Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
In terms of pollutants, you are dead right we need a solution, but trying to solve it after it is made is crazy. Rather like the famous sugar tax that proved the fizzy drinks companies were lying about their ability to find a solution or the 5p plastic bag lie that British would not accept a move to pay for plastic bags, the reality is that in the US and in the UK a strict set of rules would stimulate local technology so that these "impossible to replace" materials would be replaced and probably in 6 months. There would be screams of financially linked people. Rather like the Dutch coal miners who are pushing back against stopping mining coal.
I have an image of the ammunition producers who complained when WW2 stopped, "oh were can we have a war to sell our goods?" Or the tobacco people who could no longer sell cancer.
Every time we build a way to burn plastic we have enabled people to make more plastic. It would be better if the plastic just piled up and people began to think why is this stuff here, rather than how do I buy more?
UK government taken to court for 'using public money to subsidise climate collapse'
https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/12/uk-government-taken-to-court-for-using-public-money-to-subsidise-climate-collapse
MarkBantam, Yup..
Totally agree with that assessment Bilbo. But one must ask what happens in landfill as it rots over the centuries. It turns to methane and other diabolical chemical excrements. Paints, solvents, mercury, you get the idea and where does it go? It leaches into the water table and pollutes the rivers and oceans. Then we (along with all the other fauna ) eat the caught fish. So yes, I agree it is basically a blue h2 process, but that it is more a baby blue in shade for the removal of tons mutagenic, carcinogenic and poisonous compounds from our own bodies.
Bilbo, I think I have commented on the Green than Green hydrogen before last year. IMO the SGH2 pitch borders on a "snake oil" salesman using hydrogen as the hook . It is just another gasification technology and all produce hydrogen and CO2 products ( a bit like PHE gasification) . The "CO2 figure" relies on credit from methane that would be released if the bio material decomposed naturally. The best reference on CO2 figure is the Recharge article from May 2020. https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/-greener-than-green-hydrogen-to-be-produced-at-same-cost-as-grey-h2-at-world-s-largest-facility-/2-1-811743
The square H2 Energy article is full of weird stuff and irrelevant issues. For example green H2 in the USA is not $10-$13 per kg but a more sensible $6-£2.5. The good Dr. Salvador Camacho, (there is no evidence that anyone calls him) “the father of plasma technology" left this mortal veil 21 years ago. We know that electrolysis gets more efficient at higher temperatures as the Gibbs Free energy drops off and that is why steel works do not plan to use ITM electrolysers to make their H2. Certainly using plasma to burn complex chemicals is well know and is used to clean chip plants of nasties at tool change over times and to clean any exhaust gasses.
But what is still not clear is this "SGH2’s unique gasification process uses a plasma-enhanced thermal catalytic conversion process optimized with oxygen-enriched gas. In the gasification island’s catalyst-bed chamber, plasma torches generate such high temperatures (3500º-4000º C), that the waste feedstock disintegrates into its molecular compounds, without combustion ash or toxic fly ash. As the gases exit the catalyst-bed chamber, the molecules bound into a very high quality hydrogen-rich biosyngas free of tar, soot and heavy metals. The syngas then goes through a Pressure Swing Absorber system resulting in hydrogen at 99.9999% purity as required for use in Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell vehicles. Our process extracts all carbon from the waste feedstock, removes all particulates and acid gases, and produces no toxins or pollution. The end result is high purity hydrogen and a small amount of biogenic carbon dioxide, which is not additive to greenhouse gas emissions." Where did the CO2 go?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Plasma-Cutter-Cutting-Machine-Consumables/
Your typical garage plasma cutter use 50-60amps and your typical EV uses 1000amps for 120V motors. So while I do not know the size and energy usage of the torches shown, given the costs of Tesla's and such; I think the economics might actually stack up. Maybe not the $2 touted but it is possible to at least match electrolysis because of the 4000C heat vaporising everything. Even if it only broke even as a concept I would still be tempted because of the environmental benefits of reduced chemical and epa leakage into the water system. Hmm..
My problem is where the feedstock for the plasm originates. The apparently particulate CO2 is still CO2 I agree and would need to be stored underground thereby increasing costs. However, as a method of carbonisation of all kinds of landfill except concrete and metal I must say I'm tempted. No more pcb pollution and a way to mine money out of ****. I'm sure thermodynamics will prove me wrong because of the currently unknown energy required for the feedstock.
Well it may satisfy Barclays world renowned green engineers. But... It isn't green nor is it more green than turbine powered electrolysers, it actually says it isn't.
So it is really just a way to green wash the burning of plastic waste in a city with a lot of plastic waste.
BTW, a big gold star for the person who can translate into English where they try to explain why more is less, because the journalist gave up before he started.
I was saving this site for a rainy day...https://sg-h2.squarespace.com/worlds-largest-green-hydrogen-project-to-launch-in-california
https://sg-h2.squarespace.com/technology/#techheader
CorPower nears completion of world’s largest wave energy test rig.
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/corpower-nears-completion-of-worlds-largest-wave-energy-test-rig/
Yes agree, was thinking more underground out of control fire, still they're happing drilling holes in the states
or testing in Patagonia.
I still remember the best idea of the 60s was to stop coal mining, just chuck a struck match into a coal mine and regulate the oxygen feed to the coal. Then pump water into and out of the mine to heat water. I think they destroyed a nice bit of Virginia with that idea. At the moment virtually no oil well or oil pipeline can fully control methane leakage, but these numpties think that feeding O2 to the water/ oil interface will not generate CO2?
https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2021/05/TECHWEB.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&fit=around|660:371?fit=around%7C1000:625
Wonderful. I'm guessing there will be so much research money from the Biden funding that a bit will stick on their hands. Clicking around, there appears to be no process map they heat, with Oxygen-enhanced air (?), carbon based stuff. Off which bubbles Hydrogen. Not CO2 which is probably more likely, then they filter off the Hydrogen (a small molecule) rather than say CO2 ( a larger molecule). Anyway it seems the CO2 doesn't get out but amazingly the H2 does, and they capture it. "waay".
Did you ever hear of "salting the mine"? Still at least they didn't spend too much developing a great website.
Bilbs, have you seen what these monkeys are up to.
https://proton.energy/
Trees need wind to reproduce. Climate change is messing that up.
https://www.popsci.com/environment/trees-wind-survival-climate-change/
BP rebranding ~ the start of a reframing of an industry which poured toxins into the atmosphere so effectively that it created the most significant warming the Earth has seen for around 56 million years.
https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/crude-britannia-a-big-oil-painting-of-the-lies-that-wreck-9199044/
correlation not worlds apart.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/mmVrg3UG/
Too busy breaking bread with the afc flat earthers BB :~)
Think darts. A hundred and twenty!