Climate Change Control Using Rock Dust

[exchemist]

This article in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2448-9.epdf?sharing_token=lu7fAF3SYEA3-3cqr4bW1NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OtB5LS5Y5Cwumoumb5Vs9pGQp7NWqtO_367vUmB4Gw5d1jrtY1Q_fxsg9CqaP7u_roOx47rRI35TgOlouSUMFkWDAwBhqKIiHcHdlpCXCw7u7xFUnOVehztmJFe0_XsbW7Fhs4q-ual8XY248j3f-wBPIPsr85yaM7LPsBpj8TlAAp0lgkjnl_N_D5WhFjCb8=&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

proposes a man-made adaptation of the geological Carbon-Silicate Cycle* as a way of sequestering significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

It seems that basalt from mining operations, or the slag from iron smelting, are good sources of Mg and Ca based silicate material, which react with water and CO2 to form bicarbonates, using the general reaction scheme :

MSiO3 + H2O +2CO2 -> M(HCO3)2 + SiO2.

(M = Mg or Ca)

The authors calculate that spreading silicate rock dust on fields around the world could lock up significant quantities of CO2 from the air, and would improve the soil in the process, as it reduces the acidification that can occur in intensive farming.


*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate–silicate_cycle

 

[RainbowSingularity]

SOoo...
mining company's would pay people to spread their mining waste on their property ?

can dairy, beef, & lamb(lamb is bigger than sheep) eat that ?

 

[billvon]

can dairy, beef, & lamb(lamb is bigger than sheep) eat that ?

No. It's basically sand. But most cattle are perfectly happy grazing on land that has some sand in it.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

No. It's basically sand. But most cattle are perfectly happy grazing on land that has some sand in it.

and it has no heavy metals, explosive residue or other mining toxins in it that it will leach into the grass to be eaten and collected in animal organs like mercury etc ?
wont mutate pregant cows/bovine/sheep-lambs etc ?

its digging a hole & burying mining waste & calling it a carbon tax win isnt it ?

what happens when it rains ?

will it kill grass and so kill an equal amount of grass that would sink carbon as it is supposed to be off setting ?
will it cost more in fuel to transport it and spread it in fossil fuel than it carbon sinks combined with how much grass it prevents from growing which also off sets a negative carbon sink value ?

if its inert it can be given for free to the building industry for building childrens swimming pools/nappies(how safe is it?)
golf coarses
etc etc ...

 

[billvon]

and it has no heavy metals, explosive residue or other mining toxins in it that it will leach into the grass to be eaten and collected in animal organs like mercury etc ?

Of course it does - just like prairie dirt does where pasture-raised cattle graze now. The trick is keeping the concentrations of those toxins about the same as the dirt that cows usually graze on.

its digging a hole & burying mining waste & calling it a carbon tax win isnt it ?

Nope. It's using the mining waste for something before burying it.

what happens when it rains ?

The dirt gets wet.

will it kill grass and so kill an equal amount of grass that would sink carbon as it is supposed to be off setting ?

Again - it's sand. If you covered grass with a foot of it it would probably kill the grass. If you added it as a soil amendment, then it would be like adding more sand to soil.

if its inert it can be given for free to the building industry for building childrens swimming pools/nappies(how safe is it?)

Of course not. People would freak out. (Of course, people would also freak out if growers had to put labels on apples that showed how much lead/mercury/arsenic/uranium/thorium etc was in apples.)

 

[exchemist]

Of course it does - just like prairie dirt does where pasture-raised cattle graze now. The trick is keeping the concentrations of those toxins about the same as the dirt that cows usually graze on.

Nope. It's using the mining waste for something before burying it.

The dirt gets wet.

Again - it's sand. If you covered grass with a foot of it it would probably kill the grass. If you added it as a soil amendment, then it would be like adding more sand to soil.

Of course not. People would freak out. (Of course, people would also freak out if growers had to put labels on apples that showed how much lead/mercury/arsenic/uranium/thorium etc was in apples.)

Yes, obviously the various sources would need to be tested for heavy metal content before being applied. But this material would be alkaline earth metal silicates, so as they say just rock dust, basically. I don't imagine farmers would spread it directly onto land where animals were grazing. It would go onto arable land I think, and grazing land that was resting and had no animals on it.

I didn't see in the article how long they think it would take for the reaction to be substantially complete. But the dust would get incorporated in the topsoil after a few weeks, if there was rain, so it would bother the animals then.

 

[Write4U]

Nope. It's using the mining waste for something before burying it.

Mining waste is used for something before burying it?

7 ways oil and gas drilling is bad for the environment August 9, 2019

The health risks from oil and gas extraction are not limited to air pollution. The drilling method of “fracking” is known for contaminating drinking water sources with chemicals that lead to cancer, birth defects and liver damage. The controversial method injects a mixture of water and chemicals into rock formations to release oil and gas. As a result, it generates huge volumes of wastewater with dangerous chemicals that can leak to ponds, lagoons and underground aquifers.

