Scaramanga figured it out.
Posted on 05/17/2024 1:22:17 AM PDT by Jonty30
Swiss researchers have developed a solar energy method using synthetic quartz to achieve temperatures above 1,000°C for industrial processes, potentially replacing fossil fuels in the production of materials like steel and cement.
Instead of burning fossil fuels to reach the temperatures needed to smelt steel and cook cement, scientists in Switzerland want to use heat from the sun. The proof-of-concept study uses synthetic quartz to trap solar energy at temperatures over 1,000°C (1,832°F), demonstrating the method’s potential role in providing clean energy for carbon-intensive industries. A paper on the research was published on May 15 in the journal Device.
The Need for Decarbonization
“To tackle climate change, we need to decarbonize energy in general,” says corresponding author Emiliano Casati of ETH Zurich, Switzerland. “People tend to only think about electricity as energy, but in fact, about half of the energy is used in the form of heat.”
Glass, steel, cement, and ceramics are at the very heart of modern civilization, essential for building everything from car engines to skyscrapers. However, manufacturing these materials demands temperatures over 1,000°C and relies heavily on burning fossil fuels for heat. These industries account for about 25% of global energy consumption. Researchers have explored a clean-energy alternative using solar receivers, which concentrate and build heat with thousands of sun-tracking mirrors. However, this technology has difficulties transferring solar energy efficiently above 1,000°C.
(Excerpt) Read more at scitechdaily.com ...
Well, I don’t see the gov. pushing for it like solar and wind, and if at least some of the money our tax dollars spend on solar and wind went into r&d of hydrogen scientists could develop a cheaper way to manufacture it. I have no doubt of that.
To use Nervous Tick’s terminology, making H2 is a solved technical problem.
The issue is storing it and distributing it.
We need less government money going into all these schemes to “reduce carbon”. I have no doubt of that.
We’re also from north Jersey, western Hunterdon county. Not only Sandy, but before that there was Snowtober. Lost power for 8 days from that 16” snowstorm when there were trees with most of their leaves still on. Broken branches and whole trees crashing down all night. Ran a gas generator for the first 4 days until there was no more gas locally to buy and it was getting old fast. Seemed like it always needed a refill at around 3:00 am. 7 days without power from Sandy, same deal. A solar generator would have been nice, weren’t available yet.
For sure, since gov. money is our tax dollars. Let private industry handle it without gov. grants.
Driving yesterday where road was getting new asphalt topping. How in good conscience can a ev driving greenie drive on this oil based world destroying substance.
Perhaps the Swiss can develop roads coated in unicorn farts…
Great bird cooker too.
Great. Now do it at night for a 24/7 plant. Next is a rainy day. This stuff is all cute for artisan steelmakers. It doesn’t work for large industrial processors.
Store the power for night.
Please tell me that you’re kidding.
I am being a little bit flippant and I’m sorry. I’m not saying this technology will replace all aspects of energy generation, but if it can be done for cheaper and more efficient in some parts of the process, it will be looked at.
“Does that mean all smelters have to use hydrocarbons”
The process of converting pig iron to steel consists of removing some of the carbon from the pig iron. The removal of the pig iron is done by a process using pure oxygen resulting in the carbon being converted to carbon dioxide.
Thus, the steelmaking process doesn’t use hydrocarbons.
Pure heat, whether from the sun or an electric arc, doesn’t do the conversion of pig iron to steel which is what a smelter does.
Thanks. I hoped no one on Free Republic was stupid enough to believe that you could store that much power in batteries.
The problem with all of the alternate sources is that they are without fail far more expensive than “fossil” fuels and far less efficient.
Is there a place for some of them? Probably, but not in the macro scale they are proposing. Destroying farmland with solar panels and turbines only hurts our future.
I recently ordered a truck cap with an integrated rooftop tent for my wife and I to go camping and overlanding. I’m considering installing a solar panel on the roof to power some lights and a small refrigerator. Micro use of those technologies works just fine.
On the flip side, I have a utility trailer I use for my job. It has a large power inverter and a Marine battery. In the winter I have a small space heater. If I’m not plugged into the grid, the battery last mere seconds when the heater turns on.
every time I read the word “smelter” all I can think of is biden and little girl’s hair.
I see “proof of concept” and airy phrases the flying unicorns could glide on. I didn’t see any steel. Let’s see the article about the bench scale working model and some steel product. Until then, isn’t it just unicorns?
Liar ...
Batteries are, at the moment, about 6-7% the work-unit efficiency of hydrocarbons in its energy potential. Maybe it’s a little bit more since I last looked at the numbers because there has been developments over the years, but it isn’t anywhere near the work-unit efficiency of a gallon of gas.
But that doesn’t other sources aren’t useful. They may be useful in taking the workload of some of the process that still needs to be primarily fueled by hydrocarbons.
The example I gave earlier in the thread is electric generators that are fueled by solar and/or windpower. Sure, the generators will not run your house all the time. However, maybe there is enough sunlight and wind power that can be stored so these generators can be used once a month. Lowering your powerbill by 3-4%, or better, can probably help over the years.
None of these things is a complete solution, but together they could be a good change.
The only solution to no carbon is nuclear.
Scaramanga figured it out.
Yea, but how many years doe s it take to pay off the cost of installation. Also, what’s the lifespan.
For most of those systems, the equilibrium point is remarkably close to the product life cycle. often it’s well beyond.
As an example, the Chevy Volt was on the same chassis as the Chevy Cruze. The equilibrium for fuel saved is about 300,000 miles. I’m one of the few people I know who have saved a car that long and it was valueless at that point.
“Or, if hydrocarbons have higher value than being used for fuel then would be better.”
Like using hydrocarbons to make plastics?
Oh wait. Plastics of all kinds need to be recycled and “sustainable” or regulated out of existence. That’s another environmentalist program.
These goals are not science or even possible. It’s part of a death wish religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.