Electric and Alternative Vehicle Fuels

‘In the fullness of time!’

Political presumption is an uncertain place?
WA has a habit of thinking independently, irrespective of the shades of political leadership.

It is of course a positive announcement.

2 Likes

A good over view of the differences between hydrogen fuel cell, battery and hybrid vehicle technology.

Illuminating is the suggested low overall energy efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle cycle. It requires 3-4 times as much renewable energy as a battery vehicle for the same mileage.

On an industrial scale compressed hydrogen if used in a high efficiency engine such as a gas turbine (practical) or modern Stirling (theoretical) engine would only approach half the energy efficiency of modern battery storage systems.

3 Likes

A good article but what is the truck on the display stand supposed to represent?

On a slightly different note, I recall when all the doom and gloom news was about “peak oil” a couple of decades ago and one documentary actually ended with someone having their Hummer being towed by draughhorses.

I also recall watching an interview with the Saudi oil minister at this time, and he said one of the most pragmatic things I have ever heard.

“The stone age did not end because they ran out of rocks, and the oil age will not end because we have run out of oil”.

The world is still awash with oil but it appears it won’t be needed for much longer.

1 Like

Whilst this may be the case, there will be other factors as well in the equation. Some of these have been listed earlier in this thread. Inefficiencies is possibly less of a concern when made from renewables as H2 has the potential to be made when renewable generation peaks and exceeds demands on the network. If H2 was not produced, the excess renewable generation opportunity will be lost…rather than used to less efficiency H2 production. As the byproducts of H2 creation will be ozygen and heat, these are less of an issue than say a traditional energy source which would have high inefficiency of conversion (where CO2 and NOx, SOx etc are produced).

There has also been discussion about nuclear and generating H2 as well for the same reasons…the extra energy generated by nuclear could be turned into H2 instead of being lost. Countries with nuclear have the potential to capture this opportunity.

There are many countries which are also (renewable) energy resource poor. These countries will need a energy source to power their electricity grids, but the other energy users such as transportation. It would be even more inefficient to produce transportable hydrogen in Australia, ship it to these countries for them to turn it back into electricity to then use to charge EVs.

Japan is also targeting a H2 cost so that the energy cost will be comparable to existing transport fuels. If this occurs, then H2 will potentially be a game changer.

Another article regarding research into producing hydrogen from water.

Not a vehicle fuel, but related:

1 Like
  • List item

A very distant relative worthy of its own topic.

“Decarbonising the production of metals”?

It is not just iron that is dependant on coal and hydrocarbons in it’s production. There are carbon costs at all stages of production of metals from mining through to final manufacturing. Iron making is the most obvious big one.

More of general interest about what is possible. Also a topic able to easily take on Alice in Wonderland or Dante’s Inferno like discussion for those with some relevant experience and knowledge.

I thought maybe too remote from a consumer issue.

Which is why I posted.

Some of the principle pro-fossil-fuel arguments centre around industrial process heat and metal ore reduction. Hydrogen holds promise in both.

On the other hand:
https://www.iom3.org/news/2013/may/24/new-alloy-makes-it-possible-produce-iron-electrolysis

More than just for heat.

Different forms of iron/steel also require carbon in the final product to change its properties to suit its engineering needs Traditionally this has come from coking coal used in the smeltering process. I wonder where the carbon came from for the German steel furnace? Charcoal from vegetation or other organic sources of carbon?

The carbon content of steel is minuscule. Analysis of the Damascus steel of antiquity suggests that the carbon source was herbal. By some accounts, the process of manufacturing the billets was subject of ritual, with specific herbs introduced at specific stages.

1 Like

It isn’t minuscule. Some steel products have up to >2% carbon content by weight. Depending on the steel…it ranges from 0.05-0.25% for mild , 0.29% to 0.54% for medium, 0.55% to 0.95% for high and 0.96% to 2.1% for very high carbon steel. Pig iron is even higher at 3.8–4.7% carbon.

As the world produced around 1800 million tonnes or steel in 2018, the amount of carbon used in steel production world wide is significant. At say a conservative average of 0.5% carbon in steel content, this is about 9 million tonnes of carbon consumed through steel production.

If herbal (or vegetation biomass to produce charcoal) is used, this correlates to about 18 million tonnes of dry biomass (dry biomass is about 50% carbon). As moisture content of green biomass is around 50-80+%, this indicates that about 40+ million tonnes of green biomass to make enough renewable carbon for steel production…a significant amount not to be dismissed.

If one looks at bio-oil as a alternative carbon source to charcoal, the percentage of carbon is even less and would require higher volume of biomass if created through pyrolysis or if plant based oils are diverted to steel production (a concern of plant oils as it potentially reduces the potential for food production).

Another option could be to use general municipal waste or even dry biosolids as a feed stock to steel production as these waste would are both carbon source and have energy supplement potential. Biosolids may however have a higher and better used in agriculture, to which it is becoming more commonly used.

You are both right depending on how you look at it. Much steel processing is removing impurities that are introduced through the blast furnace, including excess carbon which is typically burnt off in a secondary furnace.

