Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

'Green Steel': Swedish Company Ships First Batch Made Without Using Coal (theguardian.com) 84

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The world's first customer delivery of "green steel" produced without using coal is taking place in Sweden, according to its manufacturer. From a report: The Swedish venture Hybrit said it was delivering the steel to truck-maker Volvo AB as a trial run before full commercial production in 2026. Volvo has said it will start production in 2021 of prototype vehicles and components from the green steel. Steel production using coal accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Hybrit started test operations at its pilot plant for green steel in Lulea, northern Sweden, a year ago. It aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with renewable electricity and hydrogen. Hydrogen is a key part of the EU's plan to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Green Steel': Swedish Company Ships First Batch Made Without Using Coal More

'Green Steel': Swedish Company Ships First Batch Made Without Using Coal

Comments Filter:

  • But Hydrogen is worse than coal? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nucrash ( 549705 ) on Thursday August 19, 2021 @03:47PM (#61708635)

    At least that's why some article said a bit ago. Atleast that's the case for Blue Hydrogen:

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by john83 ( 923470 )
      Interesting. I thought hydrogen was mostly made by electrolysis of water, but wikipedia says the vast majority is derived from natural gas in one way or another. Can anyone comment on whether cleaner hydrogen production is near at hand? Presumably there'll be money to develop that tech if there is demand to use it as a clean energy storage tech.
      • You can make hydrogen by electrolysis, but that takes energy that has to come from somewhere else. Coal, natural gas, solar, etc. It is not clear from the article (surprise) what they are actually talking about doing. I think what they are planning is to react the iron ore with hydrogen and energy to produce molten iron and water rather than molten iron and carbon dioxide as is done with coke. You would still have to add some carbon to the iron ore to make steel. I have no idea if this process would be

        • > . It is not clear from the article (surprise) what they are actually talking about doing

          "It aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with renewable electricity and hydrogen."

          It's such a short article, and yet...
          =Smidge=

          • The coking coal also introduces the needed carbon into the iron. So the question becomes, where are they getting the carbon from to turn it into steel.

            • I'd argue that you simply introduce enough coke(IE almost pure carbon) to get the amount in the steel you're trying to create, rather than mixing in enough to not only melt the iron, but also produce enough carbon monoxide to reduce the iron oxides to pure iron.

              Going by memory from when I last read about this process, it turns out that the old coke method actually generally introduced TOO MUCH carbon, which you'd have to work out of the material to make steel, or introduce iron with too little carbon and mi

            • Pedantically it can come from almost anywhere as long as it's not a fossil source. Biomass (e.g. charcoal) is the current front runner, but you can also capture carbon emissions from other processes (cement production?) and use that.

              The stated goal is fossil-free steel, not carbon-free steel.
              =Smidge=

            • The coking coal also introduces the needed carbon into the iron. So the question becomes, where are they getting the carbon from to turn it into steel.

              Carbon is such a tiny percentage of the composition of steel that it really is negligible.

              Iron ore is typically Fe2O3. The reduction process is Fe2O3+3CO --> 2Fe + 3 CO2, so you use up three atoms of carbon for every atom of iron reduced.

              Typical steel, on the other hand, has about 0.35% carbon [thefabricator.com]. So if you simply remove the carbon from the reduction process, you have solved 99% of the problem. And, solving 99% of the problem is good enough.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by necro81 ( 917438 )

              The coking coal also introduces the needed carbon into the iron. So the question becomes, where are they getting the carbon from to turn it into steel.

              The amount of carbon required to make iron into steel is both 1) carefully controlled to fractions of a percent, but also 2) usually pretty tiny - well under 1% for almost all alloys. For a typical crucible's worth of steel, you'd need only a few bags of charcoal briquettes. That amount of carbon can come from any number of renewable or "green" sources.

        • You can make hydrogen by electrolysis, but that takes energy that has to come from somewhere else.

          if you go to their site, they have more details:

          https://www.hybritdevelopment.... [hybritdevelopment.se]

          They are working on production of hydrogen by electrolysis ("work package 2").

