[HN Gopher] How fast can European steelmakers decarbonise?
___________________________________________________________________
How fast can European steelmakers decarbonise?
Author : Pietertje
Score : 36 points
Date : 2023-05-12 20:36 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| quirk wrote:
| Just please don't decarbonize my swords. I need them for work.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Now I want to know what you do for work that requires swords...
| tmtvl wrote:
| Fencing teacher?
| pestatije wrote:
| swordcery
| easytiger wrote:
| Only in the absurd world of carbon credits is this required -
| something that is nearly impossible to do any other way - that
| contributes practically nothing to global CO2 vs the incredible
| benefit to society it proffers - has to stop. Why?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| decarbonizing the industrial supply chains is pretty crucial
| because a lot of the other green infrastructure that's going to
| be needed to be built around the world is going to be less
| effective otherwise. If your green tech needs to run for years
| to simply claw back what was required to make it that is a huge
| issue.
| easytiger wrote:
| > _If your green tech needs to run for years to simply claw
| back what was required to make it that is a huge issue._
|
| An engineering mind would never prefer high risk
| authoritarian enforcement of theoretical solutions to solve a
| problem. You are reducing diversity to shoot yourself in the
| foot
| thfuran wrote:
| Was the EPA a mistake because heavy industry without
| dumping loads of shit in the rivers was a theoretical
| solution that reduced diversity?
| scythe wrote:
| One thing I've been sort of curious about with non-carbothermal
| iron ore reduction is whether it could bring back wrought iron.
| Wrought iron disappeared around the 1960s due to high production
| costs -- the crude product contains carbon, which must be removed
| by working -- but iron produced with hydrogen or electricity will
| not have a chance to absorb carbon like this. There's more to it
| than that -- you have to achieve a particular grain structure and
| fibrous silicate inclusions. But the corrosion resistance is nice
| -- some wrought iron fencing in the highly corrosive atmosphere
| of New Orleans persists to this day. One paper reported that the
| corrosion resistance is better than mild steel but lower than
| weathering steel -- but without creating the stains we associate
| with weathering steel:
|
| https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/237170109.pdf
| [deleted]
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Aren't some high-tensile steels rather equivalent to wrought
| iron?
|
| [edit]
|
| I couldn't find any high-tensile steel with C alloyed below
| 0.18%, which is more carbon than what Wikipedia lists for
| wrought iron.
| roamerz wrote:
| The sooner that people realize that the climate is going to
| change regardless of what humanity does the better off we will
| be. When the reality sinks in maybe we can put our efforts into
| adapting. Might have a chance that way.
| Zamicol wrote:
| The first solar-powered steel mill was recently built in Pueblo,
| Colorado: https://gizmodo.com/the-world-s-first-solar-powered-
| steel-mi...
| dporter wrote:
| The last paragraph of this article sums up a trend I keep
| seeing in this industry I don't like:
|
| > But while decarbonizing heavy industry is a good thing, the
| folks behind this project are not my favorites. Lightsource BP
| is a joint venture between the steel company EVRAZ and the
| energy giant BP, as well as the utility giant Xcel Energy,
| which will provide the steel mill with fixed electricity rates
| through 2041. BP and Xcel wouldn't exactly be my top choices to
| control the energy of the future, what with both companies'
| histories of spewing out carbon emissions, greenwashing their
| polluting business plans, and screwing over workers. I
| personally don't think these kinds of companies should get to
| make big profits on solar power or use it to paper over their
| destructive legacies. But hey, maybe that's just me!
|
| The alternative to this is what? Complete newcomers to the
| industry attempting to execute multi-million or -billion dollar
| projects? Anyone in an existing carbon-intensive industry is
| going to have a "climate unfriendly" reputation because they
| operate in a "climate unfriendly" industry. Attempting to block
| existing players in the industry from decarbonizing seems
| counterproductive.
| Zamicol wrote:
| You're right, omitting opinions would have made for a more
| informative piece.
|
| Here's some other (probably better quality) links: -
| https://www.chieftain.com/story/news/2022/03/18/bighorn-
| sola... - https://www.constructiondive.com/news/worlds-
| largest-solar-p...
| johanneswu wrote:
| Without paywall https://archive.is/tzEcD
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20230512214044/https://www.econom...
|
| https://archive.ph/tzEcD
| ranting-moth wrote:
| Is everyone decarbonising? India, China? I get the feeling
| they're laughing all that way to the bank.
|
| (All in favour of it, just everyone has to play along)
| kieranmaine wrote:
| This is covered in the article:
|
| "Europe's steelmakers have one more strong incentive to get
| decarbonising. Under the eu emissions-trading system, they are
| currently awarded 80% of their allowances for CO2 emissions
| free of charge in order to remain competitive with dirtier
| producers in places like China and India. Over the next ten
| years the eu will phase out these freebies and replace them
| with a carbon tariff on dirty imports. If eu steelmakers stay
| grey, calculates Morgan Stanley, their profits could sink by up
| to 70%."
