This entire website and company reads like a penny pink sheets stock scam.
"Magrathea sells metal using multi-year supply agreements in countries with enforceable contract law. Supply agreements allow our partners to build in magnesium with confidence. We prevent price instability from Chinese trade manipulation so the innovative products of our partners can succeed in the market."
There's absolutely no information on the site detailing their tech. Just a lot of buzzwords. Under the News section, it's the typical list headline articles cherry picked to make the company sound better.
"Greetings to you. This is a recorded announcement as I am afraid we are all out at the moment. The commercial council of Magrathea thanks you for your esteemed visit but regrets that the entire planet is temporairly closed for business. If you would like to leave your name and the address of a planet where you can be contacted kindly speak when you hear the tone... *BEEEEEEEP*."
Somehow we should expect them to be able to purify magnesium from brine, and yet not be on the market selling lithium. That's extremely odd.
Edit: Turns out that no, it's simpler to separate magnesium and calcium than lithium, even those existing in much smaller amounts. Those metals form many solid ionic compounds, with anions that would keep sodium and lithium soluble.
>There's absolutely no information on the site detailing their tech. Just a lot of buzzwords.
They are isolating magnesium from brine, and hope to use it as a structural material that is competitive with steel or aluminum (for certain, not all, use cases, obviously).
FYI a ChatGPT summary of their website gave me this info
I've wondered about these salt evaporation ponds a lot. It's the traditional way sea salt has been harvested in Japan from the sea and also in the mountains of the Andes from mountain deposits of salt water. And it is still harvested industrially like that on some islands.
The thing I'm really curious about is this is happening on a large enough scale does it begin to affect the amount of precipitation that can occur? I'm wondering if it can be utilized to increase rainfall during times of drought
Maybe even long canals to transport the ocean water far inland in very shallow streams that are meant to be evaporated by the sun over time. This uses almost no energy on our part, produces salt, and might possibly help increase rainfall?
(Kind of hard to pin down exactly since they don't say a lot about how they are doing it, but a quick check suggests this is the only "new" thing in extracting magnesium recently and Magrathea is a young company[1])
They mention that they are doing electrochemistry. A huge portion of historical magnesium production is from electrolysis, including the only operating plant in the US. Past methods have used lime to precipitate magnesium (Dow) or evaporation ponds to concentrate it (the current Utah plant). Probably the new thing they are doing is using something like Chlor-Alkali to make base that precipitates the magnesium instead of using lime. Then the electrolysis of molten magnesium salts would be similar to products of today. There is some chance they have improvements in these areas, but there are really only so many options. The job descriptions they've posted support this hypothesis.
Recently most magnesium comes from China. They mine ore, throw it in a coal-fired furnace along with some reducing agents, then collect pure magnesium vapor. This process is more labor and energy intensive, but has significantly less CAPEX. Works for China.
Chlor-alkali is more expensive than lime and the back-end electrolysis is more expensive than thermal reduction. So I'd be skeptical they are going to lower costs without some kind of CAPEX reducing magic for molten salt electrolysis.
Well, you must understand that they only just awoke from a few million years of sleep to discover their entire cleaning staff is dead. Who's going to pick up the bodies? That's what nobody seems to have an answer to...
There used to be a plant near me which did something similar (extract magnesium oxide from seawater), it finally got demolished in 2012 and they're building houses on the land.
Magnesium parts are already in widespread use. The covers you see on the sides of motorcycle engines/transmissions are often magnesium.
In solid form the risk is mitigated because there isn't enough surface area for the reaction with oxygen, it's the powder/shavings that are a concern. You can actually weld magnesium parts without it igniting.
Reading up on it a little more - it seems with enough heat solid magnesium can start a self-sustaining burn without oxygen. I wish I could find a laymans explanation of the difference between oxygen fueled magnesium powder fire and self sustaining. Must take an awful lot of heat if a welding arc isn't hot enough to cause this.
Edit: Also think of steel wool and how well it burns, but a block of steel not so much.
Magnesium metal will burn very violently once it gets going. Among the biggest trouble I got into in high school was when my chem lab partner and I decided it would be entertaining to burn a small piece of magnesium metal. It was rather spectacular, and indeed entertaining. Well worth the Very Stern Lecture.
