Companies have business plans and make investments on a medium/long timeframe assuming stable pre-conditions. There was a political decision to *suddenly* switch off from natural gas, as a result of Russia invading Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed over Russia. Therefore it is right that the government do something to correct change of pre-conditions. It plays in the line of people saying we shouldn’t depend on untrusted energy suppliers, and also the goals to reduce CO2 emissions, and shifting production to India or China where they would be emitting much more CO2 (plus transport and potential supply chain failure). It is a good thing much of industry remains in Europe.
@@legallyfree2955 “Maybe you should be looking at their profit, not their revenue.” Your point is that profit (and revenue) should go somewhere else? India? China? USA? Maybe you’re against government intervention. Or maybe against “saving the Capitalist”. But, there was a political action, sudden!, and maybe government do feel it needs to iron out some injustice.
@@lv3609 No, my point was that they often make a loss and not a profit, and when they do make a profit it's not that high given the size of the company, so that they would need a cash injection to make the change for green steel or they would go bankrupt and the production would move to China.
It's heavy industry. When they change, costs are tremendous trickling down to suppliers and workers in other countries. Things are on a impressive scale. Nearly as impressive as microchip production. You should take a look at both of them. There are no small interruptions - it's always millions of $$ lost per day.
And where is H2 coming from? Last time i cheked the largest part of H2 is made from natural gas... So still not carbon neutral... Unless you make H2 from water hydrolysis(splitting 2H2O into 2H2 and O2)
@@BonsaiBlacksmith yeah it's called investment and network build out. We in Germany have over double capacity with wind and solar for what is needed, just needs to be better connected, not so Impossible
You are correct. The plan is to produce hydrogen via electrohydrolysis when there is excess production in the grid. Got great wind on the north sea but not enough demand for it, shunt it to the hydrogen plant. Now, whether that plan is viable, we'll find out.
... and yes, hydrolysis from sea water: at a time when our oceans are already stressed and under threat. This puts Phytoplankton populations - responsible for most of the transfer of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the ocean - at risk of at least decreased richness in diversity as salinity increases. The AMOC is also adversely effected as salinity increases, and there may be other additional impacts to the water cycle, including rainfall patterns and volumes, etc. My understanding is that mass "green hydrogen" production at scale - far above the current research, testing and proof-of-concept efforts - and its impact on the broad planetary system, is not well understood, nor has it been factored into scaling green hydrogen production to the significant quantities needed to replace coal, gas and petroleum use in industrial settings - such as raw-materials extraction and processing including steel production.
I was a big fan of it, until I started working in the energy industry, and the sheer cost of it, would drive any busniess under that is honest to it's customers - Green depends on huge venture capital, and is in heavy burn due to how expansive it is to operate. No sustainabilty (the power to produce it, outways the power it creates)
Just have questions of green steel. The raw pig iron also contains carbon, how to make that CO2 neutral when one need to extract carbon by burning it? And how to avoid hydrogen embrittlement were using H2 reducing iron?
You dont, thats negligible compare to the amount of co2 produced burning coal to heat and melt the iron, which will now turn to use hydrogen as a heat source.
Pig iron contains carbon because carbon monoxide is the reducing agent during the smelting process. Iron ore contains FeO, Iron Oxide. Rust basically. To turn the oxide back into metal you need to provide a lot of energy in the form of heat AND get rid of the oxygen, turning it into just Fe. The traditional smelting process uses carbon monoxide, CO, to do this. carbon monoxide is generated by burning coal, but not allowing the coal enough oxygen to turn into carbon dioxide CO2. Without enough oxygen the combustion process is incomplete and instead of CO2, CO is generated instead. This carbon monoxide then reacts with the hot iron oxide, creating carbon dioxide and metallic iron. CO + FeO = Fe + CO2. This is the primary source of CO2 emissions in the smelting process. For every atom of metallic iron you make, you are generating at least one molecule of carbon dioxide, sometimes more as many iron oxides have more than one oxygen atom per iron atom. During this process some of the carbon gets trapped in the iron, which is why pig iron has such a high carbon content, much higher than steel. To remove this excess carbon, you 'burn' the pig iron essentially. Blasting oxygen through the molten pig iron to reduce the carbon content but turning the carbon into CO2. However, carbon monoxide isn't the only reducing agent we can use, we can also use hydrogen. Hydrogen doesn't get trapped in the molten iron the way carbon does, so when hydrogen is used the end product isn't pig iron, but pure elemental, metallic iron. Which is what we want. No body wants pig iron. Even if you're making steel you reduce the pig iron down to pure iron and then carefully add back in the perfect amount of carbon. Hydrogen embrittlement doesn't occur at the elevated temperatures during the smelting process. It's a lower temperature phenomenon that mostly effects steel, and is primarily caused by hydrogen wanting to do anything but bond with iron. To illustrate one type of hydrogen embrittlement is when hydrogen that has been diffused into the metal due to high concentrations and pressures, recombines into H2 and forms gas pockets inside the metal rather than bonding to the iron or just staying diffused. Hydrogen and iron are like oil and water.
