Fusion, Maybe...

[Rick C]

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.

Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.
Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?

It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3). The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:09:41 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:57:40 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:11:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <ab91f577-c16a-4314...@googlegroups.com>:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.

My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
There wouldn\'t be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

There was also \"The club of Rome\' predicting the end of everything or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Doom sells. And keeps selling. \"Ignore all our failed predictions. We have bigger computers now.\"

Their first report was published in 1972. We do have much bigger computers now, not to mention much larger hard drives and a lot more data to put into those hard drives.

<snipped Jan being even sillier than usual>

> >Maybe there is a reason that people build glass greenhouses and pump them up to 1000 PPM or so CO2.

Most of it is that there is a power station close by, so the CO2 is cheap. In a greenhouse you give plants all the water and fertiliser they need, so that can take advantage of extra CO2.

> It is ironic that the dreaded \"greenhouse effect\" is named after, well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

Because they are also given all the water and fertiliser they can use. Extra CO2 is less helpful in less benign environments - plants mainly exploit it by having smaller stomata so that they can get all the CO2 they need while losing less water

Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid microclimate.

John Larkin confuses weather, local micro-climate and climate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

There was also \"The club of Rome\' predicting the end of everything or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
to their internal problems in 1980 with the \'one-child policy\'. So,
was the prediction wrong?

Very wrong.

What does \'very wrong\' mean, is that a moral judgment?

No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

Average isn\'t the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren\'t the only food value; how
about protein, amines? Beef isn\'t keeping up with population.

OK, don\'t think.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 8:12:32 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga6...@4ax.com>:

It is ironic that the dreaded \"greenhouse effect\" is named after,
well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid
microclimate.

Yes -23 C is very cold
I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
Miami beach

I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn\'t bother him.

James Arthur ignores lots of stuff that he shouldn\'t.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 1:51:46 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

Average isn\'t the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren\'t the only food value; how
about protein, amines? Beef isn\'t keeping up with population.

OK, don\'t think.

John Larkin has a funny idea of what might constitute thinking. This isn\'t entirely surprising. He doesn\'t seem to be able to think for himself at all, and doesn\'t seem to have clue about what might be involved in doing it for himself.

In this context, he seems to think that \"thinking\" is agreeing with the nonsense that he has posted, and doesn\'t seem to realise that anybody who actually can think knows that he\'s a gullible twit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.
Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

That doesn\'t get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.

The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.
Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

That doesn\'t get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.

It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren\'t all that specific.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.
Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

That doesn\'t get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?

The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?
My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren\'t all that specific.

So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/02/22 21:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga60ujumalk39va3baop@4ax.com>:

It is ironic that the dreaded \"greenhouse effect\" is named after,
well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid
microclimate.

Yes -23 C is very cold
I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
Miami beach

I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn\'t bother him.

I\'ve seen many people skiing in bikinis. No problem until
they fall down or the sun goes in.

Doesn\'t change points about /climate/.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 27/02/22 02:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

There was also \"The club of Rome\' predicting the end of everything or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
to their internal problems in 1980 with the \'one-child policy\'. So,
was the prediction wrong?

Very wrong.

What does \'very wrong\' mean, is that a moral judgment?

No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

Average isn\'t the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren\'t the only food value; how
about protein, amines? Beef isn\'t keeping up with population.


OK, don\'t think.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.
Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

That doesn\'t get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

As you could have read before you posted that - \" It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.\"

You can burn fossil carbon to get metallic iron hot enough to melt, but that isn\'t where most of the coking coal used to make steel from iron ore get used up

> How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?

Any way the metallurgists like. If you get your soft iron hot enough in a reducing atmosphere and expose it to graphite, the carbon will diffuse through solid iron.

Melt the soft iron - again in a reducing atmosphere - and sprinkle the graphite on the surface, then stir vigorously. Carbon diffuses even faster through liquid iron (which melts at 1538C). Graphite doesn\'t melt, and is less dense than liquid iron, so you would have to stir vigorously.

What would be done in practice is anybody\'s guess. Nobody makes industrial quantities of iron by electrolysis at the moment, but metallurgist make all sorts of alloys in all sorts of ways and there\'s bound to be some approach that would just work.

The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren\'t all that specific.

So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

More likely in gas turbines. Fuel cells would be more efficient, but pushing the original electric power through a long undersea cable and leaving out the hydrogen completely would be roughly three times more efficient. Singapore seems to be close enough to Australia to make this ostensibly feasible.. Japan and South Korea are a bit further away.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:52:46 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world\'s
largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
coal.
Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

That doesn\'t get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added..
It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?
As you could have read before you posted that - \" It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.\"

Yes, I did, that\'s why I had to ask again as you seem to be going all around the issue but not addressing it.

You can burn fossil carbon to get metallic iron hot enough to melt, but that isn\'t where most of the coking coal used to make steel from iron ore get used up
How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?
Any way the metallurgists like. If you get your soft iron hot enough in a reducing atmosphere and expose it to graphite, the carbon will diffuse through solid iron.

Melt the soft iron - again in a reducing atmosphere - and sprinkle the graphite on the surface, then stir vigorously. Carbon diffuses even faster through liquid iron (which melts at 1538C). Graphite doesn\'t melt, and is less dense than liquid iron, so you would have to stir vigorously.

