www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 1 Visitante están viendo este tema.
It’s Time to Wake Up - The Currently Known Global Mineral Reserves Will Not Be Sufficient to Supply Enough Metals to Manufacture the Planned Non-fossil Fuel Industrial SystemsThe research report made by Associate Research Professor Simon Michaux from Geological Survey of Finland GTK shows that if we want to transition away from fossil fuels, mining of minerals and using recycled minerals and metals from industrial waste streams in new ways will have to increase greatly.No matter what minerals will be needed, we will need large quantities of them as the renewable power sources like wind and solar, require extensive mineral resources to manufacture the infrastructure for fossil-free energy.And there is a challenge. Given the estimated required number of Electric Vehicles (EV’s) of different vehicle class, it is clear that there are not enough minerals in the currently reported global reserves to build just one generation of batteries for all EV’s and stationary power storage, in the global industrial ecosystem as it is today.The World needs a new plan to build a genuinely sustainable non-fossil fuel industrial ecosystemDecisive actions need to be planned to diversify sustainable material/metal/mineral sourcing, where manufacture could be done with parallel technology systems that require different material chemistries. In doing so, current reported mineral reserves may be sufficient for long term supply.Key elements include developing new ways to utilize minerals, metals and materials of our industrial waste and to promote manufacture of easily recyclable products.Exploration for new mineral deposits, feasibility studies, and pilot scale tests of existing known deposits will be needed on an unprecedented scale, will be needed all over the world. The restructuring society and the industrial ecosystem to consume less and establish a new relationship with raw materials and energy might be needed.Metal levels towards low carbon worldWe need to change how we direct the use of materials to essential uses such as the construction of a new energy system instead of consumables.We also need to re-evaluate our current thinking. Is it sustainable to focus exclusively on lithium-ion battery chemistry? Are there alternatives (like fluoride or sodium-based chemistries)? How do we ensure materials supply to facilitate the development of the energy transition most sustainably in a systemic level, at a global scale? How could this be done with the assistance of primary and secondary metals extraction?Many systems and products that we currently take for granted may soon become impractical at current levels of consumption. For example, is it possible to invent solutions to change large-scale agriculture from its dependency on petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, or is there a role for small scale organic farming methods to produce the needed food products? Can the plastics industry be resourced with bioplastics, and if so, how much biomass can be harvested sustainably? If oil is to be no longer used to produce rubber, how will we manufacture car tires?It’s time to start the discussionParallel but complimentary solutions are needed to be implemented. Finland has the key industrial assets to develop a fully vertically integrated non-fossil fuel industrial ecosystem. Finland also has the capacity to mine minerals, refine them, produce chemicals, and smelt metals. If this was organized appropriately, Finland could develop an integrated ecosystem representing one entire end of the value chain, from minerals to refined chemical products. So, despite all the significant challenges, there is a huge opportunity to secure Finland’s economic future. Finland’s net position to transition away from fossil fuels is much stronger than many other nation states.Global ChallengeFossil fuels are to be phased out as they are widely recognized to be the origin of the industrial pollution that causes global warming. The largest driver of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases, of which more than 90% are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels – coal, oil, and gas – for energy consumption is the main source of these emissions, with additional contributions from agriculture, deforestation and industrial processes.Global consumption of fossil fuelsStrategic planners have developed a general plan to phase out fossil fuels. It focuses on replacing all fossil fuel-based Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles with Electric Vehicle Technology (EVT) and phasing out coal- and gas fired electrical power generation. While this is technologically viable, the GTK research shows that the current global reserves of raw materials needed to manufacture the renewable energy technologies are not sufficient in quantity to meet the needed supply requirements.Some of the challenges in the current plan:Unrealistic scheduleThere is not enough time, nor the resources to phase out fossil fuels by the current target dates set by the World’s most influential nations. The current plan is not large enough in scope, is missing vital elements and it does not consider how the different non-fossil fuel transport systems might interrelate.Smaller capacityThe planned future non-fossil fuel energy system may well be smaller in capacity than the current fossil fuel supported energy system, due to practical constraints. These constraints are not engineering in form but logistical.If the same non-fossil fuel energy mix as that reported in 2018 is assumed, then to deliver the required annual extra power (37 670.6 TWh globally), an extra 221,594 new non-fossil fuel power plants of average size (based on 2018 performance metrics) will be