@@bachvandals3259 Not true. Using carbon to reduce the iron oxide into metallic iron is why the process is so carbon intensive. For every atom of metallic iron you get, you have to make at least one molecule of carbon dioxide. That's how the chemical reaction works. Green hydrogen is green not because we are using hydrogen for heat, but because we are replacing coal with hydrogen in the chemical reaction.
We should level the plain worldwide regarding steel production costs. Any non green steel should be taxed to have the same manufacturing price as green steel. The tax money should then be used to support manufacurers moving to green steel. If not, countries like Germany lose economic competitiveness to countries that care less about the environment and it becomes a race to the bottom.
...und Einfuhrzölle sollten wieder eingeführt werden!!! Das ist so lange nötig, so lange nicht gleiche Sozial- und Umweltstandards herrschen - alles andere ist unfairer Wettbewerb!
There are strategic considerations. There could be substantial demand for low emissions steel even at a premium. It could be a net savings for construction companies in territories where carbon credits apply for instance.
Net savings is a scam, and DW has done a really good job reporting on all the diffrent reoporting by other agancies and studies. A tax to polute, and gaps. Being given a nutrality badge is a luctarive busniess, and give zero benfits, so much so EU Authoriaties are thinking about getting rid of the term "Net - Nutral"
@@CHMichael Well that's patently false. Which countries do and do not have a carbon credit system, do you think? Do you even know? You can google it. Property prices are weakly correlated with carbon credits. In fact I doubt there's any correlation at all to start with. Property prices are always strongly correlated with demand.
Everyone doesn't realize if the steel industry goes to charcoal its carbon neutral steel, No need to dump all this money on retooling and subsidies. I have worked on green steel initiatives in the Saarland which produces a lot of steel.
Yeah,.. now is the best time we should increase costs for whole industries using steel when prices are already up and about every country in EU has increased their national debts. Best time indeed.
Companies have business plans and make investments on a medium/long timeframe assuming stable pre-conditions. There was a political decision to *suddenly* switch off from natural gas, as a result of Russia invading Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed over Russia. Therefore it is right that the government do something to correct change of pre-conditions. It plays in the line of people saying we shouldn’t depend on untrusted energy suppliers, and also the goals to reduce CO2 emissions, and shifting production to India or China where they would be emitting much more CO2 (plus transport and potential supply chain failure). It is a good thing much of industry remains in Europe.
@@lv3609 Corporations understand regulation and policy changes as a normal thing. As a project manager, we always plan for these sudden changes and know that you can never plan for stability ever. It about pleasing investors, nothing more.
@@SA-ks9vz How old is Thyssenkrupp factory? Maybe the project manager then had different information. If it is German government that feels it must correct a situation (it was still a political decision in the end), you can’t be blaming the industry.
@@SA-ks9vz If you are actually a project manager, you should know the difference between revenue and profit. TK had a revenue of 41 billion in 2022. It had a net income of .975 billion in 2022. And not every year has been profitable. You didn't even try to accurate with your statement.
Carbon neutral doesn't mean no emissions, it just means you "offset" the emissions you do make on paper. Let's remember steel must use coal. Hydrogen furnaces do not do what you described. Hydrogen furnace steel still uses coal. You can't make steel without a carbon source, that's what makes it steel. Hydrogen doesn't generate a carbon source. These "green steel" plants will still require coal, get it right. They just won't use coal to power the furnaces
No, they lady is right. You can use hydrogen instead of coal. I'll explain. Iron ore contains FeO, Iron Oxide. Rust basically. To turn the oxide back into metal you need to provide a lot of energy in the form of heat AND get rid of the oxygen, turning it into just Fe. The traditional smelting process uses carbon monoxide, CO, to do this. carbon monoxide is generated by burning coal, but not allowing the coal enough oxygen to turn into carbon dioxide CO2. Without enough oxygen the combustion process is incomplete and instead of CO2, CO is generated instead. This carbon monoxide then reacts with the hot iron oxide, creating carbon dioxide and metallic iron. CO + FeO = Fe + CO2. This is the primary source of CO2 emissions in the smelting process. For every atom of metallic iron you make, you are generating at least one molecule of carbon dioxide, sometimes more as many iron oxides have more than one oxygen atom per iron atom. However, carbon monoxide isn't the only reducing agent we can use, we can also use hydrogen. When hydrogen gas is forced past hot iron oxide, the hydrogen react with the oxygen, forming water. H2 + FeO = Fe + H2O You do need carbon for steel, but that carbon is added later after the smelting process and does not generate emissions because the carbon is incorporated into the iron, not released.
@@stormelemental13 You just wasted your time arguing strawman. You're describing the chemical reaction inside a furnace. I did not say "her" description of what happens in a furnace was wrong. Only your last paragraph addressed what I actually wrote. I did not ever write that cO2 is released when carbon is added to steel. Explaining that coal will always be required for steel production is important, where do you think that carbon comes from if they shut down all the coal mines? There is no such thing as a zero emissions steel foundry nor will there ever be. That's why terms like "carbon neutral" get used. Perhaps in future you might want to reply to what is actually said instead of running off on random rants.
