I believe that CCS is an absolute joke of a technology, and is counterproductive to our climate goals; Over the past 50 years the fossil fuel giants like Exxon and BP have used strategies such as burying the evidence, denial, disinformation, sewing doubt, policy blockades through political bribery, shifting the blame to personal accountability, and now greenwashing. We saw at COP26 how the buck had been passed to 2050 with aid of CCS promises which are nowhere near delivering. We have saw in Australia carbon credits handed out for non-existent CCS, and across the world fake forest preservation projects awarding these polluters more credits. We are decades away from having economically viable CCS, without super strict policy and enforcement. CCS is a distraction and a mechanism for greenwashing. Reduce and reuse must have 1000 times more focus right now.
It is entirely possible if people who want to purchase things like phones, kitchen gadgets, etc demand green steel. Plastic tires are the next target for me, they're coated with 6PPD an ozone chemical to reduce deteriorating plastic tires. Unfortunately it's deadly to salmon, trout and other aquatic species yet to be tested. Personally I don't want to eat any fish with microplastics.
You forgot to include that some high grade iron ore miners are able to create dr pellets that can go directly into an electric arc furnace today, thereby creating no CO2.
You've got the Steelmaking process a bit mixed up here.. At 2:54 you say that the reduction of Iron Ore with Coal produces pure iron, after which the carbon is added. In reality, the molten iron produced in the blast furnace has a too high Carbon content, which is then burned out, typically with Basic Oxygen Steelmaking or a Electric arc furnace, reducing the Carbon content to a desirable level. This was the problem that the Bessemer process, patented in 1856, solved, and resulted in a great increase of Steel production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#Production en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process
To continue on, the blast furnace produces what is called pig iron which is about 4.5% C. The advantage of this is that it has the lowest melting point at about 1150C. Steel which is less than 1% C and usually about 0.1% to 0.5% C has a melting point about 1500C. The materials needed to hold liquid iron at 1500C or so are quite expensive as compared to materials that can be held at 1200C. And actually the amount of steel that is recycled is about 40%. One interesting thing about the Bessemer process is that it was developed on Swedish iron ores which were low in Phosphorus. And there are ways of reducing and maintaining low levels of what are often termed as tramp alloys. It all depends on how you charge the furnace.
The slag could be a local heat resource , whatever it is used for later on. A gigantic deep pit of the stuff. Forty feet deep. Keeps the heat in to be used in same way as geothermal science has done.
@@Mgameing123 we don't need a future generation. And it's not like there won't be a shortage of selfish people having kids anyway. The best thing we can do is promote not having them. For now, we give incentives for having them. It's insane. Of course, you can not care about the planet at all if you want to
When I did the research for my video on Hydrogen Fuel I was shocked to find out that it might be used to make steel in the future! Thanks so much for doing a deep dive on the subject! This answered a lot of the questions that I’ve had ever since doing that first video.
First thought was "If you replace it with titanium, aluminum, fiberglass it would be far worse at that scale." It is greener not to have a car 🚗 regardless of what it is made of.
This video feels like it is stuck in the early 2000's with all of its calls to consumerism. Cars are not efficient transports and the infrastructure supporting them will never be carbon neutral. It's like saying parking lots offer biodiversity. And really, that's just scratching the surface of these so called "green" solutions. Governments are simply refusing to make the right calls because they only want to see profits, not environmental degradation.
@Mayank Trivedi Have you heard of trains, buses, trams, bicycles? We need a massive modal shift in transportation away from cars and to these alternatives. Of course, that will require a lot of pressure on policy makers around the world to make these options viable
@@SA2004YG have you ever even tried going without a car in a walkable city? It's incredibly better than a car. When it comes to grocery shopping you just need to go more often, thus reducing the amount carried per trip. An added benefit of this is that it allows you to go to more specific shops to get better products than the supermarket (for example the fruit seller has fresher and more local fruit and vegetables). Loads that can't be carried by a person are extremely sporadic (how often are you buying new furniture?) and are often too big even for a car, so you would have them delivered anyway. For a longer distance trip taking a train is incredibly more plesant and relaxing than driving (you can stand up and walk instead of being strapped in your seat for hours and you can do stuff instead of focusing on the road).
@@superj8502 I have, unless you're asking if I lived in one than no. Even though I'm not convinced of your argument I will concede that in large cities like NYC public transport is likely better overall but if you live in mid sized cities or smaller, then a car is much better
Recycling iron is very critical for the industry, because steel is massively reusable - the ratio requirement depends on the steel's specification. Impurities is assumed, so virgin material will be added. Also, one step at a time for CCS and zero emission - start somewhere, anywhere, and improve from there. Assuming CCS can be attached everywhere is as futile as assuming others habits can be attached to your life easily - you have to do maintenance and adjustments daily. But do start somewhere. Also, hot water as a byproduct of steel making..? Interesting.
@@omnianti0 I assume this is also a thing in other countries, but in Austria the excess heat from industry, power plants (for electricity) or from water treatment plants is used (in some cases) for heating/hot water in households. The water wouldn't be used directly, its often heated up via a heat exchanger. In German its called 'Fernwärme' (literally: distance warmth), as opposed to 'Nahwärme' (near warmth) that would be created locally, say through a gas boiler in your cellar. Other sources are dedicated plants that burn fossile fuels, biomass, garbage or get the warmth from geothermal, etc. Ofc, this source of heat is only as renewable as the heat source is. Still, i think its a good approach to stack uses like this (industrial production + warm water, eletricity generation + warm water, etc).
@@omnianti0 Well, district heating exists, and if the cost is good, maybe people around the factory can benefit from that. Heat losses can be minimized by using insulated pipes (they exists, especially in geothermal industries).
Iron is *_NOT_* stronger than bronze! The reason that Europeans switched to iron, was because it was far more cheap and abundant and, more significantly, because the sources and infrastructure for bronze making, mostly collapsed at the time. In China, which didn't have that, iron didn't take over. You had some gradual use of cheap/abundant iron, along the far superior bronze, until good and proper steel, which was genuinely better than bronze, was developed.
1:19 this statement is wrong as carbon does not make steel more prone to rust. It is the oposite - more carbon you have, it will rust quicker/easier. You need other additives to make stell rust resistant, such as nickel and you need around 12% of it.
Don't underestimate direct electrolysis of ore to iron, without hydrogen. The way Boston Metals is pursuing. Producing hydrogen in a green way is itself a big challenge, with quite a fraction of the electricity going to wasteful heat.
Since the beginning of the video I was waiting for the SSAB fossil free steel example to come up. 5:35 I was delightfully surprised on how pumped mr. Per Adolfson was about the steel delivery to Volvo! As a citizen of a small nation myself, I can relate how good it feels when we achieve something that will impact the whole world like the Swedish SSAB did!
