Climate Change Control Using Rock Dust

exchemist said:
This is rock dust. It is not "unprocessed". It has to be made by a manufacturing (grinding ) process, from slag or basalt mine overburden. That means it would be the product of a mill, not a mine.
Click to expand...
It is unprocessed in the sense of the poster I was replying to, meaning it is not composed of man made chemicals. It's just rock.
Sorry to have been careless - but hell, you really didn't know what I was talking about?
exchemist said:
This is a million miles from your dystopian fantasy of truckloads of raw, untested, mine spoil (i.e, chunks of rock and undifferentiated mud) being just dumped on farmland as a result of this proposal.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. It's one step - one very, very, well paid and profitable step - from that. Inches, not miles, would be the metaphorical unit; single digits the metaphorical number.
exchemist said:
That is not what is proposed and it is not what would happen. Obviously.
Click to expand...
"Obviously" ? Beg to differ.
Living and learning about hard rock mining corporations (and related industry).

Minus your exaggerated cartoon of unconcealed mine spoil, crediting the bad guys with some minimum of brains here, that is exactly what will happen in the absence of the regulatory oversight I partly detailed above.

The expense and the scale of the efforts necessary to impose regulatory oversight on a hard rock mining company is a factor in this proposal, is all. It's part of the calculation.
 
iceaura said:
It is unprocessed in the sense of the poster I was replying to, meaning it is not composed of man made chemicals. It's just rock.
Sorry to have been careless - but hell, you really didn't know what I was talking about?

No, it's not. It's one step - one very, very, well paid and profitable step - from that. Inches, not miles, would be the metaphorical unit; single digits the metaphorical number.

"Obviously" ? Beg to differ.
Living and learning about hard rock mining corporations (and related industry).

Minus your exaggerated cartoon of unconcealed mine spoil, crediting the bad guys with some minimum of brains here, that is exactly what will happen in the absence of the regulatory oversight I partly detailed above.

The expense and the scale of the efforts necessary to impose regulatory oversight on a hard rock mining company is a factor in this proposal, is all. It's part of the calculation.
Click to expand...
Mining companies don't make rock dust. So they have no product to offer to a farmer, legal or otherwise.
 
exchemist said:
Mining companies don't make rock dust. So they have no product to offer to a farmer, legal or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Some do, or will, if presented with the opportunity here.
Others will outsource - contract with whomever does, preferentially with another subsidiary of the holding company that owns them, or a company with lots of political pull, or a temporary shell company set up to go out of business easily and quickly at need.
One doubts the farmer will be paying for this "product" at all - they aren't paying for it now, why would they ever?

But this is digression: Did you have a point?

To recap: You are (or appear to be) objecting to my observation that the proposal here features obvious opportunities for an amoral and unethical mining company (or - in the spirit of reality acknowledgment - its executive management and major investors) to make good bank by lying and cheating and behaving as mining companies have been behaving since before the term "capital" was invented,

and that experience tells us the costs of preventing them from doing so will be much larger than the prevailing wisdom seems to assume, while the process of preventing them from doing so will involve a degree of diligence and competence in government oversight and enforcement not often encountered in these circumstances.

That's all. I like the idea - it's just that it's not necessarily going to be cheap, and funds are going to be limited.
 
iceaura said:
Some do, or will, if presented with the opportunity here.
Others will outsource - contract with whomever does, preferentially with another subsidiary of the holding company that owns them, or a company with lots of political pull, or a temporary shell company set up to go out of business easily and quickly at need.
One doubts the farmer will be paying for this "product" at all - they aren't paying for it now, why would they ever?

But this is digression: Did you have a point?

To recap: You are (or appear to be) objecting to my observation that the proposal here features obvious opportunities for an amoral and unethical mining company (or - in the spirit of reality acknowledgment - its executive management and major investors) to make good bank by lying and cheating and behaving as mining companies have been behaving since before the term "capital" was invented,

and that experience tells us the costs of preventing them from doing so will be much larger than the prevailing wisdom seems to assume, while the process of preventing them from doing so will involve a degree of diligence and competence in government oversight and enforcement not often encountered in these circumstances.

