Fossil free steel. Another giant step towards net carbon zero?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Steel has become an essential material in our modern world. But the steel making industry is responsible for 7% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. That has to be reduced by at least 60% by 2050 if we are to meet our net carbon zero targets. A solution has been found though, and it replaces carbon with hydrogen. The question is, can it be scaled up quickly enough?
Errata : Apologies for the formula on screen at 6:50 - the letter z should of course have been a number 2 and the Fe203 and H2 numbers should be subscripts. Sadly my 52 year old eyes are getting worse every day, and I missed these errors!
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveath...
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoff...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos?
Check out the FREE DiveDeeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.
climatechange....
Check out other TH-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown:
/ @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere:
/ @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Research links
Science Direct Research Papers
www.sciencedir...
www.sciencedir...
EN:FORMER Article on hydrogen HDRI
www.en-former....
SSAB
www.ssab.com/c...
www.ssab.com/N...
www.ssab.com/n...
LKAB
www.lkab.com/en/
Vattenfall
www.vattenfall...
COP 26 Site
ukcop26.org/
#fossilfreesteel #climateemergency #actnow
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
Errata : Apologies for the formula on screen at 6:50 - the letter z should of course have been a number 2 and the Fe203 and H2 numbers should be subscripts. Sadly my 52 year old eyes are getting worse every day, and I missed these errors!
Can't catch every typo, and remember to 3rr is human 9r some such thing that was said. Great video, this technology is exciting, I can see a desalination plant and solar farm hooking up to this very nicely.
Hi I'm 58 years old and can still that we all need to consume less energy. Most folk imagine reducing personal electricity consumption by half to be a nightmare, energy junkies. And the money junkies who control capitalism will lead us on into the real nightmare of severe climate disruption. Of course its clear that climate disruption is already way out of control.
Note I missed I, see, that..
Oh well, I have 2.5 reading glasses already.
Very disapppointed. I except nuthing less then perphekshun frum u!
I'm 59 and was just about to pick you up on it, yeah right of course i was.😜
More good content👍
I am a Swede, wrote a paper on HYBRIT and worked at SSAB for 5 years. I have to say, very interesting things are going on in the Swedish steel industry right now. Sweden have the perfect setup for this to work with everything from mines, sustainable electricity in abundance, a steel manufacturerer ready to do this and a government that supports this all the way. In fact the companies involved does not even see this as a risk. Very informative, I just sat and waited for you to name drop "HYBRIT" and I'm glad you did. You really did your research!
Remind me, what proportion of world steel production comes from Sweden? Don't worry, I've found it, good old wiki.
Number 30 in the world at 4.7 Mtonnes out of a global total of 1870Mtonnes. Producing expensive specialist steels mostly.
That's not a criticism, but an observation of the very special circumstances of Swedish steel production. Add to that Swedish social expectations regarding government investment and subsidy. That situation does not apply globally, not by a long way.
@@nicktecky55 I totally agree. But I think it's good, these conditions is good for sparking these kinds of innovations. In the future, I guess we all hope that some of the more impactful producers adopts these methods. These methods were never going to develop there anyway.
Abundance of electricity? Which Sweden do you live in?
With the energy needs of HYBRIT, electrification of the transportation fleet, shutting down our nukes etc. the only chance we have of generating enough electricity is to build hydro in our remaining rivers and there is no chance in hell MP ("greens") would agree to that. Or is it the wind power we have in abundance? Should we prepare by building enough hydrogen storage for weeks or months of low wind conditions?
@@ulwen I guess it all depends on perspective then. I would say Sweden has a better situation than many others. Of course, power from burning coal or oil is not possible for this. And the government is aware of this and want this to work. I personally think being against nuclear power was a popular thing in the 70's and something that is way due to die out. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though..
@@albingoransson6347 Right, certainly feels like a severe case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Anyway we can only hope the new government after the election september 11 2022 can restart the Ringhals reactor.
Always informative, well researched, reasonable and pleasant to watch! No need for extreme presentation, feigned shock or dramatic music - a delight. Long may you continue to produce these videos
Thank you Neilhuny. I really appreciate that :-)
yep, easily the best channel on that topic out there!
Got my subscription. Need these informative vidoes.
Yes, I have to add, you're the very best I've found. Nobody does this better.
Thank you for your hard work.
Wind turbines KILL BIRDS, Solar panels causes TOXIC waste, The subsidation of any activities causes future DEBT SLAVES. CO2 is food for trees. Just keep your blinders on and believe these subsidise mouth pieces. NEVER HAVE A THINK sheep
'i had a blast. may steel this one.' ore not.
da dum, tsss
+! Internets
Marvellous. If this method was economically viable, it would already be in production. Plus the assumptions re CO2 are totally wrong. This podcast is not well done.
CO2 is essential for ALL life on earth. In fact a higher level of CO2 would definitely help plant growth which all animals depend on.
@@Exanto777 Pretty sure CO2 is toxic to humans. Kurtis Baute did a video on that as well. Still, to much CO2 means to much warming.
@@Exanto777 yes...and both animal and plant life grew just fine for the millions of years before the Industrial Revolution started pumping massive quantities of human-generated CO2 into the atmosphere. What’s your point?
I got a degree in metallurgy 38 years ago and found this very exciting. Would Iceland be a good place to build new plants?
Only if we could ship the steel out and ores/limestone in carbon-free...
Nuclear cargo boats are carbon free
@@tisonlyi Labrador, canada has large iron ore deposits, and is close to Iceland. I suppose they use that allready
Do they produce ice in Iceland?
Sure. Can you magically move the steel around the world with zero carbon used?
"heavy subsidies will be needed" Huh? How about "Heavy investment resulting in taxpayers holding serious ownership". Welfare for the rich and the privatization of profits that were created by taxpayer investment is just plain wrong.
Aka “capitalism” 😆
@@Michael-bw9hq yup. If fossil fuel companies even shared their wealth like the Alaskan permanent fund governments would be able to provide more than double the walfare they provide now without collecting any tax revenue. That's an important context to consider when thinking about why how governments finance themselves. Taxes should then be reserved for moderating or prorating economic activity like excise taxes. Income taxes could be completely shifted to corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are much easier to justify because they are chartered. It's a tax on this legal machine. The corporate tax rate is already high enough for that except that the effective tax rate of corporations is a joke. Amazon pays $0 in tax. Part of what corporations can write off includes paying you with benefits as an employee. Riddle me that. I don't think people even realize just how bad it is or how easily governments could have completely changed this if they weren't ruled by corporations for the last century and beyond.
