[EnergyUnlimited]

Thanks. At least, it serves a roughly useful purpose.

I am always surprised at how long the phase outs usually take. IMO, they should shudder all factories and replace the offending material. Of course, I recognize that there are materials that our industrial economy just depends upon.

But in the real world, costs matter, and just arbitrarily shuttering (not shudder) "all factories) willy-nilly without a plan, time-frames, dealing with any shortages, etc. is just a non starter. That makes no more sense than super-greens claiming no more oil will be used in a handful of years because they don't like oil.

We got rid of almost all the freon in air conditioning in time, using economic incentives. It worked, and now other less harmful materials are used. One can reasonably argue it should have been done more quickly. But just claiming willy-nilly such transitions should occur more or less instantly makes no sense in the real world.

There are many industrial chemicals and technologies which are harmful to a degree and yet optimal and irreplaceable, at least if you want to keep anything resembling modern civilization even in substantially scaled down version going.
There are technologies not ammenable to tampering with by economic incentives, unless you contemplate crashing out our world back to XVII century or earlier, just to make a point.
For example cement manufacturing comes to mind in this context or using copper and aluminium wiring for electricity transmission.
Misguided improving something may often make much more harm than good.

I would proceed to suggestion that it is overpopulation what is a primary problem, not toxic chemicals released to environment.
With few millions of peoples on the planet we would not need to care much what we are releasing maybe with an exception of short living and highly radioactive materials and chemical or biological weapons class of toxins.

With few hundreds of millions very basic regulations based on common sense would do but with close to 8 billions we will be poisoning ourselves, regardless what we do or don't.

[GHung]

So Trump was right in bringing back coal. Got it. Thanks.

Of course not. But OTOH, the greens almost never even mention real world issues like this, which are FAR from trivial when doing claims about how great CO2 reduction is by installing more green tech.

A more balanced discussion, including all the big real world issues, would be far better, as policy should be based on math and likely real world outcomes, not hopes, dreams, and blind belief.

So it's a choice between putting some people out of business, near-term, or risking putting a Planet out of business for the long-term, depending on which side you come down on. I'm on the side that concludes that the time for half measures was decades ago. Then, again, some of you still think we can have our cake and eat it too.

I'm absolutely not the kind of guy that panics (one reason the Navy decided I was qualified to ride submarines), but I have grandkids who are not likely to be affected so much by reducing the use of greenhouse gasses or rising energy costs, all that, because we teach them resiliency and how to adapt. Climate change is a much bigger devil and will likely most affect those who contributed the least to GCC.

Those who have the most ability for change have the least incentive to do so,, as we see here so often.

[EnergyUnlimited]

So it's a choice between putting some people out of business, near-term, or risking putting a Planet out of business for the long-term, depending on which side you come down on. I'm on the side that concludes that the time for half measures was decades ago. Then, again, some of you still think we can have our cake and eat it too.

This choice is an illusion.
Planetary system is already disrupted. Possibly to a point where general nuclear war would reduce overall damage, improve health of the planet and even *increase* a number of human survivors in 100-200 years perspective.

I'm absolutely not the kind of guy that panics (one reason the Navy decided I was qualified to ride submarines), but I have grandkids who are not likely to be affected so much by reducing the use of greenhouse gasses or rising energy costs, all that, because we teach them resiliency and how to adapt. Climate change is a much bigger devil and will likely most affect those who contributed the least to GCC.

Those who have the most ability for change have the least incentive to do so,, as we see here so often.

Your grandkids should learn how to handle macheta to an expert level.
Macheta may prove to be an ultimate life saving (and taking) tool in the future.
Those who are handling it best are the most likely survivors of later stages of climate change.

[jedrider]

Eventually, in 1973, the EPA started regulating and reducing the amount of lead in gasoline, until it was finally banned altogether in 1996.
EPA Takes Final Step in Phaseout of Leaded Gasoline

So, basically, as long as legislation does no economic harm, it is allowed to pass. The time frame basically was to not incur any costs because in 23 years, all those facilities were probably needing to be replaced anyway. That's a very low bar.

