
New technology for aluminum production promises zero CO2 emission - dagurp
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/06/24/iceland_s_co2_emissions_could_be_reduced_by_a_third/
======
DavidPeiffer
I'm not certain the differences, but there's been a similar effort as a joint
venture between Alcoa, Rio Tinto, and Apple to clean up the aluminum smelting
process. [1]

The aluminum industry is notorious for having incredibly high energy
requirements, and being price sensitive to changes in energy contracts. The
economics behind smelters are challenging and at an unimaginable scale. Having
an electricity interruption of more than a handful of hours can cause the
aluminum in-process to solidify, causing tens of millions of dollars in damage
to the smelter and requiring months to fix. This paper [2] describes a
framework for making decisions to enter/exit a market based on variability of
inputs, investment required to exit/enter, etc. While the example in the paper
is focused around renewable energy, it can be applied to other types of
facilities. We covered this paper for about 2 weeks during undergrad, which at
the time was painful, but it _was_ one of the most interesting papers and
concepts I've read.

A great video outlining the refining process is available in [3]. Having
worked there, I promise the safety at Alcoa is now far superior to what's
shown in the video. Paul O'Neill hadn't become CEO yet [4].

[1] [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/05/apple-paves-the-
way-f...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/05/apple-paves-the-way-for-
breakthrough-carbon-free-aluminum-smelting-method/)

[2] [https://www.imse.iastate.edu/wp-
content/blogs.dir/16/files/2...](https://www.imse.iastate.edu/wp-
content/blogs.dir/16/files/2012/11/tee-mlw-061212.pdf)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wPJp-
hasU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wPJp-hasU)

[4] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2019/01/22/have-
we-l...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2019/01/22/have-we-learned-
the-alcoa-keystone-habit-lesson/#1405482858ba)

~~~
briffle
I think its interesting in the Northwest, Huge Dams were built on the Columbia
River to power Hanford (and the Manhattan Project) and the large glut of power
after it was scaled back made it cheap to move Aluminum Smelters there. (and
to Send 3GW of Super High Voltage DC power to LA from near Portland) Then, in
the 90's, when power got more expensive (and more environmental rules) they
moved them all overseas. That left a huge glut of Power in the area. So now,
Facebook, Microsoft, AWS, Google All built their datacenters there.

~~~
s0rce
Was Hanford there for power or for cooling water (and general remoteness so
people didn't die in an accident)? Can't remember but I worked at PNNL for a
few years.

Still lots of aluminum smelting with hydropower in Canada.

------
hinkley
I just caught a video the other day about manufacturing on the moon. He
referred to this kind of research being a potential game changer for lunar
colonization.

There are many metal oxides on the moon, and if you were trying to construct a
habitat then a reduction reaction gives you industrial feedstocks and Oxygen
to breathe. But electrolytic refinement of aluminum produces CO2 via the
sacrificial anode, so you need a different chemistry to avoid that, or a
steady graphite supply and a lot of photosynthesis.

He also mentioned that you can use electrolysis to refine iron, but that we
have cheaper (but much heavier) terrestrial options.

~~~
travisporter
Would love to watch it! Is there a good youtube channel or book for this sort
of ISRU stuff? The ones I have found are too hand-wavy

~~~
haldora
I helped write a report [1] about the state of the Space Resources industry
for 2019. This report should get you up to speed on the science, engineering,
and law/policy going on in the field.

Our website specifically covers ISRU, including a monthly newsletter and
sporadic articles (including one published this morning about minimizing lunar
dust kick-up when landing vehicles on the Moon).

[1] [https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2020/the-space-
resourc...](https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2020/the-space-resource-
report)

------
hannob
I feel this is one of those articles where lots of important information is
missing.

Do they have any expectations on how expensive this process will be? Is there
a chance that it's cheaper than existing processes or will it cost more? Is
this plant they plan to build subsidized? Do they have plans to enforce this
technology?

Ultimately for every green technology there's a simple truth: It's only going
to be successful if a) it's cheaper than existing technology or b) it's going
to be required or incentivized by law.