@@Michael-bw9hq the government taxing people and giving that money to corporations isnt capitalism, just because the us government does something doesn’t make it capitalism
@@Furiends Actually, corporations weren't unanimously evil before reagan gave them rights of individuals
This happens when you have all the good intentions a good deal of experties on certain issues, you genuinly want the best for everyone BUT you use the wrong framework to find solutions. When he said subsidies required he thought of a solution strictly bounded by the current capitalistic frame, basicly stuff that would work quickly and applicable right now (assuming the corps don't just start to game the goverment help somehow, which they would probably try). On the other hand, what you talked about is a long term stable solution which we should pursue as soon as possible, I just don't know if we have the awarness and time to transition before climate consequences start to materialize.
I live in a steel town and do third party engineering for the plants. It has always bothered me how dirty things are. Near the plants is where the layers of filth are most noticeable, but its everywhere. I k ow enough to know that the coke blowoff is the major culprit. Hope to one day be rid of that.
I grew up not far from Kaiser Steel in Fontana, California. The coking ovens were the problem. Those things were horrendous. The air around there was lethal.
The black country in the UK was not called that with no reason.
My cousins worked at the coking plants on the border of Illinois and Indiana around Chicago, gritty air in those parts! Glad to see cleaner technologies coming along.☕
I did work experience as a teenager during the 1980s at our local steel works (Port Kembla, Oz). The thing I remember was a thick layer of what looked like carbon snow all through the upper levels of the BOS plant
Just imagine the conditions about 50 years back. The technology was the same but the laws were missing then. Every tree and house was covered with a thick layer of black powder.
I'm a former steelworker, laid off in 2019 from the largest steel producer in the world, as they shut down the blast furnace in my town - the work was my pride and a source of community. I live in a country where climate change denial was practically a state ideology untill recently (and in practice still pretty much is). When I think of the possibilities that would come for steel industry if the government was ever interested in long perspective reasearch and investment, I am incredibly sad about all the skill and fraternity lost with the dismantling of my former industry. That's capitalism for You
What’s the name of the plant that was shut down ?
United States Steel USS , shut down its Great Lakes Works in 2019
@@psychiatry-is-eugenics ArcelorMittal Cracow (Poland), they closed down the blast furnace, oxygen furnaces and continuous steel casting plant
@@moustachu100 - Same thing happened here , near Detroit . You are right , it is sad
I feel your pain. Losing a national steel industry is crazy.
That sucks man. It would be interesting to see if the steel industry could gain back some of these lost jobs by investing in these new technologies, but Poland does have huge coal interests. And the US still has a large population of people believing the lies of fossil fuel interests.
Wonderfull development. Steel is one of those fields where it seemed impossible to lower carbon emissions, but it seems that it is indeed possible.
Yes this, and the almost unbelievable "carbon-negative" concrete seem to offer hope over previously insurmountable contributors.
On the other side of things, I'd argue that making use of steel instead of other materials enabled carbon emissions reductions due to its strenght.
@@DunnickFayuro It's a good point. It's hard to imagine how one could double-bake bricks at a temperature near the melting point of steel with electricity directly. Overwhelming mountains of constructions using steel-reinforced concrete... both, with steel used for tensile strength to complement the other's compressive strength. Even entire floors in buildings can be made of the stuff. Mind you, plenty of multi-story dwellings are made of "sticks". Combustible insect food. Strange, yet carbon-negative.
I'd just like to let you know, as a student of Sustainable Innovations at the Eindhoven University of Technology; you have reignited my passion for sustainability and innovations, keep up the great content, we need more coherent and holistic scientific thinkers like you!
Forget trying to make hydrogen cars happen, THIS and things like this are the future of hydrogen!
Indeed, the people saying we shouldn't be pursuing hydrogen because it's not so good for cars are missing the point. Some things just can't be directly electrified, yet hydrogen can help. So of course we should use our otherwise curtailed green power to produce hydrogen.
Thank you for linking the papers! Sincerely, a science librarian with a strong coffee brewin'
Enjoy them Joel! (and the coffee ) :-)
Thank you for linking the sources even if I don't read them, because it's reassuring to know that people like Joel can and point out any inaccuracies :)
With technologies like these, the future looks good. Assuming we can get our politics sorted out.
Keep up the awesome work!
If we look at the history of any given technology like say solar we can see that if the average person could pay 2-3 times the price for it that it could have been adopted some 3-4 decades prior. PV and solar heat were a thing in the 1980s. Generally the existence of a technology is not enough. We have ALL of the technology needed to go carbon natural and on top of that start majorly sequestering carbon. But that won't help us if no one can afford it.
@@Furiends the ones who can afford
Couldn't care less
Bahh bath sheeple
the future looks good.
if we get politicians and people to agree and cooperate.
thus, in reality, the future is hopeless.
I, for one, will try to do my part
FROM 1990 TO 1999, I WAS A COMMERCIAL BANK CREDIT ANALYST.
One of my Customers was an International Steel Corporation that had created a very profitable business, buying up failed Steel plants from governments around the Planet, and upgrading their Steel-Making process with such things as:
(1) Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) and
(2) Direct Reduced Iron (DRI)
I had written many Loan Proposals on the Company, to justify giving them a $30 million Loan or Letter of Credit Facility, but I NEVER thought there would be a connection with Climate Change!
This channel gives me so much hope. Unfortunately the current political cohesive inaction does not
Politics has always been a pendulum. It has swung a long wasy to the right in recent years and it will swing back with an equal and opposite reaction. My brother in law's father is 94 years old and he's seen it happen more times than he can remember (and he does still have his memory, thankfully ) :-)
Government has a long record of screwing things up when it comes to energy technologies and production.
It's better that an independent entity , or company does the research and development.
When you are feeling down or bored, you could always search for papers to give you hope. Though his serving is especially appeasing! (You could also always dance ;-)
says the person who has enough free time to be here on the tube... if you want change, gtfo your phone and go do something about it.
