First steel made without fossil fuels

[adarw]

Summary

a Swedish company made their first batch of "green steel" that uses hydrogen instead of fossil fuels. they want to get the steel onto Volvo cars (also a Swedish company).

 

Quotes

Quote

A quartet of manufacturing firms has managed to create the world’s first fossil fuel-free steel in Sweden, much of which will go straight into the foundries of Volvo to create the first cars ever made with “green steel.”

It’s a massive first step to decarbonizing a carbon-heavy industry, as steel-making worldwide accounts for 8% of all CO2 emissions resulting from the need for coal in the manufacturing process, and the firms involved in the discovery represent 10% of Sweden’s emissions, and 7% of Finland’s.

 

My thoughts

this is very interesting. i think that since 8% of all CO2 emissions are from making steel we need to address this very seriously and make this manufacturing prosses more widespread. since this steel will go into cars from volvo, i think volvo would have extra customers if they made them electric cars as it would give them extra publicity as "truly good" for the planet.

Sources

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/swedish-company-hybrit-makes-fossil-fuel-free-green-steel-from-hydrogen/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BoSHcW5rAo

 

[CommanderAlex]

8 minutes ago, adarw said:

that uses hydrogen instead of fossil fuels.

Isn't the production of hydrogen net zero energy; the amount of energy required to make hydrogen gas is more than what you make in hydrogen gas? Today's modern ways of making hydrogen gas still use fossil fuels (coal/natural gas).

[GDRRiley]

14 minutes ago, SpiderMan said:

Isn't the production of hydrogen net zero energy; the amount of energy required to make hydrogen gas is more than what you make in hydrogen gas? Today's modern ways of making hydrogen gas still use fossil fuels (coal/natural gas).

you can make hydrogen with electrolysis but you need a lot of power there are green options for that

[adarw]

6 minutes ago, SpiderMan said:

Isn't the production of hydrogen net zero energy; the amount of energy required to make hydrogen gas is more than what you make in hydrogen gas? Today's modern ways of making hydrogen gas still use fossil fuels (coal/natural gas).

not always, sweden has a lot of green energy so they can always use that

[CommanderAlex]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

you can make hydrogen with electrolysis but you need a lot of power there are green options for that

Still though, with all the conversions of energy...you'll never really gain anything from making hydrogen gas on a large scale. 

[adarw]

Just now, SpiderMan said:

you'll never really gain anything from making hydrogen gas on a large scale. 

you would gain the lives of future generations.....

[CommanderAlex]

Just now, adarw said:

you would gain the lives of future generations.....

Explain. 

[adarw]

Just now, SpiderMan said:

Explain. 

less greenhouse gasses = people can live in the future

[GDRRiley]

8 minutes ago, SpiderMan said:

Still though, with all the conversions of energy...you'll never really gain anything from making hydrogen gas on a large scale. 

it gives you pure O2 and Hydrogen, there are uses for both in both industry and O2 in may other areas

[CommanderAlex]

9 minutes ago, adarw said:

less greenhouse gasses = people can live in the future

There are more human beings on this Earth and with it, human activity. Don't you possibly thing all the things we humans do don't contribute to greenhouse gasses? Chopping down rainforests, manufacturing of goods, livestock farming of cows (huge producer of methane gas here- again a greenhouse gas), nitrogen-based fertilisers? 

4 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

it gives you pure O2 and Hydrogen, there are uses for both in both industry and O2 in may other areas

Yes, but what I am talking about is the energy (scientifically speaking), the amount required to generate hydrogen is more than the amount of energy expelled from hydrogen. You're talking about the chemical decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen. 

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, SpiderMan said:

Yes, but what I am talking about is the energy (scientifically speaking), the amount required to generate hydrogen is more than the amount of energy expelled from hydrogen. You're talking about the chemical decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen. 

the point is not to have a net positive energy but to not need carbon from millions of years ago to make steel

[CommanderAlex]

8 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

the point is not to have a net positive energy but to not need carbon from millions of years ago to make steel

So, basically...a proof of concept. Sure it'll work, but today's means of producing hydrogen is expensive and inefficient. 

[poochyena]

46 minutes ago, SpiderMan said:

Isn't the production of hydrogen net zero energy; the amount of energy required to make hydrogen gas is more than what you make in hydrogen gas? Today's modern ways of making hydrogen gas still use fossil fuels (coal/natural gas).

According to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmsfXWzvEA since wind power is constant, wind electricity is actually used to make hydrogen gas during non-peak hours since otherwise, the electricity would go to waste as there is little other energy storage or ways to utilize the energy during non-peak hours.

 

[adarw]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

According to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmsfXWzvEA since wind power is constant, wind electricity is actually used to make hydrogen gas during non-peak hours since otherwise, the electricity would go to waste and there is little other energy storage or ways to utilize the energy during non-peak hours.