needed to be financed, constructed, commissioned then managed.Additional electrical power generation capacityLack of mineralsBy examining the number of battery units needed, the quantities of metals required for their manufacture was estimated. There is not enough lithium, cobalt or nickel in our currently reported global mineral reserves to produce just one generation of batteries, to phase out and replace the current existing ICE transport fleet and fossil fuel power generation systems. Those batteries have an estimated life cycle of approximately 10 years. This means even if technology improves by doubling efficiency, then the same quantity of metal has to be sourced from somewhere only 10 to 20 years later.Battery metals needed to phase out fossil fuelsNon-scalabilityBiofuel and Biomass are needed but they cannot be scaled-up. Biofuels form a technology perspective are quite viable and useful. The difficulty is in the sustainably sourcing of biomass at the required scale. If all petroleum products were replaced with biofuels (bio-gasoline produced from corn sourced ethanol and biodiesel produced from soybeans), then the area of arable land required to annually harvest the biomass from would be equivalent to the remaining forests across the planet. Clearly this is not practical. Biofuels may be the best way to keep the aviation industry operational.Non-scalabilityThe nuclear power plant (NPP) fleet cannot be expanded fast enough to be the primary energy source for the global industrial ecosystem. In 2018, nuclear power supplied 4.41% of global primary energy. A series of simulations were conducted to examine the potential for expansion. If the NPP fleet was left at its current profile, the current uranium resources of all kinds would last approximately 300 years. If the NPP fleet was aggressively expanded at a net rate of 25 new average sized Generation III+ reactors a year, the current uranium resources would last only 70 years, leaving a Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) stockpile of an equivalent quantity of current Uranium resources. That being stated, nuclear power may be the only practical way to deliver large quantities of reliable electrical power to industry. Unlike most other non-fossil fuel power systems, nuclear can operate at any geographical location in all weathers and all seasons. So nuclear will be a vital part of the future energy mix, but it needs to be managed appropriately.Current PlanThe general plan to phase out fossil fuels focuses on replacing all fossil fuel-based vehicles with Electric Vehicle Technology (EVT) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, while phasing out coal- and gas fired electrical power generation.In practice this means four major tasks1. Replacing current vehicles with electric and hydrogen vehiclesThe current petroleum product fueled ICE vehicles are to be phased out and substituted with Electric Vehicles (EV) powered with lithium-ion batteries, and vehicles powered with Hydrogen Fuel cells (H2-Cell).2. Phasing out coal and gas fired electrical power generationPhasing out coal and gas fired electrical power generation and replacing it with solar photovoltaic, wind turbine, hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal or biowaste to energy power stations.Global proportions3. Heating buildings without the use of gas or coalCurrently, this is done predominantly with gas. This study substituted the gas heating systems with electrical heating systems. In some geographical areas, it may be possible to supply the needed heat with geothermal systems.4. Creating a hydrogen economyIt was recomended in this study that all long-range vehicles and/or heavy vehicles be powered with hydrogen fuel cell systems. This means all HCV semi-trailer trucks, all the intercity rail transport network, and the global maritime shipping fleet, all be hydrogen fuel cell powered. Hydrogen is not an energy fuel, but an energy carrier. It first needs to be manufactured, then stored, and then transported. To do this without fossil fuels requires extra electricity to be drawn of the power grid to produce hydrogen with electrolysis.Phase out fossil fuelsWake-up CallThe new GTK research investigated how many electric vehicles, H-cells, biofuels, solar panels, and wind turbines would be needed to completely phase out fossil fuels. During the research, it was noted that previous studies have significantly underestimated the number of electric vehicles to be replaced and supported, which in turn produces a lower estimate of the size of the required electrical power grid.The current policy targets (for example European Parliament) hope to have 30% of the global energy and transport system to be renewable by the year 2030, which is just 8 years away. Unfortunately, the report data indicates that we do not have time to deploy this strategy.30% of the global vehicle fleet becomes EV by 202330% of the global vehicle fleet becomes EV by 2023Previous studies also examined only part of the requirements for a new global system. Either the study was limited to one nation (such as the United States), or only examined passenger cars, and did not include trucks, rail, or maritime shipping. Also, it is unclear how estimates for the number of vehicles in general was conducted. The need for stationary power storage to act as a buffer for intermitent electricity supply from systems like wind and solar did not seem to be considered in estimates for battery volumes.This is problematic as the construction of EV’s, and H-cell vehicles is very much an international business, where all manufacturers are dependent on a complex 6 continent supply chain. The only nation state that is capable of being truly self-sufficient is China. All other nations must work together to achieve their