Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "We Recycle More Steel Than Plastic. Why Does It Still Pollute So Much? | World Wide Waste" video.

  1.  @amorag59  "The coke is the heat source in a preliminary step" That's not its main purpose. Coke/carbon is used as a reducing agent when refining iron ore. It combines with the oxygen in the ore to liberate the iron.
    2
  2.  @amorag59  "the high carbon content coke is not there to add carbon to the steel" I didn't say that it's there to add carbon to the steel. I said that it's there to take the oxygen out from the ore. That's its main purpose.
    2
  3.  @amorag59  "Except they didn't say coke they said iron + carbon = steel. There is no such process to make steel by simply adding carbon to iron." I read up on this and it seems you're, in fact, mistaken, at least when it comes to iron or steel production. The earliest forms of iron ore refining in a bloomery produced iron with little to no carbon (basically wrought iron). The earliest forms of steel making then consisted of treating the object made of iron with heat and a charcoal bed and then quenching it. That process added carbon and turned the outer layer into steel. So there is in fact historical a process to make steel by adding carbon to iron. Modern blast furnaces of course don't work this way but the note about history at 0:27 is not incorrect.
    2
  4.  @amorag59  "The steel making process you are citing, simply to dispute that line above, was not a process used thousands of years ago like mentioned at the timestamp." The process, i.e. case hardening, was used 1400 BC. "this was because they couldn't economically reduce the carbon to the percentage for carbon steel, they had to start with wrought iron" The first methods of refining iron did not produce high carbon cast iron or pig iron like a blast furnace. A bloomery does not introduce as much carbon as a blast furnace and subsequent hot working of the iron removes most of the carbon that was introduced. Thus the first methods of making steel used carburization rather than decarburization like later methods. "The problem with the video is they make the statement at :27 then quickly jump to the modern steel making processes which does not work that way." The historical note they made is correct. The video after that doesn't even discuss how modern steel making works so the kind of jump you mentioned does not occur. Only steel recycling is described with more detail, not steel making.
    2
  5.  @sinephase  That's not the point. The carbon that stays in the steel is not in the atmosphere heating the climate. The coke/carbon is used as a reducing agent in refining iron ore. It combines with the oxygen in the ore and liberates the iron. That causes carbon dioxide emissions.
    2
  6. At least at the moment reducing emission is probably usually cheaper.
    2
  7.  sus  "Look at the Aral sea, its dead because of the dams" Aral Sea is dead because of dams that divert water for irrigation. For hydroelectric dams that let all of the water through to generate power this isn't usually as big of an issue (though they can still have some other harmful environmental effects).
    2
  8. Carbon dioxide heats the climate.
    1
  9.  @picobyte  No, they don't.
    1
  10.  @picobyte  However, pigs not flying in no way implies that carbon dioxide doesn't heat up the climate.
    1
  11.  @picobyte  "CO2 is not warming our climate." It is. "Also current CO2 levels are extremely low compared to earth history." They have almost doubled from pre-industrial times. "Also in roman times climate was so much warmer than now" It wasn't. "that grapes grew in the UK" Grapes are grown in the UK in current times as well. English wine is a thing. "AGW is one big scam" It's not. "and currently two decades of non warming" Warming has occurred in the past two decades.
    1
  12.  @picobyte  "In roman warm period it was warm" Current global average temperature is higher now.
    1
  13. The alternative, i.e. making new steel from ore, also requires a lot of ore to be shipped around. It's rather hard to believe that making new steel from ore is less harmful.
    1
  14.  @stormelemental13  "It is very, very difficult to replace the carbon monoxide." There are facilities (at least planned or under construction) that use hydrogen instead of carbon as reducing agent when refining iron ore. Of course, that only makes environmental sense if you have a lot of low-emission electricity available for electrolytic hydrogen production.
    1
  15.  @simonseal3836  "steel=iron+carbon, carbon bad" That's not really a good summary because the carbon that stays in the steel doesn't harm the climate. It's the carbon that combines with oxygen and escapes into the atmosphere.
    1
  16.  @Slavicplayer251  Do you have a source for the carbon being removed? I wasn't able to find any mention of that despite searching.
