With a Push From Apple, Rival Aluminum Makers Team Up Against CO2 (bloomberg.com) 89
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a Bloomberg article, written by Joe Deaux: As David DeYoung, then a director of business technologies at Alcoa, walked into Apple's Cupertino, Calif., headquarters in September 2015, he knew that the stakes were high. DeYoung led a group of engineers who'd spent decades pursuing the holy grail for the notoriously dirty aluminum industry: a way to smelt the metal without producing any direct carbon emissions. Apple, which Harbor Intelligence analyst Jorge Vazquez estimates uses almost 15,000 metric tons of aluminum annually for its electronics gear, had invited DeYoung to explain a potentially revolutionary carbonless manufacturing process for aluminum that his group was developing. Alcoa was on the verge of ending the DeYoung team's yearslong search. To make the tension even worse, moments before DeYoung stepped into a roundtable with Apple engineers, he received word Alcoa was splitting into two publicly traded companies -- casting another cloud on his unit's project. So Apple's interest in reducing the carbon footprint of its metal casings looked to be key to saving the funding.
But it wasn't until later in 2015 that the payoff from that meeting came, with help from an unexpected source. That's when Vincent Christ, a manufacturing information technology expert from Rio Tinto Group Plc, flew to Cupertino for a similar visit. The London-based company, one of Alcoa's biggest rivals, was also struggling to develop a way to produce aluminum through a process that would emit oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. While heading back to the airport after an hourslong confab with Apple engineers, Christ received a call. Apple had an idea: Rio Tinto and Alcoa were both close to the answer they were looking for, but neither company seemed able to do it on its own. So why not combine efforts? "We had the engine, but we didn't have the wheels, chassis, or body, and Rio brought that all to the party," says DeYoung, who holds a Ph.D. from MIT. "[Apple] said, 'You guys really ought to talk to Rio,' and we were like, 'Yeah, we have already.' But then we said we'll talk to them again, and Apple actually facilitated that second contact."
The result was the creation of Elysis, a joint venture between Alcoa and Rio Tinto with investments from Apple, the government of Canada, and the provincial government of Quebec, which is one of the biggest aluminum-producing regions in the world. The venture has developed a technology that makes so-called green aluminum, whose production doesn't emit carbon dioxide. If the partners can make the process work at commercial scale, it could be used to retrofit existing smelters, transforming them from some of the dirtiest industrial polluters into the kind of green manufacturing facilities business and government are shifting toward. "Elysis has developed a process that substitutes carbon with inert materials -- it won't say what they are -- to make the anode that conducts the electricity causing the chemical reaction," reports Bloomberg. "Elysis' operating costs are about 15% lower than those of conventional smelting, in part because the carbon anodes used in the chemical reaction must be replaced after 25 days, while Elysis' inert material lasts two years. The carbonless process also requires fewer workers, since there's no need to frequently change out the cathodes sitting in the pots of molten alumina."
The immediate hurdle for Elysis is to prove it can crank up the amperage used during carbonless smelting to industrial-strength power levels, which would allow higher daily production rates, says CRU Group analyst Greg Wittbecker. "Elysis announced on April 20 it will begin installing commercial inert anode prototype cells on a smelter in Quebec in an effort to prove it can retrofit existing smelters," adds Bloomberg. "A pivotal moment will be if or when governments implement carbon credit or carbon tax programs that would penalize low-cost aluminum made in plants in China and India that use power from coal-fired plants."
But it wasn't until later in 2015 that the payoff from that meeting came, with help from an unexpected source. That's when Vincent Christ, a manufacturing information technology expert from Rio Tinto Group Plc, flew to Cupertino for a similar visit. The London-based company, one of Alcoa's biggest rivals, was also struggling to develop a way to produce aluminum through a process that would emit oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. While heading back to the airport after an hourslong confab with Apple engineers, Christ received a call. Apple had an idea: Rio Tinto and Alcoa were both close to the answer they were looking for, but neither company seemed able to do it on its own. So why not combine efforts? "We had the engine, but we didn't have the wheels, chassis, or body, and Rio brought that all to the party," says DeYoung, who holds a Ph.D. from MIT. "[Apple] said, 'You guys really ought to talk to Rio,' and we were like, 'Yeah, we have already.' But then we said we'll talk to them again, and Apple actually facilitated that second contact."