People need to stop exclusively showing windmills and solar panels every time they mention green energy and start showing nuclear. That is the real solution.
For me most of the issue is due to things just not being made well, and to last. The biggest saving will always be the item you do not need to replace for decades, or centuries. This is where I really see additive manufacturing shining in the future. A company that makes only shovel blades might decide it's better to design shovel blades so that they need to be replaced in a few years of medium use. But a company that produces anything made from ultra high quality, best for purpose alloy, steel in small volumes, profitably, can afford to make every single shovel blade as robust as possible. Because there will always be something else that people want. Some other item apart from shovel blades if they really ever reach the point where nobody needs a shovel blade anymore. Especially if it is vertically integrated with recycling capacity. Material optimisation through AI empowered CAD could be another big saver. A million cars, with optimally designed chassis using a few kg of steel less each = millions of kgs of steel saved. The savings from smaller cars (mentioned) would obviously be even more dramatic. The two options together - Even better.
I agree with what you're saying the Finite Element Method can be used to determine how much life a product will have, and it's something we have had for at least 15 years, but its up to the companies to be willing to sell products that last long.
@@pholdway5801 People who don't understand the problem, like you I must assume, do not understand the concept of balance. Every year X amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere through various means (such as the respiration you mentioned, but many, many more). And Y amount is absorbed again by various other processes. Before the industrial revolution humanity's contribution was more or less in balance with natural absorbing processes. X and Y for humanity was more or less the same. The concept of "Net Zero" refers to keeping as far as possible to this balance. Not to never, ever emit any CO2. The global balance (not just from our contribution) though close to it, is not always perfect so extremely slow change happens one way or the other over millions of years. But we've screwed the pooch. Go look at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory readings for the last few decades. The graph is always expected to be a saw tooth as the earth's hemisphere's oscillate between winter and summer. But now every single year significantly more is added than is absorbed again. And thanks to this imbalance atmospheric CO2 is already more than double what it was before the industrial revolution. The reality is that after many decades of pumping billions of tons of CO2, which was previously locked into fossil fuels below the ground, into the air - We not only have to find a Net Zero balance again, but also find a way to sequester basically all that CO2 again. Because through natural processes it will take many millions of years to be naturally sequestered again. And if we don't then we will simply have to live in a world with vast areas too hot and humid to live for part of the year. Heavy storms. Heavy floods. We can of course adapt to a changed world so it's probably not absolutely essential to sequester. Though it's sad for the people who will be permanently displaced over the next few decades and it would be nice to have the climate as clement as it was before the industrial revolution. But sequester or no - If we do not find that Net Zero balance we will eventually reach ecological tipping points which threaten humanity as a whole in the next few centuries.
Until those reactors get damaged in a extreme weather event which is happening more frequently. Renewables are the safer option since we still cannot deal with the nuclear waste for centuries and a reactor is essentially a nuclear bomb that can explode via a myriad of ways.
If you add steel making and fertilizers production (and other minor industry processes) into the whole de-carbonization goal it will result into a request to nearly DOUBLE elektricity production. So it can succeed only if there will much more electricity available and it has to be also much cheaper. So far about 50% electricity comes from coal, so non-coal production has to grow about three times.
@@franzjoseph1837 First, nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs, that's not how nuclear physics works. Some older gen reactors could experience a steam explosion, but newer reactors do not have this problem and nuclear reactor containment facilities are really strong, meaning the reactor will not become exposed. Nuclear can efficiently produce "red" hydrogen through thermochemical reactions, which are way more efficient than electrolysis. Nuclear reactors also produce a lot of heat which can be used in industries instead of relying on electricity which can take a load off from the energy grid. These nuclear reactors can be small modular reactors that can be set up at steel plants that produce both hydrogen and heat. Nuclear waste has never been a problem, we produce so little of it and unlike "renewable", which can produce toxic material along its production chain, that toxicity never goes away, nuclear waste decays and becomes safe. Finland and Sweden have taken the initiative to store this nuclear waste and showed that we have always had a way to deal with nuclear waste. We need a future with both nuclear (which I still do not understand why it is not considered renewable when you use a closed fuel cycle) and solar, wind, etc. The power of the atom will help humankind!
Steel is not a dirty metal it is actually less polluting than aluminum is , steel rusts away and becomes part of the soil. What is dirty is the steel smelting process and that's mans fault not the actual metals fault . Don't let environmentalists tell you lies about steel . Aluminum uses massive amounts of electricity while that appears clean at the smelter that electricity probably comes from coal fired power stations in many places and no greener than steel smelters . There is cleaner ways to make steel but many have just closed shop and sent their jobs overseas rather than invest in better ways .
4:32 Thank You for making the distinction on green hydrogen as the first thing you spoke about, all to often hydrogen is spoke about like it's the miracle cure all for clean energy when it's just not this simple 👏👍
Have you seen our video "The truth about hydrogen"? If you're interested, here's a link: ua-cam.com/video/AGTjKJHu99c/v-deo.html - let us know what you think in the comments. Thanks so much for watching our channel! 🙃✨
@@DWPlanetA I hadn't, I have now though Another excellent video. I think to get faster adoption of cleaner energies we need a CO2 tax. I know with the current situation making fossil fuels even more expensive wouldn't be popular but if that tax was used exclusively for making publicly owned green infrastructure so that we would no longer need the CO2 tax people might be ok with it, a tax that's used to eradicate the need for that tax
Different take. When we are truly seeing suffering and deprivation from increased fuel prices, maybe saying the solution is government increasing taxes is a bit cruel.
Yes the WEF is forcing Governments to do what "it " thinks is the right thing for our future. So they are forcing fuel prices up so to stop people using a Car, Bus or Motorcycle to go to work, No trucks bringing produce to the Shops, no Trains for People or Rail goods, No ships for Fishing or International Trade, the list goes on. If only "THEIR" Covid had wiped out 80% of the world population it would have been easier for THEM.
A lot of these problems could be solved by noting that: 1. Hydrogen is perhaps an unnecessary redox catalyst (since it becomes water, and you expect it to get it from electrolysis of water) 2. Iron can be refined directly with electricity via electrochemistry which makes direct use of available electricity (instead of diverting resources to hydrogen stockpile/transport infrastructure), avoids high temperatures (no arc furnace which minimizes energy lost as waste heat), and also will deal with impurity build up as electrolytic iron is how we get our highest purity iron. 3. Low grade steel and iron ore still have chemical redox potential which could be used as energy storage in some simple battery designs, providing energy and a stockpile of what becomes a very high grade "aqueous ore" in the form of iron chloride or iron sulfate. Again, this is to avoid melting them down in an arc furnace where we have to expend a large amount of energy. When more [renewable] energy is transiently available, we can use it to simultaneously reduce/recrystallize iron out of these solutions while regenerating the acids used to dissolve our feed materials.