goals.Avarage annual VMT by vehicle typeThe Good NewsRegardless of the challenges, non-fossil fuel system substitution for the current ICE technology is technologically viable. The major challenge is how to produce enough of these substitute non-fossil systems to perform the same tasks as before, on a global scale. There are solutions:Today, a lot of secondary materials, such as furnace ash, smelter slag, and industrial process by product dust, are sent for studies to examine their potential to contain industrially useful metals and minerals. There is enormous potential for this, which is being developed in the Circular Economy.In parallel to the electric vehicle fleet, a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell powered transport network could be useful. The report suggests that all short-range vehicle transport should be electrified and all long range transport and freight transport were to be powered with a hydrogen fuel cell system. This will require extra capacity from the electrical power grid.Biofuels may be the most sensile way to keep aviation going and biomass can be used to produce bioplastics, replacing a proportion of the existing plastics industry.In the manufacturing industry, remaining hydrocarbon energy could be used to secure the time to develop the new industrial ecosystem.Solar and geothermal cannot directly replace heating applications. Nuclear power can be expanded moderately from the current capacity to support some industrial operations and heating buildings through winter, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.Time to DiscussThe current plan of non-fossil fuel system substitution for ICE technology is technologically viable. However, the GTK research points out clearly that the challenge now is how to produce enough of these substitute non-fossil systems to perform the same tasks as before, on a global scale.If it turns out that each geographical region will need to become more self-sufficient, nations must still work together to achieve their goals. So, let’s start the discussion to evolve the current plan. You can use the four themes and the related report findings listed below as your guide.Theme 1: How can we produce enough of these substitute non-fossil systems to perform the same tasks as currently, on a global scale?Most of the planned non-fossil substitute technologies are less efficient than the fossil systems they are replacing. The challenges in front of us now are unprecedented in scale, yet we need to achieve them in a few short decades. To phase out fossil fuels and attend to tasks like cleaning up the planet environment, and then develop new markets like the space industry, requires a reliable energy source (an ERoEI ratio of something like 50:1 or even higher) that is available to most of the human population. The existing fossil fuels are not effective enough, nor appropriate. Renewable technologies in their current form are not strong enough to meet these requirements.Additional electrical power generation capacityNote that renewable energy power stations are not as productive as fossil fuel power stations. To replace a single average sized coal fired power station would requrie many avergae sized wind trubine arrays or solar farms.Nuclear-generated electrical power is the only existing non-fossil fuel power system that can reliably deliver large quantities of concentrated electrical power in all weather conditions, 365 days a year but the fleet cannot be expanded fast enough to be useful in delivering enough electricity to completely phase out fossil fuels.Annual power produced by single average plantThe nuclear power plant (NPP) fleet cannot be expanded fast enough to be the primary energy source for the global industrial ecosystem. In 2018, nuclear power supplied 4.41% of global primary energy. A series of simulations were conducted to examine the potential for expansion. If the NPP fleet was left at its current profile, the current uranium resources of all kinds would last approximately 300 years. If the NPP fleet was aggressively expanded at a net rate of 25 new average sized Generation III+ reactors a year, the current uranium resources would last only 70 years, leaving a Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) stockpile of an equivalent quantity of current Uranium resources. That being stated, nuclear power may be the only practical way to deliver large quantities of reliable electrical power to industry. Unlike most other non-fossil fuel power systems, nuclear can operate at any geographical location in all weathers and all seasons. So nuclear will be a vital part of the future energy mix, but it needs to be managed appropriately.Global primary energy consumption 2018CitarLet’s discuss. How can we produce enough of these substitute non-fossil systems to perform the same tasks as currently, on a global scale? To phase out fossil fuels and attend to tasks like cleaning up the planet environment, and then develop new markets like the space industry, requires a reliable energy source (an ERoEI ratio of something like 50:1 or even higher) that is available to most of the human population. The existing fossil fuels are not effective enough, nor appropriate. Renewable technologies in their current form are not strong enough to meet these requirements.Theme 2: The current paradigm is to focus exclusively on lithium ion battery chemistry, to the exclusion of all other possible chemical systems that could be resourced with different minerals. Is this a sustainable solution?Global reserves may not be enough to resource the quantity of batteries required. Current focus is on lithium ion batteries to the exclusion of all other possible plans. The GTK report shows that we will not have enough lithium, cobalt or nickel to produce the