Expert prognosis for the planet

[NWFRS]

It’s a birth mark. He will lead his people.

[Irace86.2.0]

Science to the rescue.

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-common...g-climate.html

Lead researcher UC Civil Engineering Associate Professor Allan Scott, and his team in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand, have found a new low-carbon method to produce the common mineral, magnesium hydroxide or Mg(OH)2.

Associate Professor Scott explains magnesium hydroxide has been widely recognized as one of the most promising materials for 'carbon mineralization' (where carbon dioxide or CO2 is prevented from entering the atmosphere), but until now there hasn't been an energy-efficient way of producing it.

"Most processes to get magnesium hydroxide typically involve CO2 emissions. We are proposing a new method to produce magnesium hydroxide from olivine; an abundant mineral here in New Zealand and around the world. Our method uses existing technology, produces useful by-products and most importantly there's low to zero CO2 emitted during the process."

In the new paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, the researchers outline that olivine can be ground into powder, combined with hydrochloric acid and a process of electrolysis can be used to produce magnesium hydroxide. Lab trials showed that 100 tons of olivine could potentially produce 35 tons of magnesium hydroxide, as well as 35 tons of amorphous silicate—a material used in products such as semiconductor circuits and cement.

"The discovery of this method has the potential to have a dramatic impact on our ability to reduce global CO2 emissions," Associate Professor Scott says.

Around 40 billion tons of human-made CO2 is released into the atmosphere each year that contributes to global warming. Of that, 'point source' emissions such as power generation [coal plants, natural gas] and industrial production account for roughly 50 percent of the total CO2.

"This new method makes it possible to produce magnesium hydroxide on a large scale, which can then be transported to industrial and manufacturing sites to mineralize the CO2 produced," he says.

"In theory it's possible to remove and sequester at least half of the 40 billion tons of CO2 and continue to do so for thousands of years. The challenge now is how we take this method from the lab to an industrial-scale process which can be widely distributed at a reasonable cost."

The research team led by Associate Professor Allan Scott, includes Occidental College and former UC academic Christopher Oze, UC Postdoctoral Researcher Vineet Shah, UC Ph.D. student Nan Yang, UC Associate Professor Aaron Marshall and UC Associate Professor Matthew Watson, Imperial College London Professor Chris Cheeseman and Barney Shanks.

What is Mg(OH)2?

Magnesium hydroxide Mg(OH)2 is a highly reactive material that when combined with carbon dioxide (CO2) – one of Earth's most significant greenhouse gases—produces magnesium carbonates, an inorganic salt which is used in a variety of commercial products such as flooring, fireproofing and bricks.

[soundman98]

that's really cool. but the next/worst step is getting production scaled up to mass production. many of these ideas fall flat at that stage.

for a short time, my company was the electrical contractor working with some engineers that had come up with a new process to convert the useless slag that was just dumped off to one side of the steel factory property into something useful. they were able to repeatedly demonstrate the viability of the process in a lab setting, but it was the first time they were attempting a full-scale version of the same process.

they ultimately failed, but were congratulated, as their process failed closer to the end product than other techniques at the same problem. so it was good, but a long way to go yet...

[Irace86.2.0]

At least it sounds like they have developed this process with the idea that it can be done at scale. We will see.

[Irace86.2.0]

Watch this. Pretty sad shit. My wife is vegan, and I am mostly plant based outside of eating shrimp and some fish. If I ever eat other meats or dairy it is because I am eating out, but that is rare. My wife works at Whole Foods, so most of the fish is farmed or “sustainable”. Can’t eat that shit now. Guess I’m going plant based. I’ve already reduced my meat and animal based food consumption down a whole lot, but I guess it is taking another big hit. I’ll still have a steak or whatever on special occasions, maybe, but I’m done with the meat industry.

I almost feel like local hunting overpopulated species or invasive species like deer or boar might be the only way to go. That, and we have friends who have chickens for eggs. I actually prefer the Beyond Meat Italian sausage and meatballs spaghetti over the real meat counterpart.

Rotten is also good. Makes eating some plants like almonds and avocados seem terrible too. This planet is going down, and it is going down hard and fast. I’m 40. In my lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised if things get dire. I’m glad I don’t have kids because the future generations have a lot of shit to fix: climate change and pollution, the food industry, the population problem, income inequality, deforestation, animal extinction, diseases, healthcare, sustainable energy, etc.

[dpfarr]

Few greater gifts to future populations than to not have kids. Breeders, you’re welcome for less competition for your offspring. Also, sorry about not having someone to fill that shitty underpaid position for said offspring.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by dpfarr

Few greater gifts to future populations than to not have kids. Breeders, you’re welcome for less competition for your offspring. Also, sorry about not having someone to fill that shitty underpaid position for said offspring.

