We cannot lower carbon emissions if we keep producing steel with fossil fuels.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    8 months ago

    The key problem is that, as the article highlights, iron is widely available and its energetic cost per ton is relatively small. This means that we actually need to reduce steel production, not just replace it with something else and call it a day. Doing the later would cause more harm than good.

    For that, I think that consistent application of the three R’s (reduce, reuse, recycle - in this order, and stop forgetting the first two R’s dammit) would be a good start. And perhaps legislative measures against businesses trying to prevent you from applying the three R’s.

    In the meantime, perhaps look for alternative steel productiion processes? You need some carbon as it’s part of the alloy, but I wonder if the bulk of the reduction could be done by electricity instead. And even the carbon could be sourced from renewable sources; more expensive, but doable.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The folks who came up with the 3 R’s (plastics industry) knew that only the first one made any difference whatsoever.

      Even today, plastics recycling only makes a trivial difference. Edit: And a lot of things saying “uses X% recycled plastic” are often referring to the plastic recycled in-house through the manufacturing process, which they’ve always done (such as flash from injection molding). Unless it says “post-consumer” it’s just moral grandstanding.

      However, steel is the most recycled material today, and glass is also good at being recycled. But glass has a weight (and therefore energy) penalty, which likely outweighs recycling benefits.

    • rbesfe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Electric arc furnaces are becoming more common across the steel industry, coke alternatives not so much. Being a commodity, any steel plant that chooses more expensive ingredients is going to quickly go out of business

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        any steel plant that choses more expensive ingredients is going to quickly go out of business

        That’s true, and perhaps governments could/should kick in. The shift would be overall advantageous for society, so I think that it could be viable to tax coke production and use those taxes to subsidise plants using greener energy, offsetting the costs.

        In the meantime, perhaps some global measures. Such as a treaty specifically addressing steel-based carbon emissions. Big thing here would be to convince the big three (China, India, and Japan); if the shift is desirable and viable for those three, others are easier to convince.

    • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Use renewable and clean energy sources to produce electricity then make steel with induction heater or other forms of electricity-based heat?

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That’s… Not how new steel production works.

        Coal is a significant component in the production of steel to impregnate it with carbon. It’s a fundamental part of how a blast furnace operates. The article literally talks about this…

        Even the article about doesn’t mention an alternative. An arc furnace relies on scrap it cannot make new steel.

        Though, I wonder if we can move more towards charcoals, but even then I wonder if that’s just much less effective or if it cannot reach the temperatures or concentrations required for industrial processes.

        • cyd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          How much of the coal in a blast furnace is actually necessary for the carbon impregnation, as opposed to supplying the heat via combustion? Steel contains only a few percent carbon by weight, so it doesn’t seem like much carbon is needed (not to mention that the carbon in steel is essentially sequestered).

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Charcoal steel is actually better, as charcoal is generally purer, and steel suffers from phosphor and sulphur impurities. The problem is that it’s costlier.

          I think that it would be viable to at least reduce the carbon used in steel production just to impregnate it, and conduct the bulk of the reduction through another process.

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          The hybrit process that some Swedish steelmakers (including SSAB - not a typo, it isn’t Saab) are using looks promising. They’ve been testing it with Volvo and are apparently making it part of Volvo’s regular process in 2026

      • pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Coal is required for steel, electricty-based heat would only work to lower carbon emissions (especially when recycling steel since you don’t need coal there), but you couldn’t prevent them.

        • WallEx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          “… Only work to lower carbon emissions” But thats exactly the point, that it is high emissions now.

        • niisyth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Resistive, sure. Inductive, not necessarily.

          • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s the same. It’s not because of some losses somewhere on the way. Electricity is simply by far the most expensive form of energy.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not positive, but it seems to me both would require the same amount of energy to increase a given mass to a given temp.

            And since electric heating is effective 100% efficient (all the energy is tranformed to heat), I can’t really see how either would be more efficient.

            • niisyth
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              There’s usually an interface material when using resisitive heat. And there’s heat loss from heating the interface material before the heat getting to the actual material that needs to be heated.

              Inductive heating can be applied directly without heating the interface material.

              Though this is probably more applicable to cooking vs industrial kilns and furnaces.

    • hahattpro@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      what about giving up on steel and moving into something more ‘vintage’, like clay @_@

      • pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s fundamentally different from steel. We don’t really have an alternative currently. You could use something like aluminium but that’s not environmentally friendly either (in the initial production, for recycling it’s great).

        • Hule@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          In Europe, even a single family home is now built using tons of steel. They build with brick, but the foundation, corner pillars, beams on top of walls are all concrete.

          A few decades ago, reinforced concrete beams were only used in large buildings and infrastructure.

          • Raxiel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            Not to mention the huge amount of carbon emissions resulting from cement production, for the concrete that steel is fixed in

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Aluminium has traditionally been smelted with electricity. It’s easy to move to green tech

      Steel is harder. There is serious work that had been going on for years trying to come up with new low emissions ways of making steel