          ...not clear, however, that this particular demonstration in the headlines is using hydrogen from electrolysis.

          Coal, natural gas, solar, etc. It is not clear from the article (surprise) what they are actually talking about doing.

          From the site above, they are looking at electricity from renewable sources to make the hydrogen ("work package 1").

          I think what they are planning is to react the iron ore with hydrogen and energy to produce molten iron and water rather than molten iron and carbon dioxide as is done with coke. You would still have to add some carbon to the iron ore to make steel.

          Yes, but the amount of carbon in steel really is negligible-- well under one percent by mass for structural steel (hig

      • mostly hydro and wind in Hybrit (Score:4, Informative)

        by pereric ( 528017 ) on Thursday August 19, 2021 @04:45PM (#61708835) Homepage

        Reply from Sweden. I'm not directly involved in the project, but active in climate policy in general.

        Electricity in northern Sweden is mostly hydro power, but with several large-scale wind farms added recently, and with further potential also for off-shore wind. I would not say electricity is "abundant", but relatively available. Much is exported to the south (and to Finland), but the capacity is limited (and the upgrading is a long-term project). We usually have lower electricity prices in the north for this reason.

        This makes a good supply for producing hydrogen by electrolysis. Especially when the hydrogen can be stored for some weeks, it's a good way to use possibly fluctuating wind power efficiently network-wise. Changing all of the steel production to hydrogen will however need more (renewable) generation capacity.

        • NZ is in a similar situation. Lots of available hydro power from which to produce green hydrogen. Currently 15% of the hydro production of the whole country is used at the Tiwai Point aluminum/aluminium smelter, but they are making noises about leaving. People are looking at using that power for green hydrogen production.
          • Why would they leave?

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              They won't. About every 10 years they claim they have run feasibility studies to say they could do things cheaper somewhere else. They then try to hold the Government to ransom and demand all sorts of incentives to stay.

              They do this at the mine sites, the alumina refineries and at the smelters.
              Sometimes governments call their bluff. Often they don't.

              It's just business you see. Nothing personal. We respect you but, y'know...business. We want to make you an offer you can't refuse.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by necro81 ( 917438 )

                Sometimes governments call their bluff. Often they don't.

                Coincidentally, the Tiwai smelter is right next door to the town of Bluff, NZ! [map [google.com]]

              • In the past the company was always bluffing about leaving, trying to get a better deal for themselves. But I am not so sure that's the case with the latest round of "we're leaving claims". There is one new wrinkle in the game this year, namely that work on the extra transmission line required to take the electricity that is generated for the aluminum smelter and feed it into the national grid has spun up. Whether this is just a bluff too, who knows?
        • The issue is that volume steel production is an energy intensive activity. When done the traditional way with coked coal, we are talking about trainloads of coal. The reason Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania was a big steel center was that it was cheaper to ship the iron ore to the coal mines than the other way around. Most historical steel centers were based on coal fields for that reason. Hydropower and wind farms are fine for light industry and home use, but I doubt if they can produce the huge amounts of e

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shinobi ( 19308 )

            Hydro has been used for decades to power Swedish steel manufacturing in mid- and northern Sweden, and in the last 20 years, wind has become a significant source too.

          • Swedish Hydropower produces about 75 TWh per year, is that enough for your steel plant?

          • ... Hydropower and wind farms are fine for light industry and home use, but I doubt if they can produce the huge amounts of energy required for steel production.

            Things have changed in the last 100 years.

            For one thing Western nations have mostly shut down production of lower grades of steel from ore since populations have stopped growing and steel does not disappear very fast. Most "steel production" in the U.S. and other Western countries is processing scrap steel. The new steel production is smaller quantities of high grade steel, which require better quality control. The U.S. produces 1/3 of the steel from ore than it did 50 years ago (and an even smaller fracti

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by teg ( 97890 )

            The issue is that volume steel production is an energy intensive activity. When done the traditional way with coked coal, we are talking about trainloads of coal. The reason Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania was a big steel center was that it was cheaper to ship the iron ore to the coal mines than the other way around. Most historical steel centers were based on coal fields for that reason. Hydropower and wind farms are fine for light industry and home use, but I doubt if they can produce the huge amounts of energy required for steel production.

