11 ms·

Bill Gates said somewhere that steel and cement production are the key factors for stopping climate change. That's why he invested in a startup for steel produc

Bill Gates said somewhere that steel and cement production are the key factors for stopping climate change. That's why he invested in a startup for steel production with focusing mirrors.

spodek 6y ago
> Bill Gates said somewhere that steel and cement production are the key factors for stopping climate change. Baby production is the greater key, as noted with his promoting the solutions of Mechai Viravaidya, who helped bring Thailand's birth rate from around 6 or 7 to below 2 children per woman using methods the opposite of the One Child or eugenics policies: voluntary, non-coercive, educating, and fun.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  Fast search reveals this. https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-people-and-bad-for-the-climate https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-peo...
- snarf21 6y ago
  Yeah, population is our real problem. We need to raise the standard of living around the world and empower women to work out of the home and start business. This naturally reduces the birth rate and we get rid of the horrible patriarch societies.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Bit of a catch 22, no? You increase peoples standards of living and they will use more resources but reproduce less. Mabye some women don't want to work out of the home. Do women seem happier here than before? (Though the option should be available to them).
  - devdas 6y ago
    Annoyingly, the higher standard of living comes with a very high carbon footprint. We need to empower women and lower living standards.
    - kolinko 6y ago
      „Empower women and lower living standards at the same time” - hilariously said :) But seriously - an increase in living standards can go hand in hand with carbon reduction. It’s a matter of proper tech and policies.
      - bottled_poe 6y ago
        > It’s a matter of proper tech and policies. I would love to see evidence of this supposition.
        lostapathy 6y ago
        Once I put solar panels on my roof, I can leave my lights and TV on 24x7 without putting more carbon in the atmosphere.
    - slothtrop 6y ago
      We have a higher carbon footprint in the West, but this is a moot point if the population level stagnates or even drops. Particularly with innovation. You're forgetting that population growth in the developing world is what drives immigration and leads to more of those very-high-carbon-footprints. The birth rate in the 1st world is stagnant. Our growth is due to immigration. Eliminating global poverty and allowing universal access to contraceptives would effectively kill the problem.
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      No need for lower living standards - just need to work fewer hours, which both lowers consumption and increases living standards.
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Or use the "Downsizing" (Matt Damon movie) approach: reduce humans in size so as to inherently consume fewer resources. For example, use growth inhibitors to keep people stunted at, say, one meter in height. If applied to every baby today, would eliminate the need for billions of tons of carbon emissions, meat consumption, cultivated land, etc., after about 15-20 years.
jstanley 6y ago
Steel with no carbon in it is just iron.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  To make the steel - sure, to achieve the melting temperature - let's try without coal, okay?
  - tinco 6y ago
    You need carbon to reduce the iron ore to iron. Coal to heat and melt the iron. And carbon to harden the iron to steel. If I understand it correctly the innovation here is that step 1 is done using hydrogen, presumably the heating is done with (green) electricity, and the last step does not bind the carbon to oxygen, so they are carbon emissions free, not carbon free.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Yes, but the trick is to just put it in the steel and not in the atmosphere as well.
- xorcist 6y ago
  This story is not about carbon-free steel but the production of steel without releasing carbon in the atmosphere. The most carbon dioxide intensive step of steel production is in the production of iron sponge, from which both steel and wrought iron is produced. It is where the blast furnace is involved. But hydrogen can be used instead. It is a lot more complicated than one would think because not only is carbon very efficient at picking up oxygen, it is also an exothermic process which makes it very practical. This energy have to be added some other way when using direct reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron
  - jstanley 6y ago
    I know that the story is not actually about zero-carbon steel. I was replying to the commenter I replied to, who had clearly misunderstood the commenter that they were in turn replying to.
papito 6y ago
Let's be realistic - we are not "stopping" anything. At this point the goal is to slow it down. We may already be beyond the point of no return.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Nonsense. Our only hard limits are the laws of physics. Even with our rudimentary understanding of the universe our only practical limitation is usable energy production, and progress is rapid on that front.
  - dmos62 6y ago
    We are already experiencing negative effects of climate change. Can we reverse them? If not, we're beyond the point of no return. That's just terminology. It's vague because what our goals are as regards climate change is undefined.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Point of no return suggests some meaningful barrier was crossed. It’s true we are further than after the first person used coal to start a fire, but today is just another step on a process that’s thousands of years old. Various economic models of the impact of climate change suggest for northern countries we only recently left the realm of net benefit. It’s going to keep getting worse, but it’s hardly a major disaster right now. Limiting future climate change is important, going back to some arbitrary point in the past isn’t a clear net benefit. Hell, in 10,000 years humanity might be using massive amounts of orbital infrastructure to directly control the weather and actually prefer more atmospheric CO2. Or they might want to lower CO2 below preindustrial levels, we just don’t know.
      - dmos62 6y ago
        What is disaster isn't self evident either. I, for one, consider the effect on various wild life systems as disastrous already. Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.
hannob 6y ago
The startup Bill Gates has invested in is called Boston Metal, they use a technology called Molten Oxide Electrolysis: https://www.bostonmetal.com/ https://www.bostonmetal.com/ But I'm watching the space a bit and it seems all the relevant companies bet on hydrogen-based DRI and not on electrolysis. I also tried to get a statement from Boston Metal when I wrote an article on the topic, but they didn't even answer. AFAIK they haven't announced any pilot plants yet.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  You are also right. The ai controlled mirrors were for cement. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7703861/Startup-uses-AI-powered-mirrors-help-make-cement-glass-without-using-fossil-fuels.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7703861/Star...
- Hypx 6y ago
  That might be because hydrogen DRI is something that nearly exists already. Modern DRI plants using a mix of H2 and CO as the reducing agent. Going to 100% H2 is basically a shift in process without changing the fundamental technology. What Boston Metal is proposing is completely unknown to the steel industry. And I seriously doubt it could work without some miracle discovery in material science. Directly electrolysis of iron ore at 1600°C with no attempt to contain the pure oxygen bubbles sounds like an engineering nightmare.
newacct583 6y ago
(Upthread poster was making a metallurgy joke. Steel by definition is an iron/carbon alloy).
08-15 6y ago
Bill Gates also said that 640kb ought to be enough for anybody. As long as electricity generation, transportation, and space heating are carbon intensive, there is just no point in worrying about steel and cement.
fcantournet 6y ago
Cement is about 7% of all our CO2 emissions Worldwide. Steel is another 5-6% IIRC.

