6 ms·

CCS is absolutely going to be necessary. So is nuclear. What is the renewable alternative for the cement, steel, shipping, and aviation industries? Environmen

CCS is absolutely going to be necessary. So is nuclear. What is the renewable alternative for the cement, steel, shipping, and aviation industries? Environmentalists need to get out of their own way and stop treating good as the enemy of perfect. Some progress is better than no progress. All technologies and approaches will be required. https://mobile.twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1194886600255266816 https://mobile.twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/11948866002552...

caf 7y ago
For steel, it's hydrogen direct reduction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618326301 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...
- hurricanetc 7y ago
  That process is entirely electric and so the benefits depend completely on the energy provider, is 10 years away from actually-maybe happening, and requires CCS to be carbon neutral. The last bit is the most relevant to this particular discussion.
  - hannob 7y ago
    > requires CCS to be carbon neutral Why would that be? Hydrogen doesn't contain any carbon. If you produce the hydrogen from electrolysis and the electricity from renewables the process would be carbon free. (You can still argue that there are emissions in construction and such, but I don't think that's what you meant.)
    - hurricanetc 7y ago
      There are other metals and materials involved. It’s a partial solution. We really aren’t even close to a truly carbon neutral steel production. Maybe by 2100.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    This is the aluminum issue. Creation of new requires a ridiculous amount of electrify. So... Aluminum ore is shipped from all around the world to Iceland where electrify is super cheap. There it’s smelted and processed. Then it’s shipped mostly back around the world to China where its processed alloy and sponge, then around the world again if it isn’t rolled, extruded, forged, etc. So... forgive me, but any process that revolves around adding electricity to a process like this, makes me think “another aluminum”. Where everything side looks over the true costs of shipping things around the world a couple times before they end up in a landfill.
  - caf 7y ago
    10 years? SSAB say they'll be selling steel made by this method by 2026. https://www.ssab.com/company/newsroom/media-archive/2019/11/14/10/02/ssab-to-be-first-to-market-with-fossilfree-steel https://www.ssab.com/company/newsroom/media-archive/2019/11/...
hannob 7y ago
> What is the renewable alternative for the cement, steel, shipping, and aviation industries? For steel the possibilities are hydrogen or electrolysis, both are being tested by some companies. You need the political will to price emissions to make it profitable though. For everything fuel-based synthetic power-to-x-based fuels are a (costly, but CCS isn't cheap either) alternative. Cement is the biggest "we don't really have any good alternative, at least not any time soon"-issue. I agree that there's a role for CCS to play, but I think it's not helping that its advocates have played the "we need CCS for X"-cards a bit more often than justifiable.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  > For steel the possibilities are hydrogen or electrolysis, both are being tested by some companies. We already have steel recycling plants today that shift ~100% of emissions to thermal energy source, with a hot enough nuclear reactor (G4 MSR, maybe something in fast spectrum, maybe fusion) you can effectively eliminate the majority of steel emissions globally. > Cement is the biggest "we don't really have any good alternative, at least not any time soon"-issue. Bill Gates posted about this recently [1,2] [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-people-and-bad-for-the-climate https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-peo... [2] https://www.carboncure.com/ https://www.carboncure.com/
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  The expensive alternative to concrete would be to switch to epoxide resin bonded concrete. Use natural plastics. The formulations exist already and are comparable. The main downside in some cases is they're harder, so post machining is also harder and more expensive. It works with sea sand too. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6416622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6416622/
johnmorrison 7y ago
This is true. We should be able to reach net-zero emissions in the energy industry by around 2040 (optimistic, but realistic target), and even produce enough clean electricity to power clean electric solutions in transport/agriculture/industrial/appliance sectors (which are the other main contributors to net GHG emissions). The only problem is that a lot of this technology is still missing / not adopting fast enough. Electric cars and cleaner farming will probably get there in time, as well as lots of electric appliances and clean steel. I'm worried about these though: - Cement/concrete - Aviation (electric is on the way [1], but maybe growing too slow) - Livestock (synthetic meat promising, but once again maybe progress too slow) - Shipping - Appliances/civilian buildings: long lifespan to replace systems with electric alternatives, people won't just throw away a working heating system / stove etc For those, we need CCS or reforestation efforts to be accelerated. Our best bet in my view is to focus most investment in nuclear energy short term, with large minorities in CCS and transport+industrial electrification, and get electricity prices super low (and TPES super high) Once we have abundant, clean energy worldwide, we will be able to easily reach net-zero emissions and even induce net cooling if we feel we have overshot the ideal atmospheric carbon level. (In fact, we should be able to move it either way depending on our needs) Net zero goal isn't about stopping climate change, it's about putting the control in our hands and having the ability to shift temperatures and GHG levels in the optimal direction in perpetuity. [1] https://heartaerospace.com https://heartaerospace.com (YC-backed)
