[HN Gopher] The Global Cost of Corrosion ___________________________________________________________________ The Global Cost of Corrosion Author : apatil Score : 173 points Date : 2022-07-25 15:58 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (impact.nace.org) (TXT) w3m dump (impact.nace.org) | fest wrote: | A soviet-era book on machining I recently read stated that up | until that point, about 40% of the total steel and cast iron | production since 1890 has been lost to corrosion. | bilsbie wrote: | 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. | MichaelCollins wrote: | It doesn't seem like a problem to me. Wood rots, but wood | furniture and even buildings can easily last for centuries if | cared for. | kortex wrote: | 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. | mattkrause wrote: | 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! | wongarsu wrote: | With time evolution will widen the conditions, with how much | plastic is in the environment. | | But wood and paper are also readily biodegrade, and yet by | simply by controlling the amount of moisture present we | manage to make those last a long, long time. In addition we | have treatment options to delay decomposition even in wet | conditions. | josephcsible wrote: | But right now there's a lot of places that we explicitly | choose to use plastic and not wood, because it's somewhere | that wood would degrade. | ghastmaster wrote: | > 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. | jwilk wrote: | FYI, you used an incorrect character for the degree sign. | | Should be deg U+00B0 DEGREE SIGN, not @ U+02DA RING ABOVE. | mattkrause wrote: | Hmmmm...it's whatever Option+k does on macOS. I thought it | was the degree sign because it doesn't actually combine, | but apparently degree is option+shift+8 instead. | usmannk wrote: | or just option+0, because degree is like a little 0 I | guess? | mattkrause wrote: | Ha! I had been thinking Option-K like Kelvin (also a unit | of temperature--but ironically one that isn't properly a | "degree". Maybe that should have been a hint!) | | Option-zero has a tiny underbar for me, which I think is | in Bulgarian(?) abbreviations. | jwilk wrote: | o U+00BA MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR, I guess? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_indicator | evan_ wrote: | An acquaintance just about had a nervous breakdown | recently because they somehow used ^ (option+i, used for | e.g. i) in a regex instead of ^ and couldn't figure out | why such a basic thing was failing. | SI_Rob wrote: | F1 does, perhaps, but what about F2, F3, F10^7452? | Terr_ wrote: | > feedstock that's been literally pulverized, etc. | | Even if hypothetical rogue bacteria can't dissolve plastic | parts to goo or cause structural damage, or there's still | potential harm in the form of surface changes. Discoloration, | flaking, etc. | | Imagine a product nobody wants to buy because it _looks_ | damaged, or a medical device that can 't be as | easily/thoroughly sterilized anymore. | jacquesm wrote: | 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. | riversflow wrote: | How is "plastic was the mistake" any more reasonable than | "electricity was the mistake" | | Plastic is indispensable just like electricity. | jacquesm wrote: | 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. | hristov wrote: | 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 using better paints and making | sure cars and car parts are painted more thoroughly. | | There are modern materials that prevent corrosion. Here is a | company that sells ordinary looking paper that you can use to | wrap anything and it will prevent it from rusting. | | https://www.zerust.com/ | hammock wrote: | >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. | | Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order | ajkjk wrote: | Well perhaps "retain" should be added. Making something last | longer isn't quite "reduce" or "reuse". | schroeding wrote: | _Reduce_ trash by retaining things for longer. :D | | But you're right, IMO. Maybe it should be _retain_ , if you | can't retain try to _reduce_ , if you can't reduce _reuse_ | , if you can't reuse _recycle_ | mattnewton wrote: | 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] | justinator wrote: | Perhaps we should add, "Reconsider" as in, "Reconsider | purchasing the item, when it's not needed, or a better | alternative exists". | [deleted] | game-of-throws wrote: | Is there a difference between "reconsider" and "reduce"? | capableweb wrote: | "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? | bradstewart wrote: | Which would reduce your use of plastic bags. | justinator wrote: | There would be a difference between reducing your use of | motor vehicles and reconsidering using them at all if our | lifestyle allows us to use an alternative, like an ebike. | justinator wrote: | Thanks for the downvotes for simply openly suggesting | something fairly benign. A real vibrant and healthy | community we have here. | adastra22 wrote: | I think the idea is reducing consumption and it falls under | that. | mikebco wrote: | And repair. Repairing always uses fewer resources than | making new. | | While I personally and professionally select use repairable | items in lieu of non-repairable ones, I believe that this | is not entirely a personal issue. Another r-word to add | should be regulation. Without some degree of enforcement, | the present set of incentives will continue to worsen the | situation. | nradov wrote: | That's only true if you don't count skilled labor as a | "resource". Repairing badly corroded vehicles isn't | economically viable because it takes so much work to cut | and weld the corroded body and frame parts. So that kind | of repair is only done for collector items. Regular cars | just get junked and replaced. