this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1117 points (97.1% liked)

solarpunk memes

2902 readers
600 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Coal has a bunch of impurities compared to charcoal I thought?

And if the repeated melting is done by burning biomass/charcoal or with clean(er) energy then it's not a huge issue

[–] JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Electric Arc Furnaces are probably our best bet for that - they're an established, proven technology and can be swapped over to a green power source without any other changes (assuming the society has the energy capacity). I think I remember reading that a factory somewhere in Europe had already done that but a quick search has failed me.

[–] Phineaz@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

Certainly, they're the shit, but the energy capacity you mentioned is a huge issue. As I said in my other comment it should/could/has to be done, but it's anything but simple.

[–] Phineaz@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Still leagues ahead of biomass. Don't get me wrong, this is an issue that can be solved. Biomass can be converted to biogas which can be purified to produce methane (or you just burn biogas directly) which then in turn can be used for heat (or other purposes) - the problem here is the sheer amount of energy this requires. Yes, significant portions of the steel industry can be "decarbonised" (or at least I think so) but the effort is immense. Doable, necessary, but it will be a huge piece of work.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

By "burn it" I meant turn it into charcoal... Charcoal averages 80% carbon (range 50-95%), whereas depending on the type coal ranges from 60-92% carbon, with the purest type, anthracite, being 86-92% carbon

Given a mass production system would likely result in more uniform carbon content near the top of the range, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could be swapped out pretty easily