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

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

  • douglasg14b@lemmy.worldEnglish
    321·
    7 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.worldEnglish
      9·
      7 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.xyzEnglish
      6·
      7 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
      3·
      7 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