@@the_hanged_clown I've had enough of ad hominem attacks. Reported for mobbing! Try to be constructive and *don't* judge!
It was fun to see the steel company I work for mentioned in the video. I work just a few minutes walk from this first Hybrit plant. I hope it will be a success. If so the bigger production plants may be built adjacent to the iron ore mines.
I wish they did that here in Australia. My state pumps put the ore and sends it an entire continent away to get processed :/
I always enjoy these videos explaining new low carbon technologies and processes being developed to produce the materials our modern society needs. Back in the day before I retired, I visited a couple coke plants here in the U.S. where we sold equipment and I can tell you it was like a vision of hell with the heat, smoke and noxious fumes coming off the coke as it was unloaded from the ovens onto rail cars. Between cement and steel manufacturing we could really reduce greenhouse gas emissions with new processes. This is an exciting development.
This technology was developed few years ago already, so it has greatly annoyed me that so few people have heard of it and there's always at least one moron going "but (insert green tech) uses steel and that is not carbon free!" when 1. this tech exists, and 2. fossil fuel industry uses even more steel so right back at you...
A potentially major thing with the new system is that the furnace will be putting out a lot of 800 degree steam so it should not be a problem to direct that heat into an exchanger for a boiler of a steam turbine. The plant will be using lots of power in the electric furnaces so producing some of it locally from what is effectively a renewable power source should both help with their power bills and CO2 tax and lower the amount of power the local grid needs to deliver to industry, meaning there is less drain on the grid, less need for balancing and less need for new power plants or storage.
Of course we will still need more grid power production and storage, but instead of adding a huge consumer that requires building of a new power plant a new steel mill will be buying renewable power for producing hydrogen, which acts as energy storage so they can use solar or wind without worrying about night or windless days stopping everything. The hydrogen will then make steel and steam power, which is a steadier energy source as there will be plenty of waste heat that can be used to keep the boilers hot. The electric furnaces cannot boil more steam directly as the last thing you want in a thing you want to get hotter is a cooling system that operates when it is running, but those machines, as well as the molten steel, need to cool down eventually so reusing some of the heat you want to get rid of to run more power generation will again increase the energy efficiency of the plant, meaning you get cheaper steel. Adding these devices to a regular furnace would be too costly and bothersome, but when you already have easily tapped steam for power the other parts become much more viable and cheaper to implement.
Also, while the steel plant might just run their own hydrogen production to ensure it is carbon free, you already need to prepare for times when renewables don't deliver much power or you need to increase steel production so it makes sense to build a big enough H2 factory to not just cover the needs of the steel plant but sell it to other industries and as fuel. The same industries also need lots of trucks for transport and in large scale vehicles hydrogen is cheaper and lighter option than batteries so they have even more incentive to increase the production and therefore lower the cost of hydrogen, which also means hydrogen becomes more viable for other vehicles and there will be more demand for renewable power for producing it.
The problem would be impurities in the steam would cause the turbine to fail. However a heat exchanger could sort that out and have a closed cycle for the turbine. My ballpark maths says 10% loss of energy in the exchanger plus 35% in the cooling tower. That's still pretty good though. As for hydrogen it is a git to store. You have to either store it mind bogglingly cold or in metal matrixes which are a sod in themselves. The best bet would be vented underground storage. Hydrogen escapes pretty quick if you have a decent size vent. Cold air settles and would help keep it cold. Theoretically you could store about 2g per litre of storage space if you are lucky. Liquid hydrogen at -260C is still only 7g/litre. Quarter that for "high temperature" storage at -80C in a metal matrix.
@@gordonlawrence1448 The steam coming out of the furnace would not be at high enough pressure to spin a turbine, you must use a heat exchanger just like a nuclear plant needs one to keep the radioactive water from touching anything outside the containment vessel.
Once it is no longer hot enough to flash boil water the hot steam can still be used for heating the city buildings and maybe de-ice roads. That infrastructure needs to be built by the city, but having such ready customer for your waste heat would probably attract more than one industry to build their plant in there, which means the city gets more tax revenue in addition to having greener power services and safer roads in winter.
Hydrogen has some trouble with storage but with the electrolysis going on most of the time any leakage can be easily covered for. Given it is going to be used soon I'd probably use pressured instead of liquefied gas, but reheating it to proper temperature would not be an issue with all the waste heat around.
@@AnalystPrime There are low pressure turbines. They are a lot bigger but they still work.
In fact, SSAB already uses waste heat to heat up the homes of the entire surrounding town
@counselthyself I'm not sure what a rant about how nobody is building much nuclear power these days has to do with improved steel production... If the message is that things that take a long time to build take a long time to build, well, duh.
I watched the video from the beginning and have to note that while Dr. Smil is correct about many things like how we need to waste less energy and there needs to be economic and political pressure to make the necessary changes, many of his five years old statements have not exactly aged well. Clarke's first and second law clearly apply.
The disclaimer "Past results are no guarantee of future performance." came to mind when he predicts in the next 25 years renewable power production might double or triple while fossil fuels would stay cheap and everyone keeps building more coal power...
The molten oxide process of Boston Metal is also fosil fuel free. Would be good to compare it with Hydrogen based reduction process
Its founder is also an inventor of an awesome liquid metal battery. Will go online in 2021. It's called Ambri.
Well this video misses the point of HYBRIT. The project isn't just about the steel plant but all the way from the iron ore in the ground to, enrichment plants, transports and the furnace. So the project isn't just about making steel. It is also about sustainable mining.
@@thenorthernhandyman Good point, I would also say that what Boston metal is doing might be ALOT harder to scale than hydrogen.
Was going to mention Boston Metal as well. Would be interesting to see a side by side comparison, perhaps some interviews on the topic of representatives from both SSAB and BM. At first glance it seems quite wasteful to go through the trouble of generating H2 instead of just going the Boston metal route.
@@ulwen The hydrogen production must been seen as part of a larger integrated system that combines grid balancing, energy storage, ship fuel and steel production.
The problem of an electrolytic process on it's own is that it doesn't answer for how the energy is produced in large quanities, carbon-free and without any instability to the grid on a local or regional level.
At the end it can only function in certain places like Iceland.