Some of the people here have never worked in the Steel Industry like me, they are new out of University by the looks of it, and have a vague idea of how it is done but never actually done it, or at least seen it done first hand. To me they sound more like climate Activists than actual scientists. Making steel from scrap is the preferred method, but because of the Contaminants in scrap, you do need to add pure steel to the mix to bring up the Metalurgical numbers to normal, or you have very weak steel, you need approximately 0.2 % carbon to make Mild steel, or 0.18 % carbon which is called "free machining steel", anything less is basically rubbish. Making Integrated Steel using Hydrogen sounds good, but yes, Frightfully expensive. Trying to use only renewables to make the Electricity to run the Electrolyses system, to make Hydrogen sounds like wishful thinking. You can't tell mother nature when to blow big windy days so that you can make Hydrogen. You are now talking Gigawatts of Electricity needed, we still haven't got Nuclear Fusion , the amount of Nuclear Fission is still being reduced, Tell me, other than covering the rest of the planet in Solar panels or Wind turbines, how the hell are you going to get ENOUGH ELECTRICITY.
What about using a giant magnifying glass to heat the steel? There are videos of people building their own “solar death rays” and using them to melt coins, glass, concrete, etc.. They’d have a lot of the same issues as solar power, but it also doesn’t consume any fuel at all.
Missed where nuclear could fit into this. High temp fast breeder reactors can make hydrogen through thermochemical means, which raises efficiency. Those same high temperatures can be used to drive the steel making process too. Utilizing fast breeder reactors our current "spent" nuclear fuel could be reused. There is 3x the energy content of the world's oil reserves locked in the high level nuclear "waste" around the world.
I want all of you to know, the reason why we can't move forward faster is people. People don't want to work together, it's always a competition. Build Recycled Energy Generation Systems. They have the highest EROI. Lowest initial cost to be up and operational. Designed and built to last 100s of years. Lowest operational and maintenance cost there after. Designed to be more efficient at adjusting to grid demands than fossil fuel plants. Extremely eco-friendly requiring only a couple hundred acres for a 16GW plant. No CO² emissions, no air pollution, no waste to extract or discharge. Heck, if you add a reduced iron plant, hydrogen plant, and fuel cell plant you would have a one stop shop producing all green products. It's a win.
11:44 Don't you think taxation on carbon will deeply hurt developing nations of South Asia and Africa as you mentioned that steel production is going to skyrocket there ? I mean yeah I understand we all need to go green for the planet but it shouldn't be at expense of developing nations who are already facing extreme heat because of US, EU and China burning coal like crazy in last century or two.
This is why many carbon tax programs come with a full repayment directly to citizens. Economists agree that it should help ensure that it doesn’t simply turn into a “poor tax” while it helps push industries away from high pollution processes.
@Nemusis 999 There are developing nations which are democratic such as India, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, etc. Also no, you are wrong. Even today US, China and EU burn much more coal than all of developing world combined, yes all of them combined, maybe double than rest of the world combined. And let's not forget the historical emissions either.
need more government interventions, more policies more carbon taxes. corporations only care about making money, if the carbon emitting avenue costs them more they will change to a carbon free route. It's so simple. bump up Carbon tax use that money for carbon neutral infrastructure and push renewables with incentives and just making it a cheaper option. change will happen so quickly if governments change policies.
The issue with hydrogen is that nobody has produced it a large enough scale to sustain blast furnaces. The technology is also unsure with limited info on what a hydrogen reducer or reaction vessel actually looks like. To scale up, good luck. 70 years. Eaf will be key but is only a reducer of primary units taking virgin ore. Steel is still growing & steel is ready 70% recycled. Scale is the key here, something the analysis glossed over. It is a 2 billion + industry
My view is that we should pretend that environmentalism never was born and keep going the way we’ve always done. Who wants to live in a world with clean air and empty bank accounts?
i think reducing byproduct and polution partially is better option rather chasing 100% free,it seems too much steps and cost for that at least until better less complicated option is there
The climate crisis has been happening for the last 200 years. Its at this point because of the industrialization era of that time where the processes used were very inefficient and dirty. Nowadays our factories are actually much more efficient and green and its only going to get better.
True, but you have to keep in mind that the amount of factories has increased by a lot. That and the efficiency of factories varies a lot, some are pretty good other not so much.
How realistic is the expectation that sufficient renewable energy can be generated to make all steel production worldwide green with no fossil fuels in all steps of production, especially given the fact that wind and solar power are not constant sources and the enormous battery capacities needed to capture it and release it? Especially with the competing demand of EVs for batteries.
Hi Vivek! Our reporter found that the steel industry is responsible for 8% (not 80%) of the world's greenhouse gas pollution (as seen in time code 0:49). That calculation is agreed upon by various sources: 📚 Energy Research & Social Science Journal 👉 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622000706 🗳️ International Energy Agency 👉 www.iea.org/reports/iron-and-steel-technology-roadmap 🏭 World Steel Association 👉 worldsteel.org/publications/policy-papers/climate-change-policy-paper/
The thing to do is remember. We can do very little to change the climate from changing. It always has and always will. Shame so many have fallen for one of the most damaging lies ever told.
I am not very optimistic person, which i accept sadly. But most of the power to change the climate is with governments who just run after economy and power over others. I can imagine 'don't look up' movie scenario is becoming real. I just hope there is less life, who suffer at the end of it.
Most of the power to change lies with our own individual behaviors. The more people encourage Amazon, Walmart and other corporations of this kind, the bigger is the car people purchase, the more people take the airplane, the more industrial food people eat, and so on, the more pollution to increases. Waiting for the government to magically solve all problems is pure intellectual lazyness. Actually, the government won't ever do anything if people don't accept having to change their behaviors.
Even if steel production goes 'green', using hydrogen instead of coal, the iron ore itself still needs to be mined out of the ground, right? Where does the energy for mining operations and transportation come from?
Evidential alternative factoring, is an exhibit ‘A’ of Crude incorporated’s suppression of Biomass processes have been known to be viable for about a century, in relation to the incurred ‘everyday’ product & infrastructural requirements✅
Nobody talks about solar thermal. It’s heat too. Heat molten salt at the same time. Energy conversions always lose efficiency. Use solar thermal as it’s made and there’s little lost.
Shifting to natural gas may help reduce the impact. However, the long term solution will be replacing the fuel with green hydrogen or changing the furnaces with electric furnaces.
That's the problem to begin with : the British used charcoal from trees but they emposed environmental protection laws to save their disappearing forests : this catalysed the transition to coal and started the industrial revolution. Japan had a similar problem but they emposed quotas on wood production so less charcoal was available and thus steel was incredibly expensive and not used. (one Japanese embassador was blown away by the abundance of steel tools in the west)
Sadly, trees just don't grow fast enough to keep up with our gargantuan demand for energy. We would quickly cut down nearly all forests on the globe if we would try to use only charcoal.