needed volume of batteries, to phase out and replace the current existing ICE transport fleet and fossil fuel power generation systems.The projected numbers for electric vehicles, batteries and H2-Cell vehicles to be manufactured is much bigger than estimated earlier. In 2019, only 0.51% of the global fleet was currently electric, which means that 99.49% of the global fleet is yet to be replaced. Preliminary calculations show that global reserves, let alone global production, may not be enough to resource the quantity of batteries required.Battery metals needed to phase out fossil fuelsThe above figures shows clearly that the lithium ion battery solution for power storage stations will not work. There are not enough minerals in current global reserves, and there is not enough time or capacity to explore and discover the required additional volume. This is a problem as lithium ion battery power stations were the favored solution to mitigate intermittency of renewable power generation.CitarLet’s discuss. Basically, the current paradigm is to focus exclusively on lithium ion battery chemistry, to the exclusion of all other possible chemical systems that could be resourced with different minerals. There are many examples of alternative systems like vanadium or sodium chemistry battery systems being presented conceptually, but when it comes to the serious development of large-scale applications, for the last 5-10 years, the focus has been Li-Ion batteries. Is this the sustainable choice or should multiple different batteries chemistries be developed in parallel?Theme 3: Biofuel and Biomass are needed but cannot be scaled-up. Can we evaluate what can and cannot be sustainably harvested, meaning a more balanced assessment of what the biomass should be used for?The footprint of the proposed biofuel production done at a scale large enough to substitute petroleum product consumption far exceeds the planetary environmental capability. The problem centers around the required volume of biofuel needed vs. the global arable land availability, and the global availability of freshwater.To harvest enough biomass to produce the required volume of biofuel to match the annual consumption of petroleum products (gasoline and diesel), then a land area the equivalent of all remaining forests on the planet would be required to be harvested each year.Existing global water withdrawalsLand needed to grow biofuelAs can be seen in “Scenario D: Existing global water…”, the required additional fresh water for biofuels is approximately 9 times the existing global freshwater withdrawals.However, biofuel production technologies work well on a small-scale. The issues raised only become unmanageable when examining what is required to scaleup production to replace petroleum.Biofuels can be directly applied to existing ICE technologies with minor modifications. They are recommended to fuel a small proportion of the aviation industry. Biomass is recommended to produce bioplastics, replacing a proportion of the existing plastics industry. The question then becomes what sort of rate of harvest of biomass from the environment is genuinely sustainable?CitarLet’s discuss. Finland has a very strong biomass economy that is already being harvested for the forestry industry. In particular any increase in the harvest of wood biomass may not be sustainable. It is recommended that a comprehensive sustainability audit be conducted (that includes the use of petrochemical fertilizers). Once established what can and cannot be sustainably harvested, a more balanced assessment of what the biomass should be used for can be done.Theme 4: Industrial fertilizers are manufactured with the use of among other things, gas. There is not any viable solution that can replace this action at an industrial scale yet. Could food production be reorganized to be supplied from several small scale organic farming operations?Approximately 9 % of global gas demand is used to produce ammonia for the industrial manufacture of fertilizer, which in turn is critical for global food production. This fossil fuel consumption stream needs to be addressed in some form. At the time of writing the GTK report (2021), the author was unable to cite any viable substitute for the use of natural gas in the production of petrochemical fertilizers. This means that eventually, industrial agriculture will not be able to operate the way it does now. At this time, the only alternative is a widespread return to small scale organic farming methods to produce food. This could be a more effective way of achieving long term sustainable land stewardship.CitarLet’s discuss. It is recommended to consider the phasing out of large-scale industrial agriculture, with its dependency on petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Food production could be reorganized to be supplied from several local to consumption small scale organic farming operations.Theme 5: The logistical challenges to replace fossil fuels are enormous. It may be so much simpler to reduce demand for energy and raw materials in general. This will require a restructuring of society and its expectations, resulting in a new social contract. Is it time to restructure society and the industrial ecosystem to consume less?For the last 200 years, the industrial ecosystem has grown at an unprecedented rate, which has been facilitated with the discovery and use of fossil fuels. Human population is also at an unprecedented size, requiring ever more natural resources each passing year. The fundamentals that allowed this to happen are dependent of finite nonrenewable natural resources (oil, gas, and coal). To transition away from fossil fuels will require the redesigning, retooling and reconstruction of the entire industrial ecosystem.As the energy source at the