Industry, more specifically, heavy industry is often seen as THE bad boy when it comes to carbon emissions. We've all seen those stock pictures used in articles about greenhouse gases where there's a landscape of chimney stacks spewing forth whatever it is they spew forth....? Well, even that can be virtually eliminated with current technology.
Taking the UK as an example, where around a quarter of our carbon emissions are from industry, half could be removed, simply by shifting the electricity grid from fossil fuels to renewables. That is not only feasible, but well underway here, as in many other countries.
Producing and refining oil and natural gas generates a lot of industrial carbon emissions by itself (40% in the UK). So, as we reduce the need for these fossil fuels in the likes of transport, aviation, and heating, those emissions will also reduce over time.
The other 60% of industrial emissions in the UK come from the steel, chemical, aluminium and cement sectors.
Steel
The bulk of emissions in this sector come from making 'virgin' steel i.e. Brand new steel using iron and coal. These could be dramatically reduced by replacing current carbon intense techniques (using something called 'sinter' as the raw material) with more up-to-date ones which use either 'pellets' or, possibly, hydrogen (as is being trialled by Swedes).
Better still, use recycled steel. All UK future needs could be supplied by recycling what has traditionally been 'lost' to the system. By disassembling old products to get at the steel, we can triple the steel available for recycling over the coming years. If we de-carbonise electricity, then this recycled material will be emissions free.
Chemicals
There are a great many chemicals being produced by this country. The basic way that emissions can be reduced is by improving efficiency by using the best available tech.
Aluminium
Most of the emissions come from the electrodes used in the smelting process. They emit CO2 as they're used. Improved electrodes, which only give off oxygen are on their way (Backed by big players like Rio Tinto) and should be available by the mid 2020's.
In the meantime, better recycling rates are reducing the need for 'virgin' aluminium anyway.
Cement
The cement industry has often been seen as one of the worst offenders in terms of industrial emissions. However, it has more than halved it's emissions over the last 30 years. It has worked how to reduce them by 81% come 2050.
There is even the strong possibility of carbon-negative concrete coming to the market soon. This form of concrete actually absorbs more carbon whilst hardening than is generated during production!
Demand reduction will also be important. This can be achieved by using alternative materials, being more efficient during the building process, and using partly hollow structures.
=========
Yes, all the solutions are there or on their way, and heavy industry is already working towards it. All that needs doing now is for governments to encourage them on their way, either by incentives or taxes.
Next: Farming
Thursday, 21 November 2019
Monday, 11 November 2019
A Carbon Neutral World: Aviation and Shipping
Of all the areas that need to be de-carbonised for a net-zero future, Aviation and Shipping is the trickiest. There are no clear paths towards net-zero or even dramatic reductions short of these 2 methods of transport being banned worldwide, which, I'm sure you'll agree is highly unlikely. However, I'll go through the possibilities.
Before I go on, why have I separated aviation and shipping from other forms of transport? Basically, because it's handled outside the normal UN climate change agreement process, as it's difficult to apportion the carbon produced to individual countries.
Aviation: It's unlikely that anything other than short hop flights can be fully de-carbonised in the foreseeable future. Planes can be made more efficient, traffic control can be used to shorten flights, and biofuels can be mixed with aviation fuel to reduce the carbon emissions but, fundamentally, it's difficult to make flights net-zero.
This is because there aren't any obvious replacements for aviation fuel. It may be possible to make short-haul flights all electric in time (Norway wants to do this by 2040), but the aircraft to do so are still in development (e.g. By Boeing and Airbus). Hydrogen has been looked at as a potential replacement but has it's problems. It would basically mean a re-think of the shape of aircraft (because the fuel would have to be held in the body of the plane rather than the wings, as now), making them look more like Thunderbird 2, and this would interfere with the aerodynamics.
Anyway you cut it, medium- to long-haul flights are likely to be a big greenhouse gas (GHG) producer for decades to come.
So what else can be done? Well, for start, airlines need to stop the practise of 'fuel-tankering' (where planes fly around with more fuel than they need to reduce costs)…..See here for details.
Also, in the UK, 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of adults, which suggests that, if people became more responsible, or were dissuaded from flying so much by carbon or 'frequent-flyer' taxes, it could make a sizeable reduction in overall airmiles and therefore GHGs. I realise it's nice to have the freedom to have, say, a few weekends away in Barcelona or Prague, in addition to a couple of holidays every year, but not at the expense of future generations, surely.
Shipping It has become fundamental to how our modern, interconnected world works, with vast quantities of goods (80% of the total) being moved around the planet all year round e.g. In 2013 there 120 million shipping containers, carrying $4 trillion in goods. The numbers will have only got bigger since then.
The ships can carry hundreds of containers at a time for thousands of kilometres, and often taking weeks to do so (Speed of delivery is not generally an issue).
Unfortunately, these ships usually run on heavy fuel oil which, though cheap, creates a lot sulphur, black carbon, and nitrogen oxide pollution. It also produces 3% of global GHGs (about the equivalent of Germany as a whole).