@@tjmarx Coal isn't the only source of carbon, so no, coal will not always be required for steel production. Carbon will, but the source doesn't matter. Maybe it will be from coal, or coke to be more correct, but maybe not. Either way it doesn't matter if coal is used for this as it is zero emission. And yes, adding carbon to iron during steel production is generally considered emission free because the carbon is incorporated into the steel not released as a green house gas. The emissions come from other parts of the refining process.
@@stormelemental13 You just keep trying to "correct" strawman arguments and make a clown of yourself in the process. You seem to have trouble with comprehension. Re-read over what I've actually written.
@@tjmarx But there is nothing to be ragging. If the industrial process reduces the emissions of CO2, significantly, well better do it (instead of doing nothing on excuse it is not going to 0). No need for rage for the sake of rage.
Green steel - lol. "Carbon neutral " .... didn't we just learn how carbon neutral germany was using Russian gas and oil? High quality steel is important - making it in germany is much better for the planet than in some place in China or India. Stop the apologizing and be proud of what is made in germany. - cleaner than in China.
Pay with Time. Suggestions: Note:Deeds (payout=tenure)=20 years or more but remains the same. Insurans formula(one time pay for premium): Tenure loans=300% {(1) loans=100%=5B If premium=5%=5B Tenure loans=300%=15B Payout=100%=100B Payout Balance=100B-15B=85B(Future Income) Current payout(cash now)=85B/300% =28.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%) Total loans should apply: Total loans=loans+Current payout=(5B+28.33B)=33.33B Extra=33.33B-5B=28.33B(cash) loans=100%=10B If premium=10%=10B Tenure loans=300%=30B Payout=100%=100B Payout Balance=100B-30B=70B(Future Income) Current payout(cash now)=70B/300% =23.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%) Total loans should apply: Total loans=loans+Current payout=(10B+23.33B)=33.33B Extra=33.33B-10B=23.33B(cash) loans=100%=15B If premium=15%=15B Tenure loans=300%=45B Payout=100%=100B Payout Balance=100B-45B=55B(Future Income) Current payout(cash now)=55B/300% =18.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%) Total loans should apply: Total loans=loans+Current payout=(15B+18.33B)=33.33B Extra=33.33B-15B=18.33B(cash) loans=100%=20B If premium=20%=20B Tenure loans=300%=60B Payout=100%=100B Payout Balance=100B-60B=40B(Future Income) Current payout(cash now)=40B/300% =13.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%) Total loans should apply: Total loans=loans+Current payout=(20B+13.33B)=33.33B Extra=33.33B-20B=13.33B(cash) loans=100%=30B If premium=30%=30B Tenure loans=300%=90B Payout=100%=100B Payout Balance=100B-90B=10B(Future Income) Current payout(cash now)=10B/300% =3.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%) Total loans should apply: Total loans=loans+Current payout=(30B+3.33B)=33.33B Extra=33.33B-30B=3.33B(cash) (1)} Note:Theory or concept.Thank you.
The news item was a little incomplete, they should have mentioned the hydrogen steel plant in Sweden, it's currently operating and producing green steel right now. It's been operating for a couple of years. When news items miss out things like this then it gives the appearance that this green steel is still just hypothetical and people might not be convinced that it is possible, when it is possible and a reality in Sweden. Also it's worth pointing out that the power for the hydrogen will probably come from the power grid. You see the power grid demands power at particular times, in the days time and in the evening, but not much at night. So if you have plenty of wind turbines they can generate the hydrogen at night for the steel plant and the same wind turbine can generate power for people to have electricity in the homes at other times. When you put these industries together they do fit together every well.
I understand that you want to exclude Japanese companies. However, I don't understand what you want to accomplish by visiting Japan for inspection. It's strange that the citizens are not angry.
As a consumer of flat steel products in order to fabricate my products, I will tell you nobody is interested in paying more for steel. My customers are not interested in paying more for their finished products. Incidentally, my costs for steel are currently almost 300% of pre-Covid cost. Pay more? Don’t think so. I’ll buy Mexican. Or, Ukrainian, when they’re back to it.
Germany is all about being green, why don't they just get rid of their steel industry altogether? In fact to add to that get rid of their automotive industry while they're at it seeing as car emissions are second to the energy sector.
First of all, agriculture is only second to Energy in terms of greenhouse emissions (24% vs 25%). Transportation comes in 4th at 14%. Secondly steel is a foundational industry, it is the backbone of SO MANY other sectors and exactly because of that, Germany continues to have a steel industry. Everything from the buildings we live in, to the electronics we use to the pens we write with and the needles we use for medicine and research all need steel. If Germany shuts down their steel industry the only result would be it shifting somewhere else, where there are fewer environmental protection concerns and then wasting energy shipping it back to all the other industries that need it. There is no stupider idea than wanting to destroy everything you have to jump into a precipice rather than to reform an already functional economy.