[EnergyUnlimited]

So, basically, as long as legislation does no economic harm, it is allowed to pass. The time frame basically was to not incur any costs because in 23 years, all those facilities were probably needing to be replaced anyway. That's a very low bar.

But if they banned Lead in petrol on the spot, then cars would stop working from day to day as an octane number of distillate produced these days was in range of 50-60. Such a fuel would destroy your engine in no time at all.
Such a move would also be a political suicide and whoever came later would reverse decision.
Sufficiently high octane fuel and yet Pb free would cost as much as whiksy these days and its availabilty would be still restricted..
It takes time to develop alternatives.

[jedrider]

Why did we use leaded petrol for so long?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353

I really don't understand the technology fully. So ethyl alcohol provided an adequate replacement for the lead component of gasoline. So, it appears that the decision to remove lead took about 23 years and only then the phase out again took another 23 years. Seems 23 years too long, one way or the other.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Why did we use leaded petrol for so long?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353

I really don't understand the technology fully. So ethyl alcohol provided an adequate replacement for the lead component of gasoline. So, it appears that the decision to remove lead took about 23 years and only then the phase out again took another 23 years. Seems 23 years too long, one way or the other.

There's ALWAYS going to be a fight between business interests who want things to stay the same to maximize (perceived) profits, and those who want to fix some societal problem, whether it be a dangerous substance, a policy re safety, etc. (Look at all the modern safety changes to cars, which various interests still shriek about, including blaming much of the low mpg on cars to the weight from those standards. No, the complaints don't have to be logical or substantive).

Since both sides of such policy battles will try to get their way, the time to get them implemented will be FAR longer than they could be. And there's almost certainly some reasonable discussion about how quickly they should happen. In each case, however, SOMEONE has to pay the bill, and lots of folks aren't going to like that.

So given how screwed up the planet is, the fact that we make real, meaningful, progress on various serious issues over time, is a sign that to some extent at least, the system is working. Let's remember, it's FAR easier to find fault with something and yell about it than to do something constructive to get it fixed. This goes for just about anything.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Why did we use leaded petrol for so long?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353

I really don't understand the technology fully. So ethyl alcohol provided an adequate replacement for the lead component of gasoline. So, it appears that the decision to remove lead took about 23 years and only then the phase out again took another 23 years. Seems 23 years too long, one way or the other.

Ethyl alcohol is certainly not a replacement for lead derivative (tetraethyllead) in gasoline, unless you replace a substantial proportion of hydrocarbons with it, but then it is a product of farming/corn industry and not of oil industry. Costs of converting oil hydrocarbons to ethanol are substantial.
To get rid of lead component and yet maintain high octane number refining technology needed to be changed in such a way that end product has higher proportion of branched or/and aromatic hydrocarbons than the old product.
This required many years of research on new catalysts and refining technology, redesign of refinery equipment etc.
Alternatively other additives like MTBE (methyltertbuthylether), ferrocene, manganese carbonyls could be added but these chemicals have their own issues, including environmental problems and are no longer widely used if at all.

It is impossible to legislate out certain chemicals without severe consequences.
So for example LA has banned most effective rat poisons and now typhoid is back there and plague might follow as well.
Ban on certain insecticides (o-isopropoxyphenyl methyl carbamate known as propoxur) which works and doesn't have viable and efficient replacement is causing US wide bed bugs epidemic which are also infesting billionaires residences and 5 star hotels.
This have led to grotesque situation where many Americans unable to sleep at night are resorting to smuggling working pesticides from Mexico and Latin America. Surely some others will find it a business opportunity as well.

[Tanada]

Why did we use leaded petrol for so long?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353

I really don't understand the technology fully. So ethyl alcohol provided an adequate replacement for the lead component of gasoline. So, it appears that the decision to remove lead took about 23 years and only then the phase out again took another 23 years. Seems 23 years too long, one way or the other.