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| They've made commitments, at least enough to convince Europe
| and the US that they are working on it... but whether they will
| spend more than $5.20 on enforcement, I doubt. Far more fun and
| strategic to let the US and EU do what they do and shout "We're
| with you!" from the sidelines. China also makes 80% of the
| world's solar panels, so we shouldn't pretend that China
| convincing the US to decarbonize doesn't have some pretty nice
| business interest in selling them to us - even though it is
| only 3.5% of their energy generation over there.
|
| Kind of like how China is a WTO member, claims to support
| Copyright, upholds Patent Law, and respects Intellectual
| Property. They also respect their Constitution, including the
| provisions for Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and
| have an independent Supreme Court to enforce checks-and-
| balances on their President. They also have a Functioning
| Democracy with 8 other political parties. Anyone who has
| actually interacted with them in any of those fields...
| Haga wrote:
| [dead]
| ognarb wrote:
| I wonder if at some point the EU should block the usage of
| dirty steel and only authorize carbon neutral steel. This would
| provide a great incentive for other countries to also invest in
| clean alternative.
| zokier wrote:
| > The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will apply to
| imports across several sectors, _including steel_ and
| aluminum, forcing them to respect EU environmental standards.
| It will come into effect in 2026 or 2027.
|
| https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/12/13/eu-.
| ..
| penneallagricia wrote:
| [flagged]
| quasarsunnix wrote:
| I think that's a great idea and could be applied to a lot of
| industries with large offshore carbon footprints. Maybe
| tariffs or quota limits that are linked to carbon?
| TheSmiddy wrote:
| China is rapidly decarbonising their transport, faster than any
| other country.
|
| They also produce the vast majority of the world's solar
| panels.
| gumby wrote:
| > (All in favour of it, just everyone has to play along)
|
| It's worth doing even _if_ others don 't. Especially for the
| wealthy countries -- the poor countries emit relatively little
| carbon per capita.
|
| The new energy transition is from op ex to cap ex. Looks
| expensive in the short term but a big win in the medium and
| long term. Plus you get the benefit of reduced emissions. Sure,
| other people do, but even if you're selfish it's a good deal.
| goatlover wrote:
| The climate doesn't care about per capita. The developing
| world has the majority of the population, so the majority of
| additional CO2 will be coming from there.
| realityking wrote:
| In effect you're saying that countries that are poor today
| must not be allowed to reach the level of western
| countries. I don't have a good word for it but that's a
| very specific worldview.
|
| If we believe that every country has the right to develop,
| than the poorest countries emission will increase. Better
| technology will flatten that increase but those are
| expensive. Wealthy countries pioneering the widespread use
| of these technologies will reduce cost and allow developing
| countries to deploy them in the future.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| > In effect you're saying that countries that are poor
| today must not be allowed to reach the level of western
| countries. I don't have a good word for it but that's a
| very specific worldview.
|
| Being charitable, it'd clearly be an environmental
| disaster if everyone in the world consumed oil at the per
| capita level of OECD countries. I imagine global oil
| consumption would multiply manyfold.
|
| > Wealthy countries pioneering the widespread use of
| these technologies will reduce cost and allow developing
| countries to deploy them in the future.
|
| I too used to think this, but it seems like most of the
| progress in solar has come from China. Similar with
| nuclear power plants.
| boterock wrote:
| Fun way to look at it, you at the north give us a lot of
| planned obsolence goods in exchange for our monies. North
| even gets into politics pushing developing countries
| infrastructure towards oil economies. and then, we consume
| what you led us to, and suddenly we're the bad guys.
| goatlover wrote:
| Humanity is the bad guy. Well, the planet doesn't care.
| It's about how much climate change we want to deal with.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| It's not the 20th century anymore. China's per capita
| emissions are higher than you're letting on. Higher than some
| European countries.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Wow, China's per capita emissions were, in 2018, ahead of
| Israel, Ireland, New Zealand, Slovenia, Slovakia, Greece,
| Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, Denmark, Italy, the U.K., Hungary,
| Portugal, Turkey, France, Switzerland, Croatia, Sweden,
| Ukraine, Latvia, Romania...the list they're behind may be
| shorter [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carb
| on_di...
| hilios wrote:
| I think those numbers lump the emissions from goods
| produced in china and exported to other countries in with
| the emissions from domestic consumption. So they are
| inflated by China's vast exports. Yet even if you use
| consumption based emissions, China was around Spain's
| numbers in 2016 and by now probably has overtaken quite a
| few of the European countries.
| yongjik wrote:
| There are Wikipedia articles for 2015 Indian heat wave (2,500
| dead), 2016 heat wave, 2019 heat wave, 2022 heat wave, and the
| current ongoing 2023 heat wave.
|
| 2021 Henan flood killed hundreds and forced evacuation of 800k
| people.
|
| Imagine what you want, but nobody's laughing any more.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Prisoner's dilemma. What better way to pay for flood walls
| and air conditioning, than profitable high-emission industry.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| This video summarizes this point pretty well -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo&t=201s
|
| I don't know the solution because the problem is huge, but my
| strong suspicion is that focusing on industrial efficiency is
| the largest needle we can move. Specifically, making it
| economically sensible to use green technologies in developing
| countries.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-12 23:00 UTC)