HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NNadir » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 157 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: New Jersey
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 29,302

Journal Archives


Mary Boas.

So I went to my kid's Masters graduation ceremony this weekend and I got to thinking it's probably been a long time since he took a formal math class. He took four semesters of Calculus in high school; the last one, vector calculus not for college credit, and repeated the course in his Freshman year of college.

So I'm thinking to myself, "Self, that kid needs some review and reference for his Ph.D program."

I had a nice book on partial differential equations for physics somewhere around here, but I can't find it. It's been many years since I last saw it; maybe someone borrowed it and never brought it back.

So I decided to buy a nice math review/reference book as a gift. A kind of general reference for this sort of thing - the reviews are mixed from "Love it!" to "Hate it" - is Erwin Kreyszig's Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 10th Edition.

Since there were a subset of people who whined about this book - it's apparently utilized in upper division undergraduate courses - I asked myself, "Self, what else is out there?"

Well, there's Mary Boas's Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences

It's an old book, but a lot of people still like it, apparently. Dr. Boas died in 2010, after having retired from DePaul in 1987. The book dates from the 1960s.

She was a pioneer as this blurb from DePaul indicates: Women’s History at DePaul

An excerpt:

Women’s achievements in American history can be celebrated while simultaneously highlighting the established gender roles of a particular era. A newly-acquired book held in DePaul Special Collections and Archives showcases some of women’s groundbreaking successes. After the War: Women in Physics in the United States shares the stories of women who continued to work in the male-dominated physics field even after men returned stateside as veterans and reentered the workplace following World War II. The new book by Ruth H. Howes and Caroline Herzenberg celebrates important women in physics during this time and the various “strategies they used to survive as physicists.”

Former DePaul faculty member Dr. Mary Boas, one of the featured physicists in the book, was born in Washington state and received both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Washington. Boas’ husband Ralph taught mathematics at numerous universities, including Harvard, MIT, and Northwestern. Mary received her PhD in physics from MIT in 1948. After the family moved to the Chicago area in the 1950s, Mary Boas took a teaching position at DePaul University in 1958...

I'll probably end up buying the Kreyszig book in ebook form, but it was nice to come across a pioneering woman scientist, even if, as the article states, she had to put up with "Puff pieces" about her life.

Climate inaction could cost world USD178 trillion: Deloitte

This article is here: Climate inaction could cost world USD178 trillion: Deloitte


Climate change - if left unchecked - could cost the global economy USD178 trillion over the next 50 years, according to a new report from Deloitte. But if the world acts now to rapidly achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century, the transformation of the economy would set the world up for stronger economic growth by 2070.

he Global Turning Point Report from the recently established Deloitte Center for Sustainable Progress (DCSP) was released during the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, which is taking place in Davos, Switzerland from 22-26 May. Based on research conducted by the Deloitte Economics Institute, the report analyses 15 geographies in Asia Pacific, Europe, and the Americas.

If global warming reaches around 3°C toward the century's end, the toll on human lives could be significant - disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable and leading to loss of productivity and employment, food and water scarcity, worsening health and well-being, and ushering in an overall lower standard of living globally, Deloitte said. But if the world acts now to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century, the transformation could increase the global economy by USD43 trillion - a boost to global GDP of 3.8% - in 2070 "compared to a climate damaged baseline".

"The time for debate is over. We need swift, bold and widespread action now - across all sectors," Deloitte Global CEO Punit Renjen said. "Will this require a significant investment from the global business community, from governments, from the non-profit sector? Yes. But inaction is a far costlier choice … what we have before us is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-orient the global economy and create more sustainable, resilient, and equitable long-term growth. In my mind the question is not why we should make this investment, it's how can we not?"

With global coordination and rapid action, the world can still achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the report says. This will require extensive coordination and global collaboration, with governments needing to collaborate closely with the financial services and technology sectors. During the initial stages, the cost of upfront investments in decarbonisation coupled with the already locked-in damages from climate change would temporarily lower economic activity compared with the current emissions-intensive path, but as the transition progresses a turning point would be reached where the economic benefits of avoided climate damage and the emergence of new sources of growth and job creation start to outweigh the costs.

