Life Cycle Analysis of "Carbon Free" Steel Making.

[NNadir]

The paper to which I'll refer in this post is this one: Prospective Life Cycle Assessment Suggests Direct Reduced Iron Is the Most Sustainable Pathway to Net-Zero Steelmaking Arezoo Azimi and Mijndert van der Spek Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2025 64 (7), 3871-3885.

The paper is open sourced, so there's no need to excerpt it too much, although I'll add a few excerpts, since the proposed LCA (Life Cycle Analysis" involves hydrogen, which is not, despite much bullshit that flies around here and elsewhere, carbon free. Hydrogen is made, overwhelmingly by the steam reforming of dangerous fossil fuels. However, in theory, if not in practice, hydrogen could - there is a huge difference between could and is - be made by the only scalable form of primary energy available, nuclear energy.

The bullshit in this LCA paper is based on the fantasy that electrolysis to provide hydrogen using so called "renewable energy" is economically and environmentally available. It isn't. Germany (BASF) shut ammonia plants in the last several years because Putin cut off their supply of dangerous natural gas, which was their major source of hydrogen via the SMR, steam methane reforming, process.

Nevertheless, it appears, from the text, that in Europe, steel plants that do not use the coal based iron reduction, substituting hydrogen, are being built. This is a very bad idea from my perspective, not quite as bad as Germany shutting its nuclear plants, but up there.

From the text:

The average per capita steel use worldwide has steadily increased from 150 kg in 2001 to around 220 kg in 2023. By 2050, steel use is projected to increase by approximately 20% compared to current levels, to meet the demands of a growing global population. The steel industry employs over 6 million people globally. (1)

Decarbonizing the steel industry is crucial due to its significant impact on climate change. The steel industry is highly energy- and emission-intensive, ranking first in CO₂ emissions and second in energy consumption among industrial sectors. According to the World Steel Association, (2) in 2021, the iron and steelmaking industry emitted 1.91 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of crude steel cast produced and consumed 20.99 GJ of energy per tonne. It is currently the largest industrial consumer of coal, which provides around 75% of its energy demand and is essential for producing coke, a key component in the chemical reduction of iron ore in blast furnaces.

To meet global climate goals, CO₂ emissions from the iron and steel industry must decline toward net-zero by 2050. Strategies for achieving deep emissions reductions in steelmaking include CO₂ capture and storage (CCS), fuel switching (e.g., hydrogen or bioenergy), direct electrification, and innovative process designs such as direct reduction of iron ore with hydrogen. Factors such as energy prices, technology costs, and the availability of raw materials will significantly influence the adoption of these technologies. (3) For example, access to low-cost renewable electricity provides a competitive advantage to hydrogen-based steelmaking. Additionally, to achieve 2050 climate goals, the rapid deployment of technologies that are currently in early development stages is required. For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that a new hydrogen-based direct reduction plant needs to be deployed every month once the technology is commercially available. (1)

The Western European steel industry is undergoing a significant transition from coal-based production methods to more sustainable power-based processes. This shift is being spearheaded by several countries committed to reducing carbon emissions. In the United Kingdom, a major transformation is underway, with the planned shutdown of two primary steelmaking sites operated by British Steel in Scunthorpe and Tata Steel in Port Talbot. These sites, which currently rely on traditional blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace (BF/BOF) processes, will be replaced by electric arc furnaces (EAFs) that focus on recycling scrap steel (while we note this will remove the UK’s primary steelmaking capability). This move represents a key step in reducing the carbon footprint of the UK’s steel industry. Germany is also making strides toward greener steel production. ArcelorMittal has announced plans to integrate hydrogen-based processes in its steelmaking plants in Hamburg, Bremen, and Eisenhüttenstadt by the mid-2020s. The latter two plants will transition to EAFs as part of this initiative. Additionally, ThyssenKrupp has committed to building a hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI) plant in Duisburg by 2025, further solidifying Germany’s leadership in sustainable steelmaking. (4) In France, the steel industry continues to prioritize emissions reduction through carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies. The country operates five blast furnaces with a combined production capacity of approximately 15 million tonnes of primary steel annually. While France remains focused on CCUS, (4) Spain is taking significant steps toward decarbonization with ArcelorMittal’s agreement to invest 1 billion euros in its BF/BOF steelmaking plant in Gijón. This investment will fund the development of a green hydrogen DRI unit, complemented by a hybrid EAF, marking a major shift in Spain’s steel production landscape. (5) Sweden’s SSAB (6) is leading a groundbreaking initiative called “Toward Fossil-Free Steel,” in collaboration with industrial and research partners. The project aims to transform Nordic strip production to achieve net-zero emissions by around 2030. As part of this effort, the SSAB plans to convert its Luleå and Raahe sites into mini mills with EAFs and rolling mills in Sweden and Finland, respectively. The company will further develop its Borlänge and Hämeenlinna plants to align with these new production processes. Belgium’s ArcelorMittal Gent (7) is set to electrify and decarbonize its existing blast furnaces by utilizing captured CO₂ emissions through a testing pilot carbon capture unit developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). These emissions will be converted back into carbon monoxide (CO) using plasma technology from D-CRBN. This innovative process will reduce coal usage in blast furnaces and decrease the future need for green hydrogen. In The Netherlands, Tata Steel IJmuiden, the country’s only operating BF/BOF steel facility, is embarking on a significant transformation as part of the “Green Steel Plan.” By 2030, the site’s largest blast furnace, BF7, is planned to be replaced by an EAF, while a new DRI plant will take the place of one of the company’s coke-making facilities. (8)...

If one looks, one can see that the usual bullshit is clear in this paper, notably CCS, carbon capture and storage, which, like so called "renewable energy" and in fact, the recent burst of "hydrogen hype" which blows through like bad weather every decade or so, is an effort to greenwash fossil fuels.

The conversion of CO₂ back to CO (carbon monoxide) is mildly interesting, and represents CCU (carbon capture and utilization) as opposed to CCS, (carbon capture and storage) and to my mind might be worthy over the long term of some consideration, particularly if generated in a nuclear Allam cycle coupled to reformation of waste organic matter, but the fact remains that European electricity is not "green" except in France, Sweden, and Norway, the first owing to its nuclear capacity, the second from a combination of electricity and marginally "green" hydroelectricity, and the latter almost purely from hydroelectricity, although Norwegian wealth derives from the export of dangerous natural gas.

As noted elsewhere in the scientific literature with respect to China, the use of hydrogen based processes makes things worse, not better:

Subsidizing Grid-Based Electrolytic Hydrogen Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Coal Dominated Power Systems Liqun Peng, Yang Guo, Shangwei Liu, Gang He, and Denise L. Mauzerall Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (12), 5187-5195.

This paper is in the "peer reviewed" scientific literature. "Peer review" is sometimes treated as if it renders a paper oracular, which, in fact, it doesn't. When reading anything including but no limited to "peer reviewed" primary scientific literature, critical thinking is required - not often utilized - but at least should be required. The fact that this requirement often vanishes is a reason that the planet is burning.

Hydrogen and CCS are efforts to greenwash fossil fuels. From my perspective, this paper consists of bad ideas and wishful thinking, a key aspect of the latter, being the inclusion of soothsaying, of which sentences containing the phrase "by 2050" (or by such and such year, when the author will mostly likely be dead or in the best case, long retired).

The paper, if you open it and search it has 6 "by 2050" phrases in it. That says everything you need to know.

I trust you're having a nice weekend.