    1
  17.  @amorag59  "The video wrongly suggested the high carbon in the coke is there to chemically add carbon to the finished product to make steel. This is wrong.. You don't make steel by adding carbon to iron." At least in the case of recycling steel it's not wrong for them to say that the coke is there to add carbon to the steel. Steel is often recycled in electric arc furnaces. They don't need fuel for the heat since heat is supplied with electricity. In the case of refining iron ore you're correct in that a blast furnace first produces a high carbon pig iron which is later decarburized to make steel or cast iron. However, I don't think they were talking about this when saying that the steel recycling plant needs coke. Their one sentence about the history of steel production was slightly wrong (EDIT: or not necessarily even wrong after all) but the similarly you mention of coke being a heat source is somewhat wrong. It's reasonable to point out either of these.
    1
  18.  @amorag59  "Case hardening is a surface treatment, not a way to make steel" The surface layer is turned into steel. "moreover you are already starting with low carbon steel" Not in the case of when the method was first used. Back then it was used on wrought iron with little to no steel. You can use it on e.g. mild steel too but it was used on wrought as well in the past. "Why did you just nerdsplain the bloomery process?" It was just to note that far in the history iron refining produced iron with little to no steel. Therefore it's not incorrect to describe that at first steel was made by adding carbon rather than removing it. With blast furnaces things are different, of course. "You have to flagrantly ignore the rest of the process which is spent removing relatively much more carbon overall." That's not the case for the first instances of refining iron ore or steel making since the iron refined in a bloomery and then worked had little to no steel. The process of making steel by decarburizing cast iron or pig iron is a somewhat later invention. Therefore the short description in the video at 0:27 wasn't wrong.
    1
  19. "Point your fingers to the real polluters like China and India." In terms of greenhouse emissions the US emits much more per capita than China and especially India.
    1
  20.  @habiks  The iron that we can find on earth is mostly in the form of oxide ores. Refining that generally causes carbon dioxide emissions.
    1
  21. "only half of the steel can be recycled" My understanding is that only half is recycled whereas more could be recycled (though that requires effort and isn't free).
    1
  22. "Average global temps in the 1920-1930's were higher than the highest of recent years" That's not true.
    1
  23. ​ @bobthrasher8226  It wasn't true and there are other sources for global temperature averages besides NASA.
    1
  24. "Windmills are using more carbon fiber" Wind turbine blades are made from glass fiber, not carbon fiber composite. Carbon fiber would be much more expensive. The amount of material used is not large relative to the amount of electricity produced.
    1
  25. "recycling is usually NOT cheaper" Of course it's often cheaper. That's why e.g. steel is recycled on a large scale by capitalist companies.
    1
  26. "As much as solar and wind can work, they take so much energy to be made and don't last long enough to offset their own production process." They can easily offset their production many times over.
    1
  27.  @wolfpackgames4674  "they simply don't" They do. The amount of material relative to the electricity produced isn't that large.
    1
  28.  @wolfpackgames4674  "in large quantities and impossibly perfect weather odds" They don't need impossibly perfect weather odds. Wind farms are built where they make most economic sense.
    1
  29.  @wolfpackgames4674  Even taking those factors into account the amount of material is rather small compared to the electricity generated. It is not true that they're not worth the effort.
    1
  30.  @wolfpackgames4674  "wind turbines and solar fields would take up too much space" There are plenty of suitable locations. E.g. for offshore wind taking too much space is not that much of an issue. Rooftop solar often only takes up space that doesn't have much other uses. They alone will certainly not suffice everywhere but there's a lot of places where it makes a lot of economic sense to use them for at least a portion of electricity generation. "A wind turbine only offsets itself after 3 years." I'd like to know where that data is from so I can check it. In any case, wind turbines often last at least for 25 years or more so they can easily offset that amount of energy many times over.
