Gigabattery plant

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I reckon it halves the carbon, as each atom of carbon removes 2 of oxygen, whereas in a blast furnace one carbon removes one oxygen from the ore. Not sure where the nitrous oxide come from, there isn't any air involved. There is lots of electricity involved, not sure which is more, but it could be a transition technology, we understand arc furnaces and you don't need hydrogen hydrolysers

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Two things on the direct reduction:- It can use methane/natural gas because hydrogen will reduce the iron oxide as well as carbon. This will automatically cut the CO2 production by a proportion. the second point, as noted by Nigel is that there need be no surplus CO in the furnace output. At Port Talbot, the excess CO (blast furnace gas) and surplus coke oven gas (town gas as was) were consumed by the Margam A and B power stations on site to generate process steam and electricity. At least, they were when we (GEC Turbines and either ICL or Babcocks, can't remember that bit) installed and commissioned the plant in 1984. But that still produces a lot of CO2 as an end product.

On cars, I feel that the current best option is a plug in hybrid. Use the electric for the vast majority of the mileage, especially the solar panels on the house/garage/workshop roof, but still have the Diesel (more efficient than petrol) engine for trekking from one end of the country to another.

I really can't understand the attraction of non-plug in hybrids!

Stuck with the Diesel Dacia for a few more years until the market for electric and PHEV cars has matured a bit more.

[VicParticipant @vic]

This is interesting.

**LINK**

[Author]

Posts