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

Is the world really running out of sand?

practical.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 218 posts

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#181

Post by pfdietz »

lazide wrote: post #180
pfdietz wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder, but if one looks at the externalities from fossil fuel consumption, it's actually cheaper to use renewable energy now. Hydrogen for ammonia production is very cheaply storable (underground, like natural gas is stored) and would provide a large dispatchable demand to ease integration of renewables into the economy, smoothing over long timescale intermittency. In any case, because the energy used for agric…

Since neither the general economy nor agriculture has gotten anywhere near getting off fossil fuels yet, that is assuming a lot isn’t it? Even if electrical grid needs are 100% renewable, that is just a couple percent of most economies energy usage.

You're skating perilously close to "if something hasn't happened yet, it can't ever happen". This is not valid reasoning.

If the global economy can't get off fossil fuels, we're incredibly fucked, so I suggest there's nothing to be lost by assuming the problem is solvable.

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#182

Post by lazide »

pfdietz wrote: post #181
lazide wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since neither the general economy nor agriculture has gotten anywhere near getting off fossil fuels yet, that is assuming a lot isn’t it? Even if electrical grid needs are 100% renewable, that is just a couple percent of most economies energy usage.

You're skating perilously close to "if something hasn't happened yet, it can't ever happen". This is not valid reasoning. If the global economy can't get off fossil fuels, we're incredibly fucked, so I suggest there's nothing to be lost by assuming the problem is solvable.

And you’re skating awfully close to the ‘if something could be theoretically solved, that means it is already solved’. That is also not valid reasoning.

I’m pointing out that the scope and scale of the actual changes that need to happen is so large that it will require a lot of work to solve it, in practice. Without everyone (well, 90% probably) starving to death, anyway.

Should we be starting? Yes. But it will require actual concerted effort and significant tradeoffs. And a lot of time.

We’ve been working very hard to get to this point for a century now.

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#183

Post by pfdietz »

lazide wrote: post #182
pfdietz wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're skating perilously close to "if something hasn't happened yet, it can't ever happen". This is not valid reasoning. If the global economy can't get off fossil fuels, we're incredibly fucked, so I suggest there's nothing to be lost by assuming the problem is solvable.

And you’re skating awfully close to the ‘if something could be theoretically solved, that means it is already solved’. That is also not valid reasoning. I’m pointing out that the scope and scale of the actual changes that need to happen is so large that it will require a lot of work to solve it, in practice. Without everyone (well, 90% probably) starving to death, anyway. Should we be starting? Yes. But it will requi…

Now you're confusing "solvable" with "solved". Different concepts!

Of course a lot of work would be needed. The work, however, would be justified and very likely rewarded. There don't appear to be any showstoppers that would prevent it from succeeding.

The ultimate problem is one of collective action, internalizing costs that are now externalized. We've solved problems like this before, globally for example with the ban on CFCs. Here the costs and stakes are even higher.

Fossil fuel use will ultimately drive some countries near the equator to such levels of heating that life will become difficult or impossible. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, so they (particularly India, which has hydrogen bombs and a much larger economy) can threaten to kick over the global card table if the problem is not effectively addressed.

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#184

Post by lazide »

pfdietz wrote: post #183
lazide wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you’re skating awfully close to the ‘if something could be theoretically solved, that means it is already solved’. That is also not valid reasoning. I’m pointing out that the scope and scale of the actual changes that need to happen is so large that it will require a lot of work to solve it, in practice. Without everyone (well, 90% probably) starving to death, anyway. Should we be starting? Yes. But it will requi…

Now you're confusing "solvable" with "solved". Different concepts! Of course a lot of work would be needed. The work, however, would be justified and very likely rewarded. There don't appear to be any showstoppers that would prevent it from succeeding. The ultimate problem is one of collective action, internalizing costs that are now externalized. We've solved problems like this before, globally for example with the…

The issue is that many players are already defacto bankrupt (from a people starving to death/poverty perspective) even while externalizing the costs of fossil fuels.

Like India, Pakistan, many parts of China, Russia, etc.

So easy to say, hard to do. And it’s hard to say that threatening to nuke everyone is going to apply the right kind of leverage, if say India is already starting to drown. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone else then to take their nukes (or nuke them in advance) and let them drown?

Even if others haven’t gotten that far in their line of thinking, I’m guessing India sure has.

The CFC coalition was nothing compared to what will be required to deal with this situation - and notably, the CFC issue still isn’t really solved. Just mostly under control.

We’ll see how this plays out.

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#187

Post by HPsquared »

Ekaros wrote: post #172
oe wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite example of this is trucks transporting Finnish bottled water to France and then bringing French bottled water back.

Reminds me of getting can of S.Pellegrino water with something in it. Looked at back of the can and wondered why is this in Japanese... So my guess is that it was first made in Italy, then shipped to Japan and then imported back to Finland... One starts to question sanity of our consumption habits at times. I am no way environmentalist, but this sort of stuff just seems waste of energy inputs.

It's more that ocean shipping is extremely cheap. Meaning it uses very little labour and resources per mile.

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#188

Post by WillAdams »

lazide wrote: post #148
WillAdams wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another book on this is: _Material World: The Six Raw Materials That Shape Modern Civilization_ by Ed Conway https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/112974899-material-world >Sand, salt, iron, copper, oil, and lithium. These fundamental materials have created empires, razed civilizations, and fed our ingenuity and greed for thousands of years. Without them, our modern world would not exist, and the battle to control them…

Lithium seems like a weird one to add to that list. It definitely hasn’t been important for thousands of years. Potassium or Nitrates are a more likely addition.

Excellent point. I suspect it's more a nod to its recent importance --- bought the book for my ebook reader when it was on sale, but it hasn't gotten to the top of the to be read stack yet --- should probably accelerate that.

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#189

Post by WillAdams »

lazide wrote: post #180
pfdietz wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder, but if one looks at the externalities from fossil fuel consumption, it's actually cheaper to use renewable energy now. Hydrogen for ammonia production is very cheaply storable (underground, like natural gas is stored) and would provide a large dispatchable demand to ease integration of renewables into the economy, smoothing over long timescale intermittency. In any case, because the energy used for agric…

Since neither the general economy nor agriculture has gotten anywhere near getting off fossil fuels yet, that is assuming a lot isn’t it? Even if electrical grid needs are 100% renewable, that is just a couple percent of most economies energy usage.

For some places that is happening:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/more-than-98-percen...

2020 had the UK reaching 43%:

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu...

Interesting point about electric being only a small part of overall usage --- I guess direct heating and things such as smelting/refining metals makes up the bulk of energy usage?

Re: Is the world really running out of sand?

#190

Post by mcculley »

whartung wrote: post #122
mcculley wrote: post #79

One thing that surprised me when I started running a tugboat business: A country can be both an exporter and importer of sand. Sand of one type goes from the U.S. to The Bahamas to be used in concrete. Sand of another type goes from The Bahamas to the U.S. to be used in aquariums. Specialty sands go to make regulation volleyball courts.

Just marveling as an old school computer programming geek that I happen to be in a forum that also includes someone in the tugboat business.

I also became an old school computer programming geek (and still am) before ending up managing pirates.
Post reply on HN