Hydrogen home heating

.

I had assumed [the discussion having digressed to vehicular applications] that you were reminding us that the Hindenburg’s motive power source was not Hydrogen.

[although there were design proposals for a fifth engine, adapted to run on ‘surplus’ Hydrogen]

**LINK**

https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/hindenburg-design-technology/

MichaelG.

News :

**LINK**

https://qz.com/2020924/volvo-is-planning-to-make-cars-with-low-carbon-steel/

MichaelG.

In other news, Aston-Martin is planning to use high-speed steel...

That had me puzzled for a while, why would you change to low carbon steel to make a car? Then I realised it was only the process for making the steel that was going to be low carbon, not the steel its self.

Just shows how news reports can be written to make things sound totally different to the reality of the news. I don't suppose the writer knew that "low-carbon steel" was a particular group of steel specifications.

As Mark Twain once commented: "Facts are tricky things, best left to the experts".

Neil

Edited By Neil A on 16/06/2021 12:20:43

A bit off track, but perhaps a route to hydrogen cars grey goo. Just depends on the energy input/output balance and whether the magnesium oxide can be recovered

Forget it , I wrote to my MP (again ) about the censored news of Dungeness B closing seven years early, etc.

After some delay, the reply , they will do another 'dash for gas', constructing quick build CCGT stations to make up for lost 'nukes' .

That's all they can do now , in the time available..

Not very well censored! BBC

It actually closed 10 years after it's sign life, originally planned to close 2008. But yes I agree with JH, governments of all hues have been sadly lacking in forethought about generating capacity. I'm a big supporter of wind and solar, but when it's dark and the wind isn't blowing we need something to keep the lights on. The present shower won't even let us dig up our own coal to make steel or run heritage railways. There is not as yet a proven industrial scale non coal way of making steel, by all means invest in development, but it isn't going to happen tomorrow, we'll just import it with a bigger carbon footprint

I accept you are correct to say it is not 'totally' censored BUT you only see that headline when the last word is typed in....Kent,

Same as it only appeared in the Kent messenger local paper , as a headline.

Generally, as hushed-up as possible.

To think the UK used to be among the world's leaders in developing nuclear power-generation, though I think it did suffer a big blow when France stopped funding a partnership in this.

I listened to an edition of Any Questions some weeks ago now when the matter of coal-mining came up, and it was clear that none of the panel had a clue why coal is still necessary in making "steel" (iron, actually). I recall learning it in school geography lessons - and at quite a young age, too.

The alternative reducing agent being investigated is hydrogen, but what of course its proponents seem to gloss over are the sources of the gas, and the method of heating the ore to the appropriate temperature.

So here's another, Times 08 June Times

I wrote to my MP, he didn't seem to care about steel making, and couldn't comprehend that steam locos need special coal

Me too, about the Cumbria noncoal-mine , the Chinese 'bought' our last steel asset in Scunthorpe on the promise of locally sourced coal from Cumbria !

We've currently got a carbon capture project high on the politicos agenda

1 Give 100s of millions of free money to new company

2 claim you're saving the planet

3 consume vast amounts of energy to run the plant 24/7 at 1000 degrees celcius

4 claim you're saving the planet

5 retire somewhere nice with a big bag of public cash in your piggy bank

And nor should we! At least not in the sense that large scale steel production in the UK is an option.

Steel making consumes gigantic quantities of coking coal, limestone, water, oxygen, iron ore and scrap. As the consumables are all expensive to transport, it's best to manufacture steel close to the raw materials and with excellent transport faculties, ideally a sea-port. And because steel works take up a lot of space, about 7 square kilometres, land had better be cheap!

The UK was once exceptionally well-favoured with water, coal, limestone, iron-ore and sea-ports. Not so today; most of the UK's coal and iron-ore have been extracted and consumed. What's left of our coal is roughly enough to meet world demand for a year, and it's deep underground. I'm sure it will be extracted in due course, but there's reason to wait for the best price. That Whitehaven coal has become economic to extract again is a sign demand is outstripping supply. The cost of coal is rising because god isn't making any more.

Impossible to predict what the world will be like in 2120. One thing is certain, energy and products made from fossil fuels won't be cheap. Everything has it's day, and humanity moves on. Nothing to do with tree-hugging, the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels is urgent.

Dave

That project says there is already a plant doing just that in Canada. Removes a ton of CO2 per day, apparently.

Gas fired electricity generation is currently running at 14GW, producing a tonne and a half of CO2 every second.

I also believe that project is, as Ady 1 points out, basically just a scam to make money for themselves from the public purse.

Seems someone doesn’t really understand the meaning of ‘large’ and ‘significant’ in this context.

Whilst I can see the argument against making iron in this country when we have to import the iron ore, we've got the plant to do it, we've got limestone, and we've got coal if the government would let us dig it up. If we can keep jobs in this country why not do it. Even if we stop exporting scrap steel and use it to re-make our own, if there is a market elsewhere for coking coal why turn it away? If we don't dig it up someone else will. Shifting your carbon footprint offshore doesn't make it go away.

The other big non power use of coal is making cement. I'd better shut up or the government will close that down as well

Ah but they won't... because its themselves and their buddies who are the beneficiaries

HS2, Sizewell B and any other project which milks the system needs concrete

One of the most ridiculous wastes of energy is un-necessary air travel, which is even subsidised with dirt cheap fuel. The fuel is so cheap planes just dump the stuff as part of their flight procedures

The other big non power use of coal is making cement. I'd better shut up or the government will close that down as well

Cement manufacture likely only uses 10-12% Standard Coal (for fuel, these days, I would think (all dry process and large preheater kilns, along with burning alternative fuels eg scrap tyres chlorinated solvent waste, etc) so each tonne of cement likely produces half a tonne of CO2 from the fuel.

The other main additional CO2 emissions in the manufacture is derived from the raw materials; these lose approximately a third of their weight as CO2 (from the chalk or limestone in the raw feed) which now doubles the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.

Most certainly a significant CO2 polluting industry but an ideal candidate for carbon capture, I might suggest.

The above does not, of course, address the electricity consumption of the quarrying, clinker manufacture or grinding processes.

I gather HS2 has caused a shortage of cement in the building industry recently - I wonder how much pollution that particular project is responsible for.🙂