foundation of the new industrial system will be different to what is used now, that industrial ecosystem will operate to a different set of limitations and capabilities.Scenarios for FinlandFinland has a unique net position for the potential to continue industrial production without the use of fossil fuels. However, the material and energy demand for attaining such a position are larger than current thinking and strategic planning allow. To replace all fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal, peat) in their various applications in Finland, a great deal of new Finnish industrial infrastructure is required to be financed, constructed, and then managed. Four researchers created six scenarios for how replacing fossil fuels in Finland could be done.The study was conducted by Simon P. Michaux, Geological Survey of Finland GTK, Tere Vadén, BIOS Research Unit, Janne M. Korhonen LUT University and Jussi T. Eronen, Helsinki University and BIOS Research Unit. It examined what would be required to replace the Finnish fossil fuel industrial ecosystem as it is now. The six scenarios developed show the different options for how the various solutions could fit together.“Completely phasing out fossil fuels in Finland is possible, but it requires an honest assessment of all the pieces of the puzzle together, and how they are integrated. With the scenarios, we wanted to lay the research-based foundation for decision making in this very important challenge. Given the material and energy needs and the amount of available time, a significant reduction of societal demand for energy and resources is something that needs to be taken seriously in any future scenario,” says Simon Michaux, GTK.Direct and complete Finnish system replacement would need around 140 TWh (see figure). For example, to produce this amount of energy would require approximately 7,400 new wind turbines (6.6 MW capacity) to be built.As current annual wood harvests are already close to maximum sustainable levels, any significant increase in the provision of liquid biofuel from wood biomass is possible only by reducing the biomass volume used by the forest industry.All 6 scenarios require some contraction of the existing forestry industry, where some biomass is harvested, but within recommended sustainable limits. Two studies of what was considered a sustainable annual biomass wood harvest were used. The National Resources Institute estimates a limit of 80.5 Mm3 for annual long-term sustainable harvests of wood biomass (Luke 2021). Another study recommended this annual harvest be limited to 70 Mm3 (WWF Finland 2015). Both recommendations were used in all 6 scenarios.Climate change challenge can only be avoided with a rapid (within 10–15 years) end of fossil fuel use. In addition, the production of oil and gas are becoming more unreliable, creating bottlenecks and disruptions. Geopolitical events may cause the voluntary or involuntary cessation of imports from one or several international sources.Summary of 6 scenarios for a non-fossil fuel future in FinlandScenario 1: Full Spectrum Electric (Current footprint)All new power production and all transport electrical.To supply the extra 170.45 TWh, 131 new Lestijärvi scale wind farms constructed (1.3 TWh/a), i.e. 9,039 wind turbines of 6.6 MW capacity (59.7 GW in total).Required stationary power storage for buffer new wind generation station fleet @ 4 weeks’ capacity, 13.11 TWh.No extra wood biomass to be annually harvested.Scenario 2: Max Biomass (Current footprint)Finnish wood biomass used as much as possible in CHP plants and for biofuels.ICE vehicles, including trucks, aviation and maritime shipping, all powered with biofuels.To supply extra the 49.72 TWh, 38 new Lestijärvi scale wind farms constructed (2,622 wind turbines of 6.6 MW capacity, 17.3 GW in total).Required stationary power storage for buffer new wind generation station fleet @ 4 weeks’ capacity, 3.82 TWh.Downgrade forest industry by -100% (assuming a harvest level of 80.5 Mm3/a) and still have a biomass shortfall.Scenario 3: Hybrid 1 (Current footprint)Combination of electrical power from wind turbines with wood biomass fuelled CHP plants supplying all heating requirements.To supply the extra 138.67 TWh, 107 new Lestijärvi scale wind farms constructed (7,383 wind turbines of 6.6 MW capacity, 48.7 GW in total).Required stationary power storage for buffer new wind generation station fleet @ 4 weeks’ capacity, 10.67 TWh.Downgrade forest industry by -21.56% (assuming a harvest level of 80.5 Mm3/a).Scenario 4: Hybrid 2 with Geothermal (Current footprint)Residential building heat through heat pumps sourcing shallow (300 m) geothermal wells; industrial heat through wood biomass fuelled CHP plants.Extra electrical power the same profile as Scenario 3, 138.67 TWh, 107 Lestijärvi scale wind farms (48.7 GW total installed capacity), 10.67 TWh buffer stationary storage.Downgrade forest industry by -6.65% (assuming a harvest level of 80.5 Mm3/a).Scenario 5: No Action (No new capacity constructed; fossil fuels phased out)No new power generation capacity; all fossil fuels phased out. All new heating CHP wood biomass sourced.To meet the challenge, consumption demand for power consumption reduced to 50.5%. Half existing non-fossil fuel power production re-tasked for the production of hydrogen and charging of EV batteries.Annual distance travelled by short range vehicles and trucks reduced by 66%. Annual distance travelled by maritime transport fleet reduced by 75%.Downgrade forest industry by -10.25% (assuming a harvest level of 80.5 Mm3/a).Scenario 6: Planned Sustainability (Managed footprint contraction 50%)Demand for power consumption reduced by 50%. Half fossil fuel electrical power generation replaced. Residential building heat through heat pumps sourcing