general discussion, page-1635

Ken, (apologies for the formatting, I wrote in MS-Word and coped and pasted in here)

I think this paper(https://phys.org/news/2023-10-sustainable-green-magnesium-production-technology.html) is nothing more than just an optimisation study. The student is carrying out a comparative study of:

1. Pidgeon process(S1)

2. Four variants of the fluidised bed technology process(S2-S5)

3. Novel calcination technology(with a few beneficial add-ons) (S6)

The student is trying to determine which process gives the lowest Green House Gas(GHG) emission while still keeping tabs on Energy consumption and the economics to ensure a sustained profitability. It’s claimed that for the Pidgeon process, when 6.38x105 MJ of energy is consumed it equates to and 39.3 tons of CO2 is released. It’s unclear what amount of Magnesium is produced with that amount of energy which makes it difficult to compare with LMG. The student I think is somewhat losing sight of the economics because the study turns to be more focused on the amount of GHG generated relative to the energy input.

Looking at the diagram:

We see that there is tracking of 3 variables:

- Production Cost

- Energy Consumption

- GHG emission

And “Ranking graphs” are provided for each of these for each of the 6extractive processes(S1 to S6).

Student claims that S6 is the best process however my reading is thatthere are some locative advantages for this particular process due to an abandonedmagnesite mine(which means basically zero transport costs for that ingredient)and available coke oven gas for free. These two add-ons would give S6 processan economic advantage which is reflected in the Production Cost ranking graph.If we remove those two locations advantages the production cost of S6 will bemuch higher possibly up to equivalent to the S4 and S5 level which would renderS4 as the better option in so far as GHG and Energy consumption go, however ifyou ignore Energy and GHG the Pidgeon process remains the most profitableoption which explains why it’s so popular

It's a nice admirable study which may help China demonstrate that it’staking GHG seriously, however whether industry will adopt any change willdepend on cost/economics. At the moment, China is such a dominant player in themagnesium market, most countries won’t care how much GHG are produced or energyconsumed because if they don’t get their Mg from China, they can’t get itanywhere else. In the end the GHG released will be listed against China.

LMG Mg production will be so small comparatively that it will have zilchinfluence other than LMG Mg will be in high demand from some of the Europeanwoke countries, and from the US simply because it’s an alternative to China.LMG market influence will likely change and be more prominent when it gets to stage3. How much of a premium LMG can charge for “greener” magnesium remains to beseen.

The top tenCO2 emitters are

1. China, with more than 10,065million tons of CO2 released.
2. United States, with 5,416million tons of CO2.
3. India, with 2,654 milliontons of CO2.
4. Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
5. Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
6. Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
7. Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
8. South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
9. Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
10. Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

Note that althoughChina currently emits the highest levels of CO₂ annually, it has emitted farless than the United States over the past three centuries. Since 1750,the United States has produced more than 400 billion metric tons of cumulativecarbon dioxide emissions.

I thinkmost of these countries with the exception of Germany and Japan won’t care lessabout the “greenness” of their magnesium imports. China may like to demonstrate a keenness to reduce GHG but wither it does or doesn't will likely have little influence on its exports of Mg.