>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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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".
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"
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?