shallow (600 m) geothermal wells; industrial heat through wood biomass fuelled CHP plants.50% of non-fossil fuel power production re-tasked for the production of hydrogen and the charging of EV batteries (26.98 TWh). Annual distance travelled by short range vehicles, trucks and maritime transport fleet reduced by 50%.To supply the required extra 35.25 TWh, 27 new Lestijärvi scale wind farms constructed (1,863 wind turbines of 6.6 MW capacity, 12.29 GW in total).Required stationary power storage for buffer new wind generation station fleet @ 4 weeks’ capacity, 2.71 TWh.Downgrade forest industry by -1% (assuming a harvest level of 80.5 Mm3/a).More information“Assessment of the scope of tasks to completely phase out fossil fuels in Finland” reportAssociate Professor Simon Michauxtel. +358 29 503 2158, simon.michaux@gtk.fiDownloadsA novel bottom-up approach (as opposed to the typical top-down approach) was used to make the calculations presented in the report. Previous studies have also tended to focus on estimated costs of production and CO2 footprint metrics, whereas the present report is based on the physical material requirements. All data, figures and diagrams have been created or reproduced from publicly available sources and are cited appropriately.The research report made by Associate Research Professor Simon Michaux from Geological Survey of Finland GTK.You can download the report and the related materials below:The full reportSummary of the reportTime to wake up presentation slidesPress release in English | Press release in FinnishImage kit (includes graphics and a photo of Simon)Further informationSimon P. Michaux, Associate Professorsimon.michaux@gtk.fiTel. +358 29 503 2158Saku Vuori, Director, Science and Innovationssaku.vuori@gtk.fiTel. +359 29 503 2459
Let’s discuss. How can we produce enough of these substitute non-fossil systems to perform the same tasks as currently, on a global scale? To phase out fossil fuels and attend to tasks like cleaning up the planet environment, and then develop new markets like the space industry, requires a reliable energy source (an ERoEI ratio of something like 50:1 or even higher) that is available to most of the human population. The existing fossil fuels are not effective enough, nor appropriate. Renewable technologies in their current form are not strong enough to meet these requirements.
Let’s discuss. Basically, the current paradigm is to focus exclusively on lithium ion battery chemistry, to the exclusion of all other possible chemical systems that could be resourced with different minerals. There are many examples of alternative systems like vanadium or sodium chemistry battery systems being presented conceptually, but when it comes to the serious development of large-scale applications, for the last 5-10 years, the focus has been Li-Ion batteries. Is this the sustainable choice or should multiple different batteries chemistries be developed in parallel?
Let’s discuss. Finland has a very strong biomass economy that is already being harvested for the forestry industry. In particular any increase in the harvest of wood biomass may not be sustainable. It is recommended that a comprehensive sustainability audit be conducted (that includes the use of petrochemical fertilizers). Once established what can and cannot be sustainably harvested, a more balanced assessment of what the biomass should be used for can be done.
Let’s discuss. It is recommended to consider the phasing out of large-scale industrial agriculture, with its dependency on petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Food production could be reorganized to be supplied from several local to consumption small scale organic farming operations.
China cuts lending rate as economic data disappoint and Covid cases riseCentral bank intervenes after consumer and factory activity in July fall short of expectationsChina has cut a crucial lending rate in an effort to shore up growth as the world’s second-biggest economy is buffeted by repeated lockdowns and a worsening property downturn.The People’s Bank of China on Monday reduced the medium-term lending rate, through which it provides one-year loans to the banking system, by 10 basis points to 2.75 per cent, the first cut since January. Analysts polled by Bloomberg had expected the PBoC to leave the rate unchanged.The decision highlighted deepening anxiety in Beijing as it tries to combat a months-long decline in consumer demand triggered by its drawn-out zero-Covid policy, as well as the fallout from cash-strapped property developers and slowing global growth.Despite Beijing’s plans to inject hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus to boost growth, China’s economy only narrowly escaped a contraction in the second quarter.Official statistics released on Monday reflected worse than expected consumer and factory activity as the pace of the country’s economic recovery drags.Retail sales, an important gauge of consumption, rose 2.7 per cent year on year in July while industrial production, a growth driver earlier in the pandemic, was 3.8 per cent higher. Analysts had forecast rises of 5 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively.Experts expect China’s economic slowdown to prompt looser monetary policy and fiscal stimulus, but some are pessimistic about the scale and pace of Beijing’s response.“China’s growth in [the second half] will be significantly hindered by its zero-Covid strategy, the downward spiral of the property markets, and a likely slowdown of export growth. Beijing’s policy support could be too little, too late and too inefficient,” said Ting Lu, Nomura’s chief China economist.Analysts also noted that Beijing’s central bankers had been reluctant to lower rates amid concerns about rising debt and inflation.(...)