"It's important that the global economy evolves to meet the challenges of climate change," Pradeep Philip of the Deloitte Economics Institute said. "Our analysis shows that a low-carbon future is not only a societal imperative but an economic one...

This would be a good time for all kinds of bourgeois assholes to pipe in that "Nuclear Energy is too expensive."

The problem with building nuclear reactors is that every reactor built today is designed to operate for well more than half a century. They are thus gifts to future generations, but we are disinterested in making such gifts.

The future will not forgive us, nor should it.

Bioavailability of Phosphorus and Sulfur From Pyrolyzed Sewage Sludge.

A big problem before humanity is the depletion of mined phosphorus, paradoxically coupled with the release of that phosphorus to the ocean and other bodies of water, where it causes eutrophication.

Among our many problems, we need to find ways to close the phosphorus cycle, a non-trivial task.

I won't have much time to discuss a paper across which I just came, but I rather like the work, and feel that it suggests some processes that might help. It's this one: Speciation Evolution of Phosphorus and Sulfur Derived from Sewage Sludge Biochar in Soil: Ageing Effects Hao Sun, Lei Luo, Jiaxiao Wang, Dan Wang, Rixiang Huang, Chenyan Ma, Yong-Guan Zhu, and Zhengang Liu Environmental Science & Technology 2022 56 (10), 6639-6646.

Of course, dried but otherwise untreated sewage sludge is applied to agricultural fields as fertilizer, but this practice leaves something to to be desired.

From the paper's introduction:

Sewage sludge (SS) generally has great potential for land application because of its enrichment of phosphorus (P), sulfur (S) and other nutrient elements induced by human activities. (1−3) Specifically, P and S can amount to 2 and 1% (dry weight) in their contents in SS, respectively, (4,5) which, as reusable resources, are expected to tackle the current dilemma of limited P fertilizers (6,7) and the problem of S deficiency in arable soil. (8,9) On the other hand, land application of SS is frequently discouraged and only 29.3% of SS is disposed via land application in China (10) due to the presence of toxic metals, organic contaminants and pathogenic bacteria. (3,11−13) Therefore, increasingly released SS presents big challenges and opportunities for environmental safety and resource recycling in China. Converting SS into biochar via pyrolysis is proposed as a promising disposal alternative for recycling the organic waste because pyrolysis can greatly decrease the environmental risks of SS by immobilizing heavy metals and decomposing pathogens and organic contaminants. (13−16) Recently, increasing global interest in SS biochar (SSB) (2,17−19) raises a great desire for understanding the speciation of P and S in the biochar and their transformation and fate in soil.

Phosphorus in solid biowaste such as animal manure and SS is gradually transformed into stable Ca-associated compounds like hydroxyapatite during pyrolysis, which can significantly decrease the available fraction of heavy metals in the biowaste through sorption and/or precipitation reactions. (1,4,20,21) Meanwhile, oxidized S in biowaste tends to be reduced and forms stable sulfides with metal cations in the derived biochar. (21,22) Therefore, both P and S play critical roles in immobilizing heavy metals in organic waste during pyrolysis and thus decrease their environmental risks. (21,22) Nevertheless, it has been empirically speculated that the stable Ca-associated phosphate compounds in biochar may increase the availability of P, (20) and sulfides are also liable to be decomposed over time (24) when entering soil environments. In addition, they can affect the solubility and bioavailability of each other in the environment. For example, sulfide can facilitate the release of phosphate bound to iron from SS, (25,26) whereas phosphate can increase available S through competition for sorption sites in SSB-amended soil. (2) It is therefore expected that clarifying the speciation transformation of P and S in SSB induced by soil application will be the key to exploring the immobilization mechanisms of heavy metals and the resource recycling of the nutrients in the environment. (13,21,22) To date, fundamental knowledge on the speciation transformation mechanisms of P and S from SSB in amended soils at the molecular level is still missing (8,20) and thus critically needed...

…The goal of this study was to explore the molecular speciation transformation of P and S derived from SSB as affected by ageing in soil. We hypothesized that the immobilized P and S in SSB stably persist during ageing in soil and thus profoundly affect the availability and reactivity of the nutrients and heavy metals in amended soil. Iron (Fe), as a redox-sensitive element similar to S, can also control the chemical environment of soil and is expected to be closely related to the cycling of P and S in SSB. (12,23) To test these, the speciation of P and S as well as C and Fe from SSB following soil application was investigated based on pot and field experiments.