Electrically powered ships are a reality and are evolving rapidly, but they are only likely to be practical for river, coastal, and ferry journeys. Container ships need something else.
There is currently pressure for shipping companies to make their vessels more efficient (See Carbon War Room for an example). You'd think it would be in these companies' interests to have more efficient ships as it saves costs on fuel, but those costs are small enough that there's little incentive to replace or retrofit inefficient ships. Some are making the effort along those lines though, and even trying stuff like adding sails!
Next year, there is likely to be a push to use less polluting diesel as a fuel but I'm not sure this will do much for the GHG side of things.
However, next week the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will meet to decide if container ships should reduce their speed by 20%. This could cut fuel consumption and carbon emissions by around a third, reduce underwater noise by two thirds, whale collisions by 78%, sulphur and nitrogen oxide by 24%, and mean a significant cut in black carbon.
Apart from saving on fuel costs, the measure would have no extra costs involved (e.g. from retrofits). So it makes sense if the shipping companies want to be seen to be doing their bit. See here for more.
The medium- to long-term prospect is that oil-based fuels will be replaced by alternative fuels like hydrogen. In fact, the OECD believes it's possible to have net-zero shipping by 2035 with current technology. Maersk, the largest shipping company in the world, plans to be carbon neutral by 2050 which implies it will be rolling out net-zero ships by 2030.
Next: Industry
Before I go on, why have I separated aviation and shipping from other forms of transport? Basically, because it's handled outside the normal UN climate change agreement process, as it's difficult to apportion the carbon produced to individual countries.
Aviation: It's unlikely that anything other than short hop flights can be fully de-carbonised in the foreseeable future. Planes can be made more efficient, traffic control can be used to shorten flights, and biofuels can be mixed with aviation fuel to reduce the carbon emissions but, fundamentally, it's difficult to make flights net-zero.
This is because there aren't any obvious replacements for aviation fuel. It may be possible to make short-haul flights all electric in time (Norway wants to do this by 2040), but the aircraft to do so are still in development (e.g. By Boeing and Airbus). Hydrogen has been looked at as a potential replacement but has it's problems. It would basically mean a re-think of the shape of aircraft (because the fuel would have to be held in the body of the plane rather than the wings, as now), making them look more like Thunderbird 2, and this would interfere with the aerodynamics.
Anyway you cut it, medium- to long-haul flights are likely to be a big greenhouse gas (GHG) producer for decades to come.
So what else can be done? Well, for start, airlines need to stop the practise of 'fuel-tankering' (where planes fly around with more fuel than they need to reduce costs)…..See here for details.
Also, in the UK, 70% of all flights are taken by just 15% of adults, which suggests that, if people became more responsible, or were dissuaded from flying so much by carbon or 'frequent-flyer' taxes, it could make a sizeable reduction in overall airmiles and therefore GHGs. I realise it's nice to have the freedom to have, say, a few weekends away in Barcelona or Prague, in addition to a couple of holidays every year, but not at the expense of future generations, surely.
Shipping It has become fundamental to how our modern, interconnected world works, with vast quantities of goods (80% of the total) being moved around the planet all year round e.g. In 2013 there 120 million shipping containers, carrying $4 trillion in goods. The numbers will have only got bigger since then.
The ships can carry hundreds of containers at a time for thousands of kilometres, and often taking weeks to do so (Speed of delivery is not generally an issue).
Unfortunately, these ships usually run on heavy fuel oil which, though cheap, creates a lot sulphur, black carbon, and nitrogen oxide pollution. It also produces 3% of global GHGs (about the equivalent of Germany as a whole).
Electrically powered ships are a reality and are evolving rapidly, but they are only likely to be practical for river, coastal, and ferry journeys. Container ships need something else.
There is currently pressure for shipping companies to make their vessels more efficient (See Carbon War Room for an example). You'd think it would be in these companies' interests to have more efficient ships as it saves costs on fuel, but those costs are small enough that there's little incentive to replace or retrofit inefficient ships. Some are making the effort along those lines though, and even trying stuff like adding sails!
Next year, there is likely to be a push to use less polluting diesel as a fuel but I'm not sure this will do much for the GHG side of things.
However, next week the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will meet to decide if container ships should reduce their speed by 20%. This could cut fuel consumption and carbon emissions by around a third, reduce underwater noise by two thirds, whale collisions by 78%, sulphur and nitrogen oxide by 24%, and mean a significant cut in black carbon.
Apart from saving on fuel costs, the measure would have no extra costs involved (e.g. from retrofits). So it makes sense if the shipping companies want to be seen to be doing their bit. See here for more.
The medium- to long-term prospect is that oil-based fuels will be replaced by alternative fuels like hydrogen. In fact, the OECD believes it's possible to have net-zero shipping by 2035 with current technology. Maersk, the largest shipping company in the world, plans to be carbon neutral by 2050 which implies it will be rolling out net-zero ships by 2030.
Next: Industry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)