• 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    What biomass grows the fastest without being waterlogged - I imagine bamboo or sugarcane or something

    Grow that, and burn it to make carbon neutral steel; bonus points if you do it in a highrise/underground farm but frankly some medium term reversible environmental damage is preferable to killing off way more with climate change

    • Phineaz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Eh, purity is a thing. Biomass is the opposite of what you want there, but it could be doable. I do wager, however, that the largest “climate cost” of steel comes from the repeated melting of the steel.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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

        • Phineaz@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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

        • JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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.