Steel production generates almost 10% of global carbon emissions and has long been considered “hard to abate.” Enter Boston Metal, a startup that aims to make carbon-free steel using only (sing it with me!) clean electricity. CEO Tadeu Carneiro explains “molten oxide electrolysis” and its potential to transform the industry.
A question from an 'energy layman', but fan of the podcast.
As we have heard here (and before - cement production?), electrolysis requires a lot of electricity. The availability of constant 'green energy' is somehow taken for granted in the not-so-distant future. But what about the grid capacities, which are far from being sufficiently developed and available, at least here in Germany? Shouldn't these dependencies be included in the feasibility and profitability calculations?
I keep hoping for shifts in major industrial processes to take maximum advantage of daytime solar energy abundance - already the lowest cost energy around - and avoid the higher costs outside those periods. Presumably there are associated energy intensive processes apart from the electrolytic cells from crushing ores, arc furnaces all the way through to casting, rolling mills and some of those might be better able to better schedule high demand to match daytime solar. A lot of storage or good connection to major grid still seems needed.
As an Australian - our iron ore is in arid zones far from major population and industry but has excellent solar energy potential - it seems like on site or nearby energy storage would be a large part of siting iron and steel plant there. Batteries will play a big role - I wouldn't underestimate their scalability - but seems likely pumped hydro still does long deep storage the most cost effectively and I expect the strong confidence that solar and wind capacity will grow strongly will see more confidence in investing in it. Don't know if the geography near Australian iron ore has locations for pumped hydro... but maybe.
I have come to believe that the future for green steel manufacturing should be in areas of the world where solar energy is plentiful. As you noted Australia has the additional advantage of plentiful deposits of iron ore. The Middle East especially Saudi Arabia has the advantage of financial resources. In North Africa the advantage is proximity to end users in Europe. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
Looks like the bottom line is that whatever we do with technology industry needs reliable and cheap electricity and/or fossil fuels or nuclear and we wont get that with wind or solar.
Also, there are many industrial processes that liberate even more CO2 as a bi-product.
Seems that if we embrace NetZero we will absolutely have a reduction in industrial productivity, and therefore prosperity .. period… so get used to it …… or discuss if CO2 is even an issue as an impact on our climate?
Question are we sure CO2 is an issue… many scientists are in conflict on this issue and this should be discussed far more before we take a hit on prosperity.
One of the items that really caught my attention was the application of this tech to the recovery of a whole range of metals from mining waste. Combined with the modular aspect of the technology, it seems that there is the potential to set up shop right at mines, where there is a huge problem mine waste and potentially reduce that problem to some degree while create a profit stream from what was waste. Of course, the challenge is still having a large enough source of (hopefully clean) electric power (as it is with so many of these emerging green technologies).
1- I followed how this process produces high quality iron, but I didn't hear him explain how that iron gets turned into steel using this process. Can someone fill me in?
2- More importantly to my purposes as a health professional climate advocate, now that we are starting to see some viable industrial electrification technologies, are there examples of parties in the climate movement directly advocating at groups like U.S. steel or other major industrial sources to push them to adopt these technologies? obviously the climate movement has a long history of pushing back on fossil fuel power plants, and the environmental movement has a long history of trying to block industrial plants in certain locations, but what about pushing specific industrial sites to electrify? It seems like it wouldn't be hard to find sites large enough with enough emissions that they are worth multi-year organizing campaigns. Obviously my question is rather vague, not specifying specific industries, but i'm thinking iron/steel, cement, or in the case of wisconsin using electrified heat powered by renewables for our paper industry.
Dave, the best bit was when your guest, whose job is to sell this alternative, is listing off all the plant-processes that are now avoided, the sintering, the pelletizing...and you point out "....and the coal mine".
He recovered fast, but it was clear he'd forgotten that whole point. His job has been to sell to people to who build coal plants, for whom the mine is SEP; you and we listeners take the whole-of-society view, and the elimination of the coal mine is our favourite part!
I think there will be a place for similar, low temperature processes that tolerate an intermittent supply of electricity. At least, for a while.
Form Energy, the Iron-Air battery people, are working on something similar, which shouldn't be a surprise, with the rusting/unrusting tech.
I think the new demand for various metals, Lithium, rare earths, etc., will revive a lot of dormant technology. This electrochemical approach, and also specialty materials with affinities for specific ions.
Brazil is the 2nd largest exporter of iron ore, and I'm guessing they get a good price on solar panels via BRICS, without a tariff. Good for them. Now they can export steel.
It's unfortunate that this electrolytic reduction process is a direct competitor with the new Cambridge Cement recycling process that was announced last week (looking forward to hearing about that on Volts, btw -- https://cambridgeelectriccement.com/).
In the short term, it will take a long time before industrial scale steel production can be converted to the lower-heat electrolysis process, but it sounds to me like the long term outcome will be the reduction of blast-furnace facilities.
I would love to hear whether/how these two technologies could coexist once (if...) traditional dirty steel production is phased out.