Then there is the Idiocracy effect, where the people having the most kids are the poorest, least educated and least apt to successfully raise said children, but we feel no obligation to have children to offset such things.

Interesting fact: I read an article saying that the Amish continue to have the largest family sizes (average 9 or 11 or something per household) and that if things stayed identical for thousands of years then the largest demographic in the world would be the Amish. Obviously this planet wouldn't support a growing population for thousands to tens of thousands of years, but nevertheless, the idea is interesting. Specifically, that the world demographics have the potential to shift so much based on family planning, poverty, education level, etc.

[dpfarr]

Far be it from me to fight the selective pressures of human evolution.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Then there is the Idiocracy effect, where the people having the most kids are the poorest, least educated and least apt to successfully raise said children, but we feel no obligation to have children to offset such things.

I have seen first hand in the Philippines the ethos of the poorly educated of having more children to increase the chances of one of the children making it so that he/she (the successful child) can support the rest of the family. The rationale is incredibly entrenched in the poor. The parents can't see that the best chance for a better life is to have one child and get that child the best education possible. Of course there is risk in this approach but I am suggesting there is a better probability of success than having 6 children to feed and send to school.

[Captain Snooze]

I find it a little bit interesting (only a little) that even among our conservative governments (I mean conservative as "disposed to preserve existing conditions" not as a category of political persuasion) climate change is beginning to be superficially acknowledged and the media often has stories relating to climate change but there is hardly ever a mention of population and when it does get mentioned it is usually in the same sentence as immigration. I am suggesting this is because increasing population is often seen as a way to boost economic growth.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I have seen first hand in the Philippines the ethos of the poorly educated of having more children to increase the chances of one of the children making it so that he/she (the successful child) can support the rest of the family. The rationale is incredibly entrenched in the poor. The parents can't see that the best chance for a better life is to have one child and get that child the best education possible. Of course there is risk in this approach but I am suggesting there is a better probability of success than having 6 children to feed and send to school.

I have a feeling it's more due to a lack of family planning in general than it is to adherence to a flawed plan... At least in the US.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I find it a little bit interesting (only a little) that even among our conservative governments (I mean conservative as "disposed to preserve existing conditions" not as a category of political persuasion) climate change is beginning to be superficially acknowledged and the media often has stories relating to climate change but there is hardly ever a mention of population and when it does get mentioned it is usually in the same sentence as immigration. I am suggesting this is because increasing population is often seen as a way to boost economic growth.

I have noticed that too; there is less denial. There are two explanations: either there is a shift in opinion in light of continuous data and personal experience, or the oil lobbyists and political backers are telling them to back down. Why the latter? Some coal, oil and gas companies are supporting green technology because the reduction of nuclear and the increase in solar and wind and the increase in electric cars has actually increased the need for coal, oil and gas plants to stabilize the power grid. Eventually these utilities will end, but temporarily, they will see more use.

Agreed. A declining population could lead to negative economic growth if consumption didn’t increase, and this is different than a depression, but for a capitalistic society, this is bad. Growth, growth, growth. The problem is the world can’t support the current status quo, but it really couldn’t support the US level of consumption and waste if everyone had our standard of living. Realistically, we need to be like under a billion and figure out a way to live sustainably. That isn’t going to happen soon without nuclear war or a horrific pandemic. Our best bet is family planning, birth control, abortion, child caps, etc. In many countries, the population is already declining, but it could be too little too late.

[ls1ac]

If you would like an interesting read from an old green peace guy, try "apocalypse never". It is full of statistics and is a little long.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I have noticed that too; there is less denial. There are two explanations: either there is a shift in opinion in light of continuous data and personal experience, or the oil lobbyists and political backers are telling them to back down. Why the latter? Some coal, oil and gas companies are supporting green technology because the reduction of nuclear and the increase in solar and wind and the increase in electric cars has actually increased the need for coal, oil and gas plants to stabilize the power grid. Eventually these utilities will end, but temporarily, they will see more use.

Agreed. A declining population could lead to negative economic growth if consumption didn’t increase, and this is different than a depression, but for a capitalistic society, this is bad. Growth, growth, growth. The problem is the world can’t support the current status quo, but it really couldn’t support the US level of consumption and waste if everyone had our standard of living. Realistically, we need to be like under a billion and figure out a way to live sustainably. That isn’t going to happen soon without nuclear war or a horrific pandemic. Our best bet is family planning, birth control, abortion, child caps, etc. In many countries, the population is already declining, but it could be too little too late.

If the number of abortions that occur is enough to have a significant effect on population size then we really need to reconsider our moral stature... I recommend not lumping abortion matters into population control in future discussions.