Companies have business plans and make investments on a medium/long timeframe assuming stable pre-conditions. There was a political decision to *suddenly* switch off from natural gas, as a result of Russia invading Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed over Russia. Therefore it is right that the government do something to correct change of pre-conditions. The plus for go green is a good thing. It is a good thing much of industry remains in Europe.
First Germany needs to give an honest account of their CO2 emissions. Second, it won’t help anyway because climate change is generated by cycles of the sun.
Let's hope nobody figures out how Hydrogen behaves in the atmosphere and what the consequences are. I personally don't believe that the leakage will be kept at astronomical low thresholds when comparing it with any other industry. These grey energy projects will set back any hope of preventing climate catastrophe if they aren't tightly regulated to the letter.
Every few days a new story about the solution to climate change. And for a long time. How much have all these solutions contributed to the reduction of greenhouse gases so far? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
@@cinpeace353 There are other stories. Some of which (see miracles!) have been implemented. The only thing is that there is no story about how much the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is, i.e. the warming of the atmosphere.
Innovation has already helped many industries reduce their emissions and clean up the air we breathe. Do you not remember how awful cities were in the 1990s to be in? The Energy sector alone spews 650 million tonnes less while our countries have continued to be rich.
@@serebii666 So why this climate panic if we have been so successful since the 90s? And the reasons for the continued wealth of rich countries can be discussed, but that is a broader topic. I still don't have anyone's answer to my question, i.e. the story about how much greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced so far.
@@mimikrya8794 Because the effects of Climate change have significantly worsened since the 1980s. People realized that the issue could no longer be ignored. The world population is still growing and societies are still modernizing. There are nearly 3 billion more people in the world since 1990. Without these emission reduction strategies, our planet would literally become unsupportable to the civilizational structure, habitation and agriculture we have developed and relied on for the past 10000 years. Our civilization relies on stability and foreseeability, climate change is a direct potent threat against that need. There is absolutely no "climate panic", only the basic human ability of having the cognitive ability to extrapolate data. And the data is, as it was already empirically predicted decades ago, very, very bad. Emissions are still growing, but their rate is far lower due to innovation and alternate technology and as a result we are now on track to only have bad world changing consequences with more opportunities in the near future to rectify past mistakes, rather than a brisk apocalyptic cascading systems failure. With having already developed the technology and capacity at scale to begin fully abandoning emission-causing activity be are now better than ever prepared for future challenges, including having developing countries leapfrog to sustainable economic models, rather than forcing them to repeat our own past errors. Japan didn't need to independently invent the steam engine to industrialize either, it just adopted the cutting edge tech of the time and what took Europe 500 years, it accomplished in 70 as a result. As for plainly visible successes already visible: Remember the Ozone? Without concerted effort and the Montreal Protocol it would be completely gone by now. Instead we are on track to see its restoration within the next few decades. Our goal is to keep our planet habitable for us as close to how we have lived for the past thousands of years. Obviously that means stopping actively making it less habitable. Every single human today can feel the effects of our poor resource management.
May be the consumer is willing to pay extra for the green? Or, technology will evolve to low the cost? The lady said some Chinese companies already doing it. May be send a team to learn from China?
Looking up the revenue of Thyssen-Krupp does not paint the picture that they would really need a cash injection to facilitate those changes...
Companies have business plans and make investments on a medium/long timeframe assuming stable pre-conditions.
There was a political decision to *suddenly* switch off from natural gas, as a result of Russia invading Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed over Russia.
Therefore it is right that the government do something to correct change of pre-conditions.
It plays in the line of people saying we shouldn’t depend on untrusted energy suppliers, and also the goals to reduce CO2 emissions, and shifting production to India or China where they would be emitting much more CO2 (plus transport and potential supply chain failure).
It is a good thing much of industry remains in Europe.
Maybe you should be looking at their profit, not their revenue.
@@legallyfree2955 “Maybe you should be looking at their profit, not their revenue.”
Your point is that profit (and revenue) should go somewhere else? India? China? USA?
Maybe you’re against government intervention.
Or maybe against “saving the Capitalist”.
But, there was a political action, sudden!, and maybe government do feel it needs to iron out some injustice.
@@lv3609 No, my point was that they often make a loss and not a profit, and when they do make a profit it's not that high given the size of the company, so that they would need a cash injection to make the change for green steel or they would go bankrupt and the production would move to China.
It's heavy industry. When they change, costs are tremendous trickling down to suppliers and workers in other countries.
Things are on a impressive scale. Nearly as impressive as microchip production. You should take a look at both of them.
There are no small interruptions - it's always millions of $$ lost per day.
And where is H2 coming from? Last time i cheked the largest part of H2 is made from natural gas... So still not carbon neutral... Unless you make H2 from water hydrolysis(splitting 2H2O into 2H2 and O2)
That's the plan..
@@heinedenmark the energy grid doesn't exist for everyone to have electric cars but we want to accomplish this? ridiculous.
