2 ms·
Yes, but the amount of electrons per gram of carbon is three times as high with CH4 as with C. CH4 + Fe2O3 >> CO + 2H2O + 2 Fe 3 C + Fe2O3 >> 3 CO + 2 Fe In
by scythe 7y ago
Yes, but the amount of electrons per gram of carbon is three times as high with CH4 as with C.
CH4 + Fe2O3 >> CO + 2H2O + 2 Fe
3 C + Fe2O3 >> 3 CO + 2 Fe
In air: 2 CO + O2 >> CO2
CO2 is not produced directly at high temperatures because it decomposes at 900 C to CO and O2.
A bigger problem with natural gas is the methane released to the atmosphere when it is extracted. This is actually the largest source of atmospheric methane IIRC.
- thereisnospork 7y agoI'd have figured the methane would be reformed to H2 first: nominally, H2O + CH4 -> CO + 3 H2 + H2O -> CO2 + 4H2 3H2 + FexOy -> H2O + Fe about 1.2-1.4x the methane winds up as CO2 (some extra is burned for heating in the reforming step). In this order H2 could be just as easily, but far more expensively, produced via green methods. Another green way would be to use aluminum to refine iron, Al + FexOy -> Fe + Al2O3. Exothermic, rapid, 'green', but expensive because it costs electricity to make Al. Also to your main point in modern blast furnaces I believe CO is either recycled or allowed to react with Fe2O3 at lower temperature to go all the way to CO2, saving money on coke: Fe2O3 + 3CO → 2Fe + 3CO2 or Fe2O3 + 3C -> 4Fe + 3CO2
- Gibbon1 7y ago> believe CO is either recycled or allowed to react with Fe2O3 at lower temperature to go all the way to CO2, saving money on coke: I think in typical blast furnace the CO in the exhaust is used as fuel to run the plant/heat the air blast.
- drak0n1c 7y agoThat's why opposition to gas flaring is ridiculous. It's far better for the environment to burn it and turn leaking methane into CO2 + water vapor than let it escape (even if the burning can't be locally used to power anything).