Hi Moshehim! You are right that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas by mass and volume. However, gaseous H2O only stays in the atmosphere for one week at most, returning to Earth as precipitation. 🌦️ CO2 on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries - driving the greenhouse effect.
If we’re going to start mandating anything besides one child per person maximum, we need to start mandating products that LAST like they used to. Recycling may appear “green” on the surface, but it is still horribly wasteful. Repair, reuse, or repurpose are the REAL “green” words.
I am with you on the second point and not at all on the first one. We need more people having more children if they are capable of it. Quality children, yes. One per person? That is not how it works. Crack heads should have none while inteligent, caring, hardworking folks need to have many children. We need more good quality children
If the real problem comes from fossil coal, why don't just replace them with green coal from farm garbage? instead build massive high cost wind turbine & H2 plant...
Very complicated to achieve green economy , and also the most CO2 emission per ton of metal is from nickel, which one of the basic ingridient for green economy
One of the problem is the sustainibility to produce H2O from electrolysis. Which renewable energy that could produce 24/7 of electricity for the electrolysis?
I am so sick of the doom and gloom outlook on every single material that has advanced our living standards for hundreds of years.Modern intellectuals are an embarrassment and never have viable solutions for anything.
Carbon capture is moronic, oil companies just use the CO2 to pump into the oil fields and extract more oil. There is nothing practical about carbon capture. The hydrogen solution is most definitely the best because it also help electricity production. If the entire power grid was generating electricity with renewables then the supply and demand curves don't match, you need electricity at a different time to when you generate electricity. So if you use the extra electricity to generate hydrogen that would help the electricity production. Just build more wind turbines and more solar.
Interesting video. But showing wind/solar energy creators when the topic is making steel is misleading. These plants need a constant, high volume of source of energy to operate. Not an up/down source like wind/solar.
Well America is pretty green about it when we use arc smelters. America like 90% is recycled steel and we add like 5 to 10% iron ore so pretty green kinda. But most other countries are definitely co2 intensive. I think we should use thirsty cement to reduce flooding and increase groundwater. All thirsty cement is well normal cement but missing the sand so water can flow right thru it. Well ok I guess the video covers this tord the end hmm ok then ignore me.
"Thirsty Concrete" or Topmix Permeable seems to have some cool advantages but the issues with it make it pretty limited in terms of viable applications. Can only be used in areas that get low/medium amounts of rain, light traffic, nearly always above freezing temps. It requires additional cleaning, wears faster and is more difficult to repair/maintain properly.
Green steel will be expensive to produce do you want to pay 2100 dollars for a tonne of green steel versus 1200 dollars using coke .Using Sabatier reaction to make methane on site using CO2 and 4H2 to make methane and water but for every tonne of hydrogen you loose a good chunk producing water .
Lol. "We have a planet-ending problem, those industries are responsible for it, the solution they could implement is very easy and accessible, but they won't because our Capitalist system does not lead us to fix those kind of things if it can come after a good rate of profit."
The USSR wasn't capitalist and did just as much pollution as the ultra-capitalist USA in the same time period. For example, it dried the entire Aral sea to increase its production of cotton. The problem is overconsumption, end of the discussion. It is easy to force companies to follow strict environmental laws. The problem is that since people don't want to reduce their consumption, the government can't impose such strict laws and taxes which will decrease supply.
Do you believe it will work to make steel really green?
I believe that CCS is an absolute joke of a technology, and is counterproductive to our climate goals; Over the past 50 years the fossil fuel giants like Exxon and BP have used strategies such as burying the evidence, denial, disinformation, sewing doubt, policy blockades through political bribery, shifting the blame to personal accountability, and now greenwashing. We saw at COP26 how the buck had been passed to 2050 with aid of CCS promises which are nowhere near delivering. We have saw in Australia carbon credits handed out for non-existent CCS, and across the world fake forest preservation projects awarding these polluters more credits. We are decades away from having economically viable CCS, without super strict policy and enforcement. CCS is a distraction and a mechanism for greenwashing. Reduce and reuse must have 1000 times more focus right now.
Possible if the UN applies the high tax to carbon releasing industries
It is entirely possible if people who want to purchase things like phones, kitchen gadgets, etc demand green steel.
Plastic tires are the next target for me, they're coated with 6PPD an ozone chemical to reduce deteriorating plastic tires.
Unfortunately it's deadly to salmon, trout and other aquatic species yet to be tested.
Personally I don't want to eat any fish with microplastics.
You forgot to include that some high grade iron ore miners are able to create dr pellets that can go directly into an electric arc furnace today, thereby creating no CO2.
You can make steel AND water!?! What is this magic
You've got the Steelmaking process a bit mixed up here.. At 2:54 you say that the reduction of Iron Ore with Coal produces pure iron, after which the carbon is added.
In reality, the molten iron produced in the blast furnace has a too high Carbon content, which is then burned out, typically with Basic Oxygen Steelmaking or a Electric arc furnace, reducing the Carbon content to a desirable level.
This was the problem that the Bessemer process, patented in 1856, solved, and resulted in a great increase of Steel production.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#Production
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process
You got it right!
you said it right
the whole process from Blast Furnace to oxygen steel making is to reduce the carbon content to specific level.
To continue on, the blast furnace produces what is called pig iron which is about 4.5% C. The advantage of this is that it has the lowest melting point at about 1150C. Steel which is less than 1% C and usually about 0.1% to 0.5% C has a melting point about 1500C. The materials needed to hold liquid iron at 1500C or so are quite expensive as compared to materials that can be held at 1200C.
And actually the amount of steel that is recycled is about 40%.
One interesting thing about the Bessemer process is that it was developed on Swedish iron ores which were low in Phosphorus.
And there are ways of reducing and maintaining low levels of what are often termed as tramp alloys. It all depends on how you charge the furnace.
The slag could be a local heat resource , whatever it is used for later on. A gigantic deep pit of the stuff. Forty feet deep. Keeps the heat in to be used in same way as geothermal science has done.
The future of everything is: consume less! Reuse!
Not having children needs to be more regularly mentioned. We don't need more consumers, even if they're consuming less.
@@veganpotterthevegan not having children = no new future generation! so no thanks
@@Mgameing123 we don't need a future generation. And it's not like there won't be a shortage of selfish people having kids anyway. The best thing we can do is promote not having them. For now, we give incentives for having them. It's insane. Of course, you can not care about the planet at all if you want to
god gave let me enjoy.i cN buy women carisland
@@veganpotterthevegan no
When I did the research for my video on Hydrogen Fuel I was shocked to find out that it might be used to make steel in the future!
