https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912
’t‘ony said:
there was no replacement for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and is a major export out of Queensland.
How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912’t‘ony said:
there was no replacement for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and is a major export out of Queensland.
How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912’t‘ony said:
there was no replacement for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and is a major export out of Queensland.
How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912’t‘ony said:
there was no replacement for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and is a major export out of Queensland.
How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
OK in seriousness then we wonder: could “some” years feasibly be (say) 30 years; and is it possible there might be a similar number of jobs (if that is the desired metric) involved in making such (or similar) transitions?
‘Anthony Albanese says coal mining could continue in Australia in a net zero emissions world’
Anthony Albanese says ‘yes, we can have our cake, and eat it, too. Just let me be PM. Please, before i disappear down the plughole of history. I promise you, i can please everyone. Everyone, all at the same time. Really, i can. I can take money from mining companies and keep the greenies happy. Honestly. Just one term as PM. Come on, please?’.
captain_spalding said:
‘Anthony Albanese says coal mining could continue in Australia in a net zero emissions world’Anthony Albanese says ‘yes, we can have our cake, and eat it, too. Just let me be PM. Please, before i disappear down the plughole of history. I promise you, i can please everyone. Everyone, all at the same time. Really, i can. I can take money from mining companies and keep the greenies happy. Honestly. Just one term as PM. Come on, please?’.
we probably agree with the general understanding in this appraisal
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
OK in seriousness then we wonder: could “some” years feasibly be (say) 30 years; and is it possible there might be a similar number of jobs (if that is the desired metric) involved in making such (or similar) transitions?
(shrugs) Seems pretty weird if the selling point of a technology is that it is more labour intensive. “Use this, it will waste your time!”
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
OK in seriousness then we wonder: could “some” years feasibly be (say) 30 years; and is it possible there might be a similar number of jobs (if that is the desired metric) involved in making such (or similar) transitions?
(shrugs) Seems pretty weird if the selling point of a technology is that it is more labour intensive. “Use this, it will waste your time!”
Sure but history is full of instances where people prefer to waste that time: they smash looms; they bomb computer scientists and engineers; and heck they even arrange climatic conditions to enhance bushfires that burn down private solar installations.
Perhaps there are less-labour-intensive alternatives to metallurgical coal, that nevertheless might involve a similar number of jobs in transition, due to the expansion of such an industry, which thereby also yields a growth in productivity?
“German manufacturing giant Thyssenkrupp has completed a successful, first-of-its-kind demonstration of running a steel furnace completely on hydrogen, a development that is likely to further dent the future prospects for the global coal industry.
The company successfully demonstrated the ability for hydrogen to be used to fuel a steel blast furnace, and Thyssenkrupp sees the achievement as the first step towards transitioning the manufacturing industry towards zero-emissions steel production.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/
I hate the Albaneses as much as anyone, but in this case he has a point.
For the major steel producers to become carbon neutral they will either have to develop coal free manufacturing processes, or large scale sequestration processes, or both.
In the meantime, the world needs steel and they need coal to produce the steel, so there is no reason why Australia should not supply that coal.
Australia should also work on developing alternative sources of export income, for the day when coal demand sinks to next to nothing, but that’s another issue. Shutting Australian mines when there is still a demand for coal does nothing to reduce GHG emissions.
For the major steel producers to become carbon neutral they will either have to develop coal free manufacturing processes, or large scale sequestration processes, or both.
or develop hydrogen technology to replace coal totally.
Michael V said:
“German manufacturing giant Thyssenkrupp has completed a successful, first-of-its-kind demonstration of running a steel furnace completely on hydrogen, a development that is likely to further dent the future prospects for the global coal industry.The company successfully demonstrated the ability for hydrogen to be used to fuel a steel blast furnace, and Thyssenkrupp sees the achievement as the first step towards transitioning the manufacturing industry towards zero-emissions steel production.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/
thanks
following the chain
http://www.fchea.org/in-transition/2019/11/25/hydrogen-in-the-iron-and-steel-industry
Swedish companies, steel manufacturer SSAB, mining company LKAB, and energy company Vattenfall are exploring the use of hydrogen in steel production processes. This joint endeavor is known as HYBRIT, short for Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology. To make the process fully fossil-free, the hydrogen used will be generated from renewable electricity.
The pilot phase is expected to last until 2024, followed by a demonstration phase from 2025 to 2035.
http://www.hybritdevelopment.com/
Wonder if that’ll work out.
