Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.

It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.

https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:54:23 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:30:48 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.
> >
> > It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
> >
> > https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/
> In Australia, Twiggy Forester sees it as the long term solution, but is putting his money (and he has a has quite a lot) into green hydrogen in the short term - the local venture capitalists see green hydrogen is their route to making making Australia to hydrogen what Saudi Arabia is to oil. It's trifle unrealistic, but most of them are good bit dimmer than Twiggy.

This Norwegian company is forging ahead with steel production using hydrogen as the fuel source. They think they can get to total replacement quicker this way since it's more straightforward.

https://www.blastr.no/

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/industrial/norwegian-start-up-unveils-4bn-green-steel-and-hydrogen-production-facility-in-southern-finland/2-1-1382648

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:30:44 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.
>
>It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
>
>https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/

Using solar cells, what fraction of the surface of the Earth would
that take?

At 2 MW each, that's a mere 2.5 billion wind turbines and, I'd expect,
a lot of copper wires.

The Boston area seems to generate more than its fair share of
well-funded lunacies.

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:26:20 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:30:44 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.
> >
> >It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
> >
> >https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/
> Using solar cells, what fraction of the surface of the Earth would
> that take?

Well, you can wing-nut it like so:

Earth is radiated by sun at 1000 W/m^2, so at 20% average efficiency that would be 200 W/m^2 harvestable.

So for 5,000 TW that would be 5000 e12 / 200= 25 e12 m^2

A square mile is 2.6 e6 m^2, so that would be 25 e 12/2.6 e6 = 9.6 million square mile.

U.S. land area is 3.8 million square mile, so that would be 2.5 x U.S. total area

That seems rather unwieldy. They must have meant 5,000 TWh, so that would place it at 0.5 total U.S. land area roughly, and that's to power this process for the entire planet.

>
> At 2 MW each, that's a mere 2.5 billion wind turbines and, I'd expect,
> a lot of copper wires.

Yeah, I think they should have said TWh, making that about 500 million wind turbines.

Civilization is just going to have forego steel.

>
> The Boston area seems to generate more than its fair share of
> well-funded lunacies.

On 03/02/23 04:36, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:26:20 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> At 2 MW each, that's a mere 2.5 billion wind turbines and, I'd expect,
>> a lot of copper wires.
>
> Yeah, I think they should have said TWh, making that about 500 million wind turbines.
> Civilization is just going to have forego steel.

That's about 18 Exajoules. Total world energy consumption (2019) of all
forms of energy is 418EJ, from production of 606EJ (most of the waste is
in thermal power plants). 420EJ/year is 13.3TW.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption>

At an average (24/365) solar farm output of 40W/m^2, that requires solar
farm area equivalent to a square 18km on a side. Not so intractable.

Clifford Heath

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 09:36:01 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:26:20 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:30:44 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.
>> >
>> >It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
>> >
>> >https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/
>> Using solar cells, what fraction of the surface of the Earth would
>> that take?
>
>Well, you can wing-nut it like so:
>
>Earth is radiated by sun at 1000 W/m^2, so at 20% average efficiency that would be 200 W/m^2 harvestable.
>
>So for 5,000 TW that would be 5000 e12 / 200= 25 e12 m^2
>
>A square mile is 2.6 e6 m^2, so that would be 25 e 12/2.6 e6 = 9.6 million square mile.
>
>U.S. land area is 3.8 million square mile, so that would be 2.5 x U.S. total area
>
>That seems rather unwieldy. They must have meant 5,000 TWh, so that would place it at 0.5 total U.S. land area roughly, and that's to power this process for the entire planet.
>
>>
>> At 2 MW each, that's a mere 2.5 billion wind turbines and, I'd expect,
>> a lot of copper wires.
>
>Yeah, I think they should have said TWh, making that about 500 million wind turbines.
>
>Civilization is just going to have forego steel.

It would be better to forego neurosis.

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:30:48 AM UTC-8, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.
>
> It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
>
> https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/

The idea of using electricity resonates with this group, but it's simpler to just continue
with coke, and bury the waste CO2... as long as tons of gas aren't vented to the atmosphere,
there's no climate damage issue.

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:30:48 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.

Total world energy consumption (2019) of all forms of energy is 418EJ, from production of 606EJ (most of the waste is in thermal power plants).

420EJ/year is 13.3TW. How many TW do you want for your steel? It's not 5,000TW.

5,000TWhr is only 0.57TW.

At an average (24/365) solar farm output of 40W/m^2, 13TW requires solar farm area equivalent to a square 18km on a side. Not so intractable.

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 10:07:07 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:03:18 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 09:36:01 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:26:20 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 03:30:44 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Definitely a game changer but a very difficult technology to bring to scale, requiring extremely precise process control, especially for electrolysis anode material composition and current drive.
> > >> >
> > >> >It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
> > >> >
> > >> >https://www.bostonmetal.com/green-steel-solution/
> > >
> > >> Using solar cells, what fraction of the surface of the Earth would that take?
> Several people have worked it out for you. Why couldn't you do if for yourself?
>
> <snipped one of the more dubious calculations>

My calculations were based on a point-wise integration of the NREL Solar Irradiance map. It is highly accurate within +/- 25%. <j/k-ing>

They really need a superconducting transmission line system to pipe all this energy around between the have's and have not's.

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg

There should be a similar mapping for wind energy.

> > >Civilization is just going to have forego steel.
> Probably not.
> > It would be better to forego neurosis.
> There's nothing neurotic about recognising that anthropogenic global warming is actually happening and needs to be put into reverse - the science is unambiguous, though John Larkin doesn't seem to understand much of it, and finds climate change denial propaganda more attractive (as it is designed to be).
>
> The psychological problem on display here is John Larkin's gullibility. "Neurosis" doesn't come int it.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 9:02:08 PM UTC-5, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:30:48 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > It's is estimated that total replacement of conventional steel making with this process will require an additional 5,000 terawatts of electrical capacity above and beyond baseline. But it can be achieved with renewables.
> Total world energy consumption (2019) of all forms of energy is 418EJ, from production of 606EJ (most of the waste is in thermal power plants).
> 420EJ/year is 13.3TW. How many TW do you want for your steel? It's not 5,000TW.
>
> 5,000TWhr is only 0.57TW.
>
> At an average (24/365) solar farm output of 40W/m^2, 13TW requires solar farm area equivalent to a square 18km on a side. Not so intractable.

The steel plant will not work by averages, it will work on instantaneous output. So to size the requisite solar farm, you use the sun w/m^2 x efficiency x 5 peak sun hours ( assumes tracking ) x collector area to derive the energy available to power the plant, which defines collector area. Outside of those hours the plant is down. If you're not getting enough production, you simply put plants+solar online in parallel until you do. They could go with one of those pumped storage backup techniques to extend operating hours, but even that takes an equivalent amount of solar power to operate- so right off my guess is it would require even more solar panels.