The result was the creation of Elysis, a joint venture between Alcoa and Rio Tinto with investments from Apple, the government of Canada, and the provincial government of Quebec, which is one of the biggest aluminum-producing regions in the world. The venture has developed a technology that makes so-called green aluminum, whose production doesn't emit carbon dioxide. If the partners can make the process work at commercial scale, it could be used to retrofit existing smelters, transforming them from some of the dirtiest industrial polluters into the kind of green manufacturing facilities business and government are shifting toward. "Elysis has developed a process that substitutes carbon with inert materials -- it won't say what they are -- to make the anode that conducts the electricity causing the chemical reaction," reports Bloomberg. "Elysis' operating costs are about 15% lower than those of conventional smelting, in part because the carbon anodes used in the chemical reaction must be replaced after 25 days, while Elysis' inert material lasts two years. The carbonless process also requires fewer workers, since there's no need to frequently change out the cathodes sitting in the pots of molten alumina."
The immediate hurdle for Elysis is to prove it can crank up the amperage used during carbonless smelting to industrial-strength power levels, which would allow higher daily production rates, says CRU Group analyst Greg Wittbecker. "Elysis announced on April 20 it will begin installing commercial inert anode prototype cells on a smelter in Quebec in an effort to prove it can retrofit existing smelters," adds Bloomberg. "A pivotal moment will be if or when governments implement carbon credit or carbon tax programs that would penalize low-cost aluminum made in plants in China and India that use power from coal-fired plants."
Huh? Aluminium is known as Solid Electricity (Score:4, Informative)
A lot is used in the electrolysis process. But the way to reduce carbon is to produce non-carbon electricity.
It is also possible to idle modern Aluminium plants, so that they only draw large amounts of power during the day when the sun shines. So very good for wind and solar.
The amount of carbon consumed in anodes would be trivial in comparison.
Making steel without carbon, now that is difficult because the carbon is used to reduce the oxide to metal.
Re:Huh? Aluminium is known as Solid Electricity (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why some of the largest Aluminum producers in the world are Quebec and British Columbia, both in Canada, despite not having any Bauxite sources. Both BC and Quebec are almost entirely powered via Hydro Electricity. In the case of BC, there are a couple of hydroelectric power plants that are dedicated to the Aluminium smelters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought that the Canadian electricity grid was connected to the USA grids, both east and west coast?
In that case, every joule of power used for aluminium in Canada is a joule that is not being used to reduce carbon emissions in the USA.
Electricity flows through wires quite well. Being very near the source is not very relevant (there are small transmission losses).
Re: (Score:2)
At least in case of one of the smelters in BC, their hydro generating capacity is not connected to the continental grid. The site is simply too remote for that.
Re: (Score:3)
stupid rightwing nutters don't know (Score:3, Funny)
Does it make for cheaper (read: better) aluminum? Who knows?
People smart enough to have read the summary know...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
trivial? Nope! Actually it's 400 kg of carbon consumed per ton of aluminum which takes 15 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, if purely powered by fossil fuel that's 15 * 12 / 44 = 4 tons of carbon. So that's a substantial chunk.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it's 400 kg of carbon consumed per ton of aluminum which takes 15 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,
You are off by a factor of 10. 400 kg of carbon is equivalent to 1.5 tons of CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And I there are two sources of carbon, the coal to burn the electricity and the anode that helps reduce the aluminium.
I suspect that the former is much, much greater than the latter. But if we eliminate the former then the latter may indeed be significant.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's what I was saying, 400 kg of carbon anode burned per ton of aluminum For electricity needed 15 tons CO2 equivalent if done by fossil fuel (or take 12 / 44 and it's 4 tons of carbon burned)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you burn coal to make electricity to smelt aluminium?
Re: (Score:2)
The big aluminium smelters in Canada are in BC and Quebec, both of which are rich in hydro resources and their grids are basically 100% renewable for ages now (well over a century - hydroelectricity is one of the earliest "green" energy technologie
Re: Huh? Aluminium is known as Solid Electricity (Score:2)
Still, 1.5 tons of co2 for every ton of aluminum is quite significant, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Still, 1.5 tons of co2 for every ton of aluminum is quite significant, right?