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912’t‘ony said:
there was no replacement for metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and is a major export out of Queensland.
How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
I thought steel production (as opposed to various types of iron) was comparatively recent, but the Internet tells me that I am wrong, and dv is right.
Damn.
Tau.Neutrino said:
For the major steel producers to become carbon neutral they will either have to develop coal free manufacturing processes, or large scale sequestration processes, or both.or develop hydrogen technology to replace coal totally.
I don’t see how that differs from my first option.
Michael V said:
“German manufacturing giant Thyssenkrupp has completed a successful, first-of-its-kind demonstration of running a steel furnace completely on hydrogen, a development that is likely to further dent the future prospects for the global coal industry.The company successfully demonstrated the ability for hydrogen to be used to fuel a steel blast furnace, and Thyssenkrupp sees the achievement as the first step towards transitioning the manufacturing industry towards zero-emissions steel production.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/
One of those people is wearing a helmet that’s too small for him.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
I thought steel production (as opposed to various types of iron) was comparatively recent, but the Internet tells me that I am wrong, and dv is right.
Damn.
I feel your pain. It bad enough to be wrong but for DV to be right…
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
For the major steel producers to become carbon neutral they will either have to develop coal free manufacturing processes, or large scale sequestration processes, or both.or develop hydrogen technology to replace coal totally.
I don’t see how that differs from my first option.
Different technologies can achieve similar outcomes.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
I thought steel production (as opposed to various types of iron) was comparatively recent, but the Internet tells me that I am wrong, and dv is right.
Damn.
I feel your pain. It bad enough to be wrong but for DV to be right…
just put that in ‘ur political compass and spin it
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-23/labor-backs-2050-global-carbon-emissions-targets/11991912How true is that?
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*’ to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
I thought steel production (as opposed to various types of iron) was comparatively recent, but the Internet tells me that I am wrong, and dv is right.
Damn.
Every moment can be a learning moment
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
For the major steel producers to become carbon neutral they will either have to develop coal free manufacturing processes, or large scale sequestration processes, or both.or develop hydrogen technology to replace coal totally.
I don’t see how that differs from my first option.
Different technologies can achieve similar outcomes.
But you didn’t suggest a different technology, you suggested one example of a coal free manufacturing process.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
“German manufacturing giant Thyssenkrupp has completed a successful, first-of-its-kind demonstration of running a steel furnace completely on hydrogen, a development that is likely to further dent the future prospects for the global coal industry.The company successfully demonstrated the ability for hydrogen to be used to fuel a steel blast furnace, and Thyssenkrupp sees the achievement as the first step towards transitioning the manufacturing industry towards zero-emissions steel production.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/
One of those people is wearing a helmet that’s too small for him.
Metaphorically?
metaphorical coal
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I don’t see how that differs from my first option.
Different technologies can achieve similar outcomes.
But you didn’t suggest a different technology, you suggested one example of a coal free manufacturing process.
there are other coal free manufacturing processes.
and your right I suggest one example
dv said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
“German manufacturing giant Thyssenkrupp has completed a successful, first-of-its-kind demonstration of running a steel furnace completely on hydrogen, a development that is likely to further dent the future prospects for the global coal industry.The company successfully demonstrated the ability for hydrogen to be used to fuel a steel blast furnace, and Thyssenkrupp sees the achievement as the first step towards transitioning the manufacturing industry towards zero-emissions steel production.”
https://reneweconomy.com.au/another-nail-in-coals-coffin-german-steel-furnace-runs-on-renewable-hydrogen-in-world-first-55906/
One of those people is wearing a helmet that’s too small for him.
Metaphorically?
Tau.Neutrino said:
For the major steel producers to become carbon neutral they will either have to develop coal free manufacturing processes, or large scale sequestration processes, or both.or develop hydrogen technology to replace coal totally.
Iron can be made using syngas as a reducing agent. This could be sourced from the thermal decomposition biomass rather than coal or natural gas fossil fuel sources.
dv said:
Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
They used charcoal, which destroyed the forests, literally and caused drastic deadly air pollution.
Coal is very very much more environmentally friendly than charcoal.
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
They used charcoal, which destroyed the forests, literally and caused drastic deadly air pollution.
Coal is very very much more environmentally friendly than charcoal.
