- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
We cannot lower carbon emissions if we keep producing steel with fossil fuels.
We cannot lower carbon emissions if we keep producing steel with fossil fuels.
That’s… Not how new steel production works.
Coal is a significant component in the production of steel to impregnate it with carbon. It’s a fundamental part of how a blast furnace operates. The article literally talks about this…
Even the article about doesn’t mention an alternative. An arc furnace relies on scrap it cannot make new steel.
Though, I wonder if we can move more towards charcoals, but even then I wonder if that’s just much less effective or if it cannot reach the temperatures or concentrations required for industrial processes.
How much of the coal in a blast furnace is actually necessary for the carbon impregnation, as opposed to supplying the heat via combustion? Steel contains only a few percent carbon by weight, so it doesn’t seem like much carbon is needed (not to mention that the carbon in steel is essentially sequestered).
Charcoal steel is actually better, as charcoal is generally purer, and steel suffers from phosphor and sulphur impurities. The problem is that it’s costlier.
I think that it would be viable to at least reduce the carbon used in steel production just to impregnate it, and conduct the bulk of the reduction through another process.
The hybrit process that some Swedish steelmakers (including SSAB - not a typo, it isn’t Saab) are using looks promising. They’ve been testing it with Volvo and are apparently making it part of Volvo’s regular process in 2026
Cool, I learned something new today.