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | recycling is an issue of material consumption and | pollution - if you are optimising for time and | convenience, single use plastic is the best thing ever. | | And labour is expensove because rent is expensive. | Countries with cheap rent have enough labour to repair | things, countries with expensive rent are throwing away | perfectly good dishwasher because 1 motor must be | replaced and there is noone to do it. | | I was just listening to an economic analyst bleating how | a potential fall in house prices would be terrible. Noone | is reflecting on the fact that housing shortage has done | more economic damage than the Plague. | ByThyGrace wrote: | There is also a 0th R-word in that truism, which is "Refuse". | carlmr wrote: | Refuse is funny because depending on how you pronounce it, | it might not fit well. | Ralo wrote: | Owning a 1994 Toyota pickup, this truck has been argued as one | of the toughest trucks ever made. However, they rust. Badly. | | It's usually the frame, starting from the inside where it | collects dirt and water absorbs into it where it won't | evaporate and will stay in there damp for months. | | Cutting and welding patches onto a frame isn't the biggest | deal, and you can install drain holes with places to spray | cavity wax coatings. | | Once it's rusty inside, you're gonna have a battle. It really | needs to be coated from day and then maintained. | pcurve wrote: | "They did this mostly by using better paints and making sure | cars and car parts are painted more thoroughly." | | Their cars last longer because they put more emphasis on | durability and longevity than bleeding edge performance, for | parts that matter in extending overall operating life of a | vehicle. | | Germans may use their dollars differently, designs that require | tighter tolerance for higher performance. They may also skimp | out on actual durability testing, serviceability of parts, etc. | Again, prioritizing performance over other attributes. | hadlock wrote: | Porsche started galvanizing their bodies in the 1970s, VW | started in the 1980s, Japan only started galvanizing their | bodies in export markets, in response to the germans, and only | recently (last 15 years) have been galvanizing all their bodies | domestic and import. | kreeben wrote: | Toyotas cost nothing compared to Porches, so 1-0 Japan vs | rest of the world. | elmomle wrote: | Unless you happen to think that reduced car ownership is | good for the world! | goodluckchuck wrote: | Or, even better for the environment , we could kill all | of human civilization! /s | Majestic121 wrote: | VW is an affordable brand. | gmac wrote: | And Skoda and SEAT are even more affordable brands, and | essentially the same cars. | justinator wrote: | 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. | luma wrote: | 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 | justinator wrote: | Of these other scandals, which other companies have | their, "executives blamed the engineers" | | That is what I was highlighting. Not, "mistakes were | made" but, "And they were, _points fingers at scapegoat_ | " | qwytw wrote: | Toyota has their fair share of similar scandals. Maybe | none at such as scale as WW, but still. | s1artibartfast wrote: | >have been galvanizing all their bodies domestic and import. | | This is because there's basically no market for used cars | older than 5 years in Japan | | https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.picknbuy24.com/amp/column_1. | .. | jandrese wrote: | I feel like that is a self-perpetuating cycle. Japanese | carmakers build cars to rust out in half a decade and thus | nobody wants to buy old rustbuckets thus the carmakers | don't bother to build them to last. | s1artibartfast wrote: | It is a actually a legal and insurance issue in Japan. | The costs are not tied to the quality of the vehicle. If | it costs more to recertify a perfectly functional used | vehicle than lease a brand new one, it makes sense to opt | for new one. | [deleted] | xyzzy123 wrote: | There's a huge export market though: https://en.m.wikipedia | .org/wiki/Japanese_used_vehicle_export... | | I read that something like 60% of cars registered in NZ are | Japanese imports. | | IMHO Japanese used car exports have a lot of the | characteristics of "dumping" (in trade terms) but because | there is no local vehicle manufacturing in most of the | places they end up, nobody complains. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Dumping is when a country is subsidizing domestic | production and selling a good internationally below cost. | Japan isn't dumping because they don't subsidize the | manufacturer. Instead they just have onerous regulations | that make private parties sell their cars. Have | artificially stimulated local demand | steveh777 wrote: | Yep, a huge number of our cars are Japanese imports. It | means we can get a 5 year old Toyota/Mazda for the | equivalent of about $6-7000 USD (or cheaper imported | privately), which will run for another 150,000km with | little difficulty. | | We mostly don't have snow and I don't think any region | salts their roads, so rust isn't much of an issue with | something that new. | hinkley wrote: | Famously, 1990's Mitsubishi and Subaru vehicles can basically | rust down to the frame before the drivetrain stops | functioning. And they don't wait long to start on the former. | [deleted] | NikolaNovak wrote: | Interesting. Mine is a 2004 wrx and getting full of holes, | but mechanic keeps assuring me drive train is solid and | perfectly safe to drive. | hinkley wrote: | I'm not confident enough on when that era ended to say it | magically ended in 2000, just that it hadn't ended by | late enough in the 90's to use a big fat brush and say | "the 90's". The closest I've been to a Mitsubishi or | Subaru maven is 2 degrees of separation. | throwaway0x7E6 wrote: | 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. | hristov wrote: | 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. | varjag wrote: | Inhibitor paper is old tech though, was already around in | 1970s. | throwaway0x7E6 wrote: | 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 | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >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 using better | paints and making sure cars and car parts are painted more | thoroughly. | | This is baseless fanboyism. | | The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of | zinc plating and dipped coatings being widely implemented on | their products in the 70s and 80s. Then around that time lead | paint got banned in the US (creating that generation of cars | that faded a lot in the 80s) and everybody in the US market was | like "hey, we need alternatives that don't break the bank, | let's copy what they're doing". The Japanese and US makers both | upped their game for the north American market over roughly the | same time period. The Japanese have never really taken | corrosion prevention very seriously before or since. They and | the US makes generally take a "we do as good a job as we need | to remain competitive but we don't go above and beyond" | attitude whereas the Europeans tend to put quite a bit more | effort in. | | Edit: If you want someone to lie to you to confirm your biases | that's not gonna be me. | mlyle wrote: | > The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of | zinc plating and dipped coatings being widely implemented on | their products in the 70s and 80s. | | Ford developed e-coat in the 50's. _Everyone_ took up this to | varying extents during the mid-to-late 70 's. | | > whereas the Europeans tend to put quite a bit more effort | in. | | I'm sorry, this just doesn't match my experience looking at | mid-80's Japanese, American, and European cars. e.g. Porsche | took up galvanizing during the transition from the 911S to | the 911SC and further worked to improve coatings leading up | to the Carrera 3.2 to attempt to control rust, but 3.2s still | fared _really poorly_ in the corrosion department. Ditto for | BMWs of the era. | | > This is baseless fanboyism. | | > Edit: If you want someone to lie to you to confirm your | biases that's not gonna be me. | | You just made a bunch of unsupported assertions yourself | leaning in the opposite direction. | Aloha wrote: | I came here to mention E-coat, though I'm thinking of it by | another name, it's why in dry climates it's rare to see | vintage fords rusted out, GM and Chrysler took longer to | implement it. | wizee wrote: | Porsche 944s and 928s are far more rust resistant than most | American or Japanese cars of the 80s or even 90s. Likewise | with Volvos. The classic 911 was an old design that went | through iterative improvements, and the 964 is better rust- | proofed than most American or Japanese cars of the late 80s | or 90s. Old Audis tend to have minimal rust, and old | Mercedes-Benzes like the W126, W124, and W201, while they | certainly can and do rust, their bodies tend to far outlast | Japanese and American cars of the same era driven in | similar conditions. Old W124s still soldier on as daily | drivers and winter beaters in the cold and salty | environments of post-Soviet states with mostly OK bodies, | whereas Japanese cars of the 1980s almost all rotted away | beyond repair being worthwhile more than a decade ago. | mlyle wrote: | It is my impression that older Mercedes are pretty good | in this department. | | I _still_ see so many mid-80 's Accords in the US. Yes, | there's probably a somewhat smaller share of them that | survived than mid-80's BMWs, but there's a lot of factors | that go into survival (Honda == cheaper to keep going as | a beater; BMW == higher initial value / treated nicer for | the earlier parts of its lifespan). | throwaway0a5e wrote: | You see so many mid 80s Accords in the US for the same | reason you still see a lot of 90s Caddys despite them | being objectively crap cars. The people who bought them | could afford to keep them nice, not beat the shit out of | them and maintain them as they needed it so they lasted. | Your average 1990ish Accord commuter sedan lived a far, | far, far easier life, at least for the first 10-15yr than | your average Ford Taurus or Subaru Legacy family wagon | and it shows in the number that are still around today. | | This is the same reason you see a lot more Grand Marquis | and Town Cars to (non-cop) Crown Vics today than you did | back when they were still making all those things. I cite | this example specifically to control for literally every | variable except the owners. | jacquesm wrote: | 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. | m463 wrote: | 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) | UniverseHacker wrote: | I came here to mention this about Volvos. Starting with the | 7xx series (1982 on) they have been virtually rustproof. Old | 7xx volvos are crazy cheap because they last forever, and | there just isn't enough demand for the huge numbers of them | still around... | bradfa wrote: | Are modern Volvos still better than average for corrosion | resistance? | jacquesm wrote: | Somewhere in the late 90's early 2000's car manufacturers | switched paint processes, typically to a water based paint. | | That's the point in time where you could see the most | clearly which manufacturers had their house in order in | terms of weld cleaning, seam coating, basic material | procurement and surface protection. | | Some of them failed horribly, which led to some brands (for | instance: Mercedes) having an undisclosed hit against their | earnings to deal with the resulting rust issues on | relatively new cars. It wasn't rare at all to see an early | 2000's C-Class in the shop for the replacement of four | doors, bonnet and rear hatch. And it wasn't rare to see | them completely rusted out either a few years later. From | Q1 2003 they galvanized those panels and then the problem | stopped. | | So everybody smartened up and now things are _much_ better, | to the point that there hardly are cars made that have | serious rust issues. Coatings are a continuous materials | science development front and some of the stuff that | happened in the last decade and a half is extremely | impressive. | | Car bodies used to be gone long before the engines, those | days are over. | | VAG, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW all have a very good reputation | nowadays for being rust resistant, I would not know of a | favorite between those. By the way, Volvo is now Chinese | (bought by scooter manufacturer Geely). | | My own car is a 1997 (just before they