Although the health threats from oil and gas production are very real, the federal government continues to push for fossil fuel drilling near communities. The city of Bakersfield, in California, is a sad example of that trend. The Trump administration is pushing to open up more than one million acres of land to drilling and fracking in the region.

https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/7-ways-oil-and-gas-drilling-bad-environment

 

[Write4U]

You want to clean the environment from excess CO2 by introducing more manmade chemicals into the environment? Are you mad? Haven't we done enough damage?

Stop drilling and releasing billions of years of "sequestered" CO2 back into the atmosphere and plant Hemp, the greatest natural CO2 scrubber in nature!

1 acre of Hemp can scrub as much CO2 from the air as 20 acres of trees. Help Nature do its job as it has done for + 3.8 billion years. It doesn't need us at all. We are the polluters, not the scrubbers. Man is an invasive species.

That's like saying we have spoiled the Earth's environment, so let find another planet to terra-form, so that we can spoil that planet. The illogic of that concept is stunning

 

[billvon]

Mining waste is used for something before burying it?

In this case, yes. (Both tailings and overburden.)

You want to clean the air from CO2?
Stop drilling and releasing billions of years of "sequestered" CO2 back into the atmosphere

Sure, I'm all for that too.

 

[Write4U]

In this case, yes. (Both tailings and overburden.)

And what about the 90% of cases where we do not use "tailings and overburden" and actually keep adding toxic substances to the soil.

In mining, overburden (also called waste or spoil) is the material that lies above an area that lends itself to economical exploitation, such as the rock, soil, and ecosystem that lies above a coal seam or ore body.

Overburden is distinct from tailings, the material that remains after economically valuable components have been extracted from the generally finely milled ore. Overburden is removed during surface mining, but is typically not contaminated with toxic components. Overburden may also be used to restore an exhausted mining site to a semblance of its appearance before mining began.

Really, and restoring a mining site to a semblance of its original appearance before mining began is economically feasible? How does that work?

Overburden at a coal mining site

Sorry, belated : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overburden

 

[billvon]

And what about the 90% of cases where we do not use "tailings and overburden" and actually keep adding toxic substances to the soil.

Not sure you are clear on how all this works here.

Mining takes stuff out of the ground. Then, if the tailings/overburden is not used, it is put back into the ground. It's not contaminated somehow and then put back. It's just put back.

So the only "toxic subtances" we are putting back are the same "toxic substances" that were there to begin with. In fact, if you are mining (for example) copper, the stuff you put back is LESS toxic because you removed the most 'contaminated' (i.e. most metal bearing) layers.

Really, and restoring mining sites to a semblance of its original appearance before mining began is economically feasible?

I did not make that argument. Perhaps you were referring to someone else?

 

[Write4U]

So the only "toxic subtances" we are putting back are the same "toxic substances" that were there to begin with. In fact, if you are mining (for example) copper, the stuff you put back is LESS toxic because you removed the most 'contaminated' (i.e. most metal bearing) layers.

I did not make that argument. Perhaps you were referring to someone else?

I provided a link, belatedly , sorry. I agree that in the case of nice clean mining for some mineral some restoration of a large mining site is possible, but at an economic loss. But where does that affect the CO2 content in the atmosphere

It's the "drilling", not the conventional "mining", that is the "great CO2 polluter". And now we are running out of oil and are reducing our drilling, but replacing it with fracking, the absolute worst possible extraction method we could possibly dream up. Using all kinds of industrial wastes to fracture the underlying earth with pumping high pressure toxic liquids and releasing "sequestered" CO2 for industrial use.

I don't think the earth's plant ecology is too worried about CO2 content. Plants thrive on it.
OTOH too much CO2 kills humans and other animal life.

Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. Apr 26, 2016

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

billvon said; I did not make that argument. Perhaps you were referring to someone else?

It is implied in the argument. I agree in principle with the argument, but.......
Who is going to pay for this? Obviously the mining companies do not see an economic advantage to restore mining sites, or they would have started doing that a long time ago.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/...at increased,chief culprit of climate change.

 

[billvon]

But where does that affect the CO2 content in the atmosphere

?? It does not and no one claimed it did. What could reduce CO2, per the article, is spreading silicate rock dust on fields.

I don't think the earth's plant ecology is too worried about CO2 content. Plants thrive on it.
OTOH too much CO2 kills humans and other animal life.

Increasing the CO2 in our atmosphere will make some plants happy. We won't raise it high enough to kill humans. What we certainly CAN do is increase it so much that we see a significantly warmer climate, and that will make us more miserable and cause a fairly large extinction.

Who is going to pay for this? Obviously the mining companies do not see an economic advantage to restore mining sites, or they would have started doing that a long time ago.

We are, of course. The fairest way is to just make it a law that all mining companies have to follow. Then costs for all mines go up, no one mine is at a competitive disadvantage, and we pay for it in a higher cost of finished goods that use those ores.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Of course it does - just like prairie dirt does where pasture-raised cattle graze now. The trick is keeping the concentrations of those toxins about the same as the dirt that cows usually graze on.

ticks toxins and layers of collective reside
how much shorter is the life span of the paddock ?

