Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:04 PM
exboyfil (3,444 posts)
Linking wind energy with production of steel
A further 29% of steel is produced in Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF); much of the electricity used in this process is generated from coal-fired power stations.
About 150 kg of coal are required to produce 1 tonne of steel in Electric Arc Furnaces. Does anyone know if their are any plans to open an EAF near a high wind resource area. Plenty of wind is available in the iron range of Michigan. Wind economics are difficult because of remote location to where the power will be consumed. Move the mountain to Mohammed and produce steel using wind power located near iron ranges. Dramatically reduce shipment of iron ore and coal. Avoid the burning of 150 kg of coal for every 1 tonne of steel.
|
7 replies, 450 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
| Author | Time | Post | |
| exboyfil | Nov 2012 | OP | |
| phantom power | Nov 2012 | #1 | |
| exboyfil | Nov 2012 | #2 | |
| NoOneMan | Nov 2012 | #3 | |
| phantom power | Nov 2012 | #4 | |
| NoOneMan | Nov 2012 | #6 | |
| FBaggins | Nov 2012 | #5 | |
| NoOneMan | Nov 2012 | #7 |
Response to exboyfil (Original post)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:16 PM
phantom power (22,665 posts)
1. I read it took 300 tons of steel to stand up a 300-foot turbine tower.
|
I'm sure it varies by design and location. But anyway, it's a shit-ton of metal.
|
Response to phantom power (Reply #1)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:23 PM
exboyfil (3,444 posts)
2. That would be a side benefit
|
I think. You have some incredible savings if you can produce wind turbine towers were the wind turbines are to be located. The only ship in would be iron and the trace amounts of carbon, copper, nickel, etc.
|
Response to exboyfil (Reply #2)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:50 PM
NoOneMan (1,750 posts)
3. I think you missed the point (or I am)
|
If the egg is a turbine, oil is the chicken.
PRIOR to being able to process a single gram of steel with wind energy, we must first build wind turbines by consuming vast amounts of oil and steel. It will take decades to mitigate the expenditure and reach carbon neutrality. I guess it might be "worth" it to you if you think we have decades to fidget around on the problem. |
Response to NoOneMan (Reply #3)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:54 PM
phantom power (22,665 posts)
4. My thinking was closer to yours, although...
|
the point about minimizing transportation distance for that much raw material certainly seems useful.
|
Response to phantom power (Reply #4)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:05 PM
NoOneMan (1,750 posts)
6. That definitely would free up some amount of energy
|
But I'm pretty sure that Mother Civilization will not fret too much finding another way to utilize surplus available energy
Frankly I find the entire conversation about how to more "greenly" produce a raw ingredient necessary for industrial production somewhat unnerving and oblivious to the root cause of our little problem. In fact, it is a manifestation of the psyche driving infinite growth: no matter what happens, the show must go on; growth will continue. We sit here accelerating to some destination without a roadmap. There is no "enough". There is only "more" and "faster". Our only solution to our predicament is to produce more stuff to band-aid the last problem caused by building too much stuff. |
Response to exboyfil (Original post)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:58 PM
FBaggins (11,790 posts)
5. Not wind by itself. You would need a stable grid.
|
You don't want parts of the line to turn off with molten metal in them.
|
Response to FBaggins (Reply #5)
Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:08 PM
NoOneMan (1,750 posts)
7. Thats what the enormous oil-powered bellow is for
|
Oh yes, we won't let nature cut off our wind! Mwahahaha
|