@@BonsaiBlacksmith yeah it's called investment and network build out. We in Germany have over double capacity with wind and solar for what is needed, just needs to be better connected, not so Impossible
You are correct. The plan is to produce hydrogen via electrohydrolysis when there is excess production in the grid. Got great wind on the north sea but not enough demand for it, shunt it to the hydrogen plant. Now, whether that plan is viable, we'll find out.
... and yes, hydrolysis from sea water: at a time when our oceans are already stressed and under threat.
This puts Phytoplankton populations - responsible for most of the transfer of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the ocean - at risk of at least decreased richness in diversity as salinity increases. The AMOC is also adversely effected as salinity increases, and there may be other additional impacts to the water cycle, including rainfall patterns and volumes, etc.
My understanding is that mass "green hydrogen" production at scale - far above the current research, testing and proof-of-concept efforts - and its impact on the broad planetary system, is not well understood, nor has it been factored into scaling green hydrogen production to the significant quantities needed to replace coal, gas and petroleum use in industrial settings - such as raw-materials extraction and processing including steel production.
It's BC economy of scale. Hydrogen hasn't gotten to that scale yet. But I agree with with pushing for green steel.
I was a big fan of it, until I started working in the energy industry, and the sheer cost of it, would drive any busniess under that is honest to it's customers - Green depends on huge venture capital, and is in heavy burn due to how expansive it is to operate. No sustainabilty (the power to produce it, outways the power it creates)
May be time to invest in industry to produce hydrogen in scales?
@@cinpeace353 even at scale if you make it green, no-one would be able to afford it, they can't even afford blue, and grey is just in there atm
Just have questions of green steel. The raw pig iron also contains carbon, how to make that CO2 neutral when one need to extract carbon by burning it? And how to avoid hydrogen embrittlement were using H2 reducing iron?
You dont, thats negligible compare to the amount of co2 produced burning coal to heat and melt the iron, which will now turn to use hydrogen as a heat source.
There isn't really any carbon in processed ore and most of the steel here is recycled not Virgin Steel.
Pig iron contains carbon because carbon monoxide is the reducing agent during the smelting process. Iron ore contains FeO, Iron Oxide. Rust basically. To turn the oxide back into metal you need to provide a lot of energy in the form of heat AND get rid of the oxygen, turning it into just Fe. The traditional smelting process uses carbon monoxide, CO, to do this. carbon monoxide is generated by burning coal, but not allowing the coal enough oxygen to turn into carbon dioxide CO2. Without enough oxygen the combustion process is incomplete and instead of CO2, CO is generated instead. This carbon monoxide then reacts with the hot iron oxide, creating carbon dioxide and metallic iron. CO + FeO = Fe + CO2.
This is the primary source of CO2 emissions in the smelting process. For every atom of metallic iron you make, you are generating at least one molecule of carbon dioxide, sometimes more as many iron oxides have more than one oxygen atom per iron atom. During this process some of the carbon gets trapped in the iron, which is why pig iron has such a high carbon content, much higher than steel.
To remove this excess carbon, you 'burn' the pig iron essentially. Blasting oxygen through the molten pig iron to reduce the carbon content but turning the carbon into CO2.
However, carbon monoxide isn't the only reducing agent we can use, we can also use hydrogen. Hydrogen doesn't get trapped in the molten iron the way carbon does, so when hydrogen is used the end product isn't pig iron, but pure elemental, metallic iron. Which is what we want. No body wants pig iron. Even if you're making steel you reduce the pig iron down to pure iron and then carefully add back in the perfect amount of carbon.
Hydrogen embrittlement doesn't occur at the elevated temperatures during the smelting process. It's a lower temperature phenomenon that mostly effects steel, and is primarily caused by hydrogen wanting to do anything but bond with iron. To illustrate one type of hydrogen embrittlement is when hydrogen that has been diffused into the metal due to high concentrations and pressures, recombines into H2 and forms gas pockets inside the metal rather than bonding to the iron or just staying diffused. Hydrogen and iron are like oil and water.
@@bachvandals3259 Not true. Using carbon to reduce the iron oxide into metallic iron is why the process is so carbon intensive. For every atom of metallic iron you get, you have to make at least one molecule of carbon dioxide. That's how the chemical reaction works. Green hydrogen is green not because we are using hydrogen for heat, but because we are replacing coal with hydrogen in the chemical reaction.
We should level the plain worldwide regarding steel production costs.
Any non green steel should be taxed to have the same manufacturing price as green steel. The tax money should then be used to support manufacurers moving to green steel.
If not, countries like Germany lose economic competitiveness to countries that care less about the environment and it becomes a race to the bottom.
...und Einfuhrzölle sollten wieder eingeführt werden!!! Das ist so lange nötig, so lange nicht gleiche Sozial- und Umweltstandards herrschen - alles andere ist unfairer Wettbewerb!
There are strategic considerations. There could be substantial demand for low emissions steel even at a premium. It could be a net savings for construction companies in territories where carbon credits apply for instance.