As chemists of a certain age, when young people did wet chemistry, will know, the sulfides of many heavy metals are relatively insoluble; in fact, the ores of many toxic metals are sulfides. Indeed the ores of many toxic metals are sulfides. Cinnabar, an ore of mercury and galena, an ore of lead, are sulfides. Iron sulfide, found as the mineral pyrite, and iron phosphate are also insoluble.

The authors speculated that on aging, sulfides might liberate the phosphate from iron as a sulfide, and speculated that pyrolyzed sewage sludge might represent a slow release phosphate release agent, fertilizing plants while not producing so much phosphate runoff to produce eutrophication.

Here's some insights to their interesting experimental procedure, at a ton scale:

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

SS was obtained from a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Wangdu, Hebei Province. SSB was produced from dewatered SS via pyrolysis at 500 °C for 45 min in a 20 ton industrial pyrolysis furnace. A pyrolysis temperature of 500 °C and retention time of 45 min were selected as a compromise of multiple factors including yield, functional group composition, phase transition of biochar structure, immobilization of heavy metals, and energy consumption based on previous studies (21,33) and pre-experiments (Text S1 and Table S1). Field ageing experiments were conducted on uncultivated land in Wangdu, Hebei Province. The soil was a fluvo-aquic soil (Calcaric Cambisol) with a clay-loam texture. Surface soils (0–20 cm), collected from the same location, were used for pot experiments after being air-dried and crushed to less than 2 mm in size.

2.2. Ageing Experiments

Ageing of SSB in soil was conducted through pot and field experiments. Each experiment was performed with three treatments in triplicate: control soil (without SS or SSB), soil with SS, and soil with SSB, at an application rate of 1% (w/w on dried basis). For pot experiments, 1.75 kg soil from each treatment was incubated for 90 days at 75% of its water-holding capacity by periodically adding water. This period could ensure well ageing of SSB to a certain extent. (27,30) For field experiments, a 1-year rotation of summer maize followed by winter wheat was performed in plots from June 10, 2020 to June 10, 2021 to examine long-term ageing effects on the speciation changes of SSB-derived P and S in soil...

The results, as shown in this graphic from the paper, seem to have been promising.

The caption:

Figure 1. Available P and S in soil as affected by SS and SSB amendments, and pot and field incubation, respectively.

SS = sewage sludge. SSB = sewage sludge biochar.

An excerpt of the concluding discussion:

This study explores the distinct speciation evolution of P and S in SSB during pyrolysis and ageing processes and substantiates that speciation of P and S in SSB controls their availability and reactivity in soil environments. The P and S immobilized in SSB through forming stable Ca–P and sulfides can be slowly transformed into relatively available P and S in soil over time. These processes imply that the stable Ca–P in SSB can be a potential source of available P, particularly in the presence of sulfides, while avoiding possible eutrophication by immobilizing excess available P. Most importantly, the immobilized P and S significantly decrease the available fractions of metal cations such as Cd and Cu in SSB (Table S2 and Figure S15) through sorption, precipitation, and sulfidation reactions, and they can continue to play critical roles in maintaining the low risks of heavy metals in the amended soils over a relatively long term through their slow release, for instance, one year, as indicated in this study...

Although heavy toxic metals can be released by the mechanism of oxidation of sulfides, the authors speculate that over time they will become immobilized, but recognize that proof of this might await future work.

I am personally fond of pyrolytic procedures. These require heat, and the only sustainable, reliable way to supply heat of this quality is using nuclear energy, yet another way this much maligned tool might work to save humanity from itself, with the dubious caveat that this would require abandoning our fondness for ignorance.

I trust you will enjoy a pleasant week.

Yeah, and what?

Perhaps the dumb shit who wrote this precious bit of stupidity isn't aware that the ocean contains over 500 billion curies of potassium 40, and has generally contained more than that for the 4 billion years oceans have existed.

If you would like to produce a credible scientific paper from a reputable journal showing that in the 11 years since Fukushima that as many people as will die in the next hour from air pollution, have died from radiation releases at Fukushima you are invited to do so.

There are many thousands of papers on the subject of radiation releases at Fukushima and their health effects.