A question from an 'energy layman', but fan of the podcast.
As we have heard here (and before - cement production?), electrolysis requires a lot of electricity. The availability of constant 'green energy' is somehow taken for granted in the not-so-distant future. But what about the grid capacities, which are far from being sufficiently developed and available, at least here in Germany? Shouldn't these dependencies be included in the feasibility and profitability calculations?
I keep hoping for shifts in major industrial processes to take maximum advantage of daytime solar energy abundance - already the lowest cost energy around - and avoid the higher costs outside those periods. Presumably there are associated energy intensive processes apart from the electrolytic cells from crushing ores, arc furnaces all the way through to casting, rolling mills and some of those might be better able to better schedule high demand to match daytime solar. A lot of storage or good connection to major grid still seems needed.
As an Australian - our iron ore is in arid zones far from major population and industry but has excellent solar energy potential - it seems like on site or nearby energy storage would be a large part of siting iron and steel plant there. Batteries will play a big role - I wouldn't underestimate their scalability - but seems likely pumped hydro still does long deep storage the most cost effectively and I expect the strong confidence that solar and wind capacity will grow strongly will see more confidence in investing in it. Don't know if the geography near Australian iron ore has locations for pumped hydro... but maybe.
I have come to believe that the future for green steel manufacturing should be in areas of the world where solar energy is plentiful. As you noted Australia has the additional advantage of plentiful deposits of iron ore. The Middle East especially Saudi Arabia has the advantage of financial resources. In North Africa the advantage is proximity to end users in Europe. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
One important question I missed - how much electricity?
How many Watts to run a cell? How many MWhr per ton of purified iron?
Looks like the bottom line is that whatever we do with technology industry needs reliable and cheap electricity and/or fossil fuels or nuclear and we wont get that with wind or solar.
Also, there are many industrial processes that liberate even more CO2 as a bi-product.
Seems that if we embrace NetZero we will absolutely have a reduction in industrial productivity, and therefore prosperity .. period… so get used to it …… or discuss if CO2 is even an issue as an impact on our climate?
Question are we sure CO2 is an issue… many scientists are in conflict on this issue and this should be discussed far more before we take a hit on prosperity.
One of the items that really caught my attention was the application of this tech to the recovery of a whole range of metals from mining waste. Combined with the modular aspect of the technology, it seems that there is the potential to set up shop right at mines, where there is a huge problem mine waste and potentially reduce that problem to some degree while create a profit stream from what was waste. Of course, the challenge is still having a large enough source of (hopefully clean) electric power (as it is with so many of these emerging green technologies).
BRICS is not a customs union, not even a preferencial trade group
Two questions.
1- I followed how this process produces high quality iron, but I didn't hear him explain how that iron gets turned into steel using this process. Can someone fill me in?
2- More importantly to my purposes as a health professional climate advocate, now that we are starting to see some viable industrial electrification technologies, are there examples of parties in the climate movement directly advocating at groups like U.S. steel or other major industrial sources to push them to adopt these technologies? obviously the climate movement has a long history of pushing back on fossil fuel power plants, and the environmental movement has a long history of trying to block industrial plants in certain locations, but what about pushing specific industrial sites to electrify? It seems like it wouldn't be hard to find sites large enough with enough emissions that they are worth multi-year organizing campaigns. Obviously my question is rather vague, not specifying specific industries, but i'm thinking iron/steel, cement, or in the case of wisconsin using electrified heat powered by renewables for our paper industry.
Dave, the best bit was when your guest, whose job is to sell this alternative, is listing off all the plant-processes that are now avoided, the sintering, the pelletizing...and you point out "....and the coal mine".
He recovered fast, but it was clear he'd forgotten that whole point. His job has been to sell to people to who build coal plants, for whom the mine is SEP; you and we listeners take the whole-of-society view, and the elimination of the coal mine is our favourite part!
I think there will be a place for similar, low temperature processes that tolerate an intermittent supply of electricity. At least, for a while.
Form Energy, the Iron-Air battery people, are working on something similar, which shouldn't be a surprise, with the rusting/unrusting tech.
I think the new demand for various metals, Lithium, rare earths, etc., will revive a lot of dormant technology. This electrochemical approach, and also specialty materials with affinities for specific ions.
Brazil is the 2nd largest exporter of iron ore, and I'm guessing they get a good price on solar panels via BRICS, without a tariff. Good for them. Now they can export steel.
It's unfortunate that this electrolytic reduction process is a direct competitor with the new Cambridge Cement recycling process that was announced last week (looking forward to hearing about that on Volts, btw -- https://cambridgeelectriccement.com/).
In the short term, it will take a long time before industrial scale steel production can be converted to the lower-heat electrolysis process, but it sounds to me like the long term outcome will be the reduction of blast-furnace facilities.
I would love to hear whether/how these two technologies could coexist once (if...) traditional dirty steel production is phased out.
It is absolutely not in competition. Molten oxide electrolysis uses iron ore, not recycled steel. It's not EAF.