Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 140958 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #495 –
Here’s an interesting idea to cut emissions in the steel industry without needing to create new plants:
https://www.freethink.com/energy/decarbonizing-steel.

As noted in the article, it might work on paper but it hasn’t been tested in the real world. Still, an 88% reduction in emissions is very interesting.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #496 –
Quote from: Mav – on
And it’s wonderful that science has methods to break down methane. But real world economics has a way of spoiling things. What would be the cost of catalysis on the industrial scale needed to deal with the methane produced in the production of blue hydrogen?
It's not a new process or new venture, the conversion of methane is already being done, it's just that the source is mining, and it turns out methane is so easy to capture farmers can already do it and get a return, so I doubt big industry will have a problem.

Your point about cracking CO2 is correct, which is why it's much more efficient to crack methane (CH4), methane conversion / cracking is a much lower energy process, the catalysts are longer lasting and it produces more hydrogen. Although there has been progress in developing new catalysts and reusable MOF frameworks to capture CO2 from industrial emissions and release it in a controlled manner. In particular a new sand based filtering solution that absorbs CO2 and then releases it when gently heated. The gentle heating is key, there are many solutions to absorb CO2 but they require a massive amount of energy to release it. fwiw., It has to be released to make economic sense, so that the catalyst / framework isn't single use, so enters CCS into the debate again.

Really the renewables alarmism around methane is displaced, it's a finger in the dyke moment, and the renewables sector would be better focussed on cleaning up their own act and sourcing rare earths and precious metals from sustainable reservoirs. (There is a reason why people like Twiggy Forrest and BHP are so keen on Solar PV, Solar PV needs the stuff they dig!)

At one of the facilities I visit we had to get past protestors barricading the gates because the plant emitted nitrogen. Nitrogen is also a greenhouse gas and makes up roughly 70% of our atmosphere. The protest was pointless, the nitrogen used in most industrial processing comes out of the air, what isn't converted to something like nitrides, fertiliser or explosives goes back to the air. We consume nitrogen we don't make it, but it's so abundant humans will barely make a dent in the ecospheres supply by the time the Sun consumes the Earth!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #497 –
LP is correct.  REE mining, and particularly processing, is close to the dirtiest activity on the plant.  Horrendous for the environment.  The tailings from processing alone rival waste from a nuclear facility.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #498 –
Quote from: Professer E – on
LP is correct.  REE mining, and particularly processing, is close to the dirtiest activity on the plant.  Horrendous for the environment.  The tailings from processing alone rival waste from a nuclear facility.
The public protest against mining, boost Solar PV, and oppose nuclear.

But the Rare Earth mining produces as much radioactive waste as coal mining or burning. For radiation it's not the volume of waste that is the problem, but the fact that it gets concentrated by the refining process.

The volume of other waste becomes an issue because rare earths are well, ............ rare, DuH! There are projects now trying to develop uses for much of the waste, but the economics of the effort looks grim.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #499 –
Research shows oil field flaring emits nearly five times more methane than expected, npr.org.

Quote
Flares, or fires lit at oil and gas wells to burn off excess gas that cannot be transported and sold, are a common sight at oil fields around the world. Some are even visible from space.

But a new study published in the journal Science Thursday found that the process is not eliminating nearly as much methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide, as assumed.

"Our findings indicate that flaring is responsible for five times more methane entering the atmosphere than we previously thought," says Genevieve Plant, lead author and assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, is also a byproduct of oil drilling. Flaring is a way to convert unsellable gas into compounds such as carbon dioxide, which still cause global warming but are less harmful in the near-term. Flares are designed to eliminate at least 98% of the methane that passes through them, and that is the default amount used when estimating the emissions they create.



Well, well, well … very interesting. Who would have thought that excess methane would be burnt off? Aerobically.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #500 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Research shows oil field flaring emits nearly five times more methane than expected, npr.org.
Yep, they are theoretically supposed to be able to convert 98% of methane, but in practise many wells only convert 91%, that is the 'nearly 5x' in the discussion heading. Of course we could say they were operating at 92.8% efficiency, but that doesn't suit the politics of the article.

And of course none of this has to do with methane conversion to hydrogen or other useful products, but the reporters happily draw the inference.

Yet another example of an alarmingly deceptive and highly political report from the boosters of the renewables sector! ;)

I find the NPR report particularly troubling, because I'm a big supporter of NPR's media content, and I expect them to be impartial and rigorous in reporting and broadcasting, they are supposed to expose deceptions not create them! I suppose I have to accept organisations like NPR and our own ABC broadcasting more sensationalised opinion and doing less reporting that would historically be the case!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #501 –
 :D

No comment on your surprise that excess methane would be burnt? I thought you’d said that was nonsense because there’s no O in methane and it would be catalysed anaerobically …

No comment on the fact that more methane is produced as a byproduct than can be transported and sold? Don’t they know they’re literally burning money as there’s an infinite demand for the end products of catalysis which can be sold for a King’s ransom?