switched paint | formulation for that particular brand) and there isn't a | spot of rust on it and as far as I know it has never had | body work done. (Don't get me started about engines | though...) | gandalfian wrote: | Hmm, we have one of the rusty c classes, made in South | Africa. The doors, bonnet etc have been just fine. | Underneath is the disaster. Particularly the rear end | which has collapsed several times as it just rusted | through in the first ten years. Bizarre. Bodged up by a | backstreet garage it still goes, engine just fine, never | a problem, just that faint disconcerting worry the wheels | will fall off again... | jacquesm wrote: | Those engines last forever. I had a C-class from that | vintage, it looked like you could walk in on one side and | out the other without opening the doors (great: nobody | ever thought of stealing that car). But the engine just | kept on working and as far as I know it still runs (in | Limburg, with a friend that I haven't seen since COVID). | wbsss4412 wrote: | Volvo is owned by a Chinese parent company, but their | operations are still based in the same places as before. | | Using the definition implied by your comment, they were | previously and "American" car manufacturer as they were | sold to geeley by ford. | | Edit: absurd typo, it _is_ owned by a Chinese company. | jacquesm wrote: | > Volvo is not owned by a Chinese parent company, but | their operations are still based in the same places as | before. | | You are welcome to use your own definition of the word | 'owned' but I'll just stick to the dictionary one. | | > Using the definition implied by your comment, they were | previously and "American" car manufacturer as they were | sold to geeley by ford. | | https://www.industryweek.com/finance/software- | systems/articl... | wbsss4412 wrote: | Apologies, that was a typo. | | The risks of posting on a phone... | jacquesm wrote: | Someone else caught it and pointed that out. I totally | missed it. | Gracana wrote: | I highly suspect, based on facts about Volvo and the | structure of that sentence, that they didn't mean to | write "not owned", but rather "now owned." | wbsss4412 wrote: | Yes, that is indeed correct. Thank you for clarifying for | me. | jacquesm wrote: | Ah, that could be, thank you for pointing that out. That | would make a lot more sense. But then I still don't | understand the comment. Volvo is now Chinese, whether you | like it or not is another matter. | tome wrote: | Would you say that Arm is a Japanese company? | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, absolutely. As soon as majority ownership of a | company changes from one nationality to another you're | kidding yourself if you want to continue to see it as | belonging to the country where it originated. | | The shareholders control who runs the company, what it | does, how it does it and ultimately where the profits | are. It's just like outsourcing. But we don't like it | when we look at Asian companies owning famous Western | brands. But when McDonalds operates in China we're quick | to call it an American company. That works both ways. | wbsss4412 wrote: | 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. | jacquesm wrote: | > 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 dodge and has very little to do with the | actual ownership. | | And no, Geely is _really_ a Chinese company and _really_ | controls Volvo. | | > No one ever seems to bring that up when they are | mentioned, though. | | Because most people are aware of the difference between a | tax dodge and a controlling interest by a foreign | company. | | If you want to make a parallel with Stellantis I think it | should stop with the shareholders of Stellantis which | you'll find in Italy and France, not in NL. | wbsss4412 wrote: | 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. | jacquesm wrote: | > Regardless, most people would identify those brands as | "American" cars, which was the overarching point. | | Yes, car brand ownership is a mess. So if you want to buy | an American car, I think your options are limited to | Tesla. | georgeburdell wrote: | My first car was a '96 Nissan Altima. By 2004 when I got | it, the paint was worn away on the center of the hood and | the top. My family got 3 new cars circa 2010, one of | which is an Altima, never had this issue again. Perhaps | this is explained by what you're talking about? | | Despite cars being on the road for longer than ever, I | feel like I've seen far fewer "rust buckets" than in my | youth | bradfa wrote: | 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 components. | jacquesm wrote: | Interesting, any particular brands or is that across the | board? | | Here we liberally salt our roads as well in winter and in | the past cars would not last a decade before falling | apart. Now you really have to look to figure out which | cars are new, 10 or 20 years old. Rust is - as far as I | can see - a solved problem. Not many US cars on the road | here though. | bradfa wrote: | Chevrolet and GMC full size pickup trucks and SUVs are | probably the worst offenders. Which seems counter | intuitive since many of GM's engineering and design | happens in northern climates with salted roads. It's not | all of GM's vehicles which are subject to this, many do | have good corrosion resistance, they just choose to only | use such techniques on a subset of the vehicles they | produce. | | For example: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2020/MC-10 | 178959-9999.pdf | | A few years back now Toyota had a big recall on Tundra | pickups for improperly applied corrosion prevention. I'm | to believe they corrected this as it was quite expensive | for them to repair so many customer vehicles. | ghaff wrote: | Just had to get rid of a 2011 Toyota SUV because | corrosion on a hydraulic line cascaded to other problems. | (Was overall in good shape but some sort of chip or other | problem on the line caused issues.) | mlyle wrote: | A big part, I think, is differing European attitudes | towards maintenance. If there's a bit of coating damage | and a rust spot somewhere detected by a mechanic in the | US, everyone