Thread by @valenvogl

This Friday I'm defending my PhD thesis 'Steel Beyond Coal'.

With nearly 6 years of research on steel decarbonisation coming to an end, here comes a very long 🧵about steel, coal and what we can do radically reduce carbon emissions in line with a just transformation.

For you impatient ones, scroll all the way down for a TL/DR

For everyone else: enjoy the ride

To download the thesis see here:

https://twitter.com/valenvogl/status/1613595691028185113?s=20&t=_xdzTU2AnNRIcYEBUeuRqQ

First things first. Steel is iron, carbon, and alloys such as nickel and chromium. Yes, carbon is per definition a part of steel. But let this not distract you, this does not mean we cannot phase out fossil fuels (quite the opposite).

2 nuances to keep in mind

1. steel describes many different products with varied production histories and impacts on society
2. the burdens and benefits of steel are unequally distributed

e.g. per capita consumption (green triangles) below

source: iea.org/reports/iron-a…

70% of steel today is made with coal, the rest is recycled. These 70% are the main reason why iron and steel production is responsible for 8% (!!!) of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other material. Coal used in steel production is caused metallurgical coal

Those 70% are made in blast furnaces (and adjacent process steps). Blast furnaces (BF) turn iron ore into liquid, carbon-rich iron. They are fed with coke, which is made from coking coal. BF tech has been used for hundreds of years and little efficiency gains left to be realised

My research begins here. The 2015 Paris Agreement requires to quickly peak emissions, bring them down to net-zero and beyond into negative emissions. Steel is not really 'hard-to-abate' (@simonjnicholas below) & zero or even neg. emissions are feasible

https://twitter.com/simonjnicholas/status/1617718566408843264?s=20&t=_xdzTU2AnNRIcYEBUeuRqQ

The questions I ask in my thesis are 3:
1. what does decarbonisation of iron and steel in line with Paris mean,
2. how can we advance it,
and
3. how can we align it with other pressing social & ecological issues

Easy to answer in 6 years, right?

Before getting into the nitty gritty, we need to think carefully about *how* we study industrial decarbonisation - the approach will colour the results

Instead of 'fixing' emissions through economic externality thinking, I argue that we need a systems perspective

Hardcore externality thinking is what has brought us unfeasible and short-sighted solutions such as the 'global carbon price' or blast furnace CCS as a 'short-term' option. Not gonna happen.

source: leolinne.com/?portfolio=dis…

A critical stance towards fossil fuel interests has so far been absent in steel decarbonisation work. In particular, we need to be better at cautioning against over-reliance on wild CCS permutations (e.g. below).

We need to phase out fossil fuels

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

To tell technology promise from realistic option, why not check out what the industry is doing? The Green Steel Tracker atm lists 73 projects. One (1!) of them aims to fix the blast furnace through CCS. The large majority abandons the blast furnace.

industrytransition.org/green-steel-tr…

Externality thinking tells us that a carbon price is all we need to decarbonise steel. But it isn't. Steel decarbonisation needs infrastructure, just transition policy, investment subsidies, all coordinated in a policy mix.

Good resource on policy mixes: doi.org/10.1016/j.resp…

Fast forward now. My thesis is made up of four papers and an executive summary. Two of the papers look at innovation, two look at phasing out the dirty stuff. Both needs to happen if we want to bring the iron & steel industry in line with climate targets.

Paper I models hydrogen direct reduction (H-DR) technology for steel production without fossil fuels. An optimistic take at a time when one and not 60+ projects were looking into this.

Conclusion: fossil-free steelmaking is not prohibitively expensive

doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle…

In paper II in @Climate_Policy we dive into how EU policy can bring about a first decarbonised steel mill. Our verdict: producer subsidies rather than stimulating consumers to buy #greensteel

Great follow-up resource by @JoernRichstein @KarstenNeuhoff: doi.org/10.1016/j.isci…

Paper III examines the pace of blast furnace replacements to meet the #ParisAgreement

Put more crudely than in the paper: For 1.5 degrees we have to stop blast furnace investments now, for the Global North we had to stop a decade ago already.

doi.org/10.1016/j.joul…

Paper IV, yet unpublished, explores strategies to phase out metallurgical coal. Met coal makes up one sixth (!) of global coal consumption, but whenever people speak about coal phase-outs, met coal is never included.

