Calling it green in this case means shifting the emissions else where

> Boston Metal is developing a process that doesn’t directly involve any fossil fuels, as Canary Media reported last year. The startup’s approach, called ​“molten oxide electrolysis,” involves using electric currents

This means that they will pull power from the grid. How many kWh does it take to turn 1 pound of solid iron and additives into one pound of liquid steel? It is a lot. Even if they use high frequency induction heating.

Right, but isn’t the grid continuing to get cleaner?

How? You cannot make something “greener” without side effects.

Electrification is a huge part of a zero carbon future. You can make electricity without carbon. Even if this doesn't start 100% green, it can be 100% green. Steel processes with direct fuel needs will never be 100% green. Same idea behind EVs and heat pumps. You have to start somewhere, and this just creates a demand for clean energy when before it was a demand for more fossil fuels.

[removed]

Milankovitch cycle.

Snip snap, SNIP SNAP!

Hot…hot hot hohhhhhtttttt!!.. hoht hoht hoht hoht! Hohhhhhttt!!!….!.!.!!!!

Yes it is, if you define “greener” as lower carbon footprint.

If you include the other externalities of “green“ power gen, then it’s not always so green.

[deleted]

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be looking or just not doing something but to call it green is just greenwashing it.

“Hey look at us we are making Green steel!” Meanwhile they have haven’t reduced an ounce of carbon emissions. They just mover it from one pollution location to another.

New England, where the project will be located, doesn't use very much coal at all (usually less than 1% of generation recently). Mostly it's natural gas, nuclear, hydro from Canada, and renewables.

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts

On very cold winter days we do use a fair amount of oil for power generation, but that's typically limited to just a handful of days a year when we can't get enough natural gas due to pipeline constraints.

Call it "potentially lower carbon dioxide emissions steel" if you want. I don't care about the name, I just care that these kind of changes happen.

This doesn't just shift pollution, it reduces greenhouse gasses overall.

> Replacing coal plants will happen

For the US, it has already mostly happened. Coal has dropped 60% since 2008. By the time Boston Metal gets a full size steel plant built (about 5 years) coal will mostly be gone.

Over the last 12 months, renewables provided more electricity than coal or nuclear individually (not together).

Takes about 275 Wh/lb or 550 kWh/ton to melt SG iron or 625 kWh/ton for steel.

Absolutely, which means it will be greener along with everything else. The old process wouldn't. In the US there is a good chance that the power is from nuclear ,that is almost as clean as it gets

Nuclear is the answer but no one wants it in their backyard.

They can easily purchase emission free electricity. Come on everyone knows this

[deleted]

It can go in my backyard…

I’m highly confident that they would be purchasing green energy exclusively. While it may be coming off the grid it will be matched kWh by kWh with renewable electricity production.

Cleveland cliffs have electric arc furnaces that are significantly better than the old style. I'm not sure if it is the same tech or better

But does it use AI and Blockchain?

Nuclear is dead because it's not economical.

Even the SMR developers keep raising the expected price and the delivery date keeps slipping.

Last price update was something like $80 whereas solar/wind is around $30 and still dropping.

Yes, it's a lot. But it can run when energy is cheap, such as when there is excess solar and wind.

There are other factories already that power up the most energy hungry devices only when power is cheap.

The energy requirements are much higher than just melting... The main energy consumer is removing the oxygen

Industrial furnaces and forges aren’t actually things you can fire up and shut down on a moment’s notice. This would completely change the chemistry and maybe lead to batch deviation and scrapping the whole batch. But, I’m not super familiar with this specific process. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely to me they could take advantage of off-hour energy costs. In fact, the chemistry companies around where I live mostly have their own power plants for these kinds of operations.

Gasoline used in my car's life (215,000 miles so far) - 25,000 kg. Lithium used in a full electric EV - 10 kg. One is much less than the other. Steel in both kinds of cars - about a ton each.

Electricity for EV to drive 215,000 miles in 22 years (my car's age) - about 72,000 kWh. US solar capacity factor - 24.4% (actual average output divided by rated panel capacity). Average power needed to produce that much power in 22 years: 372 Watts. Rated panel capacity needed: 1.52 KW.

Output per panel: 550W from largest US manufacturer rated at 585W but allowing for power loss as the panel ages. So you need about 3 panels. Panel Mass 34.4 kg x 3 = 103.2 kg. Much less than the car, and 250 times less than ICE gasoline needed.

So there aren't zero side effects, but a lot less.

The energy of formation of Iron III Oxide is 5.16 MJ/kg or 1433 kWh/ton. Actual energy needed depends on the efficiency of the process, including heat losses.

Wholesale solar and wind range from $26-50/MWh x 1.433 MWh/ton = $37-72/ton. Since steel goes for ~$750/ton these days, power cost is not a show-stopper at reasonable efficiency.

If the question was "how can I get really expensive electricity in 14 years", then yes nuclear is the answer. 14 years is the Vogtle 3 & 4 reactors in Georgia, approved in 2009, supposed to be operational this year.

Electric arc furnaces are for remelting scrap iron to make new steel. About half of US steel production is remelted scrap. The other half has to come from a "reduction" furnace that removes oxygen from iron ore. Historically this was a blast furnace, but Boston Metal has a different process.

My maths comes up with a different result, although the conclusion is the same.

Thanks for making the distinction.