involved is likely to shrug and not bother | with any remediation. The customer doesn't want to pay to | prevent a problem that will manifest in years, and | there's more lucrative work the mechanic could be doing. | JohnBooty wrote: | Do aftermarket "anti-rust coatings" actually work? | Y'know, the kind people are always trying to sell you at | auto dealerships and the like? | jacquesm wrote: | That depends on the state of your paint. If the paint is | still good it will help a bit because the coating will | take some of the wear. But if the paint is already | damaged then rust will have started and applying a | coating on top of that won't make much difference, though | it may slow things down a little bit. | | The best protection against rust is to keep your car | clean, especially from leaves, bird droppings and other | debris. Wash but not _too_ frequently and if there are | scratches or other minor issues fix them immediately. | buildsjets wrote: | 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. | jacquesm wrote: | > 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. | intrasight wrote: | Funny that you mention Volvo and I'm reading this today, | since this weekend I was commenting to a friend that my 2004 | XC70 had not a bit of rust even though it has spent all its | time in the NE. I see so many much newer cars driving around | that are very rusty. | jacquesm wrote: | Galvanized sheetmetal with a good quality coating will last | you a lifetime. | | But beware of accidents, make sure all the seams are | checked near the point of impact and some way back from | there. | kqr wrote: | I got the impression Volvo was able to do this for fairly | small production runs, whereas the Japanese figured out how | to consistently do it in large volumes. | jacquesm wrote: | That may well be so, Japanese cars had an absolutely | terrible reputation for being rustbuckets in the 70's so | they had to do something about it. Given the number of them | that were manufactured the fact that they are so rare today | is as far as I know uniquely due to the rust problem. | petre wrote: | Mazdas are still rustbuckets today. | kube-system wrote: | Mazda mostly sorted out their rust issues by the 2010s | depending on model. A couple decades late, but they're | pretty good now. | BolexNOLA wrote: | Isn't the Mazda 3 a really, really popular and pretty | well-regarded car? | petre wrote: | Yeah, it's a good car. Until it rusts. Supposedly they've | fixed the rust problems in the new Skyactiv models, but | I'd be weary of any Mazda before 2018. | BolexNOLA wrote: | Oh so you mean it quite literally - that's it's very rust | prone. | jacquesm wrote: | Interesting! Any information on what they did wrong? | UniverseHacker wrote: | I'd say the Japanese figured out how to make this happen on | a cheap car. Almost all high end european cars (including | Volvos) had great rustproofing for a long time but cost far | more than Japanese cars. The Japanese made the first | reliable and long lasting low priced cars. | blinkingled wrote: | Many manufacturers are also plastic sheilding their cars from | down under. Improves wind flow, noise isolation and prevents | rust. | nradov wrote: | Toyota has had a serious problem with truck frames rusting. | | https://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/14/toyota-3-billion-settlem... | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Their SUV/truck lower body panels also rust prematurely in | the snow belt compared to contemporary American vehicles. | This is particularly prominent on tailgates/hatches above the | rear bumper when people don't diligently brush off the snow. | Blackthorn wrote: | You can and should fix this yourself if you own one. Spray | cosmoline or fluid film on the frame. Cosmoline is perfect | because you can pressure wash the dirt off but it won't | disturb the cosmoline film. | t_mann wrote: | 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. | rsync wrote: | ... came here to say this. | | I have spent _so much more money_ on stainless and galvanized | parts and taken many expensive precautions, followed expensive | building practices, etc. due to rust. | | This was increased economic activity. | | Not saying it was _morally positive_ but it certainly increased | GDP ... | nickff wrote: | You're falling victim to the so-called 'broken windows | fallacy' here. | https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window- | fa... | smm11 wrote: | Floating metal in salt water. Yeah? | ip26 wrote: | With a dry dock, paint, and enough labor that doesn't have to | be a huge problem. Just look at Navy salvage operations | returning sunken ships to service. | kolbe wrote: | I imagine a substantial part of this is the rusting of rebar in | concrete structures. The problem of rebar has fascinated me, and | one German company has begin making carbon fiber reinforced | concrete instead of steel, with amazing results. You can reduce | environmental waste by having structures last longer and you use | less concrete. I'm looking forward to this becoming more | ubiquitous. | | https://www.aboutcivil.org/carbon-reinforced-concrete-buildi... | jabl wrote: | AFAIU GRP rebar has become somewhat common lately, though this | carbon fiber rebar seems to be a higher end step. Interesting | to see how it'll develop. | HPsquared wrote: | Rust's a Must, by T.R.B. Watson: | | """ Mighty ships upon the ocean | | Suffer from severe corrosion | | Even those that stay at dockside | | Are rapidly becoming oxide. | | Alas, that piling in the sea | | Is mostly FE2O3 | | And when the ocean meets the shore, | | You'll find there's FE3O4. | | 'Cause when the wind is salt and gusty | | Things are getting awful rusty | | We can measure it, we can test it | | We can halt it or arrest it | | We can gather it and weigh it | | We can coat it, we can spray it | | We can examine and dissect it | | We can cathodically protect it | | We can pick it up and drop it | | But heaven knows, we'll never stop it. | | So here's to rust: No doubt about it, | | Most of us would starve without it. """ | pygy_ wrote: | I have a song about this (in French) sung from