The world produces 64 million tonnes of aluminum each year. So that is about 100 million tonnes of CO2.
The world produces about 45 billion tonnes of CO2 from all sources. So a reduction of 0.2%.
The important question is whether this is a cost-effective process or whether it would be better to spend the money installing wind turbines or solar panels.
Re: (Score:1)
The important question is whether this is a cost-effective process or whether it would be better to spend the money installing wind turbines or solar panels.
For an aluminium smelter, it's going to be more cost effective to cut aluminium smelting costs 15%, than to branch out into wind turbines or solar panels.
Doubly so if they are expecting any kind of carbon tax in the future.
I hope I'm the idiot answering a rhetorical question, and not you for asking it...
Re: (Score:2)
The important question is whether this is a cost-effective process
Per the summary, they expect it to decrease AL production costs by 15%. So, win/win.
Re: (Score:2)
I was giving both the anode (400 kg) and the electricity (4 tons of carbon if done purely by fossil though Canada mostly doesn't do that). So even by fossil fuel for electricity the anode is quite significant chunk.
Re: (Score:2)
No I was talking about carbon anode consumption vs. the electricity needed, that 15 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (take 12 /44 for carbon) of electricity needed per ton of aluminum,
Re:Huh? Aluminium is known as Solid Electricity (Score:5, Informative)
The electrolosis normally produces CO2. This process produces O2 instead. The input energy must be addressed of course, but the emission of the process is what is being discussed.
Re:Huh? Aluminium is known as Solid Electricity (Score:4, Informative)
I think the carbon is used to reduce the aluminum oxide, similar to the way it is in iron.
The reaction essentially burns cheap coal to contribute energy, gives you an anode material, and lets you avoid dealing with hot elemental oxygen. Win, win, win. Except for the CO2 emission.
The difference between iron and aluminum is that you can't just add heat to carbon and aluminum oxide and get aluminum and CO2. You have to create a potential difference to make up for the unfavourable electronegativity. You can electrolyze iron oxide as well, if you want to avoid the CO2 emission:
https://link.springer.com/chap... [springer.com]
Re: (Score:1)
So very good for wind and solar.
Really? Where are the aluminum refineries powered by wind and solar today?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Australia produces about 10% of its electricity wind/solar so that means that the aluminium is 10% wind/solar powered (it is all one grid) (actually two).
But the point that I was making was that Aluminium production is very compatible with wind/solar because its demand can be varied. Make Aluminium when the sun shines, otherwise idle. And storing electricity is difficult, demand management is better where it can be done.
Re: Huh? Aluminium is known as Solid Electricity (Score:1)
The green energy could be used elsewhere in the network to displace more dirty energy
Re: (Score:3)
The green energy could be used elsewhere in the network to displace more dirty energy
But then the coal plants complain that they don't have enough demand and start asking for more subsidies.
This lets the coal still run without having to shut down and restart, while doing something useful with all the extra solar and wind.
Re: (Score:1)
So very good for wind and solar.
Really? Where are the aluminum refineries powered by wind and solar today?
We can't be sure whether you read the article, and didn't understand the words in it, or didn't read the article because you already think you know everything there is to know about 'green' technologies. We can be sure however that your bias results in you regularly displaying your ignorance on /.
From the article: "European buyers are already showing a willingness to pay extra for cleaner aluminum. BMW AG this year signed an agreement with a United Arab Emirates producer for aluminum made using solar power.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of carbon consumed in anodes would be trivial in comparison.
The amount of carbon used in electrolysis stops being trivial when a smelter is fed green energy. Additionally the carbon from the anode is not a bit source of primary emission, calcining and leeching is.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot is used in the electrolysis process. But the way to reduce carbon is to produce non-carbon electricity.
If you read TFA they're not talking about electricity, although that's mentioned at the end.
The electrolysis process uses carbon blocks for anodes which burn off and must be replaced every two weeks. Their new process uses some new (secret) inert material which doesn't burn and only has to be replaced every two years. At least, that's if they can get their product scaled up and working at a commercial scale.