Nope. It's using the mining waste for something before burying it.

who pays to big up the top layer of the farmers paddock and then move it somewhere else ?

do the toxins collect in the animals organs ?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Mining waste is used for something before burying it?

he sounds like
a lobbyist who has no farming experience
and grew up playing rich spoilt boy politics
probably getting paid by oil & gas 3rd party company to sock puppet.

thats what his posts makes him look like

what happens when it rains ?

The dirt gets wet.

...

i think billvon is trying to deliberately kill the thread discussion to avoid people discussing the science of pasture growth, environmental aspects and the food chain & live stock feed & farming.

 

[Write4U]

We are, of course. The fairest way is to just make it a law that all mining companies have to follow.

I agree, but the reverse is actually closer to the truth. The Halliburton Loophole started this exemption from EPA regulations. Cheney as VP and still receiving payments from Halliburton, rammed that through.

The Halliburton Loophole
Home » Issues » The Halliburton Loophole
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) does not regulate the injection of fracturing fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.

This exemption from the SDWA has become known as the “Halliburton loophole” because it is widely perceived to have come about as a result of the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force.

Before taking office, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton — which patented hydraulic fracturing in the 1940s, and remains one of the three largest manufacturers of fracturing fluids. Halliburton staff were actively involved in review of the 2004 EPA report on hydraulic fracturing

https://earthworks.org/issues/inadequate_regulation_of_hydraulic_fracturing/

and of course we must maintain profits at all "costs", so Trump followed suit.

The Trump Administration Is Reversing 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.
By NADJA POPOVICH, LIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS UPDATED May 20, 2020

After three years in office, the Trump administration has dismantled most of the major climate and environmental policies the president promised to undo.

Calling the rules unnecessary and burdensome to the fossil fuel industry and other businesses, his administration has weakened Obama-era limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and from cars and trucks, and rolled back many more rules governing clean air, water and toxic chemicals. Several major reversals have been finalized in recent weeks as the country has struggled to contain the spread of the new coronavirus.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

 

[billvon]

ticks toxins and layers of collective reside

Just like the dirt that's already there! Do you know how much lead, mercury and thorium is in regular dirt?

who pays to big up the top layer of the farmers paddock and then move it somewhere else ?

Why would you do that?

do the toxins collect in the animals organs ?

Some do, some don't.

i think billvon is trying to deliberately kill the thread discussion to avoid people discussing the science of pasture growth, environmental aspects and the food chain & live stock feed & farming.

Nope. I am accurately answering the question.

If you put this stuff on the surface of the field, and it's got about the same profile of dangerous stuff as is already there, then you make no net addition to the soil's toxins. It becomes dirt. No one has to dig it up. No one has to remediate it. It's dirt.

How many times have you dug up and replaced the dirt around your house? There's MERCURY in that dirt don't ya know!

 

[billvon]

I agree, but the reverse is actually closer to the truth. The Halliburton Loophole started this exemption from EPA regulations. Cheney as VP and still receiving payments from Halliburton, rammed that through. . . . .the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) does not regulate the injection of fracturing fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

You realize that's fracking, and we are taking about mining, right? Two different things.

 

[Write4U]

You realize that's fracking, and we are taking about mining, right? Two different things.

Yes I noted that. But AFAIK, mineral mining is but a small portion of the total picture. I am considering the whole extraction industry.

The greatest harm comes from extracting fossil fuels which far outpaces mining for minerals and chemicals.
I believe coal is "mined". Both surface mining and deep mining are used. Oil is by pumping or pressurizing.

I believe we use these old surface mines as landfills now?

 

[Write4U]

This may bring some perspective.

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction
Asphalt Concrete , Granular Base, Embankment or Fill .

MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES,Material Description
ORIGIN

Mineral processing wastes are referred to in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as wastes that are generated during the extraction and beneficiation of ores and minerals. These wastes can be subdivided into a number of categories: waste rock, mill tailings, coal refuse, wash slimes, and spent oil shale. The mining and processing of mineral ores results in the production of large quantities of residual wastes that are for the most part earth- or rock-like in nature.

It is estimated that the mining and processing of mineral ores generate approximately 1.6 billion metric tons (1.8 billion tons) of mineral processing waste each year in the United States.(1) Mineral processing wastes account for nearly half of all the solid waste that is generated each year in the United States. Accumulations of mineral wastes from decades of past mining activities probably account for at least 50 billion metric tons (55 billion tons) of material.(2) Although many sources of mining activity are located in remote areas, nearly every state has significant quantities of mineral processing wastes.

Waste Rock

Large amounts of waste rock are produced from surface mining operations, such as open-pit copper, phosphate, uranium, iron, and taconite mines. Small amounts are generated from underground mining. Waste rock generally consists of coarse, crushed, or blocky material covering a range of sizes, from very large boulders or blocks to fine sand-size particles and dust. Waste rock is typically removed during mining operations along with overburden and often has little or no practical mineral value. Types of rock included are igneous (granite, rhyolite, quartz, etc.), metamorphic (taconite, schist, hornblende, etc.) and sedimentary (dolomite, limestone, sandstone, oil shale, etc.). It is estimated that approximately 0.9 billion metric tons (1 billion tons) of waste rock are generated each year in the United States.....more

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/mwst1.cfm