the vantage | point of near future robots. | | https://soundcloud.com/user-876103472/lennui-cest-loxyge-ne | | Long story short: screw the meatbags, let's get rid of | atmospheric oxygen... | boringg wrote: | 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? | imchillyb wrote: | > 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... | corncob15 wrote: | Reminds me of the perennial reports from the American Society | of Civil Engineers talking about how the US's infrastructure is | degraded and everyone had better hire a lot of civil engineers | to fix it. | boringg wrote: | Exactly - right? | globalreset wrote: | These HN posts about Rust are out of control. | shepherdjerred wrote: | With 3% of the world's GDP it's going to be an unstoppable | language | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | the time of the rustaceans is upon us | a9h74j wrote: | beginning of the Rustocene layer | asimpletune wrote: | I've spent years working on a VW bus restoration, and this is | something I've thought about so much. Once you've had to clean up | rust you begin to see it everywhere. It's like having a disease. | | Anyways, yeah it would be fantastic if metal just didn't corrode. | That would be one of the greatest gifts to the world. | function_seven wrote: | There are these world-changing inventions we look back on and | marvel at. The Haber-Bosch process, the Bessemer process, | rubber vulcanization, etc. | | My dream is one for stainless steel. Come up with either a | different alloy or an improved process to make corrosion-proof | metal from abundant iron. I can't imagine the leap forward if a | chunk of stainless cost nearly the same as mild steel. (And | didn't have weird failure modes, etc.) | Animats wrote: | There's a lot to be said for stainless steel. But look at the | price of chromium. | function_seven wrote: | 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? | kortex wrote: | 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. | ur-whale wrote: | If you aren't yet attuned to this specific aspect of life on | Earth, owning an Atlantic-facing beach house on the Florida coast | will teach you that lesson real quick. | nradov wrote: | For those who want a deeper dive into this subject read the book | "Rust: The Longest War" by Jonathan Waldman. | | https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Rust/Jonathan-Waldman... | neves wrote: | I live somewhat near the beach. How can I prevent my electronic | gadgets to rust? | NavinF wrote: | Got any examples of rusted gadgets? | jabl wrote: | There are a number of different coating that are used to | protect electronics. See e.g. | https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/395999 | devy wrote: | Sounds like a startup idea/thesis? | wongarsu wrote: | For the spin-off of a university's material science department, | sure. | | But it's not like it's an obscure problem that nobody does | anything about, lots of companies, universities and governments | spend a lot of effort and money on finding better ways to deal | with it. | alexfromapex wrote: | Nothing more annoying than having a car slowly depreciate only | because of rust and not having any type of other issues | countvonbalzac wrote: | Why aren't bridges and ships made out of stainless steel? Is it | too expensive, or not as strong as regular steel? | elil17 wrote: | Yes and yes. Stainless is expensive. It's stronger than some | types of steel but not as strong as others. It's also difficult | to weld. Plus, it's not 100% corrosion resistant - it only | offers partial protection. | scrumbledober wrote: | more difficult than most steel, but still easier to weld than | aluminum... also less rust resistant than aluminum... I'm not | sure what my point is. | denimnerd42 wrote: | Probably just insanely expensive. Just the welding process for | stainless alone would add so much. | denimnerd42 wrote: | 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. | Arrath wrote: | Some may also find the rusted patina look less than ideal. | Personally I don't mind it at all. | denimnerd42 wrote: | some people use it as an architectural element. they'll | build planters, roofs, siding, fences... | kibwen wrote: | 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. | jacquesm wrote: | 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 you are | going to be into coatings or active protection such as cathodic | protection using a sacrificial material. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection | | Coatings work well as long as there is no mechanical abrasion | of the coating, cathodic protection works very well until you | run out of sacrificial material. | rsync wrote: | "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." | | Just to be clear ... you can indeed coat things with | stainless steel. | | However, most stainless steel objects (like screws or bolts | or tools, etc.) are _stainless throughout_ - you cannot | abrade or scratch into a non-stainless inner core. | | This is unlike, for instance, galvanized hardware which is | merely steel with a coating over the top. Galvanized items | can, indeed, be mechanically altered to reveal non-galvanized | material underneath. | | As for my grandparents question: | | You can, indeed, buy stainless steel beams, rebar[1], etc. | They have all the fantastic properties you imagine and are, | again, not merely coated like (for instance) galvanized | rebar. They are also _extremely expensive_. | | [1] https://www.stainlesssteelrebar.org/ | lbrindze wrote: | 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 disintegrate over a few months). Marine grade | stainless often suffers from crevice corrosion and hard to | detect failures which is sort of terrifying when you really | think about it (things look OK until one day they break | without clear visible warning). | | For bridges or large-scale industrial applications where you | dont care how the metal itself appears, I agree that coatings | (especially galvanization) is the best bang for the buck. All | of my insights are purely anecdotal though, as a hobbyist... | algo_trader wrote: | 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) | jacquesm