After working in those environments for a number of years, I am surprised to be alive in my 70's
Learned a lot again, and compliments for the fantastic animations!
Thanks Janne. I appreciate that :-)
Ive worked at a blast furnace. And it is mind boggling how much coal is burned into co2. 550 kg carbon per every ton of liquid iron. Ive litterely seen mountains of coal come and go. There were 2 blast furnaces that made like 13-14 tones of liquid iron every minute.
Bonjour!
We've had a lot of trouble deciding between wood structures or steel structures for construction here in Quebec.
This will help decide things in he future thanks!
advantages for both, but Steel buildings are cheaper, stronger, and easier to build. Plus they are a bit more fire resistant as long as you follow the building codes :)
Wood might become a better option at some point as new techniques of manipulating wood is starting to have some interesting results. Here's one company of note...
www.inventwood.com/technologies
Allow me to make it harder. Both Norway and Sweden has built apartment buildings up to about six stories high in wood. Those two countries has roughly the same climate as Canada so should meet the enviornmental critiera.
Can't recall where the norwegian ones are but the ones in Sweden (that they also decided to clad in cedar shingles) are located at Strandparken in Sundbyberg (so about 30min by foot from Bromma Airport (short haul, does connect with London however), if you need to send a delegation to actually see the houses once travel is possible again).
If you make buildings of wood there is a high fire risk. Just look at San Franciscos region, anywhere houses are made of wood and are close to forests they will be burned. Use breeze block faced with rock. The wooden house thing is clearly dangerous. But whatever, climate disruption will be the prominent feature of our future.
No more high rise buildings. Therefore less steel use.
I knew about all these projects already, but still learned a lot about details and context from your video. I.e what is 'sponge iron' and exactly how does the chemistry and process of hydrogen reduction compare/fit-in to the existing processes. Thanks again for an excellent overview. And kudos to SSAB for getting this commercial-scale project off the ground so people can actually buy low-carbon steel soon. It's funny how many denialist types have been saying for a couple of decades "ah but what about steel - you can't decarbonise that" as if that meant it was all OK, and we should just stop even trying to fix the problem. One by one all the reasons why "it can't be done" fall by the wayside.
I agree. Denialists are running out of deniables. Soon all they'll be left with is 'a river in Egypt' :-)
It's fascinating to see how cheap and renewable electricity is really a Kickstarter to other processes. It's almost like, we have to start somewhere to decarbonize and can leverage those successes as inputs to other processes.
Exactly. And we need to utilise the resources while we have them, instead of waiting until we run out to look into alternatives. Can't exactly ship raw materials to create renewable power if all the diesel is gone. So not only are we leveraging the initial decarbonisation, we're leveraging the final fossil burning to build the foundations of not needing to burn any more fossil fuels.
@@kaitlyn__L as Vaclov Smil puts it, wind turbines are just the epitome of embedded fossil fuel usage. It's an interesting because it's true, but not the way it is framed in most places.
Once you get there though, can use those and feed the energy back into say an arc reactor for steel or charging your electric semi.
@@llothsedai3989 yeah. Using fossil energy to lift ourselves out of needing fossil energy, while we still have time to.
The Eiffel tower was actually Koechlin's design and idea, an engineer working on the Eiffel studio. Eiffel himself hated and rejected the design, but mistakenly got included into the proposal sent to the fair comity who loved it and selected it. The rest is history!
Sounds really good. Underlines the need to start taxing greenhouse gas release, preferably with a tax that is gradually increased year by year, to make processes like this increasingly attractive. A carbon tax should be a globally mandated thing.
How are you going to impose it on China or other poorer countries for which growth of industry is the most promising way to become at least moderately developed?
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 I did not say that it would be a globally mandated thing, but that it SHOULD be a globally mandated thing. Of course it's unlikely that you could get all countries aboard with such a thing.
It would require serious trade sanctions against countries that refused to implement carbon taxes to even have a chance of getting everyone on board, I'm afraid.
@@j.lahtinen7525 "It would require serious trade sanctions" USA + EU that's ~30% of global GDP (in PPP). We're already assuming here the USA and eastern part of the EU being totally supportive. In long run Western share of global GDP is declining. Even in 2020 I don't see how countries controlling 30% of global GDP are supposed to put an economic chokehold on the remaining 70% of global economy.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 We could make the carbon tax a function of GDP per capita. That way it would be low for poor countries, and higher for rich countries. As countries like China and India grow, the tax would increase.
@@incognitotorpedo42 So in other words don't run any dirty industry in Switzerland, but move it to India or some African country.
Secondly, the whole plan of forcing sovereign countries to put any significant tax looks like a left wing-equivalent of promising to build a wall and making Mexico pay for it. Sounds totally cool, just even in case of moderate amount of bullying, foreign countries have an annoying tendency to fail to do their bidding.
Just another reason why pairing renewables directly to chemical industries on micro-grids makes so much more sense as an initial and quick build-out step over trying to quickly and fully integrate them to powering the grid. Much easier to build something new to work in a certain way than to adapt existing infrastructure.
Label steels made this way so consumers may weigh in via their wallets. Good piece.
Exactly. Last time I was at the supermarket, I hadn't the faintest idea where my steel had come from. It had a red tractor on it, but apparently that doesn't mean anything these days.
Just for the young to think as it always has been, advertising Brainwashing, amazing how many people make their living in the industry. Like Robots, do as they are told to do, no matter what it costs to humanity and Earths future.
@@ricos1497 this got a good chuckle out of me
@@kaitlyn__L @Rico S But seriously, wouldn't you pay more for a SUV with "Green Steel" embossed on the fenders?
There's a better way. There should be a global carbon tax levied at the source of every carbon emissions heavy industry such as steel, concrete, fossil fuels, agriculture, etc. and the revenue from this should be used to create a Universal Basic Income. The tax needs to be fixed five years ahead of when it becomes effective and continue to increase incrementally. This will have the added benefit of localising the manufacture of goods and simplifying the supply chains; along with solving many social problems.
I am really glad you didn't fall into the "let's just coke biomass and use that instead of coal coke" trap. Iron production used to be "carbon neutral" for thousands of years and used wood as fuel. However, with industry being at the current level going back to the "traditional" process of producing iron would rapidly destroy our forests.