Other processes of making iron from ore such as electrolysis have been known for a long time. Many of these (I am guessing hydrogen is in this category) produce quite pure iron that can be used to make specialist steels, in some cases they add measured amounts of carbon.

The problem the alternative methods have is that to date they have been very costly compared to the blast furnace, even including the cost of purification and reprocessing of blast furnace iron. Cost is the cruncher. I would be interested to see any estimates on the cost of the H2 process.

If ever the cost problem is solved I think adding the required amount of carbon will fall into line as a lesser challenge of the process. My guess is that they will use some kind of charcoal that can be made leaving out sulphur and most other impurities that are in excess undesirable in steel making. Charcoal can be manufactured in a renewable way from trees.

3 Likes

Still be a lot of trees. In some respects, some of the carbon (not lost through manufacturing) will end up in the steel, locking up for a very long time. Possibly an indirect form of sequestration.

This is where opportunities using existing waste streams may provide an alternative option.

Welcome ALL to the “rabbit hole”.

Any budding pyro-metallurgists out there?
I’m a bit rusty on this. :joy: (pun intended)

There is more than enough carbon content in the flux most commonly used in iron making. IE Limestone aka CaCO3 in it’s mineralised forms.

The report stated the hydrogen trial only introduced H2 through one of the furnace tuyeres. There is no mention of the furnace charge being modified from the usual blend of ore, coke, and flux etc. or change to pf coal injection through the other 27 tuyeres.

The chemistry of reducing iron ore in a traditional blast furnace is well known. It should be straight forward to put an approx figure on the hydrogen to ore/iron ratio. Hydrogen has been used previously in a very limited way To assist in refining metal ores. It has however not been available at a competitive price to be more widely considered, until now?

Yes, there are other ways to produce iron, including the various processes used to produce ferro chrome and ferro nickel, or the HBI process trialled by BHP. And that is all without discussing aluminium and copper or any other metals. There is a long way to go given how much a low carbon future might depend on many of these metals. :wink:

1 Like

https://coalaction.org.nz/carbon-emissions/can-we-make-steel-without-coal

I should have also indicated earlier that a similar question has come up in a resource recovery lecture I give to engineering students. It appears that finding non-coking carbon source for steel production has interest with some students and they have asked about biosolids…which is why it was one of the potential (?) alternatives indicated above. The problem with biosolids is it is around 90% water and significant energy to remove this water. Biosolids can also contain other compounds (metals, suplhur etc) which may not be optimum for steel production.

Tyres is another which has also been suggested. Tyres can be a fuel (has a good calorific value), and carbon source, but not as renewable like other forms of carbon.

1 Like

If anyone is wondering,

The following is a direct quote from the news item.

Following the successful trial, Thyssenkrupp plans to scale up the injection to all 28 tuyeres within the furnace and aims to eventually run at least three furnaces completely on hydrogen by 2023.

I take ‘completely on hydrogen’ to say zero coal.

NOTE:
Blast Furnaces produce iron, which is not steel. The carbon chemistry of molten iron and steel is complex. The dissolution and crystallisation of carbon and carbon compounds in molten iron to from different types of iron and steel is a science all on its own. There is no need to panic over running out of carbon sources to add to the melt, if necessary, assuming there is insufficient C gained from the flux or added with the hot air blast. Our atmosphere and environment is full of it. Low carbon iron may be less of a problem with the subsequent conversion to steel in electric arc furnaces or BOS. I’d leave it to Thyssenkrupp to already know the answer.

How Thyssenkrupp will be making steel in a few years time is perhaps best judged on their current year 2019 work. It would seem to be more relevant to the future than relying on vested coal industry assessments from years past.

There is some potential competition from another European consortium.

2 Likes

Just a pie in the sky thought…this could be one of the many drivers to why Germany is collaborating with Australia in relation to the Australian Hydrogen Strategy. They also see hydrogen as industrial hydrogen. It is however unlikely an Australian renewable hydrogen industry will be developed with sufficient capacity before 2023.

Another article regarding both EV and hydrogen vehicles in Australia.

The use of solar generated hydrogen to power mineral ore processing and metals production is a great fit for Australia.

Solar gives hydrogen plus ore gives exportable metal.

A much greater value add, and far more efficient to transport the refined metal than crude ores OS. Also a much simpler hydrogen process, as locally hydrogen can be managed the same as uncompressed natural gas, as a localised bulk commodity.

Of course Australia has a long history of ignoring or screwing up such opportunities to get ten fold the value out of our raw resources.

With the trillions in Aussie super being added to every year it would appear a very direct and smart investment opportunity.

On a large enough industrial scale there may even be a viable hydrogen industry able to provide large volumes of excess production to domestic transport needs such as long distance haulage and buses.

THINK!

2 Likes

Without comment on the overall picture, the concept of efficiency can sometimes be a furphy.

In a simple contrived example, if 100% renewable energy ‘A’ had 5% efficiency while 80% renewable energy ‘B’ had 90% efficiency, over a long enough period ‘A’ could still be the better option because ‘B’ would eventually run out.

2 Likes