Net savings is a scam, and DW has done a really good job reporting on all the diffrent reoporting by other agancies and studies. A tax to polute, and gaps. Being given a nutrality badge is a luctarive busniess, and give zero benfits, so much so EU Authoriaties are thinking about getting rid of the term "Net - Nutral"
In places with carbon credits no one can afford a house.
@@CHMichael Well that's patently false. Which countries do and do not have a carbon credit system, do you think? Do you even know? You can google it. Property prices are weakly correlated with carbon credits. In fact I doubt there's any correlation at all to start with. Property prices are always strongly correlated with demand.
Everyone doesn't realize if the steel industry goes to charcoal its carbon neutral steel, No need to dump all this money on retooling and subsidies. I have worked on green steel initiatives in the Saarland which produces a lot of steel.
How to impose a questionable restriction on a company that is not adopted elsewhere.
Answer: the consumer. Innovation will eventually drive cost down.
Move production to another country.
Where is German company Stiftung??? Why no stiff opposition from them to make costly steel someone always has to steal for them
Looking at investing in green technology and actually doing something should have happened already.
Now it's too late.
The crazy thing about natural gas is that it’s already made out of almost completely hydrogen and all you have to do is burn it in you processes. I
Yeah,.. now is the best time we should increase costs for whole industries using steel when prices are already up and about every country in EU has increased their national debts. Best time indeed.
Man she has no clue how a blast furnace works.
🤓
The company makes outrageous profits $41 Billion per year, and does not need a cash injection to go green.
Companies have business plans and make investments on a medium/long timeframe assuming stable pre-conditions.
There was a political decision to *suddenly* switch off from natural gas, as a result of Russia invading Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed over Russia.
Therefore it is right that the government do something to correct change of pre-conditions.
It plays in the line of people saying we shouldn’t depend on untrusted energy suppliers, and also the goals to reduce CO2 emissions, and shifting production to India or China where they would be emitting much more CO2 (plus transport and potential supply chain failure).
It is a good thing much of industry remains in Europe.
Yep take it from the shareholder dividends. They made enough profit from polluting the planet they can afford it.
@@lv3609 Corporations understand regulation and policy changes as a normal thing. As a project manager, we always plan for these sudden changes and know that you can never plan for stability ever. It about pleasing investors, nothing more.
@@SA-ks9vz
How old is Thyssenkrupp factory?
Maybe the project manager then had different information.
If it is German government that feels it must correct a situation (it was still a political decision in the end), you can’t be blaming the industry.
@@SA-ks9vz If you are actually a project manager, you should know the difference between revenue and profit. TK had a revenue of 41 billion in 2022. It had a net income of .975 billion in 2022. And not every year has been profitable. You didn't even try to accurate with your statement.
Carbon neutral doesn't mean no emissions, it just means you "offset" the emissions you do make on paper. Let's remember steel must use coal. Hydrogen furnaces do not do what you described. Hydrogen furnace steel still uses coal. You can't make steel without a carbon source, that's what makes it steel. Hydrogen doesn't generate a carbon source.
These "green steel" plants will still require coal, get it right. They just won't use coal to power the furnaces
No, they lady is right. You can use hydrogen instead of coal. I'll explain. Iron ore contains FeO, Iron Oxide. Rust basically. To turn the oxide back into metal you need to provide a lot of energy in the form of heat AND get rid of the oxygen, turning it into just Fe. The traditional smelting process uses carbon monoxide, CO, to do this. carbon monoxide is generated by burning coal, but not allowing the coal enough oxygen to turn into carbon dioxide CO2. Without enough oxygen the combustion process is incomplete and instead of CO2, CO is generated instead. This carbon monoxide then reacts with the hot iron oxide, creating carbon dioxide and metallic iron. CO + FeO = Fe + CO2.
This is the primary source of CO2 emissions in the smelting process. For every atom of metallic iron you make, you are generating at least one molecule of carbon dioxide, sometimes more as many iron oxides have more than one oxygen atom per iron atom.
However, carbon monoxide isn't the only reducing agent we can use, we can also use hydrogen. When hydrogen gas is forced past hot iron oxide, the hydrogen react with the oxygen, forming water. H2 + FeO = Fe + H2O
You do need carbon for steel, but that carbon is added later after the smelting process and does not generate emissions because the carbon is incorporated into the iron, not released.
@@stormelemental13 You just wasted your time arguing strawman. You're describing the chemical reaction inside a furnace. I did not say "her" description of what happens in a furnace was wrong.
Only your last paragraph addressed what I actually wrote. I did not ever write that cO2 is released when carbon is added to steel. Explaining that coal will always be required for steel production is important, where do you think that carbon comes from if they shut down all the coal mines?
There is no such thing as a zero emissions steel foundry nor will there ever be. That's why terms like "carbon neutral" get used.
Perhaps in future you might want to reply to what is actually said instead of running off on random rants.
@@tjmarx Coal isn't the only source of carbon, so no, coal will not always be required for steel production. Carbon will, but the source doesn't matter. Maybe it will be from coal, or coke to be more correct, but maybe not. Either way it doesn't matter if coal is used for this as it is zero emission.
