Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

energymonitor.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#11

Post by Gibbon1 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #10
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

I am curious if these processes need continuous power or if they would work okay if most of their power was delivered during the daytime.

I suspect that you don't need that with aqueous electrolysis. I think the advantage is the electrolytic cells are cheap.

Problem with solar is intermittent power means intermittent use of capital equipment. How much an issue that is depends on the ratios of electricity cost, capital cost and depreciation.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#12

Post by robocat »

> Sweden’s SSAB, for example, is building an underground cavern, where it will store hydrogen it has created using off-peak North Sea offshore wind

I found the following information about the SSAB pilot cavern:

  The pilot plant has a size of 100 cubic meters. At a later stage, a full-scale hydrogen gas storage facility measuring 100,000 to 120,000 cubic meters may be required which is sufficient to supply a full-sized sponge iron factory for three to four days.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#13

Post by monotux »

jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

SSAB has located it’s H2 plants near several large hydroelectric power plants, so in Sweden’s case we have to build nuclear power plants further south to provide power to the bulk of the population.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#14

Post by kolinko »

robocat wrote: post #12

> Sweden’s SSAB, for example, is building an underground cavern, where it will store hydrogen it has created using off-peak North Sea offshore wind I found the following information about the SSAB pilot cavern: The pilot plant has a size of 100 cubic meters. At a later stage, a full-scale hydrogen gas storage facility measuring 100,000 to 120,000 cubic meters may be required which is sufficient to supply a full-sized…

Anything about pressure, or total weight of hydrogen stored? Without those it’s unknown really how much energy or hydrogen they store.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#16

Post by mkj »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #10
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

I am curious if these processes need continuous power or if they would work okay if most of their power was delivered during the daytime.

If you only run in daytime you have the same capital costs for half the output - a lot harder to make viable. Might be OK if the energy cost dominates anything else?

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#18

Post by bell-cot »

kolinko wrote: post #15
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

Renewables are way cheaper and easier to scale.

Big picture, yes.

Though they generally need much more power storage/distribution grid construction per GW, to actually deliver a reliable supply to users.

Then you get to countries where the NIMBYs fight tooth & nail over even tiny grid construction projects...

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#19

Post by redeeman »

kolinko wrote: post #15
jpgvm wrote: post #5

All I am seeing is a ton of reasons to build an absolute boat load of cheap nuclear power. None of these processes are even remotely possible without abundant essentially free energy.

Renewables are way cheaper and easier to scale.

is this why grid stability/reliability goes down as renewables goes up?

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#20

Post by chii »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #8
jpgvm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is! Just not in Western countries sadly. China is building a ton of nuclear at very good prices.

I’m curious how Chinese nuclear power plant prices compare to Chinese solar panel prices. They are both cheaper than in western countries.

the question is whether it's cheaper because labour costs are cheaper or is something being compromised to make it cheaper (such as safety)?
Post reply on HN