Thanks so much for doing a deep dive on the subject! This answered a lot of the questions that I’ve had ever since doing that first video.
First thought was "If you replace it with titanium, aluminum, fiberglass it would be far worse at that scale."
It is greener not to have a car 🚗 regardless of what it is made of.
This video feels like it is stuck in the early 2000's with all of its calls to consumerism. Cars are not efficient transports and the infrastructure supporting them will never be carbon neutral. It's like saying parking lots offer biodiversity. And really, that's just scratching the surface of these so called "green" solutions. Governments are simply refusing to make the right calls because they only want to see profits, not environmental degradation.
@Mayank Trivedi Have you heard of trains, buses, trams, bicycles? We need a massive modal shift in transportation away from cars and to these alternatives. Of course, that will require a lot of pressure on policy makers around the world to make these options viable
@@MetallicAddict15 cars are far more convenient than those alternatives. Especially if you're shopping or transporting goods (in whatever form)
@@SA2004YG have you ever even tried going without a car in a walkable city? It's incredibly better than a car.
When it comes to grocery shopping you just need to go more often, thus reducing the amount carried per trip. An added benefit of this is that it allows you to go to more specific shops to get better products than the supermarket (for example the fruit seller has fresher and more local fruit and vegetables). Loads that can't be carried by a person are extremely sporadic (how often are you buying new furniture?) and are often too big even for a car, so you would have them delivered anyway.
For a longer distance trip taking a train is incredibly more plesant and relaxing than driving (you can stand up and walk instead of being strapped in your seat for hours and you can do stuff instead of focusing on the road).
@@superj8502 I have, unless you're asking if I lived in one than no. Even though I'm not convinced of your argument I will concede that in large cities like NYC public transport is likely better overall but if you live in mid sized cities or smaller, then a car is much better
5:41 This is EXACTLY how I imagine a Swedish steel maker looks like lol. Viking's steel is the best!
Me too, I though he was the guy Volvo uses for videos like these... 🙂
He looked a little bit high, perhaps he drank some beer spiked with amanita muscaria 🍄 😅
Recycling iron is very critical for the industry, because steel is massively reusable - the ratio requirement depends on the steel's specification. Impurities is assumed, so virgin material will be added.
Also, one step at a time for CCS and zero emission - start somewhere, anywhere, and improve from there. Assuming CCS can be attached everywhere is as futile as assuming others habits can be attached to your life easily - you have to do maintenance and adjustments daily. But do start somewhere.
Also, hot water as a byproduct of steel making..? Interesting.
do you want to bath in byproduct water or make tea ?
@@omnianti0 I assume this is also a thing in other countries, but in Austria the excess heat from industry, power plants (for electricity) or from water treatment plants is used (in some cases) for heating/hot water in households. The water wouldn't be used directly, its often heated up via a heat exchanger. In German its called 'Fernwärme' (literally: distance warmth), as opposed to 'Nahwärme' (near warmth) that would be created locally, say through a gas boiler in your cellar.
Other sources are dedicated plants that burn fossile fuels, biomass, garbage or get the warmth from geothermal, etc. Ofc, this source of heat is only as renewable as the heat source is. Still, i think its a good approach to stack uses like this (industrial production + warm water, eletricity generation + warm water, etc).
@@frankschneider4937 the problem in all that is the source of heat are never desired in urban environement and the herat transfert deny the long range
"hot'' water, so steam turbine for more power
@@omnianti0 Well, district heating exists, and if the cost is good, maybe people around the factory can benefit from that.
Heat losses can be minimized by using insulated pipes (they exists, especially in geothermal industries).
Iron is *_NOT_* stronger than bronze! The reason that Europeans switched to iron, was because it was far more cheap and abundant and, more significantly, because the sources and infrastructure for bronze making, mostly collapsed at the time. In China, which didn't have that, iron didn't take over. You had some gradual use of cheap/abundant iron, along the far superior bronze, until good and proper steel, which was genuinely better than bronze, was developed.
1:19 this statement is wrong as carbon does not make steel more prone to rust. It is the oposite - more carbon you have, it will rust quicker/easier. You need other additives to make stell rust resistant, such as nickel and you need around 12% of it.
One massive side of the steel pollution not covered in this video is of course the mining of the ore
Thank you soo much. You know sometimes I feel like the mining sector doesn't get much attention.
Don't underestimate direct electrolysis of ore to iron, without hydrogen. The way Boston Metals is pursuing. Producing hydrogen in a green way is itself a big challenge, with quite a fraction of the electricity going to wasteful heat.
Since the beginning of the video I was waiting for the SSAB fossil free steel example to come up. 5:35 I was delightfully surprised on how pumped mr. Per Adolfson was about the steel delivery to Volvo! As a citizen of a small nation myself, I can relate how good it feels when we achieve something that will impact the whole world like the Swedish SSAB did!
People need to stop exclusively showing windmills and solar panels every time they mention green energy and start showing nuclear. That is the real solution.
Problem is it is easier to complain than buying smaller cars and reduced consumption.
For me most of the issue is due to things just not being made well, and to last. The biggest saving will always be the item you do not need to replace for decades, or centuries. This is where I really see additive manufacturing shining in the future. A company that makes only shovel blades might decide it's better to design shovel blades so that they need to be replaced in a few years of medium use. But a company that produces anything made from ultra high quality, best for purpose alloy, steel in small volumes, profitably, can afford to make every single shovel blade as robust as possible. Because there will always be something else that people want. Some other item apart from shovel blades if they really ever reach the point where nobody needs a shovel blade anymore. Especially if it is vertically integrated with recycling capacity.
Material optimisation through AI empowered CAD could be another big saver. A million cars, with optimally designed chassis using a few kg of steel less each = millions of kgs of steel saved. The savings from smaller cars (mentioned) would obviously be even more dramatic. The two options together - Even better.
I agree with what you're saying the Finite Element Method can be used to determine how much life a product will have, and it's something we have had for at least 15 years, but its up to the companies to be willing to sell products that last long.
What's our breath made of ?....CO2 ..... Net Zero is a bit of pious twaddle.
@@pholdway5801 People who don't understand the problem, like you I must assume, do not understand the concept of balance. Every year X amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere through various means (such as the respiration you mentioned, but many, many more). And Y amount is absorbed again by various other processes. Before the industrial revolution humanity's contribution was more or less in balance with natural absorbing processes. X and Y for humanity was more or less the same. The concept of "Net Zero" refers to keeping as far as possible to this balance. Not to never, ever emit any CO2. The global balance (not just from our contribution) though close to it, is not always perfect so extremely slow change happens one way or the other over millions of years. But we've screwed the pooch. Go look at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory readings for the last few decades. The graph is always expected to be a saw tooth as the earth's hemisphere's oscillate between winter and summer. But now every single year significantly more is added than is absorbed again. And thanks to this imbalance atmospheric CO2 is already more than double what it was before the industrial revolution.
