6 ms·

Until this interesting video [1] by Tom Scott, I had never considered sand as a non-renewable resource. But now, it is clear that we now have one more resource

by ramanan 10y ago

Until this interesting video [1] by Tom Scott, I had never considered sand as a non-renewable resource. But now, it is clear that we now have one more resource that we might run out of. [1] The World Is Slowly Running Out Of Sand - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMLYLcniXIc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMLYLcniXIc

sliken 10y ago
Seems like the #1 reason we are running out of sand, is concrete doesn't last very long. The #1 reason for concrete not lasting long that is rebar. Sure rebar lets you use less concrete, but then it doesn't last nearly as long. Without rebar concrete can last 1000s of years (like the roman aqueducts.)
- danmaz74 10y ago
  I read many times that Roman concrete used volcanic ash, which made it much more durable (but I guess it would be much more expensive at scale today).
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    I'm fairly certain Roman concrete also relied on chemistry as an alternative to thermal energy in its manufacturing process, as thermal energy simply wasn't as abundant to the Romans. The longevity may simply be a fortuitous consequence, though a highly significant one. (A topic I should add to my research list.)
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Roman engineering was also rather more overengineered. You compare their columns to modern or say gothic ones, and they clearly have a lot of excess strength.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Overengineering doesn't buy you much if your substrate is disintegrating.
oxide 10y ago
when the world is out of sand, will the desert dune sand or traditional beach sand be worth more?
- abalone 10y ago
  The video notes that desert sand is too fine to be used in construction.
- Gibbon1 10y ago
  What I understand is that desert and beach sand tends to be old/heavily weathered sand that is too fine with rounded edges. And is physically weak. Sea sand also tends to have chlorides which causes problems. The foundation of the house I'm living in was probably made with beach sand (1908 construction). One wall that gets wet frequently is turning to dust.
  - Larrikin 10y ago
    Is it really a problem a 100 year old structure of non historical significance is showing signs of age?
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Well, if the foundation of the house where you live is crumbling, I'm sure you'll admit it's not good.
    - ralfd 10y ago
      Yes. Or what is your point? That we use too fine grained sand to build our cities and then let future generations deal whith grumbling skyscrapers?
      - ido 10y ago
        The point is supposedly that providing housing for the current exploding population is more important/urgent than their great-grandchildren having to tear down and rebuild their houses in 100 years.
fpgaminer 10y ago
In the context of today, yeah, there are tons of resources that we're quickly plundering our way through. The stories mentioned by Tom Scott and the parent article are tragic. But, big picture, nothing on this planet is "non-renewable". Sand, for example, can be manufactured. As can petroleum, coal, clean water, etc. In fact all those products can be produced from the waste of the materials they are replacing. We can chuck a bunch of plastics into a pressure chamber and, with enough energy, regenerate the original petroleum products. And that's the real crux: energy. We don't make our own sand and fossil fuels because it would cost too much in energy. But if we had more abundant sources of energy, the cost would go down, and more manufactured materials would become viable. Our crisis is not that we'll run out of resources. We have plenty. Our predicament is a lack of energy sources. We make up for it by consuming energy our planet has stored, in the form of fossil fuels and other so-called "non-renewables". The solution is to transition ourselves away from this handicap. We need to have more sustainable and abundant sources of energy. That pretty much amounts to solar, as there are no other truly sustainable sources of energy. So the real solution has not much to do with using less "non-renewables" and more to do with improving our abundance of solar energy.
- Swizec 10y ago
  This is like the old adage: if you have enough money to solve a problem then it's not a problem. If you have enough energy to make X, then you'll always have X. But usually you don't.
  - fpgaminer 10y ago
    Yes. I suppose my comment kind of comes off as saying something obvious. Obviously if we had infinite energy we wouldn't have any problems. But really what I was trying to get at was that our focus, with respect to the environment, is perhaps in the wrong place. We focus so much on reducing use. Really our focus needs to be on how we can get _more_ energy. It's like in a business. Don't focus on the cost centers, focus on the profit centers. How can we drive _more_ business rather than making the existing business more efficient. For a growing company that's usually the best advice. So why, as a growing species, are we optimizing our energy usage? Screw that. Let's get more energy! Let's blanket the land with solar panels so we have enough "fuck off" energy to do whatever the hell we want. In particular, enough energy to get into space and build a Dyson sphere so we can get even more energy. Imagine if we took all the money and time invested into optimizing energy usage, and instead had spent it on solar panels? It's all really counter to public opinion. Environmentally conscious people love their LED lights. I do too. But I also love optimizing systems, and optimizing systems is often not what's smart for a business.
sn41 10y ago
I am from Kerala, in India. The amount of damage the illegal sand-mining done here in rivers is pretty alarming. I think we should adopt living in smaller houses, which are built out of locally available materials, instead of cement concrete. As far as I know, concrete buildings do not have a lifetime exceeding 40 years, where as older construction techniques do give us longer lasting buildings. Local concrete used in India include a mixture of slaked lime, honey, water chestnuts, rice husk etc. - e.g. [1] Seems to last a couple of centuries, at least. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bara_Imambara#Building_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bara_Imambara#Building_composi...
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Interesting - comments elsewhere here are disparaging about wood and laminates due to perceptions about longevity, while the stuff concrete is replacing in India was hardly short lived.
wimagguc 10y ago
A similar eye-opening for me was when I've learnt that Saudi Arabia is importing sand and camels from Australia. I couldn't find a reliable enough source now with a quick search, but here's a similar story on BBC: "Even desert city Dubai improts its sand. This is why." http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160502-even-desert-city-dubai-imports-its-sand-this-is-why http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160502-even-desert-city-d...