Re:Does it use the same amount of electricity? (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of the time aluminium power plants are near cheap sources of electricity and most often than not that is hydroelectric.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Bluff smelter runs on hydro power - mostly from Manapouri.
Of course it makes Aluminium , the people of NZ speak English, not American.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the nice people of Rio are about to close Tiwai Point Smelter.
I guess the green hydro power can't compete with coal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, you don't realize the amount of carbon anode consumed. 400 kg per ton of aluminum which is substantial. The electricity is 15 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or 4 tons of carbon (assuming all the electricity came from fossil fuel)
Re: (Score:2)
Use nuclear fission power. That will have a lower CO2 emission per kWh than all but the most exceptional hydroelectric dams. Lower than wind, certainly lower than solar, and it will take less land, and cause fewer human deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Use nuclear fission power.
Modern wind turbines produce power for 3 cents per kwh.
The Vogtle nuke in Georgia is years behind schedule, three times over its budget, and will produce power for a wholesale price of about 13 cents per kwh.
Re: (Score:1)
And solar trends towards being even cheaper. The thermal capacity of the aluminum troughs in the smelter should be large enough that you can just let them sit overnight. Then next day, the sun is up and the plant produces more.
Of course, if you only produce 12 hours/day, you have to use oversized equipment to compensate. So solar would have to be even cheaper to make that economical.
Re: (Score:2)
You need certain types of terrain to build a fission plant on, far from the aluminium smelters, so long transmission lines. The hydro dams are already built close to the smelter and paid for, so replacing the dam with a fission plant is going to be expensive. Nuclear produces waste heat that has to be disposed off, so another consideration.
And why would nuclear be safer then a dam? Seems the odds of people dying during construction are probably about equal and once built, mining the uranium is more dangerou
Re: (Score:2)
The hydro dams are already built close to the smelter and paid for, so replacing the dam with a fission plant is going to be expensive.
I agree it would not be wise to replace hydro with nuclear fission, which is why I'm confused you bring up the point.
Nuclear produces waste heat that has to be disposed off, so another consideration.
All energy produces waste. Some more than others. The waste produced from nuclear power is minimal and the radiation decays away to the level of the raw ore in 300 years or so.
And why would nuclear be safer then a dam?
I don't know, but history shows that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The heat has to be dumped somewhere, and as the rivers are having slower flow levels as well as getting too hot for the fish, it leaves the ocean, and at least around here, there is very little land suitable for nuclear plants besides the oceans.
As for safety, it all comes down to regulations. No regulations and the companies building dams take shortcuts, including politicians overriding the engineers like a famous case in Italy. The same thing happens with nuclear, plants like Chernobyl or the mining in Ne
Re: (Score:2)
The heat has to be dumped somewhere, and as the rivers are having slower flow levels as well as getting too hot for the fish, it leaves the ocean, and at least around here, there is very little land suitable for nuclear plants besides the oceans.
We have very large nuclear power plants operating in the Arizona desert which demonstrates that we do not need to build a nuclear power plant near a river or ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We can do this same thing to avoid heating rivers to the point it harms fish. It costs more but it can be done. The people that used river water to cool nuclear power plants made an engineering decision to use river water, knowing in advance that in a heat wave they would have to reduce output to avoid harming t
Re: (Score:2)
The Palo Verde installation is interesting, whether the same idea would work in an area with frequent 100% humidity would have to be checked out.
As for FUD, you say don't compare 50 year old nuclear plants while obviously comparing old dams such as the 100 year old one by me where they didn't bother anchoring the west end to bedrock. If you are going to make comparisons, they have to be similar, not the latest heavily regulated nuclear technology compared to old dams.
And then there is the nuclear FUD, the c
Catch-22 (Score:2)
There's also lots of promising new tech, but until it is actually built, it is just promises.
How in the fuck is there going to be any new nuclear power technology if there are morons like you telling people that we can't have nuclear power? How can anyone demonstrate the safety of new nuclear power plants if there's no permits issued to build them? That's a nice "catch-22" you built there.
We will get that "promising new tech" you have been waiting for. It's too bad FUD mongers like you held nuclear power back for 50 years. If that hadn't happened then we would not be in this mess.