That's all. I like the idea - it's just that it's not necessarily going to be cheap, and funds are going to be limited.
Click to expand...
Yes I had a point, which is a reasonably clear one, so I won't re-explain it.
 
climate change control?
huh wut?
CO2 ain't climate
........................
damned sloppy use of the language?
 
sculptor said:
climate change control?
huh wut?
CO2 ain't climate
........................
damned sloppy use of the language?
Click to expand...

steaming-turd-t-shirts-men-s-t-shirt.jpg
 
sculptor said:
self portrait exchemist?
Click to expand...
You remind me at times of the local fox, which likes to crap outside my front door from time to time, just so I don't forget he's there. What I generally do is wait for a bit for the turd to dry up, then scrape it up and flick it into the road with a trowel.:D

Have a nice day.
 
sculptor said:
You too,
and
don't forget to add more crushed carbonate rock dust to your fields
You too
can "change the climate"
Click to expand...
No, you're reading the reaction in post 1 backwards.

Bicarbonate and silica are what you end up with, not what you put on the fields. The rock dust should be metal silicates, which take up CO2 as they change to (bi)carbonates and silica.

That's point, you see, to absorb CO2 from the air and convert it into carbonate type minerals.
 
billvon said:
Ah, good. So you meant "damned good use of the language."
Click to expand...
for a snake-oil salesman--------maybe
..............................
If you want to claim that it could absorb CO2
why not just say that?

...................
basalt, anyone?
 
sculptor said:
for a snake-oil salesman--------maybe
..............................
If you want to claim that it could absorb CO2
why not just say that?
Click to expand...
Great idea! Perhaps in the original post the OP could say that! That it "proposes a man-made adaptation of the geological Carbon-Silicate Cycle* as a way of sequestering significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere." Check out the original post and see where you could insert that claim!
 
exchemist said:
You remind me at times of the local fox, which likes to crap outside my front door from time to time, just so I don't forget he's there. What I generally do is wait for a bit for the turd to dry up, then scrape it up and flick it into the road with a trowel.:D

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Foxes generally have a better sense of "perspective" than sculptor.
 
sculptor said:
for a snake-oil salesman--------maybe
..............................
If you want to claim that it could absorb CO2
why not just say that?

...................
basalt, anyone?
Click to expand...
Because what the paper says is, not only that it can take out CO2 from the air, but also that this ".....is now necessary for the mitigation of climate change."

This is what I have faithfully reflected in the title and in my contributions to the content of the thread.

This is where the science now is, today, whether you like it or not.
 
sculptor said:
I never claimed that there wasn't a link.
(it's a set and subset problem)
Click to expand...

This almost reads as self-parody. (Almost?)

Errors concerning kind and degree are kinda your forte, you know.

~30 years back, I saw Douglas Hofstadter deliver a lecture at CalTech on the many varieties of the duck-rabbit illusion. He was focusing specifically on lexical varieties, though I forget his particular name for them. Anyways, during the lecture, I actually created one. Read one way, it said "butthole." Turn 90 degrees clockwise, it read "surfers." (This was 1990, so...) I was pleased with myself--probably a lot more than I should have been. Generally, these things don't cause much confusion for people--or rather, the kind of confusion they do cause is illustrative of their intent. Hence the lifelong obsessions for many an artist, musician (Ligeti, especially--papa (Gyorgy), though probably Lukas, as well), writer, poet, philosopher. If, however, one's "confusion" is of the "denial of ambiguity" kind, one is either trolling, or possibly needs to take that Montreal Cognitive Assessment thingy.
 
exchemist said:
No, you're reading the reaction in post 1 backwards.

Bicarbonate and silica are what you end up with, not what you put on the fields. The rock dust should be metal silicates, which take up CO2 as they change to (bi)carbonates and silica.

That's point, you see, to absorb CO2 from the air and convert it into carbonate type minerals.
Click to expand...
pssst
(that was a joke)
and
irony
each year, thousands of tons of crushed carbonate rock are spread on farm fields in Iowa, and more throughout the midwest corn belt.
Now if the same result can be had from a mineral that absorbs CO2 rather than releasing it
that would be interesting-------------and, then comes efficiency and cost effectiveness

.................................
oh, and
mlo_co2_hour.png

with a little help from covid 19 influenced cultural change
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top