still hotly debated. Steel, aluminum, wood (in all kinds of variations…

GRP => Glass Reinforced Plastic

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#174

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.

VW was the _first_ company selling diesel powered passenger vehicles to be caught lying. Opel/GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Jeep, Renault, Peugeot, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, and Porsche were all later caught somehow skirting diesel emissions testing. Basically all large truck manufacturers did it too.

Clean diesel is a myth, it never was a thing and the only reason anyone thought it was was because the entire auto industry was lying to regulators and customers for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#175
Btw, since this is a common misconception: the cost for repairing / replacing corroded metal actually increases GDP. It's not clear from the article what they mean by 'costs' (they could also mean how many other goods weren't produced because of corrosion damage, which would be lost GDP), but that's something to be aware of.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot to be said for stainless steel. But look at the price of chromium.

Right. I guess a replacement alloy would be the best bet. No matter how cheap your improved process is, the input costs are still there. Or an improved process for extracting and refining chromium itself. Aside from cost, I think it’s a dirty process as well?

Yeah, chromium and nickel, two of the chief components that put the stainless in stainless-steel, are rather toxic in most/all oxidation states (Cr3+ is weirdly biologically necessary but toxic in high doses). Their refining process is pretty nasty too - lots of cyanide / carbonyl (monoxide) complexes, and mining is just generally filthy.

Automation and cheaper electricity would drive down the cost of recovering metals from aqueous waste.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#177
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.

I wouldn't worry. Lignin (in wood) is a bit more reactive than polyolefins. It was effectively indigestible for eons until fungi figured out how to break it down, and even then, wood only breaks down in certain conditions.
Post reply on HN