The reality is that after many decades of pumping billions of tons of CO2, which was previously locked into fossil fuels below the ground, into the air - We not only have to find a Net Zero balance again, but also find a way to sequester basically all that CO2 again. Because through natural processes it will take many millions of years to be naturally sequestered again. And if we don't then we will simply have to live in a world with vast areas too hot and humid to live for part of the year. Heavy storms. Heavy floods. We can of course adapt to a changed world so it's probably not absolutely essential to sequester. Though it's sad for the people who will be permanently displaced over the next few decades and it would be nice to have the climate as clement as it was before the industrial revolution. But sequester or no - If we do not find that Net Zero balance we will eventually reach ecological tipping points which threaten humanity as a whole in the next few centuries.
Capitalism :(
0:49 Wait just a second, how did you know about my little magic wand and what going on in my caboose right now? Tech is starting to get scary. 😮
Make graphene out of the co2 • Everybody wins ? You clean out the bad air and get Graphene sheets ? $$ • The technology is here
Green energy doesn't have to be coming from renewables it can be also produced in nuclear reactors
Until those reactors get damaged in a extreme weather event which is happening more frequently. Renewables are the safer option since we still cannot deal with the nuclear waste for centuries and a reactor is essentially a nuclear bomb that can explode via a myriad of ways.
If you add steel making and fertilizers production (and other minor industry processes) into the whole de-carbonization goal it will result into a request to nearly DOUBLE elektricity production. So it can succeed only if there will much more electricity available and it has to be also much cheaper.
So far about 50% electricity comes from coal, so non-coal production has to grow about three times.
@@franzjoseph1837 First, nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs, that's not how nuclear physics works. Some older gen reactors could experience a steam explosion, but newer reactors do not have this problem and nuclear reactor containment facilities are really strong, meaning the reactor will not become exposed. Nuclear can efficiently produce "red" hydrogen through thermochemical reactions, which are way more efficient than electrolysis. Nuclear reactors also produce a lot of heat which can be used in industries instead of relying on electricity which can take a load off from the energy grid. These nuclear reactors can be small modular reactors that can be set up at steel plants that produce both hydrogen and heat. Nuclear waste has never been a problem, we produce so little of it and unlike "renewable", which can produce toxic material along its production chain, that toxicity never goes away, nuclear waste decays and becomes safe. Finland and Sweden have taken the initiative to store this nuclear waste and showed that we have always had a way to deal with nuclear waste. We need a future with both nuclear (which I still do not understand why it is not considered renewable when you use a closed fuel cycle) and solar, wind, etc. The power of the atom will help humankind!
Steel is not a dirty metal it is actually less polluting than aluminum is , steel rusts away and becomes part of the soil. What is dirty is the steel smelting process and that's mans fault not the actual metals fault . Don't let environmentalists tell you lies about steel . Aluminum uses massive amounts of electricity while that appears clean at the smelter that electricity probably comes from coal fired power stations in many places and no greener than steel smelters . There is cleaner ways to make steel but many have just closed shop and sent their jobs overseas rather than invest in better ways .
A hopeful intro video but I wish there were more real world examples... Guess these companies will just have to prove it works in the real world....
Technology and science is not the problem.
Its the people who are addicted to "old ways" of doing things.
Change is pretty scary for a lot of people.
Use Iceland as an even bigger producer of raw metals, they have geothermal pockets close to the surface
You do know that geo-thermals run out too, don't you just ask New Zealand.
4:32 Thank You for making the distinction on green hydrogen as the first thing you spoke about, all to often hydrogen is spoke about like it's the miracle cure all for clean energy when it's just not this simple 👏👍
Have you seen our video "The truth about hydrogen"? If you're interested, here's a link: ua-cam.com/video/AGTjKJHu99c/v-deo.html - let us know what you think in the comments.
Thanks so much for watching our channel! 🙃✨
@@DWPlanetA I hadn't, I have now though Another excellent video. I think to get faster adoption of cleaner energies we need a CO2 tax. I know with the current situation making fossil fuels even more expensive wouldn't be popular but if that tax was used exclusively for making publicly owned green infrastructure so that we would no longer need the CO2 tax people might be ok with it, a tax that's used to eradicate the need for that tax
Different take. When we are truly seeing suffering and deprivation from increased fuel prices, maybe saying the solution is government increasing taxes is a bit cruel.
Yes the WEF is forcing Governments to do what "it " thinks is the right thing for our future. So they are forcing fuel prices up so to stop people using a Car, Bus or Motorcycle to go to work, No trucks bringing produce to the Shops, no Trains for People or Rail goods, No ships for Fishing or International Trade, the list goes on. If only "THEIR" Covid had wiped out 80% of the world population it would have been easier for THEM.
Biodiesel
It’s greed
thanks for the report.
A lot of these problems could be solved by noting that:
1. Hydrogen is perhaps an unnecessary redox catalyst (since it becomes water, and you expect it to get it from electrolysis of water)
2. Iron can be refined directly with electricity via electrochemistry which makes direct use of available electricity (instead of diverting resources to hydrogen stockpile/transport infrastructure), avoids high temperatures (no arc furnace which minimizes energy lost as waste heat), and also will deal with impurity build up as electrolytic iron is how we get our highest purity iron.
3. Low grade steel and iron ore still have chemical redox potential which could be used as energy storage in some simple battery designs, providing energy and a stockpile of what becomes a very high grade "aqueous ore" in the form of iron chloride or iron sulfate. Again, this is to avoid melting them down in an arc furnace where we have to expend a large amount of energy. When more [renewable] energy is transiently available, we can use it to simultaneously reduce/recrystallize iron out of these solutions while regenerating the acids used to dissolve our feed materials.
Some of the people here have never worked in the Steel Industry like me, they are new out of University by the looks of it, and have a vague idea of how it is done but never actually done it, or at least seen it done first hand. To me they sound more like climate Activists than actual scientists. Making steel from scrap is the preferred method, but because of the Contaminants in scrap, you do need to add pure steel to the mix to bring up the Metalurgical numbers to normal, or you have very weak steel, you need approximately 0.2 % carbon to make Mild steel, or 0.18 % carbon which is called "free machining steel", anything less is basically rubbish. Making Integrated Steel using Hydrogen sounds good, but yes, Frightfully expensive. Trying to use only renewables to make the Electricity to run the Electrolyses system, to make Hydrogen sounds like wishful thinking. You can't tell mother nature when to blow big windy days so that you can make Hydrogen. You are now talking Gigawatts of Electricity needed, we still haven't got Nuclear Fusion , the amount of Nuclear Fission is still being reduced, Tell me, other than covering the rest of the planet in Solar panels or Wind turbines, how the hell are you going to get ENOUGH ELECTRICITY.