- the8472 7y ago
  > and even produce enough clean electricity to power clean electric solutions in transport/agriculture/industrial/appliance sectors The agriculture part is overly optimistic. Agriculture entails GHG emissions from deforestation, fertilizer production, ruminant methane, NOx emissions, soil carbon depletion and other secondary effects. It's not like we can solve our problems by electrifying tractors.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    > deforestation There isn't net deforestation globally, though. > ruminant methane Yeah, this is one of the hardest ones to fix, but I think lab grown meat will get there eventually. Like I said, I'm not optimistic animal agriculture will have sufficient technology to eliminate most of its emissions in time - that's why we need CCS in the meantime. My point is, the energy industry will be ready with extra capacity to power clean agriculture solutions when they are ready. > It's not like we can solve our problems by electrifying tractors. I don't think that's the route we should go. Primarily indoor farming seems to be a much better long term route for plants, I prefer if we eventually get rid of most rural farmland and slowly shift it back to nature. Cover our flat city rooftops with small farms and trees, and produce most plant agriculture indoor very close to the consumer in indoor vertical farms. Controlled environment + indoor climate, more resource efficiency, almost no risk of infections, no need for most of the chemicals we use today.
pfdietz 7y ago
I very much doubt nuclear is going to be necessary, or even viable. And this is particularly the case if CCS is viable, because that means we can keep pairing renewables, plus fossil (with CCS) to fill in the gaps.
- hedora 7y ago
  Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). The fact that the US market structure and regulators led to unsafe and unprofitable power plants has little to do with the underlying technology.
  - hannob 7y ago
    > Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... "A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2019 the project is three times over budget and years behind schedule." China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China "Nuclear power contributed 4.2% of the total Chinese electricity production in 2018" "China was planning to have 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[3] However, few plants have commenced construction since 2015, and it is now unlikely that this target will be met." It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs.
    - johnmorrison 7y ago
      > It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs. France is about 75% nuclear, Germany is about 10% French electricity is about 2x cheaper than German, and they have much lower emissions. Since Germany has shut down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, it has been forced to increase coal and has actually increased total emissions and accident deaths significantly. Ontario, Canada is about 60% nuclear and its electricity prices off-peak are about 10x lower than German, on-peak about 5x lower. Nuclear is the safest, most efficient, and more reliable energy source all nations that have it and those who have more have more affordable energy. Reality has shown this consistently for now almost 80 years.
vsareto 7y ago
>cement, steel Beats me. I think we'll just have to just stop using so much of it. There is likely a decent amount of buildings being completely unused that could be turned into housing. Turn most office jobs into remote jobs. Turn most office buildings into apartments. >shipping, and aviation These options absolutely exist. For aviation, we could simply stop traveling so much and establish a network of electric cars to move people (coordinating tens of drivers in Uber/Lyft fashion with electric vans to move a family across CONUS is easily doable with our current technology). Nuclear cruise ships could replace trans-continental flights but you'll likely want to keep those flights for a while so the public gets used to the idea of "nuclear" and "cruise ships" in their vacations. Replacing shipping means nuclear, which means yeeting a bunch of 2nd/3rd world nations' current ships and incomes. All of this of course requires a much more authoritarian stance than current world politics tolerates (and guaranteeing that the leader doesn't start purging people). Unfortunately, climate change isn't as dramatic as a meteor headed toward Earth. It's very difficult to sell the complete destruction of major industries and companies to anyone, even though dealing with an economic armageddon is obviously easier to deal with than a planetary climate armageddon.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- discreteevent 7y ago
  Laminated timber can replace a lot of the uses of cement and steel in buildings.
paulsutter 7y ago
Boston Metal has a new steel process without the carbon emissions, molten oxide electrolysis which uses electricity for energy input. Steel generates about 7 to 9% of carbon globally. https://www.bostonmetal.com/ https://www.bostonmetal.com/

caf 7y ago

For steel, it's hydrogen direct reduction. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618326301 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...