I've been seeing too many articles about fancy new green technologies that
promise so much. The problem is: Most of them never happen at scale. Because
they're usually more expensive and there's no political will to enforce them.

~~~
dagurp
Unfortunately this is the only article I can find in English. I recommend
looking at the youtube video I already posted. They claim it will run at a
lower temperature and use less space.

------
wolfi1
When I read the headline I thought to myself: Great, the tackled the
overvoltage problem successfully. In electrolysis there are two parameters
relevant: the current and the voltage applied. (An electrochemist once told
me: voltage means costs, current means money). The current is directly
proportional to the amount aluminum (in this case) produced, whereas the
applied voltage is directly proportional to the energy involved in the
process. So a minimization of the applied voltage means a huge increase in
efficiency. But I was mistaken. I hope that these new electrodes are not
consumed in the process, otherwise this would mean the overall efficiency
would be greatly reduced and if that really means a reduction of carbon
emission remains to be seen

------
dagurp
Here is their pitch from 2015
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJCS1sldhg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJCS1sldhg)

------
jeffdavis
"using multiple, vertical inert metal-alloy anodes and ceramic cathodes"

What is the process? Why was it hard before, and why does it work now?

I'm not expecting a thorough analysis, but the article was _very_ light on
what they are actually doing, even for a casual reader.

~~~
brennanpeterson
Well, you are convertible AlOx to Al. The current process is AlOx+C+energy
->Al + CO2. This is practical for various reasons.

You can directly do AlOx+energy ->Al+O2. This is the proposal, and it works,
somewhat.

I am not sure this needed to be in the article, as the balance between 'too
basic' and 'sufficient' is tricky.

------
rmm
As my mining engineer lecturer always said. Aluminum is congealed electricity.

This is a great breakthrough, but unless we reduce the energy requirements,
for most countries it wont be a big change.

~~~
rswail
It changes the production process from producing Al+CO2 to Al+O2. That's a
good thing for emissions reduction.

The power source for aluminium smelting is a separate question and can be
replaced with renewables.

~~~
Taniwha
sadly not just any renewables - if the power goes off the Al in the pot lines
hardens and ruins the hardware ... so solar and wind alone are out -
geothermal and hydro (or those mixed with solar/wind) are OK

------
Taniwha
This would drop 5% of New Zealand's carbon emissions too

------
mrfusion
How much energy is one soda can’s worth of aluminum?

~~~
philipkglass
It's about 14.9 grams of aluminum:

[https://recycleusainc.com/how-many-aluminum-cans-
equal-1-pou...](https://recycleusainc.com/how-many-aluminum-cans-
equal-1-pound/)

Modern aluminum smelters consume 12,500 to 15,000 kilowatt hours per metric
ton of metal produced:

[https://agmetalminer.com/2015/11/24/power-costs-the-
producti...](https://agmetalminer.com/2015/11/24/power-costs-the-production-
primary-aluminum/)

If we take the higher value of 15,000 kWh, that's

(14.9 / 1000000) * 15000 = 0.22 kWh for one can's worth of aluminum.

~~~
mrfusion
Thanks! Wow that’s a lot of energy.

~~~
perilunar
Fortunately it's 100% recyclable.

------
bufferoverflow
Sounds like bullshit. Doesn't most of CO2 (in aluminum production) come from
all the production of electricity that you need to smelt?

~~~
probablypower
You will notice that this article is from an icelandic newspaper.

The electricity in Iceland is almost exclusively 'sustainable' energy (hydro
and geothermal) and the Icelandic power system is one of the least carbon
intensive in the world. At present it is #2
([https://www.electricitymap.org](https://www.electricitymap.org)) in the
world behind Norway at 28 gCO2e/kWh. Smelting aluminium in Iceland instead of
say, the USA (~ 400 gCO2e/kWh), is already a great way to reduce the carbon
intensity of aluminium products.

This article is discussing the CO2 emissions related to some integral
processes within the smelter, and it is a big deal. No, it wont save the
world, but also no, it is not bullshit. These are the sort of small
incermental improvements that we require in ALL industries in order to dent
global carbon emissions.

~~~
SV_BubbleTime
This is all true, Iceland is the worlds aluminum smelting hub. And the CO2
here is for the process.

However... what people fail to realize over and over is that the route for
most of the worlds aluminum is from China to Iceland to China again. In
tankers burning fuel like there is no tomorrow.

The biggest gain would be in how to refine the aluminum without shipping
across the world twice.