Ethyl alcohol is certainly not a replacement for lead derivative (tetraethyllead) in gasoline, unless you replace a substantial proportion of hydrocarbons with it, but then it is a product of farming/corn industry and not of oil industry. Costs of converting oil hydrocarbons to ethanol are substantial.
To get rid of lead component and yet maintain high octane number refining technology needed to be changed in such a way that end product has higher proportion of branched or/and aromatic hydrocarbons than the old product.
This required many years of research on new catalysts and refining technology, redesign of refinery equipment etc.
Alternatively other additives like MTBE (methyltertbuthylether), ferrocene, manganese carbonyls could be added but these chemicals have their own issues, including environmental problems and are no longer widely used if at all.

It is impossible to legislate out certain chemicals without severe consequences.
So for example LA has banned most effective rat poisons and now typhoid is back there and plague might follow as well.
Ban on certain insecticides (o-isopropoxyphenyl methyl carbamate known as propoxur) which works and doesn't have viable and efficient replacement is causing US wide bed bugs epidemic which are also infesting billionaires residences and 5 star hotels.
This have led to grotesque situation where many Americans unable to sleep at night are resorting to smuggling working pesticides from Mexico and Latin America. Surely some others will find it a business opportunity as well.

Actually the conversion from Ethane gas into Ethanol gasoline substitute is a pretty simple one involving heat, a catalyst and a touch of steam IIRC. Right now all that Ethane is being wasted to make Polyethylene Plastics instead, but that is a choice, not a necessity.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Actually the conversion from Ethane gas into Ethanol gasoline substitute is a pretty simple one involving heat, a catalyst and a touch of steam IIRC. Right now all that Ethane is being wasted to make Polyethylene Plastics instead, but that is a choice, not a necessity.

Again,
Ethane is only a minor product of oil industry (by-product of cracking).
It does not make sense to *deliberately* convert light liquid hydrocarbons into ethane and then convert this one into ethylene and finally ethanol.

[Tanada]

Actually the conversion from Ethane gas into Ethanol gasoline substitute is a pretty simple one involving heat, a catalyst and a touch of steam IIRC. Right now all that Ethane is being wasted to make Polyethylene Plastics instead, but that is a choice, not a necessity.

Again,
Ethane is only a minor product of oil industry (by-product of cracking).
It does not make sense to *deliberately* convert light liquid hydrocarbons into ethane and then convert this one into ethylene and finally ethanol.

Again, the Ohio fracked shale beds are producing so much Ethane that they recently completed a new dedicated pipeline to ship it out of here for plastic production.
Shell Ethane Pipeline

[EnergyUnlimited]

Again, the Ohio fracked shale beds are producing so much Ethane that they recently completed a new dedicated pipeline to ship it out of here for plastic production.
Shell Ethane Pipeline

Do you suggest that there is sufficient amount of ethane in oil/gas fields to cover even 5-10% of motor fuel demand after conversion to ethanol?

[Newfie]

EU,

Re your post in over population above. I completely agree, it’s much over looked.

[Plantagenet]

Why did we use leaded petrol for so long?it appears that the decision to remove lead took about 23 years and only then the phase out again took another 23 years. Seems 23 years too long, one way or the other.

Making common sense decisions about eliminating dangerous chemicals seems to take our political leaders a very long time. Scientists knew from the very beginning that lead in gas was dangerous, but it took ca. 75 years to do something about it.

The world committed to reducing CO2 emissions back in 1992 when the UNFCC treaty was signed at the UN and global CO2 emissions were ca. 22 billion tons. Here we are 27 years later and the world is emitting over 37 billion tons of CO2, more than a 50% increase, with even higher CO2 emissions likely in coming years. Thats 27 years and counting of total failure to deal with CO2 emissions.

Same thing with SF6. We've know for decades that it is the most powerful Greenhouse gas of all, but here we are with global SF6 emissions going up much more rapidly then any other greenhouse gas and no plan or accord or treaty in place to stop the use in SF6 in solar, wind, or other renewable energy sites or in any other industrial application.


SF6 for sale cheap at Indiamart.com

Cheers!