And yes, adding carbon to iron during steel production is generally considered emission free because the carbon is incorporated into the steel not released as a green house gas. The emissions come from other parts of the refining process.
@@stormelemental13 You just keep trying to "correct" strawman arguments and make a clown of yourself in the process.
You seem to have trouble with comprehension. Re-read over what I've actually written.
@@tjmarx
But there is nothing to be ragging.
If the industrial process reduces the emissions of CO2, significantly, well better do it (instead of doing nothing on excuse it is not going to 0).
No need for rage for the sake of rage.
Green steel is a joke. Green so far means dirtier steel. Consumer happier means cheaper. Deal with it.
And the steel a produce will be used to build artillery barrels tanks and other Green machines...
How is that cold potato soup in the donbas trench comrade?
@@jeremytine you must be confusing me with your uncle
@@Interglacial_optimist Pitler bot claims not to be a Pitler bot, color me shocked.
@@Interglacial_optimist I suppose you could be a wumao... CCCP/CCP 🤷♀️ not much difference
Hopefully
Green steel - lol. "Carbon neutral "
.... didn't we just learn how carbon neutral germany was using Russian gas and oil?
High quality steel is important - making it in germany is much better for the planet than in some place in China or India.
Stop the apologizing and be proud of what is made in germany. - cleaner than in China.
Pay with Time.
Suggestions:
Note:Deeds (payout=tenure)=20 years or more but remains the same.
Insurans formula(one time pay for premium):
Tenure loans=300%
{(1)
loans=100%=5B
If premium=5%=5B
Tenure loans=300%=15B
Payout=100%=100B
Payout Balance=100B-15B=85B(Future Income)
Current payout(cash now)=85B/300%
=28.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%)
Total loans should apply:
Total loans=loans+Current payout=(5B+28.33B)=33.33B
Extra=33.33B-5B=28.33B(cash)
loans=100%=10B
If premium=10%=10B
Tenure loans=300%=30B
Payout=100%=100B
Payout Balance=100B-30B=70B(Future Income)
Current payout(cash now)=70B/300%
=23.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%)
Total loans should apply:
Total loans=loans+Current payout=(10B+23.33B)=33.33B
Extra=33.33B-10B=23.33B(cash)
loans=100%=15B
If premium=15%=15B
Tenure loans=300%=45B
Payout=100%=100B
Payout Balance=100B-45B=55B(Future Income)
Current payout(cash now)=55B/300%
=18.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%)
Total loans should apply:
Total loans=loans+Current payout=(15B+18.33B)=33.33B
Extra=33.33B-15B=18.33B(cash)
loans=100%=20B
If premium=20%=20B
Tenure loans=300%=60B
Payout=100%=100B
Payout Balance=100B-60B=40B(Future Income)
Current payout(cash now)=40B/300%
=13.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%)
Total loans should apply:
Total loans=loans+Current payout=(20B+13.33B)=33.33B
Extra=33.33B-20B=13.33B(cash)
loans=100%=30B
If premium=30%=30B
Tenure loans=300%=90B
Payout=100%=100B
Payout Balance=100B-90B=10B(Future Income)
Current payout(cash now)=10B/300%
=3.33B++(can loans if Tenure loans=300%)
Total loans should apply:
Total loans=loans+Current payout=(30B+3.33B)=33.33B
Extra=33.33B-30B=3.33B(cash)
(1)}
Note:Theory or concept.Thank you.
The news item was a little incomplete, they should have mentioned the hydrogen steel plant in Sweden, it's currently operating and producing green steel right now. It's been operating for a couple of years.
When news items miss out things like this then it gives the appearance that this green steel is still just hypothetical and people might not be convinced that it is possible, when it is possible and a reality in Sweden.
Also it's worth pointing out that the power for the hydrogen will probably come from the power grid. You see the power grid demands power at particular times, in the days time and in the evening, but not much at night. So if you have plenty of wind turbines they can generate the hydrogen at night for the steel plant and the same wind turbine can generate power for people to have electricity in the homes at other times. When you put these industries together they do fit together every well.
No more cheap oil. Everythings tanking in eu...huge mistake following america
Not me
I understand that you want to exclude Japanese companies. However, I don't understand what you want to accomplish by visiting Japan for inspection. It's strange that the citizens are not angry.
As a consumer of flat steel products in order to fabricate my products, I will tell you nobody is interested in paying more for steel. My customers are not interested in paying more for their finished products. Incidentally, my costs for steel are currently almost 300% of pre-Covid cost. Pay more? Don’t think so. I’ll buy Mexican. Or, Ukrainian, when they’re back to it.
Germany is all about being green, why don't they just get rid of their steel industry altogether? In fact to add to that get rid of their automotive industry while they're at it seeing as car emissions are second to the energy sector.
Right! And get rid of their co2 choking agriculture and trains/airplanes too!
We must get serious here!!!