Using hydrogen as a reducing agent isn't actually a "new" idea and is sometimes used in small scale plants, however the source of H2 is usually from fossil fuels like methane or oil refineries. This has some advantages, like adding the required carbon to reach steel. However I'd have to refresh my alternative steel production knowledge to discuss further. Iron sadly is one of the industries where it will be harder to become carbon neutral, however there is a lot of exciting research being done to tackle this issue.
Thank you for producing these high quality videos about the climate topic! I am very glad I found this channel.
I’d prefer that the host refer to the “carbon-pricing” and “Government Involvement” by their real names: “higher taxes”, and “taxpayer subsidies”.
They built a DRI plant in North West Australia on similar principles (BHP HBI) at Biliions$ (then largest of its type in the world) but high temperature high pressure hydrogen and deadly explosions unfortunately meant the site shut down and demolished 2004.
The H2 however sourced from nearby natural gas
3.4 MWh per steel ton with this method, versus how much again for coke-based foundries?
4:33 Basic *Oxygen* process: It's concentrated O2 that is used, not air. And it isn't 'pull(ed) out from the bottom' - that ladle is designed to tip so it can pour - in two different directions so it can separately pour off the slag first.
You have to compress a lot of air in bulk, to liquify it so you can separate the N2 from the O2, and to do that cost-effectively, you need to be able to reuse the energy in the compressed 'waste' N2 to reduce the energy cost of compressing the air.
This is universally done with unsung hero Pyotr Kapitsa's key invention of the centrifugal turboexpander - yes, that thing that harnesses the power from a turbocharged engine's exhaust, in order to power the compressor.
This invention is the one advance that makes basic oxygen process cost efficient, but poor Pyotr almost never gets a mention - it's alway 'Bessemer'. But without the turboexpander to allow cheap O2 separation, the basic oxygen process would be too expensive to use, because you'd have to use about 5x more energy to compress the air, and most of it would be wasted on compressing Nitrogen!
In comparison to the technical intricacy of designing an efficient turboexpander - not least realising that it's the critical step in the gas liquefaction process that makes it so much more cost effective - realising that you might burn the excess C out of iron by injecting compressed O2 doesn't really seem that much of a leap.
Bessemer gets the credit because he patented the idea, without the critical invention of 'so how do you get so much cheap O2, then?' that is enabled by the turboexpander.
Kapitsa isn't even remembered for this work - even though it was probably what allowed Russia to make so many tanks relative to Germany in WW2 - he invented it in 1939, just in time to basically turn the tide of the war, by permitting the T34 production to out-produce Germany's tank production to the extent that it did: Even though the germans had better tanks, the russians had so many more that it just didn't matter.
Perhaps this is the benefit of getting Nobel-laureate-level physicists and forcing them to put away their high energy physics toys and instead work on much more 'down to earth' industrial problems?
"This would require a global carbon tax" Well, I guess it's a no then
Or possibly the countries with a carbon tax could put tariffs on the sources not matching to disadvantage those over the internal.
It'll be down to how serious they take it at COP... And with people like Bolsonaro and Morrison there, it's not looking good. But at least the States will have a reasonable person at the table... and can hopefully show some leadership.
A Carbon Tax has the goal of NOT being a source of Revenue, but a way to reduce demand for burning Carbon.
A Carbon Tax can be and should be 100% refundable.
@@rdelrosso2001 it’s called the price of energy. No need to up the cost. If new ways of generating and using energy can’t make it cheaper, then it’s not good enough
I work in a coke oven battery. Another side benefit of this technology would likely be the reduction of health exposure to workers. The gasses driven off by coke production is nasty. Benzene, toluene, xylene, tar, ammonia. Many workers die from cancer and copd. Hopefully these can be reduced or eliminated.
Let’s keep moving forward.
Good health to you.
I've literally been talking about, educating and taking actions regarding climate change my entire life while those older than me seemed to think fatalistically "we can't do anything about that! It's not that bad! that'll affect us in a 100 years maybe!" yet in my lifetime more CO2 has been released than the rest of time since the industrial revolution.
Don't give up, I am on your side and pushing.
Interesting times, nonetheless. They call it great acceleration and is so hard to understand and accept!
Not everyone older than you is a dope. I'd imagine that Dave and I are both older than you. Probably a lot of people that watch this channel are.
@@incognitotorpedo42 tbh I was thinking more about my childhood and my efforts at being proactive.
Yes, a lot of CO2. But why do you worry? CO2 is beneficial; The climate becomes warmer which is a very good thing, plants grow much better, deserts are greening...
And there is always nuclear power, a cheap, reliable, environmentally friendly energy source ready to use.
@@TheSpecio Please don't post stupid stuff here. Plants are dying all over the western US because of climate change. I've seen dead trees that seemed to go on forever. The same thing is happening in other parts of the world. CO2 is the cause of all this trouble.
Government should not be picking winners and losers in technology. They should not be involved in the process.
The answer is not MORE taxes either. Governments should stop subsiding fossil fuels, and get less involved. The market always does a better job.
@@dannypope1860 only if no governments anywhere fund, support and prefer their own industries. But that is not the case and in that situation companies are at a disadvantage without such local support.
@@dannypope1860 Carbon pricing lets the free market find the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions.
What i took away from it is that this process seems to be doable on the surface of the Moon,where coal is not available
Moreover, thorium is present on the Moon.
I kinda wondered when this topic was going to come up. In the long term the solution is to move iron and steel smelting out to the asteroids where the ore is. Huge mirror farms will concentrate sunlight into furnaces, and comets will provide the water for both hydrogen and oxygen needed in the various operations.
In the mean time, we're stuck with the solutions presented here. __ Oh, well.
We don't want steel to cost a million dollars a ton.
Obviously not enough,but it would be moraly wrong not to try
Nothing is "enough" by itself, because GHG production is spread over a large number of sources. This video shows that we have a pathway to green steel, and that's good. Dave is systematically presenting a roadmap to carbon neutrality. We just need to act upon it.
Super smart guy !!! I can't follow all, but what's important is, we don't need to burn coal to process metals.
Coke coal is what the Australian billionaire wants to finance, and Premier Jason Kenney wants to dig out of Alberta mountain parks. Coke, or metallurgical coal, is what gets mined down at Crowsnest Pass. And we don't need to destroy any more mountain tops, great to know.