The Democrat p
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American and live in a place where electricity is called hydro. There's never been a movement here to build nukes as they are unneeded.
If you need to blame someone for the anti-nuke sentiment, pick on Exxon, who figured out that quietly financing the anti-nuke people was the best response to climate change. Capitalism at its finest.
And fuck off with your BS of calling everyone who doesn't agree that the most expensive option is the best in all cases. Like so many problems, a mixed response may well
Re:Air tags (Score:4, Informative)
According to the tech specs on an Apple's website an AirTag weighs 11 grams total. An empty aluminum soda can weighs about 15 grams. AirTags will be responsible for an absolutely miniscule amount of aluminum waste.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the economics of aluminum smelting are such that it can take place where the electricity is, even when that is thousands of km away from the bauxite. China will be happy to do clean smelting with its expanding power base of nuclear and hydro.
Re: Nuclear power. We need more, we will build mo (Score:2)
What's the intermittency argument against solar and wind? Continental US/Canada stetches quite a few time zones, so it gets quite a few sunny hours per day. It's also predictable in that there's no sunshine at night, power down the plants, use another renewable source or buffer energy. Many many categories of consumption have a level of flexibility in timing. Also, wind sure blows somewhere all the time, OK it's not feasible to cover the US with 10x its consumption with wind power, but it's a question of ec
Re: (Score:3)
I get your argument but where's a good, approachable yet convincing overview that increasing nuclear capacity, eg. instead of equivalent renewables is essential?
This argument has been repeated many times to anyone willing to listen. Because people have not been willing to listen we will soon have an energy crisis in the USA. This will be resolved in short order by a federal government backed into a corner and having to choose between more fossil fuels, rolling blackouts, or more nuclear power. They will choose nuclear power.
We will be getting more nuclear power in the USA. The people paying attention know this to be true. Here's some of those people:
http://www [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Cods wallop, there is more than enough potential solar energy in the USA to meet all it's electrical generation potential, and that is not counting any hydro or wind let alone geothermal and tidal. You need storage but there are a myriad of ways of doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
> The protestations against nuclear power are fading fast because this reality is finally sinking into their heads
Many have not faded. The repeated incompetence with dangerous and dangerously toxic materials have not faded, and Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima are reminders that safety plans can work but still leave disasters.Even if the plants are better designed and made more safe, there's the problem of preventing madmen from using it for nuclear weaponry of various sorts.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a treaty between the USA and Russia to turn stockpiles of weapon grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power reactors. The Obama Administration dragged their feet on this "megatons to megawatts" program to the point the treaty expired. This means that the USA still has a large stockpile of weapon grade plutonium and Russia still has a large stockpile of weapon grade plutonium.
It is because of ignorant morons like you why these two nations have not destroyed weapon grade material. The only way t
Re: (Score:2)
> tell you that the best way to destroy weapon grade plutonium is with a nuclear power plant.
The only way to _create_ weapon-grade plutonium is with nuclear power plants. Do you genuinely consider it likely that a return to higher use of nuclear power will _lower_ the amount of plutonium, including weapon-grade material, in the long run? Or will it foster precisely the ind of plants built in Iran and North Korea, forbidden by the world but struggling none-the-less to produce military weaponry for obvious
Re: (Score:3)
The only way to _create_ weapon-grade plutonium is with nuclear power plants.
Wrong. There are nuclear reactors designed specifically for producing plutonium. Using a reactor in a power plant to produce weapon grade plutonium interferes with its ability to produce power.
Do you genuinely consider it likely that a return to higher use of nuclear power will _lower_ the amount of plutonium, including weapon-grade material, in the long run?
That's not guaranteed but banning the construction of civilian nuclear power plants isn't going to stop the construction of military nuclear reactors. It's also not going to stop the production of weapon grade uranium. Nuclear reactors are not required to produce nuclear weapons. To destroy weapon grade nuclear m
Re: (Score:2)
The Pakistan selling nuclear technology is an old and ongoing problem. They sold the technologies and tools to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
And now they're selling the technologies to Turkey.
https://zeenews.india.com/worl... [india.com]
With this many careless nations selling the technologies with so little caution, we have to look askance at all "peaceful nuclear development" as sources of nuclear fuel, sources of tools to handle
Re: (Score:2)
The sale of plans for missiles and bombs has nothing to do with nuclear energy.