by ramanan 10y ago

sliken 10y ago

Seems like the #1 reason we are running out of sand, is concrete doesn't last very long. The #1 reason for concrete not lasting long that is rebar. Sure rebar lets you use less concrete, but then it doesn't last nearly as long. Without rebar concrete can last 1000s of years (like the roman aqueducts.)

danmaz74 10y ago
I read many times that Roman concrete used volcanic ash, which made it much more durable (but I guess it would be much more expensive at scale today).
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I'm fairly certain Roman concrete also relied on chemistry as an alternative to thermal energy in its manufacturing process, as thermal energy simply wasn't as abundant to the Romans. The longevity may simply be a fortuitous consequence, though a highly significant one. (A topic I should add to my research list.)
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Roman engineering was also rather more overengineered. You compare their columns to modern or say gothic ones, and they clearly have a lot of excess strength.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Overengineering doesn't buy you much if your substrate is disintegrating.

oxide 10y ago

when the world is out of sand, will the desert dune sand or traditional beach sand be worth more?

abalone 10y ago
The video notes that desert sand is too fine to be used in construction.
Gibbon1 10y ago
What I understand is that desert and beach sand tends to be old/heavily weathered sand that is too fine with rounded edges. And is physically weak. Sea sand also tends to have chlorides which causes problems. The foundation of the house I'm living in was probably made with beach sand (1908 construction). One wall that gets wet frequently is turning to dust.
- Larrikin 10y ago
  Is it really a problem a 100 year old structure of non historical significance is showing signs of age?
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Well, if the foundation of the house where you live is crumbling, I'm sure you'll admit it's not good.
  - ralfd 10y ago
    Yes. Or what is your point? That we use too fine grained sand to build our cities and then let future generations deal whith grumbling skyscrapers?
    - ido 10y ago
      The point is supposedly that providing housing for the current exploding population is more important/urgent than their great-grandchildren having to tear down and rebuild their houses in 100 years.

fpgaminer 10y ago

In the context of today, yeah, there are tons of resources that we're quickly plundering our way through. The stories mentioned by Tom Scott and the parent article are tragic. But, big picture, nothing on this planet is "non-renewable". Sand, for example, can be manufactured. As can petroleum, coal, clean water, etc. In fact all those products can be produced from the waste of the materials they are replacing. We can chuck a bunch of plastics into a pressure chamber and, with enough energy, regenerate the original petroleum products. And that's the real crux: energy. We don't make our own sand and fossil fuels because it would cost too much in energy. But if we had more abundant sources of energy, the cost would go down, and more manufactured materials would become viable. Our crisis is not that we'll run out of resources. We have plenty. Our predicament is a lack of energy sources. We make up for it by consuming energy our planet has stored, in the form of fossil fuels and other so-called "non-renewables". The solution is to transition ourselves away from this handicap. We need to have more sustainable and abundant sources of energy. That pretty much amounts to solar, as there are no other truly sustainable sources of energy. So the real solution has not much to do with using less "non-renewables" and more to do with improving our abundance of solar energy.

Swizec 10y ago
This is like the old adage: if you have enough money to solve a problem then it's not a problem. If you have enough energy to make X, then you'll always have X. But usually you don't.
- fpgaminer 10y ago
  Yes. I suppose my comment kind of comes off as saying something obvious. Obviously if we had infinite energy we wouldn't have any problems. But really what I was trying to get at was that our focus, with respect to the environment, is perhaps in the wrong place. We focus so much on reducing use. Really our focus needs to be on how we can get _more_ energy. It's like in a business. Don't focus on the cost centers, focus on the profit centers. How can we drive _more_ business rather than making the existing business more efficient. For a growing company that's usually the best advice. So why, as a growing species, are we optimizing our energy usage? Screw that. Let's get more energy! Let's blanket the land with solar panels so we have enough "fuck off" energy to do whatever the hell we want. In particular, enough energy to get into space and build a Dyson sphere so we can get even more energy. Imagine if we took all the money and time invested into optimizing energy usage, and instead had spent it on solar panels? It's all really counter to public opinion. Environmentally conscious people love their LED lights. I do too. But I also love optimizing systems, and optimizing systems is often not what's smart for a business.

sn41 10y ago

I am from Kerala, in India. The amount of damage the illegal sand-mining done here in rivers is pretty alarming. I think we should adopt living in smaller houses, which are built out of locally available materials, instead of cement concrete. As far as I know, concrete buildings do not have a lifetime exceeding 40 years, where as older construction techniques do give us longer lasting buildings. Local concrete used in India include a mixture of slaked lime, honey, water chestnuts, rice husk etc. - e.g. [1] Seems to last a couple of centuries, at least. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bara_Imambara#Building_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bara_Imambara#Building_composi...

lostlogin 10y ago
Interesting - comments elsewhere here are disparaging about wood and laminates due to perceptions about longevity, while the stuff concrete is replacing in India was hardly short lived.

wimagguc 10y ago

A similar eye-opening for me was when I've learnt that Saudi Arabia is importing sand and camels from Australia. I couldn't find a reliable enough source now with a quick search, but here's a similar story on BBC: "Even desert city Dubai improts its sand. This is why." http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160502-even-desert-city-dubai-imports-its-sand-this-is-why http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160502-even-desert-city-d...