~~~
DavidPeiffer
>The biggest gain would be in how to refine the aluminum without shipping
across the world twice.

Yes, that'd be nice. People are working on solutions, but the only
economically viable way to refine the material is to use a highly intensive
electrolysis process. My quick google search is showing 17,000 kWh/ton of
aluminum [1].

It's currently economically viable to refine in Iceland, but China is the #1
producer of raw aluminum [1] [2]. Iceland only has 3 smelters, and the
combined capacity is less than the 9 largest smelters in the world, 2 of which
are in China.

Citation [1] also has mentions of how much better the process of smelting has
become.

>So, within 60 years, by improving the technology, fluoride emissions have
been reduced more than 15 times (Table 2) and annual amounts of fluorinated
residues have decreased from 1500 ton after WWII to 60 ton today.

From a purely energy standpoint, raw aluminum production has become vastly
more efficient [4], with kWh/kg dropping from ~27 in 1940 to ~17 in 2000. The
theoretical minimum is 5.99 kWh/kg [5]

[1] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/aluminum-
pr...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/aluminum-production)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_primary_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_primary_aluminium_production)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aluminium_smelters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aluminium_smelters)

[4]
[https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/aluminu...](https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/aluminum/pdfs/al_theoretical.pdf)
(page 40 of the PDF, numbered 25 on the page)

[5]
[https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS0...](https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS03_Panel1_Paper02.pdf)

~~~
SV_BubbleTime
> It's currently economically viable to refine in Iceland, but China is the #1
> producer of raw aluminum [1] [2]. Iceland only has 3 smelters, and the
> combined capacity is less than the 9 largest smelters in the world, 2 of
> which are in China.

Great post, saved it for future reference!

Do you know how China powers their much larger smelters?

And do you know if these possible difference in aluminum smelting is
considered when the carbon footprint for something like a mostly-aluminum
Tesla is made?

~~~
DavidPeiffer
>Do you know how China powers their much larger smelters?

Looks like largely coal. [1] This surprises me, as China has some truly
massive hydroelectric generation stations which would be ideal for smelting.

>And do you know if these possible difference in aluminum smelting is
considered when the carbon footprint for something like a mostly-aluminum
Tesla is made?

I'm sure it's considered, but really don't know more than that. There is a big
push in the manufacturing field to get ISO 14001 (environmental)
certification. Many large manufacturers are requiring that of their suppliers.
I'm unfamiliar how well the certification would allow tracing back emissions.
Even if there were a higher carbon footprint on production, some of that can
be cancelled out by better energy efficiency of the vehicles. The cost per
pound and cost of repairs can be higher on aluminum.

Tesla, in its push to be economical, appears to be going with steel on the
Model 3 (compared to aluminum on Model S).

>Chowdhry highlighted the key advantages of steel over aluminum as being the
lower production equipment costs, the lower worker training/skill needed to
work/operate steel, the lower compensation and cost savings of steel workers
versus aluminum workers, and the lower repair costs. [2]

We've seen significant increases in aluminum per vehicle [3], though much
slower than estimates from 40 years ago would have said. The CAFE standards
implemented in the Obama era seemed to kick things into gear, notably with the
Ford F-150 switching much if not all of its body to aluminum.

[1] [http://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics/primary-
aluminium-...](http://www.world-aluminium.org/statistics/primary-aluminium-
smelting-power-consumption/#data)

[2] [https://evannex.com/blogs/news/112953413-tesla-model-s-vs-
te...](https://evannex.com/blogs/news/112953413-tesla-model-s-vs-tesla-
model-3-aluminum-vs-steel-infographic)

[3] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/496185/pounds-of-
aluminu...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/496185/pounds-of-aluminum-per-
car-in-north-america/)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy)

------
awinter-py
> Iceland’s three aluminum smelters ... emit more than 1.6 million tons of CO2
> a year ... 30 percent of Iceland’s total CO2 emissions

this presumably doesn't include the volcanoes, which globally emit hundreds of
millions of tons per year per this

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-
much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/)

~~~
Lavery
Unfortunately, the volcanoes have thus far resisted public pressure to reform.

