Towards zero emission shipping

Most is now,in most countries
But more will be produces from renewable sources in the future.
That is what we are talking about; the FUTURE.

Yes there some carbon being consumed and some GHG being produced in the manufacturing process of steel, aluminum and even composite materials.
Carbon capture and safe deposit are being developed to reduce the amount of GHG that escape to the atmosphere though. The problem is cost, but some countries and companies are willing to spend money to develop solutions, not just pass the problem on to the next generation(s).

Besides, reducing the emission of GHG from operation is a good first step.

Yes sure but I dont see the greenies on that case so I wonder how the ghg emissions are for a clean coal powerstation ( whatever that means) and a steel plant?

I also dont see greenies on the case of CO2 emissions from lng production, which is huge.
Se we replace a coal powerplant with gas and like electric cars it just moved the polluting part to another place where nobody notices?

But yes there is no reason why these emissions cant be captured and stored or used in some process, but cost as you mentioned…cheap steel from china trumps all…
problem with coal like oil is its finite

Is there any situation where you’re willing to provide evidence of assertions, you’re a broken record and rely on hearing things from friends you talked to. You make this assertion, fine, prove it, provide evidence to back how you came to this conclusion.

PS here’s a pilot project on making steel in commercial quantities without coal— innovation marches on. Even if it doesn’t work, this thread needs to understand and consider the difference between metallurgical and thermal coal. You seem to think removal of carbon emission is impossible, so reduction is fruitless. It isn’t.

See also ‘Boston Metal’

1 Like

It can hurt his mates in the coal industry. Horror!!!

Not interested in hurting anyone or their ‘mates’ if they exist but he expects to seriously discuss things he can’t be bothered to provide evidence for. If he is really trying to get a handle on the innovation that has been taking place since the coal age (which he would not have enjoyed living in), then he should make good faith, evidence-based arguments.

As it is, he can’t be bothered to do anything except theorize his criticism more than prove it, and his only value as a disputant is that he makes it so easy to prove him wrong by being such a weak foil, he makes the position he advocates appear benighted.

For Aussie gas projects the percentage of CO2 is listed it varies widely in different wells but as you can see its a significant part of gas production.
If they can capture and re inject great but I dont think that has been the process over the years worldwide?

so with 45 to 80k tons a month of coal being imported into Norway hows the co2 capture process going?

good news for the world if coking coal is removed from the steel /aluminium/silicone manufacturing process but its huge at the moment.

http://www.beneficiationplantfor.com/mining-news/how-much-coal-it-takes-to-make-1-tonne-of-iron.html

Iron Making Iron ore is mined in around 50 countries … Around 150 kg of coal are used to produce 1 tonne of steel in electric arc furnaces. Pulverised Coal Injection.
15%


Around 0.6 tonnes (600 kg) of coke produces 1 tonne (1000 kg) of steel, which means that around 770 kg of coal are used to produce 1 tonne of steel through this production route. Basic Oxygen Furnaces currently produce about 74% of the world’s steel. A further 25% of steel is produced in Electric Arc Furnaces.

Norway needs coal
https://ycharts.com/indicators/norway_coal_imports

Silicone

The Reduction Process

  • 1 The raw materials are weighed and then placed into the furnace through the top using the fume hood, buckets, or cars. A typical batch contains 1000 lb (453 kg) each of gravel and chips, and 550 lb (250 kg) of coal. The lid of the furnace, which contains electrodes, is placed into position. Electric current is passed through the electrodes to form an arc. The heat generated by this arc (a temperature of 4000° F or 2350 ° C) melts the material and results in the reaction of sand with carbon to form silicon and carbon monoxide. This process takes about six to eight hours. The furnace is continuously charged with the batches of raw materials.

Leading the field:

Incl. in research into the problem.
Here is what you need to know about CCS:

But I’m not interested only in Norway’s progress on this, but future development, like:
What is the worldwide prospects for the next 10, 20, 30 years?
Is Singapore looking at this? (Still using mainly gas for power production)
How’s Aussie doing?

So does EVERYBODY today. Norway is working towards a coal and carbon free future. That is more important than monthly statistics NOW.

PS> The only coal mine in Norway (at Svalbard) is/has shut down:
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/11/03/end-of-an-era-on-norways-svalbard/
Not without protest from the locals.

1 Like

well thats good news on capture and storage

Assuming the aluminium smelter in Norway the consumer of the 50,000+ tons of coal a month, has that plant been hooked up to the capture plant or will that plant shutdown to remove the problem?

I wonder which should come first, steel/aluminium/silicone without coal or keep using it and then try to capture the resulting pollution?

I guess where there is the willpower a co2 capture plant could be added to all existing emitters?

Re OZ, to much back and forward between greenies and the gov so no real plan, EPA regs making life tough for coal in OZ as plants all very old, so coal being shutdown and gas plants replacing them, pretty much as in the USA.
The problem issue is its all private so if the gov forces a coal plant to shutdown the owners just close it, and tough if there isnt enough power.
Same like the oz consumer paying for very expensive gas and having supply trouble because the gov forgot to ask the producers to save same some for OZ.
Looks like OZ has the USA plan for energy…there isnt one…

To add to that, OZ was a big user of LPG in cars, ( 99% of taxis plus others), thats a huge emission boost than using petrol but now its slowly getting taxed into oblivion so more petrol imported.
Selling gas to buy refined product, nuts!

It doesn’t have to be hydrogen. Methanol can also be prodused using renewable energy:

Another way is to charge for emission:


It does not lead to “Zero emission by 2050”, but is is one step to reduce emission NOW.
1 Like

What will be they making the methanol from to call it renewable?

Methanol can be made from a lot of materials:

There IS such thing as “renewable methanol”:
https://www.methanol.org/renewable-methanol/

PS> I don’t know what this consortium is intending to use as a base for their production.

Methanol from Co2 would be the way but seems to be only done in labs at the moment?

LNG is still being discussed as a “clean” and emission free fuel, but is it?:

It may be a emission reduction solution, but not a final solution to reach the zero emission goal by 2050 IMHO.

lng burns cleaner but there is a huge c02 problem when you make it.
I’ll bet rarely gets collected?
Nobody seems to talk about it

There are CO2 being emitted at all phases, from the extraction of the gas, processing it into LNG, transporting over long distances (less so now) and especially when using it for whichever purpose.(incl. as feedstock for petrochemical production)

But steps are finally being taken to address the issue, which is a start.
I don’t think natural gas is the long term solution to anything

PS> That it is “clean burning” only solve sot problems in the near vicinity of where it is used, not the problem of GHG emission.

yes lpg is not long term being a finite resource but its way cleaner to burn than even ulp in a car so miles better they heavy fuel.
As you know there has been a few years of debate in shipping on how to clean up, they thought burn MGO or LPG or add scrubbers and now methanol but from what source?
MGO might produce less overall pollution if co2 is indeed a bad polluter?