Bill Gates said somewhere that steel and cement production are the key factors for stopping climate change. That's why he invested in a startup for steel production with focusing mirrors.

spodek 6y ago

> Bill Gates said somewhere that steel and cement production are the key factors for stopping climate change. Baby production is the greater key, as noted with his promoting the solutions of Mechai Viravaidya, who helped bring Thailand's birth rate from around 6 or 7 to below 2 children per woman using methods the opposite of the One Child or eugenics policies: voluntary, non-coercive, educating, and fun.

gostsamo 6y ago
Fast search reveals this. https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-people-and-bad-for-the-climate https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-peo...
snarf21 6y ago
Yeah, population is our real problem. We need to raise the standard of living around the world and empower women to work out of the home and start business. This naturally reduces the birth rate and we get rid of the horrible patriarch societies.
- collyw 6y ago
  Bit of a catch 22, no? You increase peoples standards of living and they will use more resources but reproduce less. Mabye some women don't want to work out of the home. Do women seem happier here than before? (Though the option should be available to them).
- devdas 6y ago
  Annoyingly, the higher standard of living comes with a very high carbon footprint. We need to empower women and lower living standards.
  - kolinko 6y ago
    „Empower women and lower living standards at the same time” - hilariously said :) But seriously - an increase in living standards can go hand in hand with carbon reduction. It’s a matter of proper tech and policies.
    - bottled_poe 6y ago
      > It’s a matter of proper tech and policies. I would love to see evidence of this supposition.
      - lostapathy 6y ago
        Once I put solar panels on my roof, I can leave my lights and TV on 24x7 without putting more carbon in the atmosphere.
  - slothtrop 6y ago
    We have a higher carbon footprint in the West, but this is a moot point if the population level stagnates or even drops. Particularly with innovation. You're forgetting that population growth in the developing world is what drives immigration and leads to more of those very-high-carbon-footprints. The birth rate in the 1st world is stagnant. Our growth is due to immigration. Eliminating global poverty and allowing universal access to contraceptives would effectively kill the problem.
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    No need for lower living standards - just need to work fewer hours, which both lowers consumption and increases living standards.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Or use the "Downsizing" (Matt Damon movie) approach: reduce humans in size so as to inherently consume fewer resources. For example, use growth inhibitors to keep people stunted at, say, one meter in height. If applied to every baby today, would eliminate the need for billions of tons of carbon emissions, meat consumption, cultivated land, etc., after about 15-20 years.