[EnergyUnlimited]

Same thing with SF6. We've know for decades that it is the most powerful Greenhouse gas of all, but here we are with global SF6 emissions going up more rapidly then any other greenhouse gas and no plan or accord or treaty in place to stop the use in SF6 in solar, wind, or other renewable energy sites or in any other industrial application.

Annual production of SF6 is about 10 000 tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride
It is 24000 times more powerful GHG than CO2
So it is an equivalent of 240 000 000 tons of CO2.

Yet humans are producing 29 000 000 000 tons of CO2 per year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... atmosphere.
So SF6 has less than 1% of released CO2 warming potential as it stands now, over 100 years period.
PV use no SF6 anyway - it is used only in high voltage applications, more than few kV.
2MW windmill is producing interphase voltage of ~690V, so it doesn't need SF6 either.

You are barking at the wrong tree.

[Plantagenet]

You are barking at the wrong tree.

You are citing out-of-date information.

Please go back and look at the Wikipedia article you linked to. You'll see that the key reference in the Wikipedia article concerning the global warming effect of SF6 (#32 in the reference list) was published in 2011.

Thats right......that info is at least eight years out date...and you can't use old data with SF6 because its is accumulating in the atmosphere so rapidly. The wikipedia article also cites data from the 1980s and 1990s to extrapolate the growth rate of SF6 in the atmosphere. Thats crazy!! You can't use 30 year old Data to estimate what is happening now! And that 30 year old data predates the industrialization of China and India!! In fact, when you look at the most current data (2018) you find the concentration of SF6 in the atmosphere has gone up by ca. 50% just over the last 8 years.

SF6 concentration increasing rapidly in the atmosphere

And thats the key thing about SF6----SF6 was first manufactured in the 1950s and its been growing RAPIDLY in the atmosphere ever since. SF6 is going to continue to grow rapidly as the green revolution results in the construction of more and more wind and solar power plants and as SF6 is released from other industrial applications as well.

SF6 doesn't have to surpass the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to be important. SF6 just has to add to it. New CO2 adds only about 2% additional greenhouse forcing each year but SF6 is growing so rapidly that it is adding to the "new" greenhouse forcing being added to the atmosphere every year. And thats a bad thing ....the last thing the planet needs is a man-made Greenhouse gas boosting climate forcing in the atmosphere to higher levels every year.

Cheers!

[EnergyUnlimited]

SF6 doesn't have to surpass the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to be important. SF6 just has to add to it. New CO2 adds only about 2% additional greenhouse forcing each year but SF6 is growing so rapidly that it is adding to the "new" greenhouse forcing being added to the atmosphere every year. And thats a bad thing ....the last thing the planet needs is a man-made Greenhouse gas boosting climate forcing in the atmosphere to higher levels every year.

If production of SF6 grew by 50% from 2011 then now it will add 1.5% GHG effect.

Nevertheless you are still failing to realize few things:

1. PV of any kind and also windmills do not need SF6 to operate (at least windmills of power up to 2 MW where interphase voltage is 690 V).
If SF6 is used in renevable energy industry, then only in higher voltage lines, eg few kV and more, means in transmission systems.

2. It is naive to believe that China or India will surrender and not develop their electrical capacity further - and hence not generate more SF6 demand. They will carry on doing it until a Judgement Day and probably 1 day longer.
Hey, Indians will need truly massive amounts of electricity to air condition entire country or otherwise it will become uninhabitable even faster

3. Ban on SF6 would constitute ban on national grid as it is made now. There are no viable replacements for SF6.
The only alternative would be scaling up switch gear and other elements by factor of ~3.
This would result in 27 times by volume larger switching and many other installations. Building and maintaining these would result in massive CO2 emissions.

4. Installing renewable energy substantially reduces CO2 output and the beneficial effect is far larger than negative one related to SF6 emissions.
These are not generators themselves but upstream machinery in power transmission system which is using SF6.
You will have these emissions regardless how this electricity is produced.
Coal fired or nuclear PP will also need SF6.