            That depends on the country.... e.g. Norway is pretty much 100% hydro power, with some recent wind power additions. No fossil energy plants. While we no longer produce steel, we produce a lot of aluminium.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ernstp ( 641161 )

        Most *in the world* is made from natural gas, but in this project making hydrogen from electrolysis is part of the project.

        The point here is that there's loads of cheap green electricity from hydro power (and wind) up there in Sweden (and no natural gas anyway),
        so they're using green electricity for both the electrolysis and heating.

        And yeah as someone said, this is for the oxygen reduction part of iron. I've seen it called "direct reduction" in some places.

      • Can anyone comment on whether cleaner hydrogen production is near at hand?

        We'll have fusion power before we have all "green hydrogen".

        • Cool, since we already have green hydrogen in Sweden, where's my fusion power that you promised me?

          • Nice try.
            https://energiforsk.se/media/2... [energiforsk.se]

            Preparing for a Future Hydrogen System.
            The development of a hydrogen system will require developing a better understanding of future potential network configurations and the design of hydrogen transmission and distribution networks. There’s also a need to explore in more detail the medium-term role for blue hydrogen, the potential of gas-to-power technology in the electricity system, and the hydrogen storage needs and potential of a future hydrogen system.

          • See that bright thing low in the southern Swedish sky during daylight? Primary fusion power source there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Interesting. I thought hydrogen was mostly made by electrolysis of water, but wikipedia says the vast majority is derived from natural gas in one way or another. Can anyone comment on whether cleaner hydrogen production is near at hand? Presumably there'll be money to develop that tech if there is demand to use it as a clean energy storage tech.

        Electrolysis of water is expensive and inefficient. That's why "blue hydrogen" obtained by cracking methane or other hydrocarbon is done. This is a much less energy

      • See https://www.iea.org/reports/th... [iea.org]

        "While less than 0.1% of global dedicated hydrogen production today comes from water electrolysis, ...."

        "Hydrogen is almost entirely supplied from natural gas and coal today. Hydrogen is already with us at industrial scale all around the world, but its production is responsible for annual CO2 emissions equivalent to those of Indonesia and the United Kingdom combined. Harnessing this existing scale on the way to a clean energy future requires both the capture of CO2 fr

    • Yes: hydrogen production today is done using much coal, but Green Hydrogen [wikipedia.org] made from electrolysis of water with electricity generated by low-carbon power sources is coming, prices are going down and should cost $2/kg by 2025. When this happens Green Steel will be part of what saves us from our own climate change folly.

      • Green hydrogen is expensive compared to blue hydrogen. Unless there is a mandate to use green hydrogen then it will always use blue hydrogen.

        • Perhaps, but in this particular case Hybrit are using green hydrogen in their process. This is not blue hydrogen.

          • Well, either they are the only one that will use green hydrogen or the only one that going to use this process at all.

    • Let me guess: Another case of "The outdated process that most of this thing is made with in my backwards country is bad, therefore *any* process of making this thing is forever bad. Nevermind that the existing things we currently use are even worse.".
      The main lobbying talking point of the fossil fuel industry.

    • Hydrogen emissions and cost is not fixed but depends on the source and the price of it.

      And that's the thing. Renewables are going down on price, so sometimes are even cheaper than fossil fuels and it will be lower in the future.

      So, in long term, it's a winner configuration, but not yet. It's a proof of concept as how to create sustainable steel in the future.

      It's not just emissions. Any production that requires fossil fuel as a source is a "open cycle" usage of resources, while renewable allows an alternat

    • Yeah that article was stupid though since we don't use coal for the purposes blue hydrogen are being discussed. The question isn't whether blue hydrogen was better than coal, it was whether blue hydrogen production was better than the oil economy (including extraction, refining, and setting it on fire in hundreds of millions of pressurized chambers across the world).

      Since we're not using blue hydrogen to generate electricity the comparison was nonsense.