PwC scraps 2:1 entry requirement for graduates(...) PwC said the move is intended to “further diversify its graduate intake through broader access to talented young people, who may not have the top academic achievements but have the attributes and all round proven capabilities for a career with the firm”.It could unlock a graduate pool of over 70,000 more students a year. There are four pass marks on the UK university grading system, with 2:1 and first class marks the top two rungs on the ladder.City firms have been grappling with intense worker shortages over the last year, partly caused by young people staying in education to wait until the jobs market picks up after it was hit by the Covid-19 crisis.
CIFRAS, EXTRAPOLACIONES, ESCASEZ, ABUNDANCIA Y SOBRANTESCita de: Cadavre Exquis en Agosto 12, 2022, 07:06:51 amAntonio Turiel [...]D. ¿Sigue el hidrógeno verde en auge y el coche eléctrico o es mejor la energía solar y el coche del hidrogeno?A.T. El coche eléctrico es una quimera. Requiere muchísimos materiales que son limitados en el planeta, y todos ellos dependen de los combustibles fósiles para su extracción. Hay hoy en día 1.400 millones de coches en el planeta. Nunca habrá 1.400 millones de coches eléctricos: no hay suficientes materiales para ello, como muestra la profesora Alicia Valero, jefa del grupo de Ecología Industrial de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Nunca habrá un coche de hidrógeno verde.La tecnología del hidrógeno verde aplicada al transporte requiere tantos o más materiales que el coche eléctrico, y a eso se le tiene que añadir las enormes pérdidas de la transformación desde la electricidad verde hasta el hidrógeno verde usado en el transporte. No hay futuro para este modelo de vehículo a escala masiva. Es tan simple como eso. Aceptémoslo. Se tendrá que compartir o alquilar, y solo los muy ricos tendrán coche en propiedad.[...]Citas de A. Valero (U. Zaragoza):Citarhttps://www.comillas.edu/images/catedraBP/Presentacion%20Alicia%20Valero.pdf- [pg. 13/27]: Gráfico inferior derecho: 'World Fleet Evolution 2016-2050'. [1.400 Mill. de vehículos es flota total prevista para ¡2050!, solo unos 400 Mill. en 2050 serían BEV, 400 Mill. ICE y 600 Mill. PHEV; la flota (prevista en 2016) para 2022, sería 1.000 Mill.]- [pg. 17/27]: La demanda de 2016-2050 podría ser mayor que las reservas para:Ag, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, In, Li, Mn, Ni, Pb, Pt, Te, ZnSobre 'escasez' de materiales para VE, se matiza con un 'podría ser', ya que extrapola demanda actual hasta 2050. Supuesto implícito: 'ceteris paribus' para cantidad demandada, y para técnicas:- extractivas mineras (v. gr., ya se vende maquinaria minera eléctrica [1],- procesado químico,- reciclaje, e- I+D, como otros tipos de baterías con componentes mas abundantes o baratos (como Na).Tanto si Turiel acierta con un colapso a corto plazo (¿petróleo a 200$ antes de 2025?) como si se pospone hasta 2030 o 2040, considero muy improbable que llegue a haber 1.400 millones de VE (vehículos eléctricos puros) en 2050. Pero tal vez la ingeniería pudiera hacerlo posible, con los actuales u otros materiales.La transición energética en la que ya estamos, para el sector automoción tendería a redistribuir los recursos escasos, reduciendo el derroche, compartiendo vehículo, con mas transporte público y de mercancías en tren, como plantea Turiel.Tanto por viviendas vacías, como por vehículos aparcados, los recursos derrochados por sobrecapacidad ociosa, son la gran mina por explotar.La divulgación de Turiel y su preocupación social, me recuerdan la antigua propuesta bíblica de José al Faraón: graneros para almacenar excedentes tras las vacas gordas.CitarAl levantar los ojos, Jesús vio que una gran multitud acudía a él y dijo a Felipe: «¿Dónde compraremos pan para darles de comer?».El decía esto para ponerlo a prueba, porque sabía bien lo que iba a hacer.Felipe le respondió: «Doscientos denarios no bastarían para que cada uno pudiera comer un pedazo de pan».Uno de sus discípulos, Andrés, el hermano de Simón Pedro, le dijo:«Aquí hay un niño que tiene cinco panes de cebada y dos pescados, pero ¿qué es esto para tanta gente?».Jesús le respondió: «Háganlos sentar». Había mucho pasto en ese lugar. Todos se sentaron y eran unos cinco mil hombres.Jesús tomó los panes, dio gracias y los distribuyó a los que estaban sentados. Lo mismo hizo con los pescados, dándoles todo lo que quisieron.Cuando todos quedaron satisfechos, Jesús dijo a sus discípulos: «Recojan los pedazos que sobran, para que no se pierda nada».Los recogieron y llenaron doce canastas con los pedazos que sobraron de los cinco panes de cebada. [Juan 6, 5-13 ] Saludos.______[1] https://www.epiroc.com/es-es/innovation-and-technology/zero-emission