Hydrogen embrittlement will become a concern so there may need to be additional processes added between the reduction of Iron and the production of Steel to make sure the hydrogen used has been completely removed.
Else all steels will still use conventional methods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
Read the wikipedia article, it explains that hydrogen embrittlement is a low temp process that takes place with wet steels at temperatures below 150C
Not an issue, at all, when we are talking about introducing hydrogen to molten steels. It'll just boil off. It's normally an issue with low-termperature processes like electroplating, or for anything that comes into contact with liquid hydrogen. The common way you fix a solid part that is undergoing hydrogen embrittlement is literally just to anneal it by heating it to 300C
I studied this in the early 90's - it's not new engineering... BTW - that's a GOOD thing... The only ONLY reason we don't do it that way now is coal is essentially free. That and Geopolymer for concrete and we make a huge step towards carbon neutral.
Aside: once we have a good reason to make Hydrogen in bulk, be it season shifting energy or making low carbon (sic) steel, we can also use it as a feed-stock replacement for everything we do with fossil fuels (though getting carbon out of the air as a feedstock looks to still be a barrier there...) I predict transport fuel isn't going away quickly.
"I have melted my brain to read this paper...." 😆 Thanks
Who left their melted brains on the floor?
Well done ( retired steel plant consultant )
Swedish steel makes the best wood chisels, I'm glad to see the Swedes hard at work greening the steel using these new methods🌏🌎🌍 🌞
There is no such thing as " Swedish steel" steel is manufactured in grades, the same grade is the same wherever it is made in the western world where the grades are not falsified like India or China.
@@snowflakemelter1172 Richard, I was being light-hearted and of course quality steel of the same grade can be found anywhere that high standards are lived up to.
Definitely one of your best episodes.
Thank you Apex. I appreciate that :-)
Activated hydrogen and non-metals can produce nasty compounds like hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide etc. We should fully test the environmental impact with various different iron ores with different impurity content before rushing headlong into this.
I'm going to quibble about the figures regarding a necessary carbon price and the cost of electricity needed to make this viable. The figure quoted is $40 EUR per MWhr. Its quite likely, at least in countries like Australia with an abundance of solar and wind resources, that electricity will be available at well below this level to industrial users.
And they can use their natural renewable resources to produce hydrogen and ship it all over the world.
Recycling steel takes just 1/8th of the energy required to make it from ore. Wow! We need to collect scrap steel like it's gold!
Brilliantly explained
I have an interest in steel from it's corrosion property prospective
That comes from rusting narrow boats
If only steel could be made corrosion resistant
It can, it's called stainless steel but you can't afford a hull made out of it.
Sunday. Morning. Instead of going to church, Just Have A Think.
A synergy I can see is that Hydrogen from Hydrolysis is to be used in the production of steel, there will be an impetus to produce that hydrogen more cost effectively. . . which would help accelerate Hydrogen Fuel Cell use in transportation.
Too soon to write off Hydrogen Powered Cars as “Fool Cells”
Hydrogen will never be more efficient than batteries as a way to power cars. Even if we can create it cheaply, it still requires energy to compress and heavy tanks to store it. I think it's safe to write off H2 powered cars. It might make sense for some trucks and buses.
I'm a metallurgist from Australia and therefore have some idea about how steel is produced. We in Australia have already had a direct reduction plant (about 20 years ago in a place called port hedland) - the problem with the process and the bit missed in the presentation is the fact that hot hydrogen is very dangerous (very explosive on its own) and prone to be absorbed into steel (the pipes and pressure vessels used to transport the hydrogen through the process) and cause embrittlement of the steel used in the pipes etc. So the process (long known) has its technical challenges and in fact too many for the plant in port hedland - which ended up with a poor safety record and from memory a couple of deaths due to explosions and was shut down in about 2004 - 2.5 billion aussie dollars down the tube - not sure it made an operating profit ever let alone the build cost which was ultimately written off. Anyway - it sounds good but has technical challenges that don't go away.
I worked there the Maintenance costs were huge. and a Hydrogen leak was always a worry.
@@shanewheeler713 You were a brave man working there! Visited once and went to the metallurgical lab to use their equipment - that's as close as I wanted to get to the process equipment!
@@eutectoid1 It's not been explained here just how dangerous the process is. It looks great on paper, but when you work with Hydrogen under 200+ Bar of pressure things get dodgy. People don't realize Hydrogen can pass through steel and it damages the steel when it does it (Embrittlement). then at the end of the process you have to deal Brickets that oxidize in front of your eyes. Did you get to see the Steam vapour coming of the stock piles?
@@shanewheeler713 No mate I knew enough about the process to get in and out of the the plant ASAP - as I said just went into the labs to use their metallurgical preparation equipment ( was working in Karratha at the time - long story)
I suppose one bit of good news to think about with regard to climate change mitigation is that we already have most of the technology needed to go carbon natural. Everything from electric transportation, emissionless steal and concrete, bioplastics and renewable energy. The problem remains the same however, capitalism is firmly embedded into the global economy which puts us at the mercy of government action in a time of rampant corruption and authoritarianism. What we really need now are large scale innovations in fiscal policy. That means carbon pricing/tax and large scale government employment and investment all put into action within the next few years or its to late.
Our civilisation put so much effort into the physical sciences, but it is our understanding of society and government that hamstrings us, as usual.
what environmentalists want to replace capitalism with is green totalitarian Communism, so no thanks.
I really like the idea of using heavy industry to soak up excess power from wind and solar.
This could be very promising! Especially when you take into account that you can reuse the water.
Assuming what you really need is steam. There's no harm in emitting water directly into the atmosphere. It's not toxic.
Oh dear... Water is next to air the most abundant resource on earth.
@Adelaine Delabin Only locally, and briefly. The total amount of water in the atmosphere is a function of the average temperature. We couldn't change it if we wanted to.