jstanley 6y ago

Steel with no carbon in it is just iron.

gostsamo 6y ago
To make the steel - sure, to achieve the melting temperature - let's try without coal, okay?
- tinco 6y ago
  You need carbon to reduce the iron ore to iron. Coal to heat and melt the iron. And carbon to harden the iron to steel. If I understand it correctly the innovation here is that step 1 is done using hydrogen, presumably the heating is done with (green) electricity, and the last step does not bind the carbon to oxygen, so they are carbon emissions free, not carbon free.
pjc50 6y ago
Yes, but the trick is to just put it in the steel and not in the atmosphere as well.
xorcist 6y ago
This story is not about carbon-free steel but the production of steel without releasing carbon in the atmosphere. The most carbon dioxide intensive step of steel production is in the production of iron sponge, from which both steel and wrought iron is produced. It is where the blast furnace is involved. But hydrogen can be used instead. It is a lot more complicated than one would think because not only is carbon very efficient at picking up oxygen, it is also an exothermic process which makes it very practical. This energy have to be added some other way when using direct reduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron
- jstanley 6y ago
  I know that the story is not actually about zero-carbon steel. I was replying to the commenter I replied to, who had clearly misunderstood the commenter that they were in turn replying to.

papito 6y ago

Let's be realistic - we are not "stopping" anything. At this point the goal is to slow it down. We may already be beyond the point of no return.

mulmen 6y ago
Nonsense. Our only hard limits are the laws of physics. Even with our rudimentary understanding of the universe our only practical limitation is usable energy production, and progress is rapid on that front.
- dmos62 6y ago
  We are already experiencing negative effects of climate change. Can we reverse them? If not, we're beyond the point of no return. That's just terminology. It's vague because what our goals are as regards climate change is undefined.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Point of no return suggests some meaningful barrier was crossed. It’s true we are further than after the first person used coal to start a fire, but today is just another step on a process that’s thousands of years old. Various economic models of the impact of climate change suggest for northern countries we only recently left the realm of net benefit. It’s going to keep getting worse, but it’s hardly a major disaster right now. Limiting future climate change is important, going back to some arbitrary point in the past isn’t a clear net benefit. Hell, in 10,000 years humanity might be using massive amounts of orbital infrastructure to directly control the weather and actually prefer more atmospheric CO2. Or they might want to lower CO2 below preindustrial levels, we just don’t know.
    - dmos62 6y ago
      What is disaster isn't self evident either. I, for one, consider the effect on various wild life systems as disastrous already. Edit: surprised to be getting down votes.

hannob 6y ago

The startup Bill Gates has invested in is called Boston Metal, they use a technology called Molten Oxide Electrolysis: https://www.bostonmetal.com/ https://www.bostonmetal.com/ But I'm watching the space a bit and it seems all the relevant companies bet on hydrogen-based DRI and not on electrolysis. I also tried to get a statement from Boston Metal when I wrote an article on the topic, but they didn't even answer. AFAIK they haven't announced any pilot plants yet.

gostsamo 6y ago
You are also right. The ai controlled mirrors were for cement. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7703861/Startup-uses-AI-powered-mirrors-help-make-cement-glass-without-using-fossil-fuels.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7703861/Star...
Hypx 6y ago
That might be because hydrogen DRI is something that nearly exists already. Modern DRI plants using a mix of H2 and CO as the reducing agent. Going to 100% H2 is basically a shift in process without changing the fundamental technology. What Boston Metal is proposing is completely unknown to the steel industry. And I seriously doubt it could work without some miracle discovery in material science. Directly electrolysis of iron ore at 1600°C with no attempt to contain the pure oxygen bubbles sounds like an engineering nightmare.

newacct583 6y ago

(Upthread poster was making a metallurgy joke. Steel by definition is an iron/carbon alloy).

08-15 6y ago

Bill Gates also said that 640kb ought to be enough for anybody. As long as electricity generation, transportation, and space heating are carbon intensive, there is just no point in worrying about steel and cement.

fcantournet 6y ago

Cement is about 7% of all our CO2 emissions Worldwide. Steel is another 5-6% IIRC.