  • Um, steel is iron and carbon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Thursday August 19, 2021 @03:57PM (#61708669)
    So, they have to be getting carbon from somewhere. They may be heating it with something else, but you still need carbon to make steel.

    • Wood (Score:3)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      I looked it up and most sites are pretty vague about where they are getting the carbon from. Most looks like it's coming from charred wood, which really isn't a whole lot different than using coking coal.

      From what I've seen of steel production (the company I work for sells software to forges) most of the CO2 emissions come from the energy used to heat the iron and coke, not the coking coal that gets dumped into the steel. Most of the energy comes from natural gas. They are working on using arc furnaces, but

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Burning any biomass can be carbon neutral if you also create an equal amount of new biomass. Trees absorb CO2, burning them releases it again but if you plant another tree then eventually it's net even. At least in theory.

        In practice it tends to depend where you get the biomass. Shipping it long distance isn't going to help.

        • This isn't happening though. The biomass plants are running dirtier than the coal plants with waivers because of perceived green energy. They get their permits claiming their going to burn woodchips which would have been wasted... Well there isn't enough supply to waste the time running the power plant so what ends up happening is that they burn whatever they can get their hands on... garbage, toxic pallets, brand new trees cut to feed the fires.. It's a big scam. Telling people it's a scam results in the c

          • We are talking about producing charcoal. Whatever the merits of you claims, we are not talking about biomass powerplants at all.

      • The pure carbon they need for alloying isn't really a problem, that is sequestered. Only the carbon for reduction is relevant for direct emissions.

      • Most looks like it's coming from charred wood, which really isn't a whole lot different than using coking coal.

        Umm... in what way are they the same, other than the necessary - both containing carbon? Getting it from the air, NOT getting it from the air...not much different? Thecharcoal will have fewer impurities so it makes better steel. Still not the same.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jonadab ( 583620 )
        I mean, wood is renewable in larger amounts on a given timescale (or, equivalently, on a shorter timescale for a given amount) than coal. But on the other hand you expend additional energy turning the wood into charcoal (which would not be a big deal if you could do it 100% with solar or whatever, but in practice a steel plant is almost certainly going to draw quite a lot of grid power, so...)

        The other thing is that taking carbon from coal and putting it into steal would be carbon-neutral, if it were 100%

    • Direct Reduced Iron [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        That makes iron, not steel. To turn iron into steel, you need to add carbon.

        • Oddly enough, you also have irons, such as pig iron, where it has too much carbon to be considered a steel. Steel is iron with up to 2.14% carbon, above that you get "pig iron." [wikipedia.org]

          Steel [wikipedia.org] is 0.002% - 2.14%(by weight)

          Given that the traditional coke blast furnace is producing steel with ~4% carbon, a direct process is still less work(you can just add the carbon manually when tweaking the alloy) than having to work to reduce the amount of carbon in the hot metal.

    • If only there was another source of carbon they could use... like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? That would really be "green", wouldn't it?

      • Problem with that is the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an inconveniently low concentration.

        IMHO it would be better to capture carbon from other processes, such as cement production, and use that. The energy needed to make cement can be 100% renewable, but the process is still going to generate lots of CO2 because that's just the chemistry of the process. Capture that and you have a source of "waste carbon" you need to deal with - so why not turn the waste into a product for things that need carbon as

    • This is a trivial carbon requirement. The average carbon content of steel is on the order of 1%, so finding the ~44,000 tons of carbon needed to produced Sweden's 4.4 million tons of steel (if they all converted to this process) is a minor detail.

      Even if the carbon all came from coke it is still green because the carbon is trapped in the steel, dissolved in it, making iron carbide compounds.

      But Sweden produces 20 million tons of wood a year, which almost 50% carbon, so charcoaling a little of that wood woul

  • Other countries did that in the eighties.

