In short, not half as much as people might have you believe. But that doesn't mean there aren't some real problems with Britain's plans to ditch all its blast furnaces.
re 'specialist steels', there used to be story about salvaging the German fleet from Scapa Flow for 'pre-radioactive' steel. Did that have any reality, and is there any relevance? (The coming election seems to have altered the timing for a lot of people ... the future arrives early ... am looking forward to more when your day job allows.)
Closing the UK's blast furnaces doesn't change the quantity of scrap steel that is available worldwide for making of steel in an EAF, nor does it change the quantity of virgin steel that must be produced worldwide to make up the difference between world demand for steel and world supply of scrap.
It therefore does not change the world production of blast furnace steel, and by implication it has no impact on the world's CO2 emissions except that it moves those emissions from the UK to somewhere else, probably China.
It is greenwashing by deindustrialization, and it's one of the reasons why the west's futile attempts at decarbonization are having minimal impact on world CO2 emissions.
Precisely. That is what US did, ship it's heavy manufacturing overseas to "improve the local environment" and destroyed it's ability to produce many strategic things it must now import. It not only lost the physical ability, it lost the intellectual ability to produce things. Take the recent nuclear plant construction debacle as a case in point.
Thanks for this Ed. I completely agree with your two main points on import dependency and advanced steels not really holding up in this argument, but I don't think it's just a lack of ambition that constrains a different solution. In Port Talbot in particular you're trying to solve for the fact that there's a steel plant that employs thousands of people in a location that no one would build on today (hence Tata have tried to sell it for years with zero interest). You don't need access to the coal anymore, transport with the rest of the UK is easier from ports in the south and east, and the assets are ageing and need massive reinvestment. So you could build a DRI plant but it would take a lot more government cash, and it won't be "green steel" like in Sweden because there isn't access to loads of cheap hydro power. And certainly CCS could be an option in Scunthorpe but as you note, technology unproven, you again you have ageing assets, and in addition, a far from ideal ownership structure. I'm interested in where Labour get to because there just isn't an easy option here that doesn't cost billions.
For the EAF the power supply costings are a problem and also the Graphites are in short supply in England and huge cost . To wind farm supply involves placing STANTIONS in the sea that have taken 70 years of production recycling steel to achieve the grade of steel required for the steel stanchion does that make sense ? Otherwise hillside wind farms are energy consuming to build and detrimental to natural habitats .plus eyesores also require warning light ,which in turn may contravene civil defence procedures. There is nuclear plants but cost are astromical especially with cost of disposal of rods plus a legacy cost.Hence none whatsoever Cheap supply of electricity. Gain on the swings and lose on the roundabouts . Einstein gave us the mighty equation ,hence should solar power come into the equation mining and refining ( smelting)Bauxite for aluminium alloy frames and heating silicon( sand ) for glass production and also transport cost for bauxite and further cost to the grid requiring steel , concrete ,for the network pylon creates food for thought .There are real time answers ,but at what cost . Mexican EAFs have operated a while now and even a new one on production shortly but transport costing breaks down the result of imports . Turkey a problem . The stupidity of Moving to EPVs from petrol is to create one hell of a lotta lotta clangers for the country( England)environmentally probably world wide environmentally
Thanks Ed for this research. Very interesting. Intuitively it seems wrong not to give CCS a go on at least one blast furnace. But given that the UK currently exports a lot of scrap I can see how the decision was made.
There's a problem here: you put this industry-friendly, industry-sponsored garbage up for free on Substack, and you get mostly what you want: mushy tributes, no critical engagement, as if neither you nor your buddies here have the slightest idea that they planet has been cooked to a crisp by unregulated industry.
Do any of you know what the CO2 graph says? Pay any attention at all of the related ecological disasters? You seem to follow the hare-brained Julian Simon model of being "disgusted" by environmental concern of limits, relying on empty-headed cornucopian piffle about magical AI fantastically rounding the bend to give the world decarbonized steel production.
And what could possibly power this nonexistent, fantasy based industry wish but the equally nonexistent fantasy of nuclear fusion, as even Sam Altman admits?