It’s interesting that you talk so admiringly about the conversion of 92.8% of the methane. How efficient, you say. But you don’t worry about the fact that this conversion produces carbon dioxide, one of the most problematic greenhouse gases. And the 7.2% that isn’t burnt is methane that’s released into the atmosphere and methane is just as troublesome as carbon dioxide. Sometimes efficiency isn’t such a wonderful thing. Ruthless regimes have unfortunately been very efficient over the years. Let’s focus on what is being achieved rather than how efficiently it’s being done.

Maybe any approval of blue hydrogen plants should be conditioned on those plants suspending production as soon as they are producing excess methane. Rather than producing methane as a set percentage of the blue hydrogen produced while trying to maximise blue hydrogen production (and then scrambling to get rid of it all), hydrogen production should depend on how much methane can be sensibly catalysed. That would throw a spanner in the works. And it wouldn’t be a bad idea to condition approval on a demonstrated ability to bury carbon dioxide in a successfully operating large-scale CCS system rather than accepting optimistic promises or buying carbon credits. I’m betting that would be another spanner in the works.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #502 –
Quote from: Mav – on
:D

No comment on your surprise that excess methane would be burnt? I thought you’d said that was nonsense because there’s no O in methane and it would be catalysed anaerobically …
We were not talking about traditional mining or it's practises, those existing practises of fossil fuel industry have little relevance to the future procedures of blue or green hydrogen production, only a Solar PV apparatchik would try to build that very deceptive link!

You are coming across as a bit desperate to paint a high tech future industry as dirty, almost like you are financially invested in a competitor.

The lady doth protest too much!

Given you are so au fait with the subject, care to comment on the anaerobic conversion of CO2 while you are at it?

As for CCS, it's inevitable that something like that occurs, because even manufacturing the basic components of solar panels, wind turbines or wave energy generates CO2 or other greenhouse gases as a by-product. They have to do something to be genuinely labelled zero carbon, or else one day someone will use NPR's accounting practises on them, and claim they are infinitely overbudget on zero! Maybe they will use some of those dodgy carbon offsets! ;D
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #503 –
Yep, I’m a green energy magnate just waiting to have my Bond villain moment.

And of course blue hydrogen producers would never prioritise profits over environmental outcomes. Sure, they might be trying to exploit fossil fuels like traditional fossil fuel producers but they’re the good guys, right?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #504 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Yep, I’m a green energy magnate just waiting to have my Bond villain moment.

And of course blue hydrogen producers would never prioritise profits over environmental outcomes. Sure, they might be trying to exploit fossil fuels like traditional fossil fuel producers but they’re the good guys, right?
In case people hadn't noticed it's basically the same subset of people and companies selling SolarPV and Wind energy as well as Hydrogen, they aren't idiots, they have one leg each side of the fence ready to jump. So in one context they seem to be inclined to be labelled saints, and when it doesn't suit they apparently become sinners.

The only genuinely stupid act in the energy and environment debate is lambasting all low carbon dioxide alternatives by boosting one specific solution, it's utter stupidity, and obvious beyond doubt only a mix of technologies can rapidly deliver a sustainable solution. Opposing good technologies because they are not the selected bet is idiotic, that bet is a corporate behaviour not science.

btw., The Hydrogen economy has been on the cards for almost three decades, it's not an overnight alternative spruiked to save mining in it's dying moments. And it's the technology of choice for industrial and commercial solutions to many energy issues, as promoted by both the head of CSIRO and the Chief Scientist since the 1990s and still promoted to this day.

Australia missed a massive opportunity to become the world leader in nuclear due to domestic politics, repeating the same mistakes we made in the early years of radio astronomy and space launches, will it do the same on hydrogen? I fear so, and I suspect the collapse of the Forrest / Cannon-Brookes venture is the start of this same set of errors.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #505 –
Promising news on the wind turbine front:  A Danish wind turbine giant has just discovered how to recycle all rotor blades, CanadaToday.

The assertion is that Vestas has discovered a chemical treatment that can break down the epoxy in the blades and this enables the components to be reused, keeping them out of landfill. Even better, this should also work in other industries where epoxy is a problem.

On the battery front, there seem to be multiple advances occurring every day.

MIT Discovery Could Unlock a Safer and Lighter Lithium Battery, SciTechDaily.