  • Hybrit will consume 55 TWh (Score:3)

    by xarragon ( 944172 ) on Thursday August 19, 2021 @05:45PM (#61709127)

    Hydroelectric power accounts for more than 50 percent of Sweden's energy production. Most of this production is located in the northern parts, along with major mining and forrest operations. Transmission capacity to the southern parts are rather poor and has not kept pace with demand. The closure of several nuclear reactors in the southern and central parts have only worsened this. Massive wind farms are erected in the northern parts, as the air force forbids them in the southern and central areas.

    The Hybrit project is backed by state-owned Vattenfall, whose name literally means "Waterfall". They operate many of the hydroelectric and nuclear power plants. The idea is to use "green" energy to create hydrogen through electrolysis and fuel the steel furnaces with it.

    I say "green" because Sweden had to fight the EU to actually classify hydroelectric power as "green", part of the reason is probably this project as it carries a lot of prestige. The reason we built nuclear plants was that almost all rivers were tapped for energy already, with growing public opposition to it's expansion. For decades none of these hydroelectric power plants were subjected to any environmental impact review. But that all changed recently, with the expected result that many of them will have to be closed down. A future energy mix with unpredictable renewables will need stored energy, which hydro (and hydrogen) provides.

    But the Hybrit project alone is expected to consume 55 TWh per year. That is ONE THIRD of all power produced in Sweden. And there is a competing, privately funded company just starting up as well. I don't think the people up north are that interested in sending power down to us city dwellers any longer - with good reason. We have interesting times ahead.

    Technical details on Hybrit in English: https://www.hybritdevelopment.... [hybritdevelopment.se]

    Svenska Nyheter (satire program, Swedish) about Hybrit, the source for 55 TWh figure via Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • H2 is probably from FF but that is ok. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday August 19, 2021 @05:55PM (#61709173) Journal
    Iron ore is iron oxides (ferrous and ferric) mixed with stuff, mostly silicon dioxide. Traditional iron making is heating the ore to melt it, mix it with carbon (in the form of coke) and let the carbon steal the oxygen atoms from the iron oxides leaving iron behind.

    Oxygen loves hydrogen so much, if free hydrogen is provided, it will leave iron oxide and bond with hydrogen. The process is well understood, and it is even possible to make iron oxide and hydrogen to exchange oxygen, using electricity and make rechargeable batteries.

    This is probably a carbon free process to make iron from iron ore. Since nearly all the commercial hydrogen made today is from fossil fuels, it is most likely the hydrogen used also comes from FF. But, this is a big positive step, and let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Perfect would be using renewable energy to make hydrogen. But, one step at a time, one step at a time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jezwel ( 2451108 )

      But, one step at a time, one step at a time.

      Exactly, there are renewable plants planned for hydrogen generation, IIRC using ammonia for easier storage and handling. Having a ready-made customer for green hydrogen helps the business case for these plants significantly.

    • Since nearly all the commercial hydrogen made today is from fossil fuels, it is most likely the hydrogen used also comes from FF.

      Except that they went to the trouble to get it from electrolysis for this plant. [hybritdevelopment.se]. You are not "probably correct", you are certainly wrong.

      • The write up explains direct reduction. Then mentions it will produce water as by product and can used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. But it is not clear they are actually using electrolysis for hydrogen. Further the water produced will percolate through ore and pickup soluble impurities, probably heavy metals. It might not even be allowed to be discarded without further treatment.

        Even if they use FF hydrogen, it is still a good first step. Iron oxides, or rust, can be directly electrolysed to rele

  • Because the key ingredient that turns iron into steel, is *carbon*.

    It's weird that the TFS leaves it out.
    Knowing Scandinavia, it's probably burned thrash.

    Also, Lulea... That's that place that this awesome band is from:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by _merlin ( 160982 )

      You don't use coke to add carbon, you use it to drive the reducing reaction, removing oxygen. Iron ore doesn't contain metallic iron for the most parts, it's iron oxides (like rust).

  • Making steel requires carbon. Ever hear of "high carbon steel"?You don't have to get it from coal. You can get it from oil, or if you are willing to pay 100 times as much for the steel, you can get it out of the atmosphere. This Great Achievement is just meaningless virtue signalling.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users never use the Help key.

Close