Where do greenhouse gasses come from? (Chapter 3: Emissions from energy consumption in industrial processes)
Original article posted on my blog at chainergy.net here see:https://chainergy.net/2021/09/27/where-do-greenhouse-gasses-come-from-chapter-3-emissions-from-energy-consumption-in-industrial-processes/
(please subscribe to my blog...please....)
We continue our analysis of CO2 emissions by sector with a?big one: emissions produced by energy use in industry.
We are talking here about the energy usage directly linked to certain industrial processes, and it we are talking about a big one. Roughly a quarter of all the CO2 emissions come from energy production directed connected to industrial processes.
What does we do with this information? We can start to think a bit where the big potential for CO2 savings might be.
However it also points out at what kind of monumental task we are talking about.
So which industries are the worse offenders in this category?
Let’s look at it.
·???????Steel industry, 7.2%. And here we do not consider the amount of direct emissions connected to steel production, which are also substantial
·???????Chemical and petrochemical, 3.6%
·???????Food and tobacco, 1%. Again here is only direct energy usage: agriculture and food production is also responsible for another 18% of global direct emissions
·???????Non ferrous metals 0.7%
·???????Paper and pulp, 0.6%
·???????Machinery 0.5%
·???????“other” meaning everything else, 10.6% with a certain dispersion.
What can we do with this data? The first consideration is steel. There is a lot of talk of “green steel” and apparently in Sweden the first pilot plants of “green steel” are being put to test.
However by green steel we intend steel produced without using coal. We are talking hence about reduction of direct emission. However the issue with steel is that steel itself (which is, grossly speaking, a mix of Iron, carbon and other metals) is a terrible product from a greenhouse gas standpoint. Because it emits both directly during the process AND requires disproportionate amounts of energy. And for both aims it uses coal.
Hybrit, the Swedish process producing green steel, is using a model that looks very promising. But that affects mostly the direct emissions. Not the energy related one.
领英推荐
The issue connected with it is cost and, obviously, the required amount of renewable energy necessary to power such a process. And cost wise is yet to be competitive with the conventional process.
And from this we can draw a first important conclusion form our first 3 chapters.
The bulk of GHG emissions is connected with energy production. That’s where the biggest potential for reduction of CO2 lies.?Electricity generation is the single biggest emitter, and it is also where the most efforts should be addressed. At the end of the day, worldwide, about a third of all the power generation happens thanks to Coal (and to a much higher degree in places like China and India).
The bulk of GHG emissions is connected with energy production. That’s where the biggest potential for reduction of CO2 lies.?Electricity generation is the single biggest emitter, and it is also where the most efforts should be addressed. At the end of the day, worldwide, about a third of all the power generation happens thanks to Coal (and to a much higher degree in places like China and India).
Coal is cheap, and provides a very reliable source of energy. To power industrial processes, we need reliable energy.
Renewables are not yet reliable. This is a problem. It is a problem from a generation standpoint, and it is a problem from an energy transmission standpoint.
Yet the effect of replacing the use of coal with renewables by, say, 10%, would yield higher returns, in terms of net emissions reduction, higher than electrifying all the transport sector and getting rid of all the aviation emissions.
Think of that for a second. The reason why there is so much focus on a minor source of emissions as aviation (and by the way no, I am NOT paid by aviation companies) and less on bigger issues is simple: this id a problem of monumental proportions, and governments do not like to tell their citizens that the utility bill is going to go up because of energy transition.
Why it goes up, you might say? Renewables are cheap! Yes they are. In terms of running costs. But they require investments in transmission, in balancing the grid (more on that in a specific article) and more than anything, in storage. Large scale storage facilities, except for hydropower, are not cheap neither to build nor to run. And to ensure energy security, governments have actually to keep (whatever a certain kind of “greens” might say) on line polluting plants to cover for demand peak or for when the renewables are not there to meet demand. And guess who pays this cost?
Yep, it’s you, my dear consumer/taxpayer.
to ensure energy security, governments have actually to keep (whatever a certain kind of “greens” might say) on line polluting plants to cover for demand peak or for when the renewables are not there to meet demand. And guess who pays this cost?
Yep, it’s you, my dear consumer/taxpayer.
However one thing is sure: there is no choice but to tackle the issue.
Burt the only way to tackle it is to make informed decisions. This is why this stuff matters. Next time you hear a politician making bold claims about CO2 reduction, keep these figures in the back of your mind.
the only way to tackle it is to make informed decisions. This is why this stuff matters. Next time you hear a politician making bold claims about CO2 reduction, keep these figures in the back of your mind.
It might help you understand who is really interested in tackling the issue, and who is, figuratively speaking, full of gasses.