Here's one: Michael R Reich, Aya Goto, Towards long-term responses in Fukushima, The Lancet, Volume 386, Issue 9992, 2015, Pages 498-500,

4 years have passed since the nuclear power plant accident at Fukushima, Japan, moving the problems there from an acute nuclear disaster to a chronic environmental disaster, with multiple social, psychological, economic, and political consequences. As described by Ohtsuru and colleagues,1 many people continue to experience multiple losses, both tangible and intangible, at the individual, family, and community levels.

Putting Hiroshima and Nagasaki side by side with Fukushima, as done in this issue of The Lancet, seems inappropriate in major respects. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentional governmental acts of war, whereas Fukushima was accidental and negligent industrial behaviour in time of peace. They share exposure to radiation—but at vastly different levels and in different forms.2 In Fukushima, no one has died from radiation exposure, and the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation report3 in 2013 stated that substantial changes in future cancer statistics attributed to radiation exposure are not expected to be observed, although the committee also noted “a theoretical increased risk of thyroid cancer among most exposed children” and recommended they be “closely followed”.4

However, putting these disasters together does reveal some shared characteristics. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people were “exposed to explosion” (hibaku in Japanese); while those in Fukushima are “exposed to radiation” (also hibaku in Japanese).5, 6 These words share the same pronunciation, but use different Japanese characters. Both groups are living with the social and psychological uncertainties and implications of possible radiation exposure. Both groups also became higaisha or victims. The apocalyptic disruptions of their lives did not arise from their own choices, but from social and political decisions taken by others. This reaction is common in radiation disasters worldwide.7

The survivors of a chronic environmental disaster typically seek redress around questions of care, compensation, and clean-up.8 Although chronic environmental disasters have important medical dimensions, the human losses go far beyond the medical sphere. Below we briefly explore these three questions for Fukushima, examine the role of community engagement, and highlight changes needed to prevent another nuclear power plant disaster.

I added the bold, the italics and the underlining.

The most serious effects are psychological and stupid people whipping up hysteria are not helping.

The fact is that more people have likely died from the dangerous fossil fuel waste generated by assholes to run their computers to whine about Fukushima and so called "nuclear waste" than have died from the 75 years of commercial nuclear power operations.

What part of the bolded, italicized, and underlined statement in one of the world's most prestigious medical journals escapes the mind of a person who clearly doesn't give a shit about the roughly 70 to 80 million people who died from air pollution since the Fukushima reactors were breached in a natural disaster where 20,000 people died from seawater?

How come dumb shit anti-nukes aren't calling for the banning of coastal cities?

The death toll from air pollution is around 19,000 people per day, about 800 people per hour:

This information can be found here, also in the prestigious medical journal Lancet:

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

Let me know if there are any dumb shits around the world who can find reference to Fukushima in this document.

Let me understand this. Am I supposed to credit the stupid selective attention of a person who clearly has never opened a science book and who clearly knows zero about radiobiology over the fact that people are dying from extreme heat in Asia today? Over the fact that while I've been embracing this dubious conversation with the moral and intellectual equivalent of anti-vax type 800 people or more have died from not using nuclear power?

I've been studying plutonium chemistry in the primary scientific literature for over 30 years; I'm not some paranoid asshole who screams and pulls his brains out through his hair follicles whenever the word "plutonium" is mentioned.

Stick to telling me about how radiostrontium sticks around for a million years. It's pretty fucking typical of people who just don't give a shit about reality.

It is thought that 70,000 people died from heat waves in Europe in the 2003 heatwave there; the death toll from recent extreme heat are sure to exceed that.

Jean-Marie Robine, Siu Lan K. Cheung, Sophie Le Roy, Herman Van Oyen, Clare Griffiths, Jean-Pierre Michel, François Richard Herrmann, Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003, Comptes Rendus Biologies, Volume 331, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 171-178.

The paper begins with these words:

Everyone remembers the 15,000 additional deaths caused by the heat wave of August 2003 in France [1]. However, four years later, no one knows precisely the cumulative number of European victims, although more than 70 scientific reports related to this event have already been published [2]

Everyone remembers? Really? Would this include the assholes whining endlessly about Fukushima while pushing the bridges of their noses past their hemorrhoids?