Thanks...
Many peope do not know,
What accu's, windmils, solarpanels are made of... calling elecric cars zero emmission is nuts.
What about using a giant magnifying glass to heat the steel? There are videos of people building their own “solar death rays” and using them to melt coins, glass, concrete, etc.. They’d have a lot of the same issues as solar power, but it also doesn’t consume any fuel at all.
You are shittin me aren't you. Think about it.
Missed where nuclear could fit into this. High temp fast breeder reactors can make hydrogen through thermochemical means, which raises efficiency. Those same high temperatures can be used to drive the steel making process too.
Utilizing fast breeder reactors our current "spent" nuclear fuel could be reused. There is 3x the energy content of the world's oil reserves locked in the high level nuclear "waste" around the world.
Oh the beauty of heating water so much it splits into the elements…
@@a2e5 little did you know when alpha beta and gama particles hit water it splits it into oxygen and hydrogen....
I really hope just like how normal steel had a boom time during the industrial revolution, this “green steel” will too.
My god this guy's voice is so intriguing! I love it
I want all of you to know, the reason why we can't move forward faster is people. People don't want to work together, it's always a competition. Build Recycled Energy Generation Systems. They have the highest EROI. Lowest initial cost to be up and operational. Designed and built to last 100s of years. Lowest operational and maintenance cost there after. Designed to be more efficient at adjusting to grid demands than fossil fuel plants. Extremely eco-friendly requiring only a couple hundred acres for a 16GW plant. No CO² emissions, no air pollution, no waste to extract or discharge. Heck, if you add a reduced iron plant, hydrogen plant, and fuel cell plant you would have a one stop shop producing all green products. It's a win.
11:44 Don't you think taxation on carbon will deeply hurt developing nations of South Asia and Africa as you mentioned that steel production is going to skyrocket there ?
I mean yeah I understand we all need to go green for the planet but it shouldn't be at expense of developing nations who are already facing extreme heat because of US, EU and China burning coal like crazy in last century or two.
Nachunternehmerhaftung and according taxation? It's not like Germany needs to import human rights violations or environmental damaging products.
This is why many carbon tax programs come with a full repayment directly to citizens. Economists agree that it should help ensure that it doesn’t simply turn into a “poor tax” while it helps push industries away from high pollution processes.
@@nathanadair3838 I am not talking about citizens but the countries who will bear the tax, who supply cheap products to Europe and US.
@Nemusis 999 There are developing nations which are democratic such as India, Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil, etc.
Also no, you are wrong.
Even today US, China and EU burn much more coal than all of developing world combined, yes all of them combined, maybe double than rest of the world combined.
And let's not forget the historical emissions either.
india burns more coal than anyone atm so you are wrong
need more government interventions, more policies more carbon taxes. corporations only care about making money, if the carbon emitting avenue costs them more they will change to a carbon free route.
It's so simple. bump up Carbon tax use that money for carbon neutral infrastructure and push renewables with incentives and just making it a cheaper option. change will happen so quickly if governments change policies.
Steel is core of our existence. We cannot sustain lifeforms without it. Specially human.
I would have liked to see Prof Donald Sadoways method of producing green steel via electrolysis.
The issue with hydrogen is that nobody has produced it a large enough scale to sustain blast furnaces. The technology is also unsure with limited info on what a hydrogen reducer or reaction vessel actually looks like. To scale up, good luck. 70 years.
Eaf will be key but is only a reducer of primary units taking virgin ore. Steel is still growing & steel is ready 70% recycled.
Scale is the key here, something the analysis glossed over. It is a 2 billion + industry
And no do the same video but for cement.
Would using electricity produced by thorium MSR’s be sufficient for producing hydrogen and reduction of the iron ore.
What about cement, or blast furnace cement. Have a think.
8% isn't jawdropping enough with this environmental alarmism it doesn't work on anyone that isn't a vegetable
Pollution includes noise, and you can do your part by not ringing that loud bell.
Dw plantet A needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
what are the green alternative that already exist?
My view is that we should pretend that environmentalism never was born and keep going the way we’ve always done. Who wants to live in a world with clean air and empty bank accounts?
Do we even have enough hydro power (or potential) to transition all steel production to green steel?
Those who care don't have the power and Those who have the power don't care.
Steel is not a metal its an alloy
Alloys of metals are also considered metals. Steel still contains roughly 99% iron so it is still A metal product.
i think reducing byproduct and polution partially is better option rather chasing 100% free,it seems too much steps and cost for that at least until better less complicated option is there
The climate crisis has been happening for the last 200 years. Its at this point because of the industrialization era of that time where the processes used were very inefficient and dirty. Nowadays our factories are actually much more efficient and green and its only going to get better.
True, but you have to keep in mind that the amount of factories has increased by a lot.
That and the efficiency of factories varies a lot, some are pretty good other not so much.
How realistic is the expectation that sufficient renewable energy can be generated to make all steel production worldwide green with no fossil fuels in all steps of production, especially given the fact that wind and solar power are not constant sources and the enormous battery capacities needed to capture it and release it? Especially with the competing demand of EVs for batteries.
Where did you get this data that steel production accounts for 80% of all GHG?
Hi Vivek! Our reporter found that the steel industry is responsible for 8% (not 80%) of the world's greenhouse gas pollution (as seen in time code 0:49).
That calculation is agreed upon by various sources:
📚 Energy Research & Social Science Journal 👉 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629622000706
🗳️ International Energy Agency 👉 www.iea.org/reports/iron-and-steel-technology-roadmap
🏭 World Steel Association 👉 worldsteel.org/publications/policy-papers/climate-change-policy-paper/
@@DWPlanetA Isn't steel in the us much cleaner than global steel production?
The thing to do is remember. We can do very little to change the climate from changing. It always has and always will. Shame so many have fallen for one of the most damaging lies ever told.
We need to de-carbonize our transport sector. The transpoer sector contributes the largest chunk of our carbon emissions
I am not very optimistic person, which i accept sadly. But most of the power to change the climate is with governments who just run after economy and power over others. I can imagine 'don't look up' movie scenario is becoming real. I just hope there is less life, who suffer at the end of it.
Most of the power to change lies with our own individual behaviors. The more people encourage Amazon, Walmart and other corporations of this kind, the bigger is the car people purchase, the more people take the airplane, the more industrial food people eat, and so on, the more pollution to increases. Waiting for the government to magically solve all problems is pure intellectual lazyness. Actually, the government won't ever do anything if people don't accept having to change their behaviors.
WE NEED TO PRODUCE MORE STEEL
The ovens have to stay on high temperture.. the cost of reheating when they turn cold is a lot.
Green energy ,wind and solar, is not stable enough.
Even if steel production goes 'green', using hydrogen instead of coal, the iron ore itself still needs to be mined out of the ground, right? Where does the energy for mining operations and transportation come from?