My conclusion is that those who are advocating bans of SF6 should be more sincere and simply advocate bans on electricity grids.
It is that simple. Solution would be a strictly local generation of electricity from renevables to avoid necessity for high voltage power lines.

Below you will find a table of diaelectric strenght of different gases:
https://chemistry.mdma.ch/hiveboard/rho ... rength.pdf
You will find *air* to be pretty good comparing to other gases and SF6 hard to beat.
All potential alternatives to SF6 are not as good and offer not great advantage comparing to air or if they are good then they canoot work in winter temperatures because of easy liquification or are very corrosive or alternatively they are potent ozone disruptors/depletors.
Trifluoroacetonitrile alternative could be tried as my best guess but a lot of research would be needed first, eg corrosion of machinery by its electric breakdown products.

[kublikhan]

Research into SF6 alternatives for high voltage applications is currently underway. Pending bans of SF6 in California and possibly the EU have lit a fire under the energy industry to replace SF6.

May 21, 2018 - All the externalities of SF6 described in this paper have incentivised big and small manufacturers to find SF6-free solutions to switchgear. Several manufacturers – predominantly in the medium voltage (MV) level – have developed effective solutions based on vacuum switching technology in combination with solid or air insulation as alternatives for SF6 (Porte and Schoonenberg, 2009: 1). Rapid innovations in the MV range have brought into question the industry claim that SF6 is a necessary evil and that alternatives are too costly (Porte and Schoonenberg, 2009: 1). Unfortunately, similar progress has not yet been made for high voltage (HV) applications.

From a pricing perspective, research comparing SF6-containing switchgear and SF6-free switchgear found no evidence that the latter was more expensive than the former (Benner et al, 2012: 23). In actual fact, it found that SF6-free switchgear generally can be up to 10% cheaper than the corresponding SF6-containing alternative (Benner et al, 2012: 23).

Conclusion
SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas in existence and for this reason was included in the Kyoto Protocol’s list of substances of which the use and emission should be minimized. Consequently, SF6 has been banned for all applications in which alternatives exist. However, an exception has been made for HV and MV switchgear in the electrical industry.

The rationale for this was that there was no viable alternative. However, as has been made clear this in this paper, this is no longer the case, at least not in the case of MV switchgear. There are alternatives which are technically and commercially viable. With EU regulation No 517/2014 due to be reviewed in 2020, policy makers should campaign for further legislation with the final aim of phasing out SF6. This will further invigorate the research and development of SF6 -free technologies, not only for MV switchgear, but also for HV applications.

Why the EU should ban SF6

Apr 11, 2019 - SF6 is also the world’s most potent greenhouse gas. So much so that it is 23,500 times stronger than CO2. Its annual emissions are comparable to the yearly CO2 emissions produced by approximately 100 million cars. Its environmental impact, and extremely high global warming potential have made it a subject of regulatory and governmental scrutiny in various places around the world. The industry however has been trying to deny the climate impact of SF6’s use in switchgear and has been rather reluctant to move away from SF6.

Until now.

A number of recent market developments demonstrate that that SF6-free technologies are the only future for the energy industry. “Any other gas except for air is dead” – was coined at the Hannover fair this year by one of the distribution system operators. And this could not be more true: in the midst of Climate Change, market players are coming to one common denominator – the only long-term solution that the industry has to eventually adopt is the one that best coexists with our environment.

California as an example of how to win from losing SF6

California has been at the forefront of SF6-free revolution: the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set December 31st, 2024 as a target date for SF6 to be phased out from all equipment of 72kV or less, and by December 31st, 2030 – for all high voltage ranges.

The industry has also been proactive in this regard: PG&E have been increasingly committed to reducing their SF6 footprint since 1999.