What would be done in practice is anybody\'s guess. Nobody makes industrial quantities of iron by electrolysis at the moment, but metallurgist make all sorts of alloys in all sorts of ways and there\'s bound to be some approach that would just work.

Ok, so this whole issue is a red herring. Thanks

The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren\'t all that specific.

So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?
More likely in gas turbines. Fuel cells would be more efficient, but pushing the original electric power through a long undersea cable and leaving out the hydrogen completely would be roughly three times more efficient. Singapore seems to be close enough to Australia to make this ostensibly feasible. Japan and South Korea are a bit further away.

If it is three times more efficient, what is not \"feasible\" about it? Are you saying the cable would be enormous? What are you saying exactly?

--

Rick C.

+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 09:06:24 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/02/22 21:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga60ujumalk39va3baop@4ax.com>:

It is ironic that the dreaded \"greenhouse effect\" is named after,
well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid
microclimate.

Yes -23 C is very cold
I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
Miami beach

I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn\'t bother him.

I\'ve seen many people skiing in bikinis. No problem until
they fall down or the sun goes in.

Here\'s one, July 4 2011 at Sugar Bowl.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bgu1x1ajlk3rpit/July_4_Bikini.jpg?raw=1

Aspen once had a streaking fad. One day the entire ski patrol made
their last run down the mountain naked. The bad news is that it was
all guys.

Doesn\'t change points about /climate/.

Really?



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 09:07:39 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/02/22 02:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

There was also \"The club of Rome\' predicting the end of everything or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
to their internal problems in 1980 with the \'one-child policy\'. So,
was the prediction wrong?

Very wrong.

What does \'very wrong\' mean, is that a moral judgment?

No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

Average isn\'t the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren\'t the only food value; how
about protein, amines? Beef isn\'t keeping up with population.


OK, don\'t think.

Pot, kettle, black.

Thanks for the original contribution.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 2:06:54 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:52:46 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

<snip>

Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

That doesn\'t get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

As you could have read before you posted that - \" It doesn\'t. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.\"

Yes, I did, that\'s why I had to ask again as you seem to be going all around the issue but not addressing it.

That\'s because you didn\'t know enough to understand the answer.

You can burn fossil carbon to get metallic iron hot enough to melt, but that isn\'t where most of the coking coal used to make steel from iron ore get used up.

How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?

Any way the metallurgists like. If you get your soft iron hot enough in a reducing atmosphere and expose it to graphite, the carbon will diffuse through solid iron.

Melt the soft iron - again in a reducing atmosphere - and sprinkle the graphite on the surface, then stir vigorously. Carbon diffuses even faster through liquid iron (which melts at 1538C). Graphite doesn\'t melt, and is less dense than liquid iron, so you would have to stir vigorously.

What would be done in practice is anybody\'s guess. Nobody makes industrial quantities of iron by electrolysis at the moment, but metallurgist make all sorts of alloys in all sorts of ways and there\'s bound to be some approach that would just work.

Ok, so this whole issue is a red herring. Thanks.

Your red herring.

The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia\'s electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren\'t all that specific.

So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

More likely in gas turbines. Fuel cells would be more efficient, but pushing the original electric power through a long undersea cable and leaving out the hydrogen completely would be roughly three times more efficient. Singapore seems to be close enough to Australia to make this ostensibly feasible. Japan and South Korea are a bit further away.

If it is three times more efficient, what is not \"feasible\" about it? Are you saying the cable would be enormous? What are you saying exactly?

It would be very long. It\'s 3,353 km from Darwin to Singapore.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/worlds-longest-under-sea-electricity-cable-begins-operations.html

is currently the world\'s longest undersea cable - about 720 km long.

Some of our venture capitalist seem to be happy to contemplate a five-fold longer cable. Maybe they are thinking about using high-temperature superconductors, and lots of undersea Stirling cycle refrigerators.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[M Kfivethousand]

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:21:43 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:

On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
wrote:
On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
nearer to reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times
the amount of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
\"endless\" energy?

Unsurprisingly yes.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist\'s position, and
thinks the physicist\'s position is wrong.

The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
\"economic growth cannot continue indefinitely\", and gets
immediately replaced by the \"energy scale expanding into the
future\". These are not the same things at all.

I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist\'s
position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
before. We find new technology that allows better products using
less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
The entire argument is specious.
There\'s validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
we become 16* more energy efficient by some \"magic\" (Arthur C.
Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
generations. And that\'s not enough to invalidate the basic
observations.

Why can\'t you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.

At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
parts of the globe.

So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
future.

I wonder if you read the article in detail?

Ok, I guess no one read It.
Long day....

mk5000

But at the same time a contrary undertow reels us back into byways of history, sampling the chipped-paint signposts of lost Americas, their bygone Mr. Salteenas and others of his ilk. Ashbery is always in the contemporary world but not quite of it, because he has other worlds to inhabit, or at least to conjure or salvage: the present is just one of the many sectors that make up the historical multiverse of his poems.==James Gibbons reviews John Ashbery\'s new book, Breezeway