Greener Aluminum
 

This is very interesting, and there are some educated comments as well:

Rio Tinto and Alcoa announce world

An aluminum smelting process that produces only oxygen as a byproduct. Conventional smelting produces a lot of carbon dioxide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQpD4pdQyOk

How much have they made and how much does it cost?
Reminds me of the original electrolysis process used to make aluminum. Prior to 1886 aluminums value was worth it's weight some where between silver and gold.
It doesn't make any CO2, but it could make aluminum unaffordable.

Read the article. I think they say is is about 15% cheaper, and possibly more productive.

This new Aluminum smelting process requires 50% more energy. Which is already very energy intensive. We will have to wait and see if they start retrofitting and go into full production to find out what it really costs.

I figured if it worked as advertised manufacturers would be all over it like flies on stink.
So if it uses 50% more power, it's going to produce more CO2.
If I remember correctly the major cost of aluminum ore smelting is electrical power.
Starting to look like another case of more green washing to me.
If they are trying to bring back something the original aluminum making process it's going to use more like 2x to 5x the electrical power, not 50% more.

"Vincent Christ" is a helluva name. So the piece does not really offer much detail on the process, so we cannot ask critical questions. What is the "proprietary material?" How much power does the process require? It seems like the O2 byproduct announcement could be substantially just marketing and a trick for environmental law in Canada or elsewhere. If the process is "green" and is done with "Mystery Material" in Canada, that might please Canadian officials greatly. But if the "Mystery Material" is quite dirty and gets produced in Vietnam or somewhere and shipped via diesel supertanker to Canada, then the environmental value overall may not be so great, no?

What do they say about something too good to be true?

"Marketing"

(Unless it turns out to be at least somewhat true when the whole supply/production line is revealed.)

Give them time. They have a considerable investment in working plants, and probably would not adopt new tech until someone needs a new plant.

Not really. Aluminum refining plants are typically located where there's a lot of cheap hydro or geothermal power.

Electric foundries and electric smelters depend on cheap power at night. Usually hydro electric is cheapest.
That power could be off setting a combustion plant.
Since aluminum production depends so much on cheap power I don't see using 50% more power as being desirable.
The supporting power grid may not even be able to hand 50% more power.

We can get all the electricity we need from renewable sources. Therefore, this method of smelting aluminum could be carbon free.

There are many ways to get energy. The sun alone has enough energy hitting the earth in ONE DAY to power ALL HUMAN NEEDS - for 27 YEARS.

Aluminum needs to be recycled, which only takes 10% as much energy as smelting it.

Well.... We have been through this on the other thread. Just because energy hits the earth, doesn't mean we can build out enough hardware to capture, transmit and store it. People have no concept how big the 17 TeraWatts we are currently blowing through is.

Yeah where I work uses a pretty consistent load of around 20 megawatts. I would like to see renewables power that with 24hr reliability.

I just said aluminum plants normally use hydro electric power because it's the only production method cheap enough and still has the reliability to run a full shift providing the power needed.

Seems to me like the better option is to use less power.
Keep recyceing, use the same aluminum smelting process, use less power so more hydro electric is available to off set combustion fuelled plants.

Or use more power to make possibly greener aluminum and just run fossil fuels plants harder some where further down the line to make up for the extra power used by the aluminum plant.

With about 10,000 sq km of solar, with storage - would alone be enough to power the ENTIRE US grid. Cover large roofs, and parking areas, and capped land fills - and I am sure we could get much more than we need.

Add wind (land and off shore) and wave, tidal, biomass, geothermal - and we can get as much as 16X the energy we need.

Here's a plan to do 100% renewable energy: Our 100% Clean Energy Vision - The Solutions Project

This will pay for itself in short order with big reductions in health problems, and reduced premature deaths; never mind climate change.

Here are a few studies with the missing numbers omitted from the Solutions Project report that show the complete fallacy of even replacing electricity, let alone another 5x to replace all energy with rebuildables.
.
A summary at a glance.
.
.
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f9&oe=5B8EB52E
.
.
In case you didn't see this in the other thread here is some information that can help you understand the inaccuracies in the Solution Project report.
Roadmap To Nowhere puts some numbers and math that was missing from the Solutions Project into the equation to show the scale of trying to replace all energy with rebuildables.
.
The Myth of Powering the Nation With Renewable Energy
.
David MacKay was an engineer that also did a good and open minded study of the feasibility of rebuildables replacing all energy. Or even trying just to just replace all electricity. Which is only 20-30% of total energy consumption.
.
https://www.withouthotair.com/
.
Nate Hagens is a very modest genius who has devoted the second half of his life to studying a synthesis of everything from energy, economy, ecology, psychology, evolution. And stands on the shoulders of many giants which he links to in his University course which I was honored to shadow from home last fall. I am very anxiously waiting the download release of his two, 1,000 page , free, books, so that I can have a quicker reference to the compiled facts.
His video presentations are essential to an educated person's understanding of where we are going and are a very easy watch. The key take away for me was understanding the concept of embodied energy and the 300 fossil slaves holding each American up right now. He needs work on his site and youtube channel though
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
https://youtu.be/rrN0lbbSVOA
.

Fun map. And these estimate and projections probably assume current technology, forgetting the possibility for breakthroughs in generation and storage tech.

Obviously, if the grid could become completely clean, this new aluminum process is all the more revolutionary. But there are entrenched political impediments. Maybe they can be cleared, but we certainly cannot wave it away.

I also would question the mining and production of "proprietary materials." Rio Tinto is a nasty miner. For example, they have a cruel and ecologically devastating mine proposal under development at Oak Flat in Arizona. An historic and sacred site to regional Apaches, also a state park, will be wiped off the map, turned into a giant toxic crater, because it is the most profitable way to get at the ore below. If that is how Rio Tinto hopes to get its "proprietary material" I think we might want to consider it a bit more closely and skeptically.

So yeah, probably best just to try and use less energy.

All the breakthroughs that we will likely see have happened, such as the 40ish percent efficient solar panels. They put out double the power for their size but cost at least 20x to 40x per watt more than current panels in use.
The panels we have now are the sum of efforts to get the most watts for the least $.

To solar and wind power everything will require a lot of sacrifice, mines, wind farms, solar panels are going to have to be put where people don't want them.
Be carefulwhat you wish fpr, you just might get it.

Here's a news story with some mention of the new process and power needs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cou.../amp/612255002

They generate the power for the carbon free process using an on site coal fired power plant.
Hilarious.
What's not funny is its bringing back 275 jobs.
That's most important.

Yes, but althought Alcoa's breathless marketing claims shouldn't be accepted uncritically, so too the importance of the technological advance in itself shouldn't be casually dismissed because it does not answer all the problems at once. When Alcoa begins using their new process in Indiana, it seems they will reduce their overall carbon footprint--despite still having dirty power generation. When they get a cleaner power generation system, they will have still cleaner aluminum production. I guess we are stuck with limited steps.

That coal power plant has been there 30 or 40 years it will probably continue to be used for another 20 to 30 years, when it does get replaced, my guess would be natural gas turbine.
Because if the local power grid didn't have the capacity for the plant before it sure as heck isn't going to have the capacity once they start using even more power.
But the important thing is the Alcoa plant is going again.