hurricanetc 7y ago
That process is entirely electric and so the benefits depend completely on the energy provider, is 10 years away from actually-maybe happening, and requires CCS to be carbon neutral. The last bit is the most relevant to this particular discussion.
- hannob 7y ago
  > requires CCS to be carbon neutral Why would that be? Hydrogen doesn't contain any carbon. If you produce the hydrogen from electrolysis and the electricity from renewables the process would be carbon free. (You can still argue that there are emissions in construction and such, but I don't think that's what you meant.)
  - hurricanetc 7y ago
    There are other metals and materials involved. It’s a partial solution. We really aren’t even close to a truly carbon neutral steel production. Maybe by 2100.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  This is the aluminum issue. Creation of new requires a ridiculous amount of electrify. So... Aluminum ore is shipped from all around the world to Iceland where electrify is super cheap. There it’s smelted and processed. Then it’s shipped mostly back around the world to China where its processed alloy and sponge, then around the world again if it isn’t rolled, extruded, forged, etc. So... forgive me, but any process that revolves around adding electricity to a process like this, makes me think “another aluminum”. Where everything side looks over the true costs of shipping things around the world a couple times before they end up in a landfill.
- caf 7y ago
  10 years? SSAB say they'll be selling steel made by this method by 2026. https://www.ssab.com/company/newsroom/media-archive/2019/11/14/10/02/ssab-to-be-first-to-market-with-fossilfree-steel https://www.ssab.com/company/newsroom/media-archive/2019/11/...

hannob 7y ago

> What is the renewable alternative for the cement, steel, shipping, and aviation industries? For steel the possibilities are hydrogen or electrolysis, both are being tested by some companies. You need the political will to price emissions to make it profitable though. For everything fuel-based synthetic power-to-x-based fuels are a (costly, but CCS isn't cheap either) alternative. Cement is the biggest "we don't really have any good alternative, at least not any time soon"-issue. I agree that there's a role for CCS to play, but I think it's not helping that its advocates have played the "we need CCS for X"-cards a bit more often than justifiable.

johnmorrison 7y ago
> For steel the possibilities are hydrogen or electrolysis, both are being tested by some companies. We already have steel recycling plants today that shift ~100% of emissions to thermal energy source, with a hot enough nuclear reactor (G4 MSR, maybe something in fast spectrum, maybe fusion) you can effectively eliminate the majority of steel emissions globally. > Cement is the biggest "we don't really have any good alternative, at least not any time soon"-issue. Bill Gates posted about this recently [1,2] [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-people-and-bad-for-the-climate https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-peo... [2] https://www.carboncure.com/ https://www.carboncure.com/
AstralStorm 7y ago
The expensive alternative to concrete would be to switch to epoxide resin bonded concrete. Use natural plastics. The formulations exist already and are comparable. The main downside in some cases is they're harder, so post machining is also harder and more expensive. It works with sea sand too. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6416622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6416622/

johnmorrison 7y ago

This is true. We should be able to reach net-zero emissions in the energy industry by around 2040 (optimistic, but realistic target), and even produce enough clean electricity to power clean electric solutions in transport/agriculture/industrial/appliance sectors (which are the other main contributors to net GHG emissions). The only problem is that a lot of this technology is still missing / not adopting fast enough. Electric cars and cleaner farming will probably get there in time, as well as lots of electric appliances and clean steel. I'm worried about these though: - Cement/concrete - Aviation (electric is on the way [1], but maybe growing too slow) - Livestock (synthetic meat promising, but once again maybe progress too slow) - Shipping - Appliances/civilian buildings: long lifespan to replace systems with electric alternatives, people won't just throw away a working heating system / stove etc For those, we need CCS or reforestation efforts to be accelerated. Our best bet in my view is to focus most investment in nuclear energy short term, with large minorities in CCS and transport+industrial electrification, and get electricity prices super low (and TPES super high) Once we have abundant, clean energy worldwide, we will be able to easily reach net-zero emissions and even induce net cooling if we feel we have overshot the ideal atmospheric carbon level. (In fact, we should be able to move it either way depending on our needs) Net zero goal isn't about stopping climate change, it's about putting the control in our hands and having the ability to shift temperatures and GHG levels in the optimal direction in perpetuity. [1] https://heartaerospace.com https://heartaerospace.com (YC-backed)