Some aircraft historian will have to fill in the gaps in this story (what aircraft?), but back during the Korean War era, the USAF had a multi-engine piston-driven plane that was either a transport or a cargo aircraft -- not sure which, but the engine blocks were magnesium to save weight. One of the biggest brown-factor events that you could have was an engine fire, because once it got started, your day was going in a bad direction very fast. A friend's dad was pilot-in-command of a plane fresh out of maintenance. An engine caught fire on climb out. He ordered the rest of the crew to hit the silk and he tried to get back to the field. He did, but the landing was not pretty, and he suffered a nasty leg injury. No more combat rating for him, and he finished is USAF career flying transports, and later had a career as a commercial airline pilot. He was luck to survive that engine fire event.
Oddly, tiny chunks/slivers of magnesium are very flammable, but a big chunk of it is pretty much impossible to set fire to.
Source: I was disappointed to buy a few lbs of magnesium to burn on the bonfire, only to find that chucking a lump of it on the bonfire doesn't even burn. Shavings did though.
I love ideas around extracting minerals from seawater since there is just so much. e.g. estimated 4.5B tons of uranium in seawater, ~1000x higher than land sources. Pretty much everything is dissolved in there, but the energy requirements are insane
Ok, hear me out. If stripping these minerals from the land had a negative impact wouldn’t stripping them from ocean water (which is the medium containing life, unlike ore) may also have negative consequences?? Seems to me like a pretty drastic alteration of ocean water chemistry in the long term. What if animal biology expects the magnesium to be available?
That's true if the minerals extracted are consumed completely.
Metals however, are often the most recyclable materials we use, because unlike carbon-based materials like plastics, metals often have useful properties in their elemental state, or as alloys that can be melted down and reused without the loss of those properties or of much material.
Most aluminum, for example is recycled, because the cost of recycling it is lower than the cost of mining new material.
Correct, the question that should be asked here is what happens to all of the water after we've removed the minerals we need from it? Do we just pump it back into the ocean? The outlet would need to be far enough away from the inlet to avoid dilution. What impact does that have on marine life? We know that concentrating those minerals into brine when we extract water through desalinization is harmful so how harmful is doing the opposite and depleting the water of the minerals?
Also, those intakes for water are going to be massive. How are we going to make them fish safe? Dolphin safe? Plankton safe? This is a major problem in hydroelectric dams.
Third, what's providing power for this process and where is it located?
Fourth, what are the second order effects of replacing a lot of steel production? Will this make all of the remaining products where steel can't be replaced a lot more expensive? I doubt you can use magnesium as a replacement for the girders used in buildings. Magnesium is only as strong as mild steel so pretty much everything that requires any tensile strength will still need to use steel.
Eh no. Oceans are big. Really big. Unbelievably big even. We're talking about filtering tiny fractions of ocean water, and nowhere close to all of it. Literally a drop in the ocean in comparison.
I knew it was from the book, but I'd forgotten exactly what Magrathea was, so I started reading the article. Halfway through I got a kernel panic (macos 12.6.2 / intel).
It's not "impossible" to decarbonize the production of aluminum without driving up cost, as the page claims. Once green electricity and hydrogen is cheaper than CO2-emitting energy, this will be possible and even profitable.
The problem with decarbonizing is not being solved with green electricity and hydrogen. The (direct) emissions come from the carbon anodes that are consumed in the process. They are usually made from petroleum coke, aka they're fossil fuels.
Alternatives are being developed, but have a somewhat troubled history. Alcoa announced in the early 2000s that they are only months away from deploying inert anode technology. They're still not there (though still working on it in a project called elysis).
Magnesium is protected by a passive oxide layer and isn't particularly water reactive (unlike sodium and potassium which will react with water more readily). You can toss a chunk of magnesium and water and nothing happens.
There are two major ways of producing magnesium [1]:
1) Electrolytic production from anhydrous magnesium chloride, similar to the electrolytic production of aluminum.
2) The Pidgeon process, which currently dominates Chinese (and world) magnesium production. It distills magnesium vapor under vacuum from a heated mixture of ferrosilicon and magnesium-calcium oxide (calcined dolomite).
