Climate Change Control Using Rock Dust

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by exchemist, Jul 8, 2020.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    This article in Nature:

    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.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    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 ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

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

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    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 ...
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    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.)
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    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.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Mining waste is used for something before burying it?

    7 ways oil and gas drilling is bad for the environment August 9, 2019
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

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

    Sure, I'm all for that too.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And what about the 90% of cases where we do not use "tailings and overburden" and actually keep adding toxic substances to the soil.
    Really, and restoring a mining site to a semblance of its original appearance before mining began is economically feasible? How does that work?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Overburden at a coal mining site

    Sorry, belated :
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    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.

    I did not make that argument. Perhaps you were referring to someone else?
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.

    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.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    ?? It does not and no one claimed it did. What could reduce CO2, per the article, is spreading silicate rock dust on fields.
    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.
    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.
    Write4U likes this.
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

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

    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 ?
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    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


    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.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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

    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.

  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Just like the dirt that's already there! Do you know how much lead, mercury and thorium is in regular dirt?
    Why would you do that?
    Some do, some don't.
    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!
    exchemist likes this.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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
    Waste Rock

Share This Page