The industry reacts fast: understanding the urge for SF6-free alternatives it is trying to find new solutions

This is evidenced by a number of big players launching research projects focused on SF6-free solutions:

At June’s CIRED fair in Madrid - the world’s largest international electricity conference and exhibition – a record 10 abstracts will be presented focused on SF6-alternatives by original equipment manufacturers including Siemens, Schneider, ABB and also nuventura

Western Power Distribution, one of the British distribution network operators, conducted a review of alternatives to SF6-based switchgear that have the potential to eventually replace SF6. nuventura was mentioned as one of the alternatives suitable for the UK market

SF6 has been an accepted solution for many years now. But if we are honest with ourselves: do we really believe that a gas that is 23,500 stronger than CO2 will survive the much needed transition to more sustainable forms of energy generation and distribution? Based on the market and policy adjustments described, we must be realistic: it is only a matter of time before SF6-based technologies are replaced by the greenhouse gas-free alternatives.

Energy industry free from SF6: latest market developments that prove it is inevitable

Siemens has received orders from its customer Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to supply SF6-free dead-tank circuit breakers and gas-insulated switchgear (GIS). They are destined for California's 115-kilovolt (kV) high-voltage grid. The orders comprise dead-tank circuit-breakers for 72.5 kV and 115 kV as well as GIS for 115 kV. These circuit breakers use vacuum interrupters for switching functions and treated air known as "clean air" as the insulating medium. It's now possible to eliminate the use of sulfur hexafluoride, and this order is a major step forward for Siemens' SF6-free portfolio. The first delivery will take place in mid-2019. PG&E, one of the leading energy providers in the United States, launched a company-wide initiative in July of this year to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by one million metric tons. One element is to use highly sustainable electric switchgear. "We are very pleased with the development of more and more SF6 free solutions for high voltage applications. They support PG&E at meeting the challenge of climate change while providing affordable energy to its customers"

"In recent years, Siemens has been hard at work developing a new generation of high-voltage products that offer outstanding performance and sustainability. Our goal is to offer SF6-free high-voltage products preferably on all voltage levels in power transmission. They can already be used in many sectors"

The first milestones in SF6-free switching technology from Siemens were the successful deployment of vacuum interrupters in outdoor circuit breakers, which have been in use since 2010. SF6-free GIS for 72.5 kV have been used in wind turbines and the first SF6-free outdoor circuit breaker in the German 110-kV high-voltage grid since 2018. The benefits of this technology over conventional SF6-insulated switchgear are significant: high switching power with the same footprint for outdoor and dead-tank circuit breakers. The products can be operated at lower temperatures without their own heating systems, and the switching unit requires no maintenance. They don't require F-gas reporting during operation and are much easier to recycle. "Clean air" can be released into the atmosphere with no harmful effects. The circuit breaker has a lifecycle of 40 years, which is the same as the variants with SF6. The products therefore meet global manufacturer and grid operator targets with respect to climate-neutral operation, decarbonization, and sustainability.

PG&E to use SF6-free high-voltage products from Siemens

[Outcast_Searcher]

My conclusion is that those who are advocating bans of SF6 should be more sincere and simply advocate bans on electricity grids.
It is that simple. Solution would be a strictly local generation of electricity from renevables to avoid necessity for high voltage power lines.

Funny how you claim that, and yet in the real world, as posts on this thread show, there ARE effective substitutes, and there are plans to eliminate SF6 in spots, and hopefully as Kub points out, this trend will spread.

Just because a substitute isn't perfect or there are trade-offs does NOT mean substitutes can't be used.

When Freon was phased out, some air conditioner parts had to be enlarged, made more expensive, etc. as the substitutes weren't as efficient. And yet, it happened. Imagine that.

As usual re all the doomer claims various problems can't be fixed, a little cost or inconvenience is just that -- not a valid implication of either short or long term doom.

...

OTOH, the most blatant problem of continued significant population growth doesn't get addressed, which makes me pessimistic long term. I'm talking about given technical problems when viable alternatives are well documented (gasp) even when they're not perfect or cost free.

[asg70]

SF6 doesn't have to surpass the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to be important. SF6 just has to add to it.

You could say the same thing about discretionary plane travel but I don't see you fighting that battle. It's your wont to get on an obsessive kick, fixate for a few weeks, and then move on to the next shiny thing. Your flailing around trying to force everyone to get excited about this is purely a function of that pattern.