 

you took the link off my hands lol

[cj09beira]

seems like a pretty hard process, as they have to heat the hydrogen to 1000ºC (1800ºF) in addition to heating up the iron, using electrical arc furnaces, i am guessing here but this seems to imply they now need a hydrogen tight gas container that also can handle 1000ºC (1800ºF), impressive if they pull it off.

Over all seems pretty electricity intensive for both heating the hydrogen and iron, as well as making the hydrogen in the first place, if we keep moving things to electric we are going to need to move to nuclear and leave the fear mongering at the door (pipe dreams i know).

[CarlBar]

Are there any details on what they actually changed, if all they've done is switch from coal fired to electricity/hydrogen fired furnaces this isn't anything special. If it's somthing else, then it could be interesting. But the available info isn't clear on what they changed. Saying they stopped using coking coal doesn't really answer much about what they did in the process to replace it.

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Are there any details on what they actually changed, if all they've done is switch from coal fired to electricity/hydrogen fired furnaces this isn't anything special. If it's somthing else, then it could be interesting. But the available info isn't clear on what they changed. Saying they stopped using coking coal doesn't really answer much about what they did in the process to replace it.

the coal is used to chemically reduce the iron, they are removing that part of the process and doing it with 1000ºC hydrogen

Edit wrong temperature number

[adarw]

1 minute ago, CarlBar said:

Are there any details on what they actually changed, if all they've done is switch from coal fired to electricity/hydrogen fired furnaces this isn't anything special. If it's somthing else, then it could be interesting. But the available info isn't clear on what they changed. Saying they stopped using coking coal doesn't really answer much about what they did in the process to replace it.

yea theres barely any info on this sadly.

[CommanderAlex]

6 minutes ago, poochyena said:

According to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmsfXWzvEA since wind power is constant, wind electricity is actually used to make hydrogen gas during non-peak hours since otherwise, the electricity would go to waste and there is little other energy storage or ways to utilize the energy during non-peak hours.

 

That's a really cool and informative video! Thanks for the link. 

 

2 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Are there any details on what they actually changed, if all they've done is switch from coal fired to electricity/hydrogen fired furnaces this isn't anything special. If it's somthing else, then it could be interesting. But the available info isn't clear on what they changed. Saying they stopped using coking coal doesn't really answer much about what they did in the process to replace it.

 

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

seems like a pretty hard process, as they have to heat the hydrogen to 1800ºC in addition to heating up the iron, using electrical arc furnaces, i am guessing here but this seems to imply they now need a hydrogen tight gas container that also can handle 1800ºC, impressive if they pull it off.

Over all seems pretty electricity intensive for both heating the hydrogen and iron, as well as making the hydrogen in the first place, if we keep moving things to electric we are going to need to move to nuclear and leave the fear mongering at the door (pipe dreams i know).

^^These two points here are also that I would be questionable about to as it just boils down to the question of: What did they really replace? 

[Forbidden Wafer]

**most hydrogen comes from oil/hydrocarbon processing**

[cj09beira]

Quote

They are focused on electric gas heating, and their plant in Luleå, Sweden will trial a 250 kilowatt boiler. If it goes well, a megawatt version will be developed.

Doc:

[cj09beira]

4 minutes ago, SpiderMan said:

That's a really cool and informative video! Thanks for the link. 

 

 

^^These two points here are also that I would be questionable about to as it just boils down to the question of: What did they really replace? 

Quote

 

Hydrogen-based reduction of iron ore

Work package 4 is studying how the iron oxide in the iron ore can be reduced by hydrogen-based technologies. The idea is that these will replace today’s technology that is based on the use of carbon and coke. The project is investigating the effects of the properties of the reduction gas as well as how to handle the sponge iron that is created in the reduction process.

 

this is their main change^

if anyone has the time to read it

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1389477/FULLTEXT02.pdf

[AnonymousGuy]

FYI, Volvo is a subsidiary of a Chinese holding company.  Zhejiang Geely Holding.

 

They're theoretically still "sweedish" but daddy has a chinese name.  It was news last year that Volvo Cars was going to be rolled under Geely Cars: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/world/europe/sweden-china-volvo.html

[SansVarnic]

Nuclear is about as green as you get. Solar and Wind are still more wasteful than fossil with no increased benefit.

Don't forget hydro as well, but when you factor in damming a river you still get enviro-concerns that need be addressed.

Edited August 26, 2021 by SansVarnic

[CommanderAlex]

3 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Nuclear is about as green as you get. Solar and Wind are still more wasteful than fossil with no increased benefit.

Or even hydroelectric, either by means of rivers or ocean currents. That's pretty renewable.

 

Solar you have to worry about clouds and getting complete coverage on the PV panels. Wind...well you just gotta make sure it's always windy. Also, they're just not great in the long run (wind turbine blades have to be replaced and old ones are typically dumped into landfills as they cannot be recycled).