[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)