I think your comment has rather disproved your point - the whole reason for posting things here for free is so as many people as possible can read them and post comments, critical or otherwise.
But could you please be a bit more specific about what you're suggesting? Is your point that you agree with Paul Ehrlich? In which case what's your solution for humanity? you say "unregulated industry" but which industries are you talking about and what regulations (or lack of)?
Ranting and making unsubstantiated claims (as per the ones in your comment) might make you feel good but it doesn't make for a very productive exchange.
The problem I am alluding to is with the dearth of critical commentary in the Substack formula. You have your industry viewpoint, you stick to it, and it all becomes public relations, nothing more.
You responded to nothing, and answer direct accusations about your lack of integrity and your lack of intellectual substance with vacuous questions. Do you secretly feel shame for who you have become?
Do I agree with Paul Ehrlich? About what? The man has written many, many books of real importance, but is surely open to criticism on some fronts. As for the long-ago “Bet,” you didn’t specify why you chose to highlight the alleged “disgust” the fraudulent Julian Simon felt towards Ehrlich. How much more “specific” do you need a comment to be?
You feign incomprehension when the basic power of global industry to evade all forms of regulation is alluded to, as if you can’t quite hear or understand basic information. Are you going to claim you don’t know what the term “externalization” means when applied to corporations? Or that you’ve no idea what the term “regulatory capture” refers to? Do you think your position as industry stooge places you above all forms of questioning?
Do you see yourself as engaged in finding “solutions” for humanity? If so, you are completely deluded. There are no solutions, least of all from the very force that has accelerated humanity’s drive to the cliff’s edge.
The use of the word “rants” highlights how bankrupt you have become. The cursed fate of global humanity inspires no anger from you? You think any opposition to the suicidal death-drive of ultrasocial corporate humanity marks the outside observer as insane, a gibbering fool while you remain grounded in establishment cool?
Interesting as always. Learned a new word: psephology - the statistical study of elections and trends in voting
re 'specialist steels', there used to be story about salvaging the German fleet from Scapa Flow for 'pre-radioactive' steel. Did that have any reality, and is there any relevance? (The coming election seems to have altered the timing for a lot of people ... the future arrives early ... am looking forward to more when your day job allows.)
Yes! There's something in the book on it. And also this post from last year: https://edconway.substack.com/p/the-eerie-story-of-low-background
Closing the UK's blast furnaces doesn't change the quantity of scrap steel that is available worldwide for making of steel in an EAF, nor does it change the quantity of virgin steel that must be produced worldwide to make up the difference between world demand for steel and world supply of scrap.
It therefore does not change the world production of blast furnace steel, and by implication it has no impact on the world's CO2 emissions except that it moves those emissions from the UK to somewhere else, probably China.
It is greenwashing by deindustrialization, and it's one of the reasons why the west's futile attempts at decarbonization are having minimal impact on world CO2 emissions.
Precisely. That is what US did, ship it's heavy manufacturing overseas to "improve the local environment" and destroyed it's ability to produce many strategic things it must now import. It not only lost the physical ability, it lost the intellectual ability to produce things. Take the recent nuclear plant construction debacle as a case in point.
Thanks for this Ed. I completely agree with your two main points on import dependency and advanced steels not really holding up in this argument, but I don't think it's just a lack of ambition that constrains a different solution. In Port Talbot in particular you're trying to solve for the fact that there's a steel plant that employs thousands of people in a location that no one would build on today (hence Tata have tried to sell it for years with zero interest). You don't need access to the coal anymore, transport with the rest of the UK is easier from ports in the south and east, and the assets are ageing and need massive reinvestment. So you could build a DRI plant but it would take a lot more government cash, and it won't be "green steel" like in Sweden because there isn't access to loads of cheap hydro power. And certainly CCS could be an option in Scunthorpe but as you note, technology unproven, you again you have ageing assets, and in addition, a far from ideal ownership structure. I'm interested in where Labour get to because there just isn't an easy option here that doesn't cost billions.