A new lithium-air battery design promises unprecedented energy density, Techspot.

Both developments would produce lighter, denser and safer batteries as they’d avoid using liquid electrolytes and would resist the development of dendrites. The MIT discovery also seems to avoid efficiency loss which will mean less waste.

There’s even improvements in dye-sensitised solar cells (DSCs) which are cheap, transparent, and flexible. They can be affixed to windows which would work well with city office buildings and greenhouses. They could also power laptops or phones just using ambient light.

Low-cost 'transparent' solar cells reach new efficiency record, electricity-generating windows incoming?, Techspot.

This sort of progress is why I don’t buy into hand-wringing over current problems concerning renewable energy production. The technology is improving quickly which can’t be said of the fossil fuel industry.



Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #506 –
And how about this Aussie development? The University of NSW in conjunction with a Japanese Uni have “identified a new type of positive electrode material that could lead to incredibly durable solid-state batteries.”

Quote
In lab testing, a 300mAh battery outfitted with the new positive electrode material experienced zero degradation over hundreds of recharge cycles.

Neeraj Sharma, an associate professor from UNSW, said the absence of capacity fading over 400 cycles clearly indicated superior performance of the material compared to those used in conventional all-solid-state cells with layered materials.

The finding also has the potential to drastically reduce the overall cost of batteries, Sharma added, which could be a key cog in the development of advanced electric vehicles.

Many, including BMW engineer Simon Erhard, believe lithium-ion batteries have reached their maximum potential and that solid-state batteries will eventually take over as the industry standard. And it's not just EVs that could benefit from the absence of capacity fade.

Solid-state battery breakthrough could greatly extend longevity, Techspot

Keeping up with all these developments would be a full-time job.


Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #507 –
Quote from: Mav – on
And how about this Aussie development? The University of NSW in conjunction with a Japanese Uni have “identified a new type of positive electrode material that could lead to incredibly durable solid-state batteries.”

Solid-state battery breakthrough could greatly extend longevity, Techspot

Keeping up with all these developments would be a full-time job.
Huge potential if it works, but the electrodes are only part of the issue with solid state batteries, at this stage the discharge / recharge cycles are much much lower than conventional electrolytes.

A big plus for solid state is that it's likely to be far less flammable / explosive if shorted or damaged.

For static batteries, for generation storage, buildings and homes, flow batteries are still likely to become king.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #508 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Promising news on the wind turbine front:  A Danish wind turbine giant has just discovered how to recycle all rotor blades, CanadaToday.

The assertion is that Vestas has discovered a chemical treatment that can break down the epoxy in the blades and this enables the components to be reused, keeping them out of landfill. Even better, this should also work in other industries where epoxy is a problem.
I read something about this a couple of weeks ago, it's a spin off of a technology that also being touted for disassembly and recycling of mobile phones as well as other polymer based products or adhesives. For example of they switch to the right type of adhesive for phones or SolarPV they can have them self-disassemble.

There is a catch though, it basically uses a sodium hydroxide derivative, which itself is a very very nasty chemical(paint stripper), so when the process chemicals are exhausted you have recovered one lot of waste only to generate a whole lot of another. The claim is the new waste isn't waste but can be used for other industrial process, but the more I read the more it became a pass the waste(parcel) scenario. Some poor bastard at the end of the food chain was left holding the bag for every previous process!

There is another group that has developed a way to reduce polymer and epoxy components to solids and gas using solar powered furnaces that process polymers / plastics in inert atmospheres. This is also being touted as a solution, but in reality they have only ever processed materials in batches of grams.

In some respect the world has gone crazy, the engineers retire these turbine blades long before they are done, in much the same way they scrap aircraft before they crash. It doesn't make sense, the turbines sit mostly in abandoned or rural spaces populated by a few sheep or cattle, they should be just leaving them in place until they fail, but instead they replace them at regular intervals and store the old blades as waste for future recycling. It's a bit bizarre, but easy to understand when you see the big dollars involved for making and programmed maintenance of a wind turbine!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #509 –
This is the truth dressed up in a great cover, you won't read much about it, electrics vehicles are barely a decade old and have on average travelled a fraction the miles of a combustion engine.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/the-big-reuse-25-mwh-of-ex-car-batteries-go-on-the-grid-in-california/

Imagine if instead of 5% of cars EVs made up 85% of the traffic?

Where's that in the carbon budget?

btw., I'm all for this re-use of batteries, but my own preference is distributed rather than monolithic, the plan here in OZ is to put them on power poles down your street to help load balance and also offer some localised black-out protection. Sort of a public UPS. Putting them local also eliminates or minimises grid loss for SolarPV feed in.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"