Both of you are special thats for sure
First of all, agriculture is only second to Energy in terms of greenhouse emissions (24% vs 25%). Transportation comes in 4th at 14%.
Secondly steel is a foundational industry, it is the backbone of SO MANY other sectors and exactly because of that, Germany continues to have a steel industry. Everything from the buildings we live in, to the electronics we use to the pens we write with and the needles we use for medicine and research all need steel. If Germany shuts down their steel industry the only result would be it shifting somewhere else, where there are fewer environmental protection concerns and then wasting energy shipping it back to all the other industries that need it.
There is no stupider idea than wanting to destroy everything you have to jump into a precipice rather than to reform an already functional economy.
Love seeing natural people without all the cosmetic modifications
So now Germany needs funding.. the rules apply to all
Green,Green and Green, better move the steel mills outside of EU. It is better that EU without factory is paradise on earth.
For elites.
Green taxes coming ur way soon, 🇪🇺!
Who needs industry anyway? Let's just all transition to a purely service based economy, nothing bad will come out of that.😒
USA
World
Sdgs
Thyssenkrup will go bankrupt
No way you can take someone serious when he is holding the hammer from Thor.
Thank you DW News 📰 network.
They want money to do the right thing? Time to nationalize them.
Simple as that. Change or get changed.
Companies have business plans and make investments on a medium/long timeframe assuming stable pre-conditions.
There was a political decision to *suddenly* switch off from natural gas, as a result of Russia invading Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions placed over Russia.
Therefore it is right that the government do something to correct change of pre-conditions.
The plus for go green is a good thing.
It is a good thing much of industry remains in Europe.
It's ain't free to change.
Let's see how much extra carbon emissions will be expended in making the plant, plus all the extra infrastructure involved to produce and operate it.
A steal plant - ran off water pressure
First Germany needs to give an honest account of their CO2 emissions. Second, it won’t help anyway because climate change is generated by cycles of the sun.
Let's hope nobody figures out how Hydrogen behaves in the atmosphere and what the consequences are. I personally don't believe that the leakage will be kept at astronomical low thresholds when comparing it with any other industry.
These grey energy projects will set back any hope of preventing climate catastrophe if they aren't tightly regulated to the letter.
That is the end of krupp
Hard wie krupp stahl
Zahe wie leder
Flink wie ein wiese
Belong to the history
Deutche stahl zu teuer yung
Aufwiedersehen !!
Every few days a new story about the solution to climate change. And for a long time. How much have all these solutions contributed to the reduction of greenhouse gases so far? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
In this story, the solution is not implemented yet. So, only talks so far in this story.
@@cinpeace353 There are other stories. Some of which (see miracles!) have been implemented. The only thing is that there is no story about how much the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is, i.e. the warming of the atmosphere.
Innovation has already helped many industries reduce their emissions and clean up the air we breathe. Do you not remember how awful cities were in the 1990s to be in? The Energy sector alone spews 650 million tonnes less while our countries have continued to be rich.
@@serebii666 So why this climate panic if we have been so successful since the 90s? And the reasons for the continued wealth of rich countries can be discussed, but that is a broader topic. I still don't have anyone's answer to my question, i.e. the story about how much greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced so far.
@@mimikrya8794 Because the effects of Climate change have significantly worsened since the 1980s. People realized that the issue could no longer be ignored. The world population is still growing and societies are still modernizing. There are nearly 3 billion more people in the world since 1990. Without these emission reduction strategies, our planet would literally become unsupportable to the civilizational structure, habitation and agriculture we have developed and relied on for the past 10000 years. Our civilization relies on stability and foreseeability, climate change is a direct potent threat against that need. There is absolutely no "climate panic", only the basic human ability of having the cognitive ability to extrapolate data. And the data is, as it was already empirically predicted decades ago, very, very bad.
Emissions are still growing, but their rate is far lower due to innovation and alternate technology and as a result we are now on track to only have bad world changing consequences with more opportunities in the near future to rectify past mistakes, rather than a brisk apocalyptic cascading systems failure. With having already developed the technology and capacity at scale to begin fully abandoning emission-causing activity be are now better than ever prepared for future challenges, including having developing countries leapfrog to sustainable economic models, rather than forcing them to repeat our own past errors. Japan didn't need to independently invent the steam engine to industrialize either, it just adopted the cutting edge tech of the time and what took Europe 500 years, it accomplished in 70 as a result.
As for plainly visible successes already visible: Remember the Ozone? Without concerted effort and the Montreal Protocol it would be completely gone by now. Instead we are on track to see its restoration within the next few decades.
Our goal is to keep our planet habitable for us as close to how we have lived for the past thousands of years. Obviously that means stopping actively making it less habitable. Every single human today can feel the effects of our poor resource management.
Won’t this make German steel expensive. The taxpayers will have to subsidize or else the German steel industry will collapse
May be the consumer is willing to pay extra for the green? Or, technology will evolve to low the cost? The lady said some Chinese companies already doing it. May be send a team to learn from China?
Make NATO green again?! 😆