the8472 7y ago
> and even produce enough clean electricity to power clean electric solutions in transport/agriculture/industrial/appliance sectors The agriculture part is overly optimistic. Agriculture entails GHG emissions from deforestation, fertilizer production, ruminant methane, NOx emissions, soil carbon depletion and other secondary effects. It's not like we can solve our problems by electrifying tractors.
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  > deforestation There isn't net deforestation globally, though. > ruminant methane Yeah, this is one of the hardest ones to fix, but I think lab grown meat will get there eventually. Like I said, I'm not optimistic animal agriculture will have sufficient technology to eliminate most of its emissions in time - that's why we need CCS in the meantime. My point is, the energy industry will be ready with extra capacity to power clean agriculture solutions when they are ready. > It's not like we can solve our problems by electrifying tractors. I don't think that's the route we should go. Primarily indoor farming seems to be a much better long term route for plants, I prefer if we eventually get rid of most rural farmland and slowly shift it back to nature. Cover our flat city rooftops with small farms and trees, and produce most plant agriculture indoor very close to the consumer in indoor vertical farms. Controlled environment + indoor climate, more resource efficiency, almost no risk of infections, no need for most of the chemicals we use today.

pfdietz 7y ago

I very much doubt nuclear is going to be necessary, or even viable. And this is particularly the case if CCS is viable, because that means we can keep pairing renewables, plus fossil (with CCS) to fill in the gaps.

hedora 7y ago
Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). The fact that the US market structure and regulators led to unsafe and unprofitable power plants has little to do with the underlying technology.
- hannob 7y ago
  > Nuclear is already viable in countries with sane regulatory environments (France, and hopefully China, given how fast they’re ramping up). France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... "A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2019 the project is three times over budget and years behind schedule." China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China "Nuclear power contributed 4.2% of the total Chinese electricity production in 2018" "China was planning to have 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[3] However, few plants have commenced construction since 2015, and it is now unlikely that this target will be met." It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs.
  - johnmorrison 7y ago
    > It seems reality doesn't match your beliefs. France is about 75% nuclear, Germany is about 10% French electricity is about 2x cheaper than German, and they have much lower emissions. Since Germany has shut down nuclear plants in favor of renewables, it has been forced to increase coal and has actually increased total emissions and accident deaths significantly. Ontario, Canada is about 60% nuclear and its electricity prices off-peak are about 10x lower than German, on-peak about 5x lower. Nuclear is the safest, most efficient, and more reliable energy source all nations that have it and those who have more have more affordable energy. Reality has shown this consistently for now almost 80 years.

vsareto 7y ago

>cement, steel Beats me. I think we'll just have to just stop using so much of it. There is likely a decent amount of buildings being completely unused that could be turned into housing. Turn most office jobs into remote jobs. Turn most office buildings into apartments. >shipping, and aviation These options absolutely exist. For aviation, we could simply stop traveling so much and establish a network of electric cars to move people (coordinating tens of drivers in Uber/Lyft fashion with electric vans to move a family across CONUS is easily doable with our current technology). Nuclear cruise ships could replace trans-continental flights but you'll likely want to keep those flights for a while so the public gets used to the idea of "nuclear" and "cruise ships" in their vacations. Replacing shipping means nuclear, which means yeeting a bunch of 2nd/3rd world nations' current ships and incomes. All of this of course requires a much more authoritarian stance than current world politics tolerates (and guaranteeing that the leader doesn't start purging people). Unfortunately, climate change isn't as dramatic as a meteor headed toward Earth. It's very difficult to sell the complete destruction of major industries and companies to anyone, even though dealing with an economic armageddon is obviously easier to deal with than a planetary climate armageddon.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
discreteevent 7y ago
Laminated timber can replace a lot of the uses of cement and steel in buildings.

paulsutter 7y ago

Boston Metal has a new steel process without the carbon emissions, molten oxide electrolysis which uses electricity for energy input. Steel generates about 7 to 9% of carbon globally. https://www.bostonmetal.com/ https://www.bostonmetal.com/