this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
1259 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2688 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

And oil for Styrofoam. And met coal for steel.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There's alternative processes, and if you avoid burning oil and coal for fuel you can basically do all that with the amount of oil that's in easy reach instead of using tar sands or drilling into even more difficult to reach places.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You have to be careful when talking about steel because coal is both an ingredient (steel is iron + carbon) and used for heating afaik. You can take coal out of the heating step (confusingly called steel making) but not out of the ingredient step, unless you want to find a different carbon source.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's (admittedly comparatively expensive) alternative processes, and even if you stick to the old process and just stop using coal for electricity generation you'd cut coal use by 75%.

Not to mention, the carbon that stays in the steel doesn't actually go into the atmosphere, so there's less CO2 emissions for that specific use if you can substitute the fuel used for heating.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That's why I said met coal for steel.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

you're probably talking about direct reduced iron and it's really a problem that can be dealt with easily, just chuck a piece of coke when it's molten for the second time in electric arc furnace (and maybe electrodes introduce enough carbon). substituting coke with hydrogen works also on "ingredient step" if you mean by that fuel needed to reduce iron ore to iron

maybe there's a way to make electrowinning iron economical, and it'd be pretty green too, but i don't know if it is workable

e: you can also avoid need for met coal if you use methane or syngas for direct reduced iron process

the problem with tar sands is a fundamental energy conversion issue. It's really hard to refine because you don't get nearly as much energy out as you put in, compared to something like fracking.

It may become reasonable in the future with really cheap renewable energy and higher oil prices for example, but as of right now, it's economically unviable.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

coal can be substituted to some degree with processes like direct reduction. hydrogen works but syngas from biomass or trash also works

file styrofoam under plastics

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Everything that comes out of a petrochemical plant can be made without oil, in fact BASF had recipes in place for decades now and is switching sources as the price shifts. Push come to shove they can produce everything from starch. It's also why they hardly blinked when Russia turned off the gas.

The carbon that actually ends up in steel is a quite negligible amount (usually under 1%, over 2% you get cast iron), you can get that out of the local forest, and to reduce the iron hydrogen works perfectly, the first furnances are already online.