I'd suggest that dumb shit anti-nukes shouldn't pretend to give a shit. They don't care how many millions of people die, how many tens of millions of people die, how many hundreds of millions of people die from dangerous fossil fuel waste or any other form of pollution. They only credit their imagination that someone somewhere might die from radiation and it fills their whithered intellects with terror that this might happen.

Their selective attention borders on criminally insane.

Their ethical level is clearly disgusting.

It is no more valuable to discuss the issue of risk with an anti-nuke than it is to discuss the existence of Covid with a Trumper. No amount of information or truth can effect the withered intellects of either of this type.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

From the Harvard Library: Hydrogen fuel production by wind energy conversion!!!!!

Hydrogen fuel production by wind energy conversion

Gasoline? Who needs Gasoline?

The Entry from Harvard's Library:

Hydrogen fuel production by wind energy conversion
Ben-Dov, E. ; Naot, Y. ; Rudman, P. S.
The economic feasibility of using wind energy conversion to produce hydrogen fuel by the electrolysis of water is considered. Wind energy production of hydrogen to replace gasoline can be achieved by feeding wind-generated electricity through a utility grid to an electrolysis facility or by means of an electrolysis unit at the wind turbine site and subsequent transmission of the hydrogen produced to points of use. On-site hydrogen production leads to a cost savings of 25% over that of utility-produced hydrogen, due to the use of a fixed pitch rotor in place of the variable pitch rotor necessary for stable frequency and voltage supply to a utility. It is concluded that hydrogen can be produced by on-site electrolysis at a cost less than the current price of gasoline in Europe at wind energy conversion sites with mean wind speeds exceeding only 4 m/sec.

In: Alternative energy sources; Proceedings of the Miami International Conference, Miami Beach, Fla., December 5-7, 1977. Volume 8. (A79-34106 13-44) Washington, D.C., Hemisphere Publishing Corp. 1978, p. 3563-3576.

Pub Date: 1978
Bibcode: Keywords:

Economic Analysis; Electrolysis; Energy Conversion; Hydrogen Fuels; Water; Windpower Utilization; Electric Generators; Gasoline; Rotor Speed; Wind Velocity; Energy Production and Conversion

I added the bold.

Unfortunately only the abstract is available. Conference Proceedings from events held in 1977 are generally not digitalized.

We're saved.

Here's a solution to an environmental problem of which I was completely unaware.

I came across this paper this evening from Senegalese and French scientists: Carbonation of Calcium Silicate Hydrates as Secondary Raw Material from the Recovery of Hexafluorosilicic Acid Samba Ndiaye, Alexander Pisch, Alpha Ousmane Touré, Séverine Camy, Samba Mody Sow, Adrien Chen, Falilou Mbacke Sambe, Laurent Prat, and Laurent Cassayre ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2022 10 (18), 6023-6032.

Unfortunately I won't have time to discuss the paper in much detail, but the introduction describes a pollution problem that I seemed to have missed, although I have a strong interest in phosphorous flows as well as fluorine chemistry:

In the worldwide phosphate fertilizer production, more than 2 million tons of hexafluorosilic acid are generated annually as a result of the reaction of phosphate ore and sulfuric acid. (1,2) The valorization of this acid remains a global environmental challenge and generates research efforts. (1,3−6) For instance, superphosphate plants such as Industries Chimiques du Senegal discharge nearly 276000 m3/year of H2SiF6 into the sea for a production of 600000 tons/year of phosphoric acid. In our previous work, (7) we proposed a three-step aqueous process to treat waste solutions containing 250 to 300 g/L of H2SiF6 issued from phosphoric acid production. It consists of a first aqueous reaction between H2SiF6 and NaCl to form solid sodium fluorosilicate Na2SiF6 and a concentrated HCl solution, followed by a reaction between sodium fluorosilicate and lime, allowing to successively generate two solid products: pure CaF2, which can be used as an additive in various pyrometallurgical processes (8) and calcium silicate hydrates (CSH) containing about 10 wt % CaF2.