The Pidgeon process has a high global warming potential because of the coal used to produce the ferrosilicon input and to heat the retorts. The electrolytic process has a lower global warming potential, especially if using low-carbon electricity, but historically sulfur hexafluoride has been used as a protective cover gas for the metal during electrolytic production. This gas has a staggering global warming potential 23,900 times that of CO2 [2] so incidental leakage of even small quantities can have a high climate impact.
The "without mining" part is not novel. Dow Chemical produced electrolytic magnesium from seawater without mining at Freeport, Texas from 1941-1998, until lower cost foreign magnesium made it uneconomical:
Reading the company's rather sparse public info, it looks like this is a revival of the same basic kind of process as Dow used. But since it's focused on certifying a low GWP for its magnesium, the company will not use sulfur hexafluoride. ("We’re piloting a new generation of electrolytic production technology that is inherently carbon neutral, removing the need for coal and carbon-intense reagents like FeSi and SF6.")
They don't say it directly but they also must be using clean electricity for the electrolysis, otherwise the metal would still be fairly CO2-intensive.
Unfortunately, the latest news item from their news page is about a threat to their business:
"State of Utah denies US Magnesium’s request to extend canals into the Great Salt Lake threatening shutdown of the only American magnesium producer"
[+] [-] geuis|3 years ago|reply
"Magrathea sells metal using multi-year supply agreements in countries with enforceable contract law. Supply agreements allow our partners to build in magnesium with confidence. We prevent price instability from Chinese trade manipulation so the innovative products of our partners can succeed in the market."
There's absolutely no information on the site detailing their tech. Just a lot of buzzwords. Under the News section, it's the typical list headline articles cherry picked to make the company sound better.
[+] [-] EarlKing|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcosdumay|3 years ago|reply
Edit: Turns out that no, it's simpler to separate magnesium and calcium than lithium, even those existing in much smaller amounts. Those metals form many solid ionic compounds, with anions that would keep sodium and lithium soluble.
[+] [-] ignite|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|3 years ago|reply
They are isolating magnesium from brine, and hope to use it as a structural material that is competitive with steel or aluminum (for certain, not all, use cases, obviously).
FYI a ChatGPT summary of their website gave me this info
[+] [-] rmah|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbierwagen|3 years ago|reply
If you're in the bay area, you've seen a brine mine dozens of times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Salt_Ponds
[+] [-] culi|3 years ago|reply
The thing I'm really curious about is this is happening on a large enough scale does it begin to affect the amount of precipitation that can occur? I'm wondering if it can be utilized to increase rainfall during times of drought
Maybe even long canals to transport the ocean water far inland in very shallow streams that are meant to be evaporated by the sun over time. This uses almost no energy on our part, produces salt, and might possibly help increase rainfall?
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|3 years ago|reply
(Kind of hard to pin down exactly since they don't say a lot about how they are doing it, but a quick check suggests this is the only "new" thing in extracting magnesium recently and Magrathea is a young company[1])
[1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/magrathea-metals
[+] [-] avernon|3 years ago|reply
Recently most magnesium comes from China. They mine ore, throw it in a coal-fired furnace along with some reducing agents, then collect pure magnesium vapor. This process is more labor and energy intensive, but has significantly less CAPEX. Works for China.
Chlor-alkali is more expensive than lime and the back-end electrolysis is more expensive than thermal reduction. So I'd be skeptical they are going to lower costs without some kind of CAPEX reducing magic for molten salt electrolysis.
[+] [-] whatshisface|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UberFly|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EarlKing|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amiga-workbench|3 years ago|reply
https://hhtandn.org/venues/287/steetley
https://co-curate.ncl.ac.uk/hartlepool-magnesia-works/
[+] [-] proee|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 83|3 years ago|reply
In solid form the risk is mitigated because there isn't enough surface area for the reaction with oxygen, it's the powder/shavings that are a concern. You can actually weld magnesium parts without it igniting.
Reading up on it a little more - it seems with enough heat solid magnesium can start a self-sustaining burn without oxygen. I wish I could find a laymans explanation of the difference between oxygen fueled magnesium powder fire and self sustaining. Must take an awful lot of heat if a welding arc isn't hot enough to cause this.
Edit: Also think of steel wool and how well it burns, but a block of steel not so much.
[+] [-] klyrs|3 years ago|reply
https://web.archive.org/web/20000817013818/http://simson.net...