Antonio Turiel [...]D. ¿Sigue el hidrógeno verde en auge y el coche eléctrico o es mejor la energía solar y el coche del hidrogeno?A.T. El coche eléctrico es una quimera. Requiere muchísimos materiales que son limitados en el planeta, y todos ellos dependen de los combustibles fósiles para su extracción. Hay hoy en día 1.400 millones de coches en el planeta. Nunca habrá 1.400 millones de coches eléctricos: no hay suficientes materiales para ello, como muestra la profesora Alicia Valero, jefa del grupo de Ecología Industrial de la Universidad de Zaragoza. Nunca habrá un coche de hidrógeno verde.La tecnología del hidrógeno verde aplicada al transporte requiere tantos o más materiales que el coche eléctrico, y a eso se le tiene que añadir las enormes pérdidas de la transformación desde la electricidad verde hasta el hidrógeno verde usado en el transporte. No hay futuro para este modelo de vehículo a escala masiva. Es tan simple como eso. Aceptémoslo. Se tendrá que compartir o alquilar, y solo los muy ricos tendrán coche en propiedad.[...]
https://www.comillas.edu/images/catedraBP/Presentacion%20Alicia%20Valero.pdf- [pg. 13/27]: Gráfico inferior derecho: 'World Fleet Evolution 2016-2050'. [1.400 Mill. de vehículos es flota total prevista para ¡2050!, solo unos 400 Mill. en 2050 serían BEV, 400 Mill. ICE y 600 Mill. PHEV; la flota (prevista en 2016) para 2022, sería 1.000 Mill.]- [pg. 17/27]: La demanda de 2016-2050 podría ser mayor que las reservas para:Ag, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, In, Li, Mn, Ni, Pb, Pt, Te, Zn
Al levantar los ojos, Jesús vio que una gran multitud acudía a él y dijo a Felipe: «¿Dónde compraremos pan para darles de comer?».El decía esto para ponerlo a prueba, porque sabía bien lo que iba a hacer.Felipe le respondió: «Doscientos denarios no bastarían para que cada uno pudiera comer un pedazo de pan».Uno de sus discípulos, Andrés, el hermano de Simón Pedro, le dijo:«Aquí hay un niño que tiene cinco panes de cebada y dos pescados, pero ¿qué es esto para tanta gente?».Jesús le respondió: «Háganlos sentar». Había mucho pasto en ese lugar. Todos se sentaron y eran unos cinco mil hombres.Jesús tomó los panes, dio gracias y los distribuyó a los que estaban sentados. Lo mismo hizo con los pescados, dándoles todo lo que quisieron.Cuando todos quedaron satisfechos, Jesús dijo a sus discípulos: «Recojan los pedazos que sobran, para que no se pierda nada».Los recogieron y llenaron doce canastas con los pedazos que sobraron de los cinco panes de cebada. [Juan 6, 5-13 ]
Buenos días, Cadavre mira a ver si puedes hacer tu magia, me juego todo a que dice que el mercado inmobiliario español está sanísimo.El español que vigila las burbujas inmobiliarias en la Fed estadounidenseEnrique Martínez García es economista sénior del banco central de EE UU y trabaja desde hace más de una década con las estadísticas de precio de vivienda: “Me preocupa muchísimo Alemania”, asegurahttps://elpais.com/economia/2022-08-15/el-espanol-que-vigila-las-burbujas-inmobiliarias-en-la-fed-estadounidense.html
Cita de: Negrule en Agosto 15, 2022, 10:44:43 amBuenos días, Cadavre mira a ver si puedes hacer tu magia, me juego todo a que dice que el mercado inmobiliario español está sanísimo.El español que vigila las burbujas inmobiliarias en la Fed estadounidenseEnrique Martínez García es economista sénior del banco central de EE UU y trabaja desde hace más de una década con las estadísticas de precio de vivienda: “Me preocupa muchísimo Alemania”, asegurahttps://elpais.com/economia/2022-08-15/el-espanol-que-vigila-las-burbujas-inmobiliarias-en-la-fed-estadounidense.htmlSaludos.