wrote: | > that you want to last in sea water? | | How long? | | Under what kind of load? | algo_trader wrote: | 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. | jacquesm wrote: | 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... | algo_trader wrote: | thanks!! | | So many helpful responses here. | lbrindze wrote: | most objects like this I have passed in the water seem to | be made of some sort of painted steel. I think this is a | good combination of durability vs economical. I suspect | your electronics will go long before anything corrodes | away to nothing, since in my experience its always the | electronics that fail first (even when properly sealed | for marine use). | | Note that the main issue with any barrier coating | (assuming there are no collisions) is going to be due to | sea life living on/underneath your object and slowly | breaking down the material. A copper based metal (read | bronze) could be interesting (but expensive) since it | tends to stand up fairly well in marine environments and | has biocidal properties that prevent fouling/growth. Also | very clear to visually inspect since green means good and | red means bad which I always thought was very easy to | remember. | | edit: re-reading your initial comment it looks like you | are describing an autonomous vessel of some sort. I used | to work at a company that produced such devices and they | were made out of composite plastics (which have their own | issues that cause them to break down eventually in the | water as well). | algo_trader wrote: | > autonomous vessel of some sort. | | Actually just a large floating shed to support all those | panels. | | But yeah, there are multiple moving pieces (floating?!) | involved. | | Would love to chat in the future and brain storm, if u | want to leave your details in my profile puppet mail. | thereisnospork wrote: | I'd look at the nickel alloys, Inconel 625 and Hastelloy | C22 would be a good start. They should be orders of | magnitude more corrosion resistant than stainless steel | and still have respectable strength. Of course they are | more expensive and harder to fabricate. | jacquesm wrote: | I worked for a sailmaker in the Netherlands who also did | rigging. You really get to appreciate the difference if you | see saltwater exposed rigging after a year or two from | slightly different steel formulations, one still pristine, | the other looking as though someone is pulling a bad joke | on your with rust colored paint. Also: maintenance made all | the difference, people that would immediately fix a small | issue were often able to arrest it without further damage. | But ignore it for a while and one thing leads to another. | | edit: as to your point regarding crevice corrosion: yes, | that is very nasty indeed, especially because a visual | inspection will typically turn up nothing out of the order, | all it takes is a bit of trapped moisture and some time. | [deleted] | bliteben wrote: | Almost all metals oxidize. You could build something out of | gold or maybe platinum and avoid oxidation, but it would | obviously be expensive. The U.S. navy does have some very large | aluminum ships such as the Independence Class[1]. These ships | are apparently having some teething issues, but it is quite the | feat to have a 414 ft long aluminum ship that can go upwards of | 50 knots. | | [1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence- | class_littoral_co... | ElectricalUnion wrote: | > Almost all metals oxidize. | | > The U.S. navy does have some very large aluminum ships | | Unfortunately aluminum also rusts, it just happens to be a | chemically stable and resistant rusting - but not in a stable | enough manner to be mechanically/abrasive resistant, that's | why you don't see them deployed in widespread use at | stressing conditions like internal combustion engine blocks | or fast ship hulls. | | From said cited Wikipedia article: | | > In February 2020 it was announced that the Navy plans to | retire the first four LCS ships. On 20 June 2020, the US Navy | announced that all four would be taken out of commission in | March 2021, and will be placed in inactive reserve, because | it would be too expensive to upgrade them to match the later | ships in the class. | bliteben wrote: | sorry I annoyed you. I thought I covered both in my post. | Feels like you have to walk on egg shells around here least | someone correct you. | kube-system wrote: | > least someone correct you. | | _lest_ someone correct you. | | ...Sorry, I couldn 't resist. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Those large aluminum ships crack because aluminum has poor | fatigue performance when subjected to repeated cycling. Small | aluminum boat? You're probably fine for a lifetime. 400ft | aluminum boat? Good luck with that. | kansface wrote: | Stainless steel is ~5x the cost. | apatil wrote: | According to http://www.kastenmarine.com/metalboats.htm, mostly | cost plus other drawbacks that sound like they would not be | blockers if the cost were lower. That author thinks monel would | be even better than stainless, but it's even more expensive. | Arrath wrote: | 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. | JohnBooty wrote: | 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) | jopsen wrote: | > ...democracy... It's a system explicitly designed to be | short-sighted. | | It's not explicitly designed for that. It's designed to | avoid concentration and abuse of power, peaceful transition | of power, and to create some level of fairness. | | Democracy wasn't designed to produce the best society or | the most wealthy society. | | Democracy was designed to avoid dictators/kings and other | really bad things :) | | That said, we often seem to think that we can optimize for | something beyond the short term. It's a seductive thought. | But experience with communism/central-planning, suggests | that maybe it's best to optimize for the short term. At | least that works, and produces results in the meantime. | | It's the same with waterfall software development vs agile | software development. Optimizing for the short term and | iterating is usually better than to try and plan the future | top-down. | JohnBooty wrote: | It's a system explicitly designed to be short-sighted. | | I'm not sure what else we'd call a system where elected | officials have zero incentive to do anything other than | look good for their re-election campaign in a few years. | | Clearly, many politicians have gone above and beyond that | and accomplished useful things. But there is zero | incentive baked into the system for them to do so. | Democracy was designed to avoid dictators/kings and other | really bad things :) | | It's good at that when implemented well, though most | aren't. | | Generally it seems you wind up with | oligarchs/corporations effectively owning politicians | unless there is an extreme level of vigilance, etc. | But experience with communism/central-planning, suggests | that maybe it's best to optimize for the short term. At | least that works, and produces results in the meantime. | | This is a false dichotomy. Clearly there are things that | benefit from a short-term, MVP-style, iterative approach. | | There are also clearly things that benefit from a longer | view: climate change, infrastructure, etc. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, this is called electrochemical cleaning. If you don't do | that then the weld will be more vulnerable to oxidization | because the protective layer that forms on stainless steel | will be damaged and upset by the welding process leaving some | of the iron in the steel directly exposed to the environment. | This then can cause pitting of the surface, which is the | beginning of the end. | | For such a process to be effective it has to be done | immediately after welding. You can use it to try to repair | something that is already rust damaged but in my experience | the gain from that is mostly a stay of execution, not a | perfect solution. | HPsquared wrote: | Cost, basically. | | Even if it was built, you'd also probably see people stealing | parts of the structure for scrap value... Not a good thing to | have happen. | alex_young wrote: | IIRC stainless isn't actually rust proof, especially in | applications where there is a lot of interaction with odd | chemicals and things like sea water, so bridges may not be an | ideal use for the product. | Ekaros wrote: | I have heard the same. Actually making rusting proof stuff is | very hard. Specially if there is any chance of things like | acids being involved. Coatings could help, but even then why | not just paint regular steel. | | Now other thing I wonder is how structurally sound some of | the stainless alloys are? Do they have similar | characteristics to steels now used? | ortusdux wrote: | IIRC, Coated rebar can actually fail faster or in less | predictable and therefore worse ways. The coating is often | damaged during install, but even perfectly coated bar forms | cracks eventually. The entire system's galvanic potential | is focused on these small exposed areas, causing extremely | fast rusting. The coating tends to fail in higher stress | areas, which means that not only does the bar fail, it | fails in the worst possible locations. | avar wrote: | Don't confuse stainless steel with galvanized steel. The | latter is just normal steel dipped in melted zinc, once | you're past that thin coating it'll rust just like normal | steel does. | | Stainless steel is an is an alloy, you can saw apart a | beam made of stainless 316 and the inside will be just as | stainless as the outside. | dijonman2 wrote: | Fiberglass rebar is the future: high strength and won't | rust. | | You can also add glass fiber to cement to increase | strength but it's not nearly as strong as rebar. | dexwiz wrote: | In addition to other comments, it's also difficult to weld. | Stainless steel retains heat, so prolong welding can warp it. | Also unless careful, welding can destroy the Chromium coating, | so the area are the weld will rust quicker than the bulk | material. | | When choosing a metal material, it's important to consider not | just its innate properties, but it properties during join. | Welding can melt the metal surrounding the weld, which can undo | many heat treatment or mechanical processes previously used to | get the material to the desired specs. | JackFr wrote: | jabl wrote: | 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 all have their | pros and cons. People even made yachts out of ferrocement, though | it seems the popularity of that method has waned. | aftbit wrote: | GRP => Glass Reinforced Plastic | [deleted] | jupiter909 wrote: | Rust - The Longest War; is a book about this topic, very | insightful read. | | https://www.amazon.com/Rust-Longest-War-Jonathan-Waldman/dp/... | jtlienwis wrote: | 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. | LatteLazy wrote: | Or just mine the zinc elsewhere?! | Aloha wrote: | Eventually we'll run out of elsewhere. | | Like pushing our pollution into the developing world is both | immoral and harmful to our economy. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | 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. | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | 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. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | Absolutely. Add in some greed, corruption and ignorance | and you've got a recipe for where we are today. And yet | people blame environmentalists? | fxtentacle wrote: | Plus if they put it into the ocean, the pollution will flow | back to us. | legulere wrote: | You can recycle rusted parts though, so the loss is not as big | as you would think. | kwhitefoot wrote: | So you mean that the mine should be allowed to pollute so long | as the pollution is offset elsewhere? | JohnBooty wrote: | 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. | ozim wrote: | Well yes - maybe not offset. | | But if mining zinc lowers pollution from other stuff then | yes. | [deleted] | jyounker wrote: | 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? | photochemsyn wrote: | 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. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-25 23:00 UTC)