We don't stop using common fertilizers and fire retardants because they share chemistry with conventional weapons. We don't stop using aircraft for moving people and cargo because they can be used to drop bombs. We don't stop building rockets to explore space and put satellites in orbit because they share technologies with ballistic missiles. We don't stop building agricultural and construction vehicles because they share tech
Re: (Score:2)
Except that "satellites in space" got a lot of their funding and development from ICBM research, and we limit the power and ease of access to basic tools like nail guns precisely because of their potential use as weapons. We track fertilizer sales because of its use for explosives. We've had treaties to prevent weapons in space, though some presidents have ignored or discarded them. We require aircraft registration and pilot training, and now we train our pilots and give them much stronger doors to prevent
Re: (Score:1)
-1, Does not follow Woke narrative
Meanwhile in Norway (Score:2)
That's some dam-good water
Re:Meanwhile in Norway (Score:4, Informative)
This oxygen is combined with carbon from the electrodes to form co2. They are working on capturing this co2 to further improve the process.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that 3 oxygen atoms are tripped from every 2 aluminium atoms in the process of making metallic aluminium from alumina. This oxygen is combined with carbon from the electrodes to form co2. They are working on capturing this co2 to further improve the process.
More precisely, they're working on replacing the electrodes with an inert material that isn't consumed, meaning the oxygen will be released as O2. So they won't capture the CO2, they'll just avoid creating it in the first place.
Maybe they'll also capture and bottle the O2, which is obviously a useful and saleable product.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it the normal way to produce Oâ is fractional distillation of liquefied air because most people who want Oâ want it in liquid form.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the electrochemistry.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The major difficulty now is the freeing of all that oxygen attached to the aluminium. It likes to combine with graphite (carbon) and make co2.
Rather a proof of concept (Score:2)
15.000 tons is a drop in the ocean! See here [wikipedia.org]. Now having said that, this can serve as a feasibility study for an industrial scale "green" aluminum smelter. Apple for sure can afford to pay e.g. double for their aluminum cases while building such a plant will give the engineers valuable data concernig the viability of the technology, its costs etc.
Recycled aircraft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In part thanks to Covid, there should be a large chunk of alluminium in old aircraft to be recycled. New planes are supposedly made from plastic, but still use lots of alluminium.
After the whole 737 MAX debacle, might not be quite that many old aircraft, able to be deemed expendable.
Greenwashing aluminum? (Score:1)
Considering that:
1. Most of the co2 generated in producing aluminum is the massive amount of electricity needed to smelt it in the first place.
2. The entire process already âoeemitsâ oxygen in the first place, since by definition the process converts AlO to Al.
Is this just greenwashing with a clever narrative?
Re: Greenwashing aluminum? (Score:2)
By the way, I understand that the anode is carbon and is consumed to produce CO2, but if the anodes arenâ(TM)t manufactured from fossil fuels, then whatâ(TM)s the point?
Re: (Score:3)
1. Very little aluminium is produced from power that produces CO2. It is mostly produced from hydro power. Anyone who does not understand this is an idiot and needs to stop commenting on the whole subject immediately.
2. The process does not emit oxygen, as the oxygen from the Aluminium oxide is combined with the carbon in the anode to produce CO2. This is what the new process hopes to change, but clearly idiots who don't know what they are talking about can spout utter rubbish. This is fricking GCSE Chemist
Apple's Green Aluminum (Score:2)
Hey, here's an idea for Apple, since they seem to be all for "Green Aluminum" (or aluminium for the British Empire folks): If you don't solder everything, including things that have a natural wear like, say, the SSD, and don't go after 3rd party repairs, maybe there would be much less aluminum used, which would be great for the planet!
Can we please cut the crap with the articles about how much Apple cares about anything other than profit? And I am writing this from a Mac (bought by my employer - it's a fine
Hmph. (Score:2)
All these comments on green aluminum, and not one mention of transparent aluminum.
Slashdot, I thought I knew ye.