[+] [-] umvi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbcurtis|3 years ago|reply
Some aircraft historian will have to fill in the gaps in this story (what aircraft?), but back during the Korean War era, the USAF had a multi-engine piston-driven plane that was either a transport or a cargo aircraft -- not sure which, but the engine blocks were magnesium to save weight. One of the biggest brown-factor events that you could have was an engine fire, because once it got started, your day was going in a bad direction very fast. A friend's dad was pilot-in-command of a plane fresh out of maintenance. An engine caught fire on climb out. He ordered the rest of the crew to hit the silk and he tried to get back to the field. He did, but the landing was not pretty, and he suffered a nasty leg injury. No more combat rating for him, and he finished is USAF career flying transports, and later had a career as a commercial airline pilot. He was luck to survive that engine fire event.
[+] [-] TheDudeMan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
Source: I was disappointed to buy a few lbs of magnesium to burn on the bonfire, only to find that chucking a lump of it on the bonfire doesn't even burn. Shavings did though.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] v8xi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speed_spread|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thepangolino|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] macinjosh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|3 years ago|reply
Metals however, are often the most recyclable materials we use, because unlike carbon-based materials like plastics, metals often have useful properties in their elemental state, or as alloys that can be melted down and reused without the loss of those properties or of much material.
Most aluminum, for example is recycled, because the cost of recycling it is lower than the cost of mining new material.
[+] [-] throwaway4aday|3 years ago|reply
Also, those intakes for water are going to be massive. How are we going to make them fish safe? Dolphin safe? Plankton safe? This is a major problem in hydroelectric dams.
Third, what's providing power for this process and where is it located?
Fourth, what are the second order effects of replacing a lot of steel production? Will this make all of the remaining products where steel can't be replaced a lot more expensive? I doubt you can use magnesium as a replacement for the girders used in buildings. Magnesium is only as strong as mild steel so pretty much everything that requires any tensile strength will still need to use steel.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|3 years ago|reply
So, no. This is not a serious concern.
[+] [-] jacquesm|3 years ago|reply
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Magrathea
[+] [-] dunham|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ummonk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|3 years ago|reply
Alternatives are being developed, but have a somewhat troubled history. Alcoa announced in the early 2000s that they are only months away from deploying inert anode technology. They're still not there (though still working on it in a project called elysis).
[+] [-] tekno45|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] not-my-account|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s0rce|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ctoth|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstuart|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdsdfe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philipkglass|3 years ago|reply
1) Electrolytic production from anhydrous magnesium chloride, similar to the electrolytic production of aluminum.
2) The Pidgeon process, which currently dominates Chinese (and world) magnesium production. It distills magnesium vapor under vacuum from a heated mixture of ferrosilicon and magnesium-calcium oxide (calcined dolomite).
The Pidgeon process has a high global warming potential because of the coal used to produce the ferrosilicon input and to heat the retorts. The electrolytic process has a lower global warming potential, especially if using low-carbon electricity, but historically sulfur hexafluoride has been used as a protective cover gas for the metal during electrolytic production. This gas has a staggering global warming potential 23,900 times that of CO2 [2] so incidental leakage of even small quantities can have a high climate impact.
The "without mining" part is not novel. Dow Chemical produced electrolytic magnesium from seawater without mining at Freeport, Texas from 1941-1998, until lower cost foreign magnesium made it uneconomical:
https://www.chemicalonline.com/doc/dow-to-exit-magnesium-bus...
Reading the company's rather sparse public info, it looks like this is a revival of the same basic kind of process as Dow used. But since it's focused on certifying a low GWP for its magnesium, the company will not use sulfur hexafluoride. ("We’re piloting a new generation of electrolytic production technology that is inherently carbon neutral, removing the need for coal and carbon-intense reagents like FeSi and SF6.")
They don't say it directly but they also must be using clean electricity for the electrolysis, otherwise the metal would still be fairly CO2-intensive.
Unfortunately, the latest news item from their news page is about a threat to their business:
"State of Utah denies US Magnesium’s request to extend canals into the Great Salt Lake threatening shutdown of the only American magnesium producer"
https://sltrib.pressreader.com/article/6830844853434424
[1] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2295&conte...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride#Greenhouse...
[+] [-] stevespang|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]