Due to the large amount of CSH material that could be produced by hexafluorosilic acid processing, a volume application is needed to use this waste stream efficiently, and the field of construction material seems one of the best options. There are basically two possible valorization routes. The first one is the addition of CSH as raw material in Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) production, as it is reported that small additions of fluorine are beneficial for the burnability of the raw mix in OPC clinker production, reducing the specific heat consumption of the final clinker and therefore the CO2 footprint of the resulting cement. (9−11) However, the amount of fluorine addition is limited to 0.25 wt % F, as for higher amounts considerably longer setting times are observed leading to quality related issues. (12) Therefore, the addition of large amounts of CaF2-containing CSH material is limited by its fluorine content.
The second pathway combines the development of alternative binders, which has been an active research field in the last decades, (13,14) and the CO2 capture in construction materials produced from secondary raw materials (such as stainless steel slags, (15) electric arc furnace slag, (16) ferronickel slags, (17) coal fly ash, or waste gypsum (18)) in the objective of decreasing the overall carbon footprint of concrete fabrication. (19) The pathway investigated in the present work concerns the direct use of CSH in carbonatable calcium silicate cements, based on the idea of cement setting and hardening through carbonation of calcium oxide. (20−25) To make such a process economically viable, carbonation must take place at atmospheric pressure and moderate temperatures (less than 80 °C) while assuming a reaction kinetics of close to 100% conversion in less than 24 h. Recent works (26−33) have confirmed that calcium silicate phases are likely to be carbonated quickly in the presence of CO2 and humidity. Binders based on calcium silicates are thus well-suited for the fabrication of thin precast products such as roof tiles, which allow to capture the CO2 emitted during cement production and to tend toward carbon-neutral cement. Such technology has been developed in the 2010s by the US-based company Solidia Technologies Inc., together with the cement manufacturer LafargeHolcim, using artificial wollastonite as the main raw material to produce clinker at 1200 °C. (34) However, as pointed out in a recent review by Habert et al., (35) wollastonite resources are not well distributed in the Earth’s crust, with a global production of rather low volume (about 500000 tons annually), such cement can thus only be a solution for some specific locations.

In the present work, we chose to investigate this second valorization route, using the CSH product as secondary raw material that could possibly be included in carbonatable cements. The direct carbonation reaction of CSH phases, as well as nonhydrated calcium silicates (CS), is described in eq 1 considering a solid–gas pathway (i.e., with low amounts of water). From a thermodynamic point of view, the Gibbs energy of this reaction is largely negative and thus should proceed spontaneously. Indeed, as reported in Figure 1 for several CS and CSH compounds, the Gibbs energy of carbonation at atmospheric pressure and 40 °C ranges from −37.8 kJ/mol of CO2 for CaSiO3 to −114.7 kJ/mol of CO2 for Ca2SiO4, with the CSH compounds in between. These data show that CS and CSH should have a similar reactivity toward CO2...

I never looked into the process chemistry for the isolation of phosphate from ores.

There's so much to learn, so little time.

This seems to be a cool paper; I hope I'll have time to come back to it.

I have a strong affection for group 2 fluorides and think about them often, basically as tools to recover fluorine from water and air matrices where they are highly problematic.

I know I'm insanely optimistic but I feel pretty damned...

...good about all of our nominees coming out of yesterday's primaries.

I can't see how in a decent world they could lose.

Historically relying on decency has been problematic, but I do believe in the end it prevails.

Extremist Murders by Political Affiliation and Type, 2012-2021.

Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2021, ADL


The reason that the Hate, Racism, and Misogyny Party, aka "Republicans" want their guns so badly is that they are at war with this country because they hate it.

Whence the Heat for This Lithium Battery Recycling Process?

We have bet the planet's atmosphere on so called "renewable energy" and, um, energy storage, generally involving fantasies about big, big, big, big piles of batteries, batteries galore, batteries everywhere.

From my perspective, and only my perspective, it's not going well:

May 15: 421.84 ppm
May 14: 422.04 ppm
May 13: 421.95 ppm
May 12: 421.87 ppm
May 11: 421.71 ppm
Last Updated: May 16, 2022

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

Don't worry, be happy. If we chant about batteries - and of course hydrogen - the "renewable energy" god will surely save us.

Here's a recent paper on how we can all "recycle" our billions of tons of batteries:

Alkaline Roasting Approach to Reclaiming Lithium and Graphite from Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries Dongxu Liu, Xin Qu, Beilei Zhang, Jingjing Zhao, Hongwei Xie, and Huayi Yin ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2022 10 (18), 5739-5747.