Met coal, the forgotten fossil fuel

https://twitter.com/valenvogl/status/1518548632395468800

On to the three main messages of the thesis:

1. The Paris Agreement and the rise of renewable energy technology increasingly push for phasing out the blast furnace and metallurgical coal and instead electrifying steel production

Blast furnaces require a certain amount of fossil coke. No other fuel has similar mechanical properties, no replacement for coke exists today and the prospects look bleak. Decarbonising via the BF route thus requires CCS, but also biomass to get emissions to low levels ...

Main message 2.:

Developing fossil-fuel-free steel production methods and phasing out fossil fuels and blast furnaces will require efforts by a large diversity of actors.

We have entered a period of steel decarbonisation politics that play out from the local to the global

The Cumbria coal mine controversy is a case in point. The UK gvmt's indecisiveness and lack of support has probably killed the prospect of the UK as a green steel leader already.

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1617481436067500032?s=20&t=HilyB7g3O0nxdDEicWP5Qg

Sweden too has entered a period of green steel contestation. Part of the Swedish right incl. conservative think tank Timbro & news paper Svenska Dagbladet are attacking 🇸🇪 steel decarbonisation plans publicly. Steel is becoming mixed into the eternal nuclear v. renewables debate

Main messages, 3.:

A Just (capital J) transformation of steel production requires constant aligning of decarbonisation efforts with developments in other pressing social and ecological matters.

... Blast furnaces running on fossil coal, large use of bioenergy, while renewables get cheaper and climate policy more stringent - sounds like a recipe for disaster and a lot of financial risk. This risk is my interpretation of why most low-carbon steel projects avoid CCS today

Four insights here:
1. We can't get around decarbonising primary steel. Pure recycling and demand reduction, while crucial, won't be enough. Non-industrialised countries don't have scrap to recycle, but many of them will want steel to build infrastructure, homes, cars etc.

2. The debate on 'breakthrough technologies' v. 'efficiency/demand reduction' is framed poorly. These are neither either-or nor fully compatible. Capital dodges its self-inflicted crises by relocating, e.g. into 'green' steel markets. Industry claims must be approached with care

ad 2. This means decarbonising primary steel production while acknowledging fossil capital's interests. And this, at least to me, means rethinking what production and industry can mean beyond multinational cooperations and neoliberal capitalism

3. 'Breakthrough technologies' such as the one I looked at in paper 1 can become the problem. Freshwater needs, air pollution, land grabs are likely outcomes of unrestricted industry adventures into hydrogen steel production. Critical engagement is crucial ...

4. The central feature of critical industrial decarbonisation research to me is this: You are always caught in the tension between advocating something and warning of its dangers. Hydrogen steel production is a case in point: needed, but dangerous

ad 4. Which brings us to a central question in technology ethics. Are smartphones good or bad. Nuclear technology?

Hydrogen steel production in a growth-oriented world where a handful of folks pulls the strings sounds scary.

So this is where I land. After all, I'm a trained chemical engineer with only some years of social science venturing. Civil society and challenging powerful interest is our best hope to get steel decarbonisation right, or at least to not get it completely wrong.

Before I end: Thank you to my wonderful co-authors, some of which are here: @AhmanMax @dr_olsson @JMRootzen @GeorgiaLeeuw @hansen_teis and co.

Thanks also @IMES_LU @Lundsuni @SEIresearch, and @SPRU and @PJohnstone1 for a wonderful research visit at @SussexUni

HUGE thanks to everyone I know doing the more practical political work. @caitlinswalec @SuzanneSchenk @AnalogFryd @Sam__Vdp @simonjnicholas @KWitecka @MmayM62 @henryadamsUK @estelledehon @McFeeleyM and so many more. Your support means a lot

And on a final and personal note: I'll be leaving Sweden for Vienna in a few weeks. TBA what I will be up to (check this space), but just to say that it'll be steel decarbonisation related.