For the EAF the power supply costings are a problem and also the Graphites are in short supply in England and huge cost . To wind farm supply involves placing STANTIONS in the sea that have taken 70 years of production recycling steel to achieve the grade of steel required for the steel stanchion does that make sense ? Otherwise hillside wind farms are energy consuming to build and detrimental to natural habitats .plus eyesores also require warning light ,which in turn may contravene civil defence procedures. There is nuclear plants but cost are astromical especially with cost of disposal of rods plus a legacy cost.Hence none whatsoever Cheap supply of electricity. Gain on the swings and lose on the roundabouts . Einstein gave us the mighty equation ,hence should solar power come into the equation mining and refining ( smelting)Bauxite for aluminium alloy frames and heating silicon( sand ) for glass production and also transport cost for bauxite and further cost to the grid requiring steel , concrete ,for the network pylon creates food for thought .There are real time answers ,but at what cost . Mexican EAFs have operated a while now and even a new one on production shortly but transport costing breaks down the result of imports . Turkey a problem . The stupidity of Moving to EPVs from petrol is to create one hell of a lotta lotta clangers for the country( England)environmentally probably world wide environmentally
An excellent and informative article, thank you.
Your last sentence encapsulates the wider problem the UK has.
How though to break the cycle of decline much loved by the Establishment?
Thanks Ed for this research. Very interesting. Intuitively it seems wrong not to give CCS a go on at least one blast furnace. But given that the UK currently exports a lot of scrap I can see how the decision was made.
There's a problem here: you put this industry-friendly, industry-sponsored garbage up for free on Substack, and you get mostly what you want: mushy tributes, no critical engagement, as if neither you nor your buddies here have the slightest idea that they planet has been cooked to a crisp by unregulated industry.
Do any of you know what the CO2 graph says? Pay any attention at all of the related ecological disasters? You seem to follow the hare-brained Julian Simon model of being "disgusted" by environmental concern of limits, relying on empty-headed cornucopian piffle about magical AI fantastically rounding the bend to give the world decarbonized steel production.
And what could possibly power this nonexistent, fantasy based industry wish but the equally nonexistent fantasy of nuclear fusion, as even Sam Altman admits?
I think your comment has rather disproved your point - the whole reason for posting things here for free is so as many people as possible can read them and post comments, critical or otherwise.
But could you please be a bit more specific about what you're suggesting? Is your point that you agree with Paul Ehrlich? In which case what's your solution for humanity? you say "unregulated industry" but which industries are you talking about and what regulations (or lack of)?
Ranting and making unsubstantiated claims (as per the ones in your comment) might make you feel good but it doesn't make for a very productive exchange.
The problem I am alluding to is with the dearth of critical commentary in the Substack formula. You have your industry viewpoint, you stick to it, and it all becomes public relations, nothing more.
You responded to nothing, and answer direct accusations about your lack of integrity and your lack of intellectual substance with vacuous questions. Do you secretly feel shame for who you have become?
Do I agree with Paul Ehrlich? About what? The man has written many, many books of real importance, but is surely open to criticism on some fronts. As for the long-ago “Bet,” you didn’t specify why you chose to highlight the alleged “disgust” the fraudulent Julian Simon felt towards Ehrlich. How much more “specific” do you need a comment to be?
You feign incomprehension when the basic power of global industry to evade all forms of regulation is alluded to, as if you can’t quite hear or understand basic information. Are you going to claim you don’t know what the term “externalization” means when applied to corporations? Or that you’ve no idea what the term “regulatory capture” refers to? Do you think your position as industry stooge places you above all forms of questioning?
Do you see yourself as engaged in finding “solutions” for humanity? If so, you are completely deluded. There are no solutions, least of all from the very force that has accelerated humanity’s drive to the cliff’s edge.
The use of the word “rants” highlights how bankrupt you have become. The cursed fate of global humanity inspires no anger from you? You think any opposition to the suicidal death-drive of ultrasocial corporate humanity marks the outside observer as insane, a gibbering fool while you remain grounded in establishment cool?
Happy to engage with anyone who can be civil and coherent, but I'm afraid your comments are neither.
ehrlich be fraud and charlatan as is lovins and mckibben ,people haters who think unicorn farts will power their first world lifestyle.