For every ton of steel produced, 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide are spilled into the atmosphere. Steelmaking accounts for 7-9% of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions. The use of hydrogen is being explored as an environmentally friendly alternative for the steelmaking process, but all efforts are still in infancy. Because of the immense costs, it could take decades for steel mills to “go green”. The new way to produce steel is done by recycling carbon dioxide.
Scientists and researchers believe that this innovative type of technology could be implemented at current plants for $435 million each, which is quite costly, and is being examined most strongly in Britains steel making industry. Researchers claim that the investment would be paid back in only 22 months by the elimination of expensive metallurgical coke from the process, and from selling any oxygen that was surplus to requirements. Even allowing for a small increase in electricity consumption, implementing the system on both sites would save about £1.3bn over the course of about five years. There would also, the researchers conclude, be a reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions of 88%, resulting in a countrywide fall in overall emissions of 2.9%.
In regard to my last blog post that mentions the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) introduced by the Biden administration, does it sound like this technology would be worth the investment by the government? I think yes because it would be targeting a major source of pollution, and would be an important investment for the future of the steel industry, and the workers within it. One problem that could arise is that current workers would either have to learn more about the new technology, or be driven out of the industry. But is this fair?
2 comments:
Hello Elliot,
This post brings up many good points, starting with government intervention. In this case, your argument is that it would be important for the government to intervene and handle a project of this magnitude based on the cost. I would say that you are correct. Interest groups are likely not able to raise over $435 million for a project that would reduce pollution. This doesn't mean these groups do not wish this but are limited in terms of capital.
Based on the article you found and the numbers it provides I believe this would be a very important issue for the government to tackle. As for me, there are large steel mills in Cleveland, OH where I live. Every day, factories produce enormous amounts of emissions and pollution. This is terribly alarming and scientists have no way of knowing what the exact long-term effects of this are on not only the planet's health but human health.
Overall, this post hits close to home and I am appreciative of the insight!
Although the technology to recycle CO2 seems incredibly interesting, I don't think that producers will attempt to adopt this technology without strong government regulations forcing them to. Government intervention, however, lies solely on the assumption that regulators aren't captured by industrial interest groups. I do think, however, from what I have read about this topic, that the social costs of steel industry emissions outweigh the private costs of steel production, and that the implementation of this technology would prove to be beneficial for society as a whole.
Post a Comment