From the introduction:

Graphite is still unbeaten in most of the commercial lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) as an anode material due to its low cost and superior performance including long-term cycling stability, relatively high practical specific capacity (∼360 mA h g–1 vs theoretical capacity of 372 mA h g–1), non-memory-effect feature, low operation potential (∼0.1 V vs Li+/Li), and so forth. (1,2) It is reported that more than 10 million electric cars were on the world’s roads in 2020, and more than 20 countries have electrification targets or internal combustion engine bans for cars by no later than 2050, (3) which results in increasing the demand for graphite anode. However, graphite mines only produce flake graphite of 90–98% purity, and further energy-intensive purification is required to upgrade the flake graphite to 99.5% purity. (4) Meanwhile, the average lifespan of LIBs is 1–3 years for consumer electronics and 8–10 years for energy storage systems and electric vehicles, thereafter bringing about 0.2 million tons of spent consumer LIBs and 0.88 million tons of spent power LIBs by 2023. (5,6) Considering the environmental pollution of hazardous wastes and the scarcity of resources, the recycling of LIBs gains increasing attention. In-depth and extensive research of cathodes, such as LiNixMnyCo1–x–yO2, (7,8) LiCoO2, (9,10) and LiFePO4, (11,12) have been reported in recent years. Unfortunately, the graphite anodes are usually abandoned or incinerated in these studies. However, it has been confirmed that the recovered graphite can be reused in LIBs (Table S1) and Na/K/Al-ion batteries (13,14) and employed as the raw material for composite (15,16) and graphene (17,18) fabrication. Therefore, the spent LIB anode that contains about 12–21 wt % of battery-grade graphite (19,20) is a rich resource that should be recovered, which will help in not only closing the resource cycle but also reducing the environmental footprint.
Because the Li content in the spent graphite anode is much higher than its abundance in the Earth’s crust (3.007 wt % vs 0.0017 wt %), (21) Li should also be recovered in addition to graphite...

Don't worry. Be happy. Chant the word "recycle" and everything will be OK.

The process:

Spent LIBs were obtained from waste cell phones and EVs at a local electronic market (Shenyang, Liaoning province, P. R. China). First, spent LIBs were fully discharged by immersing them in a saturated NaCl (AR, Sinopharm Group Co., Ltd.) solution for 12 h to avoid the short circuit caused by the remaining capacity. Second, the fully discharged spent LIBs were dried and dismantled manually in a fuming hood to separate packaging materials, cathode, anode, and separator...

... The schematic illustration of reclaiming spent graphite anodes is described in Figure 1. First, the spent anode was vacuum-calcinated at 400 °C for 2 h to remove the organic solvent and binder, and then, the anode materials were scraped off from Cu foils. The derived graphites from different anodes were named LCO-VG, NCM-VG, and LFP-VG, respectively. Second, NaOH (AR, Sinopharm Group Co., Ltd.) and VG were mixed at different mass ratios (1:2, 1:1, 2:1, and 4:1). Third, the mixture was roasted under an argon (Ar) atmosphere in a tube furnace. The roasting temperature was maintained at 100–400 °C for 0.5–3 h, and the heating rate was 5 °C min–1. After the roasting process, lithium and graphite were separated by leaching with deionized water and filtrating. Finally, the obtained graphite residue was dried at 80 °C in a vacuum oven for 12 h, and the recovered graphites from different anodes were named as LCO-RG, NCM-RG, and LFP-RG, respectively...

The caption:

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of reclaiming lithium and graphite from spent LIBs by alkaline roasting.

400 °C for 2 hours?

Where are we going to get the heat for this process in our solar and wind nirvana?

I know...

Let's cover all of Southern California's deserts with big mirrors and focus them on little recycling ovens with molten salts that we can use to dry the graphite residue at 80 °C for 12 hours using vacuum pumps with energy provided by battery power.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Good idea?

My favorite part of this process is the part where:

...the anode materials were scraped off from Cu foils...

No problem. We have large deposits of desperately poor people who can spend 12 to 14 hours a day to do this for us so we can all be "green" and go cruising on Saturday nights down Hollywood Blvd. in our cool electric souped up Teslas.

History will not forgive us, nor should it.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 157 Next »