Used to work in companies that designed & built steel equipment or modified/overed hauled steel making plants. Two processes that always interested me were the natural gas fueled blast furnace that is the same process that you explained only it produced some CO2 and electric arc grade iron bricks. In the electric arc grade ore process; strong magnets separate the powdered iron out of the ore leaving the unwanted material in the ore for disposal. This creates a product that can be used in the electric arc furnaces without the use of a blast furnace and it is used at the mining site to reduce shipping costs and this reduces the production of CO2 created during shipment to the mill. Both processes could produce CO2 free steel or more correctly low CO2 steel as so far shipment of iron ore or pig iron ( what it's called after it leaves the blast furnace) is not a CO2 free process. Anyhow both processes I described have been widely used in N America for the last 10 to 15 years but to be low CO2 steel, hydrogen would need to be substituted for natural gas and a fossil fuel free energy source would need to replace the fossil fueled electric generators. It wouldn't hurt to produce fossil free ships and train locomotives too. In the early 1980's a few steel companies in the USA played with the idea of using thorium powered nuclear plants to directly reduce water into hydrogen and oxygen while using the heat for electrical production. (nuclear steel making) The difficulty was that in order to utilize the entire nuclear plant's output within the facility at that time of technological capabilities; the plant's production would exceed the market's demand for the steel within its economical shipping distance.
Please include a link to your Patreon somewhere, like in the description. I'm too lazy to type it in!
I'll do it this time but I agree - it should be in the links section of every video
www.patreon.com/JustHaveAThink
Hi Lounge LIzard. There is always a link to my Patreon page in teh descritpion section, just below the description :-) Anyway, it's
www.patreon.com/justhaveathink
Hi Neilhuny. It is always there, every week. Have I done it wrong??
@@JustHaveaThink No sign of the Patreon link in this videos list of its other links ie the description (Chrome browser on android phone).
@@JustHaveaThink I'm sure it is usually there, and you show it at the end of the video, but it doesn't appear with all the other links under this video so can't be clicked on - as the OP says, to avoid having to type it out
Over time I have become more impressed about the quality of your presentations --- So, thank you!
What interests me is the recycling of steel, or on a larger since, recycling in general. Take for instance BEV (Battery Electric Vehicles), if all works out, when the batteries age for transportation, then they are repurposed to energy storage, then at life's end (theirs) they are recycled. Maybe we should look at this from the landfill perspective?
Thanks for your efforts, Dave. Thoughtful, intelligent and accessible as ever. Surely hydrogen will be powering nearly everything in the future, assuming we have one...
Thanks Russ. Yes, I think if we can get there then the future will heavily feature hydrogen in all sorts of ways.
This discourse is a bit bogus. "our net carbon zero targets..." are but flawed. All such theoretical or on-going technological speculation avoids one major question. The very anthropocentric nature of economics and technology. And that all such 'wonderful future-tech' will also be based on extraction, mining, labor exploitation, devastation of land and water Plus above all, fossil fuel based transport. Stop this hoodwink hope peddling please. See what Jem Bendell and Dahr Jamail have to say about all such speculative techno-fixes. Your surely is so open to speculation if not ridicule...
@@AudioPervert1 What's your solution? Anarcho-primitivism?
Hydrogen creation from electricity is rather inefficient, so anything that can be powered by electricity directly should not use hydrogen.
I started my career in steel making and I could surely understand how important fossil free technology could be for a cleaner environment.
Arc furnaces are why we need Gen IV micro reactors NOW!
It might be expensive initially, but like all new green tech, once the infrustructure is built, surley the running costs are minimal in comparison with carbon fuels. The fuel will be cheaper than coal, diversification of assets could reduce costs further and bolster profits. Carbon could be sorced free from scrubber plants or at least at a low cost making the scrubber industry attractive. Given how much money is used to subsidise coal and steel, exploration and ore extraction costs, surley this is a win win in the medium term?
This is not a new Idea, Direct Reduction has been tried 2 times to my knowledge, in fact I worked at one of the plants in Port Hedland, Western Australia. The other plant was in Brazil. Did they work? sort off. in the end Both plants were shut down and demolished because the whole reaction is dangerous the Port Hedland plant Killed 1 worker and several others badly burnt when the reactor was shut down for Maintenance and opened up. It was never fully established what caused the explosion but the leading theory is that it was caused from water used on a dipleg drill that was drilling into the top of the Reactor.
To understand how, you need to realise how reactive nearly 100% Iron is. It stripped the oxygen molecules of the water leaving Hydrogen, hence the explosion. the Reactor had only been shut down for 12 Hrs and was very hot still.
The Reactors also had to be constantly monitored for hot spots where the Refractory lining was thinning a constant danger was a Hydrogen leak at those temperatures any leak was an instant explosion.
I can tell you also that the sponge Iron will be turned into Brickets, these are also Highly reactive and prone to Exothermal reactions even when cool. I remember the steam coming of stock piles because of the humidity in the air. When they were loaded on to Boats to be sent to Japan and China they had to cover the Brickets in 2 foot of Iron Ore dirt to slow down the reaction from the sea air.
Another thing to keep in mind is this process is very very Maintenance intensive due to the low operating temperature of the Reactor. it was prone to clogging and the reduced Iron dust stuck to everything.
Too my mind I think the investors will eventually give up on this plant due to operating costs and the fact they are damn dangerous, but I could be wrong maybe they have fixed the process.
Good Luck.
Thanks for sharing a more complete picture... hopefully they are keeping past experience in mind while trying to revolutionise the industry.
Paper "Assessment of hydrogen direct reduction for fossil-free steelmaking" by Vogl et al. was published in "Journal of Cleaner Production", not "ScienceDirect".
Sorry for nitpicking.
Edit: 6:10 in the video
Fair comment
melted Braaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiinnnnnssss, ....
I have worked in Steel Mills, at the hot end. I have commissioned Arc Furnaces and Basic Oxygen Furnaces. I think this idea of using Hydrogen instead of coke is a great idea.
The issue I see is the size of the solar energy farm that will be needed. Those Arc Furnaces take an enormous amount for electricity.
So let’s do this and not complain about the Wind Mills and valleys paved with solar cells.
Sponge iron, cleaning up the world :)
Sponge iron square pants!
In 2020 many governments have found money to get through the pandemic however prior to Covid 19 making any significant changes to pollution has been too difficult due to the financial cost, effects of pollution on our planet would appear not to be an emergency of any kind at this time. How bad do things have to get before significant action is taken. Building environmentally friendly plants such as for steel manufacture seems a no brainer as would subsidising plastics recycling. I appreciate your videos, keep up the great work.