@@nigelcraig3949 exactly. so 'green steel' isn't so green, after all, not yet anyway.
Evidential alternative factoring, is an exhibit ‘A’ of Crude incorporated’s suppression of Biomass processes have been known to be viable for about a century, in relation to the incurred ‘everyday’ product & infrastructural requirements✅
Nobody talks about solar thermal. It’s heat too. Heat molten salt at the same time. Energy conversions always lose efficiency. Use solar thermal as it’s made and there’s little lost.
Shifting to natural gas may help reduce the impact. However, the long term solution will be replacing the fuel with green hydrogen or changing the furnaces with electric furnaces.
Steel bikes are the best too. Strong and flexible.
Strong yes, but flexible not so much
In Brazil, this is easy to do...
Steel is not a metal just as iron is not a mineral (0:45)
Recycle. Old books, clothes, scrap metal, reuse
Look up Professor Simon Michaux regarding the dire shortage supply’s of our metals and minerals
How about using charcoal from tree plantations that are currently used for cofiring electricity generation
Be sure to subscribe to our channel! We will have a video on this topic in just a few days 😏
That's the problem to begin with : the British used charcoal from trees but they emposed environmental protection laws to save their disappearing forests : this catalysed the transition to coal and started the industrial revolution.
Japan had a similar problem but they emposed quotas on wood production so less charcoal was available and thus steel was incredibly expensive and not used.
(one Japanese embassador was blown away by the abundance of steel tools in the west)
Sadly, trees just don't grow fast enough to keep up with our gargantuan demand for energy. We would quickly cut down nearly all forests on the globe if we would try to use only charcoal.
Steel is real.
🚲
But gaseous H20 is by far a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2! Or is it in liquid form, somehow, in a super-hot furnace?
Hi Moshehim! You are right that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas by mass and volume. However, gaseous H2O only stays in the atmosphere for one week at most, returning to Earth as precipitation. 🌦️ CO2 on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries - driving the greenhouse effect.
@@DWPlanetA Oh, good to know. Thanks.
How come Freddie from B1M is narrating on this channel.
Wow that's amazing ! We have some knowledge for you too
If we’re going to start mandating anything besides one child per person maximum, we need to start mandating products that LAST like they used to. Recycling may appear “green” on the surface, but it is still horribly wasteful. Repair, reuse, or repurpose are the REAL “green” words.
That's what I've been saying for over a decade now. Why aren't products advocated for being more robust and longer lasting?
I am with you on the second point and not at all on the first one. We need more people having more children if they are capable of it. Quality children, yes. One per person? That is not how it works. Crack heads should have none while inteligent, caring, hardworking folks need to have many children. We need more good quality children
getting rid of oxygen understood. but how do you get rid of the extra carbon?
There is no "extra carbon" if you don't put in literal tons of it in the form of coal.
If the real problem comes from fossil coal, why don't just replace them with green coal from farm garbage? instead build massive high cost wind turbine & H2 plant...
Nuclear blast furnaces?
Very complicated to achieve green economy , and also the most CO2 emission per ton of metal is from nickel, which one of the basic ingridient for green economy
Maybe its better to use CCUS Tech? Open for discussion!
One of the problem is the sustainibility to produce H2O from electrolysis. Which renewable energy that could produce 24/7 of electricity for the electrolysis?
But can jet fuel melt steel?
Steel can't take any loads at 300c jet fuel burns far hotter
I am so sick of the doom and gloom outlook on every single material that has advanced our living standards for hundreds of years.Modern intellectuals are an embarrassment and never have viable solutions for anything.
Hydrogen is quite literally the future of everything.
And also the past of literally everything too!
Hydrogen is electricity with extra steps
India had the worlds leading steel industry for 2000 years.
Ya Bhagwan Modiji made it and brought Industrial revolution here instead of Europe.
Carbon capture is moronic, oil companies just use the CO2 to pump into the oil fields and extract more oil. There is nothing practical about carbon capture.
The hydrogen solution is most definitely the best because it also help electricity production. If the entire power grid was generating electricity with renewables then the supply and demand curves don't match, you need electricity at a different time to when you generate electricity. So if you use the extra electricity to generate hydrogen that would help the electricity production. Just build more wind turbines and more solar.
You just need to let steel alone it comes out fine now...
We are doomed.
What's with the "s"?
Why can’t we produce most hydrogen in Iceland?
It is not the dirtiest one. You should edit the headline.
DW news: steel is mankind's most important material
Carbon Nanotubes: hold my I-beams
And a basic sense rebuild it to squeeze out another 20 years and then find a long-term solution
Interesting video. But showing wind/solar energy creators when the topic is making steel is misleading. These plants need a constant, high volume of source of energy to operate. Not an up/down source like wind/solar.
You can make steel and water!?!
We need to stop use steel
In other words is we steal don't have a answer lol 😂😂
2:56 you clearly don’t know how steels are made with blast furnaces and BOFs. Do your HW better.
Didn’t watch. Just wanted to highlight that steel is not a metal, but an alloy!
Well America is pretty green about it when we use arc smelters.
America like 90% is recycled steel and we add like 5 to 10% iron ore so pretty green kinda.
But most other countries are definitely co2 intensive.
I think we should use thirsty cement to reduce flooding and increase groundwater.
All thirsty cement is well normal cement but missing the sand so water can flow right thru it.
Well ok I guess the video covers this tord the end hmm ok then ignore me.
"Thirsty Concrete" or Topmix Permeable seems to have some cool advantages but the issues with it make it pretty limited in terms of viable applications. Can only be used in areas that get low/medium amounts of rain, light traffic, nearly always above freezing temps. It requires additional cleaning, wears faster and is more difficult to repair/maintain properly.
These videos are great.
If you can keep videos under 10min that will be great.
Green steel will be expensive to produce do you want to pay 2100 dollars for a tonne of green steel versus 1200 dollars using coke .Using Sabatier reaction to make methane on site using CO2 and 4H2 to make methane and water but for every tonne of hydrogen you loose a good chunk producing water .
i stopped watching this video when it says "it prevents rust". not to mention it shows molten lead or tin while talking about iron
Lol.
"We have a planet-ending problem, those industries are responsible for it, the solution they could implement is very easy and accessible, but they won't because our Capitalist system does not lead us to fix those kind of things if it can come after a good rate of profit."
The USSR wasn't capitalist and did just as much pollution as the ultra-capitalist USA in the same time period. For example, it dried the entire Aral sea to increase its production of cotton.
The problem is overconsumption, end of the discussion. It is easy to force companies to follow strict environmental laws. The problem is that since people don't want to reduce their consumption, the government can't impose such strict laws and taxes which will decrease supply.
Go for green steel
Shhhhhh, he's talking.