Although there are several environmental issues, from the standpoint of GHGe, the use of plantation forests for biochar rather than coal is better, as it is carbon neutral over the full cycle.
Please note that when we say
SCIENCE said:
How viable are alternatives*, if there are any?
*: to metallurgical coal, that is, not to the Party of Jobs in Coal, we mean
we are open to the interpretation that “alternatives to metallurgical coal” also covers “alternatives to steel (which currently is mostly produced using coal), which do not require coal to produce”.
For example, we could choose bicycles made of carbon fibre instead of steel, which not only does not require metallurgical coal, but in fact sequesters carbon.
This is not our area of expertise though so we shall defer to you others.
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
dv said:Obviously, people made steel for thousands of years without using coal. It can be done, but admittedly gearing up the production of char from plant sources (biochar) or from the atmosphere (aerochar) to the point where it would be able to take over the role of coal would take quite some years.
They used charcoal, which destroyed the forests, literally and caused drastic deadly air pollution.
Coal is very very much more environmentally friendly than charcoal.
Although there are several environmental issues, from the standpoint of GHGe, the use of plantation forests for biochar rather than coal is better, as it is carbon neutral over the full cycle.
Not necessarily.
We’ve had this discussion before.
I think the real problem is the lack of understanding of what we are rushing into. The talk of reducing our emissions in 2050 to 2100 and beyond, we are simply fooling ourselves. Some actually think that by drastically reducing our emissions will stop the warming of the planet, whilst nothing could be further from the truth. It is coming to the point that no matter what or when we reduce our emissions will simply not matter as the climate changing ship is too large to turn around.
The Permafrost contains huge amounts of co2 and methane which is being released as it begins to melt and as these near polar regions are heating more quickly than anywhere else, it is happening at an accelerating rate. But there are vast lakes of co2 and methane hydrates in the bottom of the seas, oceans and even freshwater lakes, as the temperatures increase especially water temperatures these hydrates will be released to be added to the other greenhouse gases. In other words we are on the very edge of catastrophic temperature increases that will release even more gases. But are we concerned, no, we are more worried about power prices increasing or minor reductions in living standards. Yet a horrific world is just around the corner and we can’t be bothered to examine the situation without these very minor inconveniences getting in the way.
The ONLY hope is to stop these vast reservoirs of hydrates from being released, because if we can’t you can forget about a livable future. For our very survival we need to take RADICAL world changing steps this week, not next year or in 2050. And what hope is there in doing that, when many do not even believe or care about the science of climate change.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:They used charcoal, which destroyed the forests, literally and caused drastic deadly air pollution.
Coal is very very much more environmentally friendly than charcoal.
Although there are several environmental issues, from the standpoint of GHGe, the use of plantation forests for biochar rather than coal is better, as it is carbon neutral over the full cycle.
Not necessarily.
We’ve had this discussion before.
Yeah but I’m still pretty much right
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Although there are several environmental issues, from the standpoint of GHGe, the use of plantation forests for biochar rather than coal is better, as it is carbon neutral over the full cycle.
Not necessarily.
We’ve had this discussion before.
Yeah but I’m still pretty much right
But so am I.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Not necessarily.
We’ve had this discussion before.
Yeah but I’m still pretty much right
But so am I.
I am Spartacus.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Yeah but I’m still pretty much right
But so am I.
I am Spartacus.
my skill is nearly infinite
SCIENCE said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But so am I.
I am Spartacus.
my skill is nearly infinite
I could teach all of you to be farmers. I’m the best at military.
I’m finding the response of the media to this announcement very irritating (i.e. what are the details of how you are going to achieve it?)
FFS, they aren’t even the government, and even if they were it is perfectly reasonable to announce a target before you have worked out the details of how it can be achieved.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I’m finding the response of the media to this announcement very irritating (i.e. what are the details of how you are going to achieve it?)FFS, they aren’t even the government, and even if they were it is perfectly reasonable to announce a target before you have worked out the details of how it can be achieved.
The media are playing with Scomo and that’s Scomo’s argument. Not really the media’s business.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I’m finding the response of the media to this announcement very irritating (i.e. what are the details of how you are going to achieve it?)FFS, they aren’t even the government, and even if they were it is perfectly reasonable to announce a target before you have worked out the details of how it can be achieved.
The media are playing with Scomo and that’s Scomo’s argument. Not really the media’s business.
Why are the ABC playing with Scomo now?