Remember to like and comment to appease the almighty algorithm 😁👍🏼
So informative! You always research and teach me much more than my brain can handle… without melting down! I commented in Patreon, Dave.
Cheers Mark. Always glad to melt a brain or two ;-) I'll catch up on Patreon a little later.
Electricity generation is going renewable in Australia thanks to large scale batteries and the low cost of renewable energy.
Cheers Gray
Australia
finally, please stop exporting coal within the decade and become a green h2 net exporter for Asia
The large batteries wont benefit a very energy intensive process, we simply need to produce more/green electricity
@@velotill kawasaki a japanese company is working on producing hydrogen in Australia and exporting part of it to japan
@@carholic-sz3qv exactly, build "too much" PV and Wind which will always be enough, excess energy goes towards H2 production
@@velotill but not the batteries, the batteries are just a puffer system, steel Mills requires tons of energy 24/24 everyday
We need to put this technology to work asp. A place like Texas with all of the available green energy sources sounds great. After this freezing mess ofcourse.
Is China building steel plants to manufacture fossil free steel?
You bet they do.
Why not a strong cuppa tea instead? As Captain Picard always told the replicator: "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot!" My favourite brew with a bit of milk and honey. Now I feel right proper sciencey! 🤓
Carbon free exponential growth now that's a laugh
I must have missed the joke. Please explain how economic growth can't be done without fossil carbon.
@@loungelizard836 growth has to be reversed. It's easy to continue growth with wars, deforestation and mining but it's not sustainable. No one will accept degrowth but it needs to happen. Look at history. Reducing carbon while continuing to grow is the funny part. Rather a contradiction because it can't work. A stop in a rise might happen but eliminating emissions won't.
@@RichRich1955 There is no reason why we can't grow with a clean economy. Exactly what prevents growth in a clean economy?
The answer is YES - a plant is already functional using carbon neutral hydrogen provided by BOC to the Glenfield Steel Mill in New Zealand. Started just this month.
Great vid, really informative. Especially for the total layman in this area of expertise.
I work at a steelmill and we're about to be taken over by SSAB. So I have knowlegde of steelmaking and insight in this world, both on the maintenance front as on the research side of things.
There is another option which is far more attractive to exsisting steelplants and that is to have a conventional blast furnace run on mostly hydrogen. The energy-balance of this process is pretty difficult, but it can be done. It also won't yield as much CO/CO2 saving as the sponge iron process. But the main advantage of converting exsisting blast furnaces is that you won't waste an entire blast furnace (demolishing such a beast is not cheap) and it will enable you to continue with business as usual in a far shorter time with less costs than when you would have to construct an entire new plant.
Very interesting idea for an interim solution.
I worked at the BHP HBI plant in Port Hedland WA in the early 2000's This was a hydrogen direct reduction plant (hydrogen from nat gas though). It was shut down after a couple of deaths unfortunately. At 800deg any hydrogen that leaks will automatically ignite so it is inherently a dangerous process. Hopefully there have been developments to minimise the risk.
Now with the North West of Australia touted to be a green hydrogen production hub and with the vast iron ore deposits this would be an ideal setting, but the HBI experience will likely kill off any chance of it happening here again.
Thanks for another informative video on innovative industrial technologies 👍
I worked there to bro, its a good idea but its dangerous.
Thanks breaking down the tech stuff.
I have tried the arcfurnace part and it also works when scrap is mixed in.
Have you read about the Australian scientist (Sashwala I think) who created and developed a working steel mill that uses old car/truck tyres as the fuel? She also has plastic recycling processes in full working systems.
ECTS Carbon price hit 39.97 € last week, the requirements at 8:15 are given in the EU for the moment.
As a welder I know we spend a lot of time eliminating hydrogen as a possible impurity from steel. So how the hell does exposing the ore to hydrogen burning to make sponge steel work?
Please have a look at the Hazer process being developed in Western Australia. This uses methane and iron ore granule in a fluidised bed reactor to produce TWO useful products; hydrogen and graphite.
This is fascinating, but of course it can be seen that it will make steel very expensive. Maybe that's the only way out, for now. But it makes it even more critical that we put protections in place for antiquities. We've already lost SO MANY good old high quality antiques due solely to their metal content and the callousness and greed of their owners. All that's left of good old high quality stuff is all there ever will be.
Perfect Description of New Steel Production😉
So nice to see someone else explaining technology chemistry to me without the read. Nice work fella.
It's a shame the UK government don't follow this channel as they have just agreed a new coal mine (against fierce protests) to produce coke for our 'steel industry.'
at the time of the Eiffel tower, it could've been built with Cross Laminated Timber, but they didn't knew the technique back then, but it was possible to make.
There is work being done to replace coal with plastic bottles and used tires for a source of carbon. But that seems more like a good waste disposal system when you compare it to this
Fantastic delivery great research simplified for a layman
Good work
Great video. Direct reduced iron is nothing new. My father worked for a company called Swindell Dressler and commissioned HYL direct reduced iron plants all over the world.
Finaly I got the time to watch your video - Thanks David for once again making a very good one 👍🏼😊
My dad is a metallurgical engineer who works in a large steel plant. He found this very interesting.
Very interesting development. I don't think Carbon Capture has any chance at least in the short term of being widely implemented because it just adds cost. In the US, we can't even get agreement that there is a problem. Real progress on reducing CO2 happens when a new technology is invented that is just better /cheaper than existing fossil based so good to see a new renewables based process for steel.
Carbon capture doesn't "just" add cost. It also captures carbon, which corrects the market failure known as an unpriced externality. That creates real value, but it's value spread over the entire world instead of going into the pocket of the factory owner. Of course it's always easier when a cleaner new technology is also cheaper.
There is a paper by two German steel makers and their optimistic cost assessment for carbon neutral steel using H2 is about ten times the price of steel currently. There is no way this is getting competitive until there is a massive carbon tax and even then the resulting price of steel would be a major problem
If we can become carbon free with existing technology at 0 cost, then why do we need subsidies and a carbon tax???
If we only used steel for things that are actually important, we would be much better off.
So what things are "important "?