Hacker News Reader

Comment by inflatableDodo | Hacker News Reader

>The world makes a lot of concrete, more than 10 billion tons a year, and is poised to make much more for a population that is forecast to grow by more than 25 percent by 2050. That makes sand, which is about 40 percent of concrete by weight, one of the most-used commodities in the world, and one that is becoming harder to come by in some regions.

And the more concrete you make, the more sand you get. What's not to like? Could this be why the US government is currently trying to buy Greenland, perhaps?

View on HN

My understanding is that concrete production is one of the most energy intensive processes on earth, so despite the downvotes, you have a point.

Second largest industrial producer of CO2. Shipping the sand long distance also makes it worse.

And it's also impractical. Our issue isn't the absolute availability of sand, it's the easy availability near use sites.

It’s not easily available near all use sites. Australia exports a lot of sand to the Middle East and South-East Asia, for example.

And even if the energy input were totally renewable (or nuclear), the CO2 production would still be pretty large, since one is decomposing limestone into calcium oxide and CO2.

It is too bad more isn't done with lime mortars and plasters. Hydrated lime (CaO + H20 => Ca(OH)2) reacts with CO2 to form CaCO3 + H20. And it is fun to work with ...

That can, at best, absorb the CO2 that was emitted when the CaO was made, if the CaO was made from limestone. To get CO2-free CaO would involve decomposing calcium silicate, perhaps by acid dissolution followed by the energetically expensive step of separating calcium chloride into lime and hydrochloric acid.

Yes... but another advantage here of lime over Portland cement is that the cooking of the limestone doesn’t require as much heat as the cooking of Portland cement. It won’t be carbon neutral, but it is a big improvement.

Isn't that the same limestone that can capture carbon if put into the oceans? or is it olivine?

Olivine is usually discussed. However, I think limestone would enable some CO2 uptake, by formation of bicarbonate ions. The calcium ions would have to stay in solution, though.

I think the USA is mostly interested in the Uranium.

Not really. Uranium is last century's strategic resource.

I would say they are interested in not letting other states get access to that uranium

But why? Uranium is not terribly uncommon. If you own a home, the top meter of soil in your yard likely contains several kilograms of it.

Ample economical uranium supplies are relevant if there is large demand for uranium for power production (weapons programs can get more expensive uranium from wherever). But that's not where the world is going.

USA would be very smart to buy land, problem is that there are no sellers. History has proven that buying is worth it.

Example: USA is running almost a $1 TRILLION deficit. Make it two and "buy" Greenland. No rational person one would complain and Denmark /Greenlanders could set up a special fund ala Norway with the money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...

Greenland isn’t for sale, but China has been reported to be trying to charm the Greenlanders to join China.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46386867

Hong Kong on ice?

Not gonna happen. Doesn't Denmark ultimately have e veto power (National Security at least) over major issues in Greenland?

Buying is a loaded word. How about joining USA ? Then USA can duke it with Russia in the Artic game.

Or USA can crunch some numbers...might be cheaper to invade Canada. Fifth time is the charm as they say. Joking OK...maybe ;)

If only there was another way to get countries to do what "we" want, but nicely, because it would be mutually beneficial. We could call it "soft power".

Why China always try to capture the area of other country?

Historically, it really isn't one of the worst offenders.

While certainly influenced by it, we don't live in the past, we live in the present. There was a time when one could say that the British weren't one of the worst offenders when it came to expansion. But then they were. China's expansionism might be new but that doesn't make it less of an issue.

The better option is that Denmark buys USA. They could make it a great country. Really, Danish are open for that: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/denmark-offe...

That's not real, it's meant to be "satire".

If they don't include anti-democratic clauses in the contract the result will be exactly the same as if USA bought Denmark, that is Denmark will become a small state in USA.

>"No rational person one would complain"

One does not simply sell a nation and a people. The colonial days are over.

No one is buying or selling people, at least not as slaves or for soap. However a territory has a value and a country can be compensated for it, assuming people at all levels agree to it. Greenlanders would be Americans as suppose to "Danish"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com