    1
  31.  @wolfpackgames4674  "Offshore they'd get damaged too often and cost too much to maintain long term." Offshore you have both stronger and more consistent winds. It is well worth it despite the higher rate of damage, at least in good locations. "Rooftop solar can be too expensive for most people and doesn't usually provide much more than enough power to allow you to power your house during an outage." At least in first world countries a big part of the population can easily afford rooftop solar where it makes economic sense. It doesn't make economic sense in every location but in sunny climates rooftop solar is well worth it. "To suffice, you quite litterally do need geothermal and nuclear, maybe hydroelectric but otherwise, green energy simply isn't worth it." Geothermal power generation (rather than mere heating) is quite niche compared to wind and solar. Currently both wind and solar have something like 30 times more capacity installed than geothermal. The viability of geothermal is quite location specific, more so than that of wind or solar. Hydroelectric power is quite good but untapped resources are not plentiful in most places.
    1
  32.  @wolfpackgames4674  "offshore requires too much maintenance and would make it take longer to offset." Better wind conditions make it worth it. "good amount of people can afford solar if they save money but have more important things to invest in before it, also wouldn't be as effective after 10 or 20 years, or in places that get lots of rain or snow." For people who have already bought a house (and a car if they need one) rooftop solar often doesn't come at the expense of some other investment. Solar is less viable in snowy climates but e.g. in places like Australia it makes a lot of sense. "Geothermal isn't very used yet so no, it's not quite at it's best but when it is, it'll be way better than either" You can't know that in advance. Geothermal can improve but so can wind and solar. It's at the very least uncertain that geothermal could become better than wind and solar.
    1
  33.  @wolfpackgames4674  "it already is" I don't believe that. So far its adoption has lagged far behind wind and solar. "A number of people rent and don't own their own property so they either can't get solar due to that" But a lot of people can. Rooftop solar can be also used in commercial properties. "or it's not viable due to weather, such as snow, constant rain or even dust storms in Australia" At least in Australia it's clearly viable. Dust storms are not constant. "Solar panels also lose their efficiency over time." But they maintain it for long enough to be a good investment in sunny climates.
    1
  34.  @wolfpackgames4674  "it might be behind but it's certainly better" I find it hard to believe it would be so much behind if it were already better. "It's not too viable to have it up high like that due to it requiring a cleaning system in places that get snow or dust storms." I don't think that makes it unviable. In sunny climates it's worth it. "but not all due to some being [...] rental properties" In such a case the landlord can invest in rooftop solar and get compensation from the renter. "or needing too large of arrays" There isn't necessarily need for the property to be 100% solar powered (and that may be overinvestment). A smaller array can still make economic sense even though it doesn't make the property self-sufficient. "Solar is still expensive no matter what you do and can't make enough energy in turn." Solar is not expensive anymore. PV prices have come down a lot. The price is worth the electricity generated, at least in sunny climates.
    1
  35.  @wolfpackgames4674  "it's not viable, it's not hard research" The share of solar in Australia is 35% so clearly it seems viable. "Your right about it not needing to be fully self sufficient but most companies would want to be since its 2022." If they want to be self sufficient then having no rooftop solar (in places where it's viable) doesn't make sense. There's no reason for the kind of all-or-nothing thinking that if rooftop solar isn't enough for 100% electricity consumption then none should be installed. It still makes sense to install some in sufficiently sunny places. "Overall solar and wind just won't work with how american laws are, or even in Australia" We already saw that in Australia solar has captured a large portion (35%) of the electricity market. Also, in California it's also already over 20%. Clearly it does work, at least in sunny climates like those of Australia and California.
    1
  36.  @wolfpackgames4674  "what happens when it's too cloudy and the power isnt stored?" The amount of storage and/or peaker plants can affect how much of the electricity production can be solar or wind. At least in Australia the share can be large. "We've seen what happened in texas with cold spells where not only the electricity production failed in it's solar and wind" In Texas it was not just solar and wind. Nuclear, coal, and gas power all had plants go offline due to pumps, coal piles, and gas pipes freezing. The problems were mostly not due to wind or solar but rather of most kinds of plants not being properly winterized. "My point stoll stands the only way to have "green" energy is through geothermal..." So far geothermal seems less viable than wind and solar in most places. It could potentially change but that's hardly certain.
    1
  37.  @wolfpackgames4674  "Overall, those 2 aren't viable" This is just incorrect. They are viable in many places. They have already been adopted on a large scale.
    1
  38.  @wolfpackgames4674  Wind turbines are usually installed by corporations, not everyday people. The electricity generated more than makes up for the installation and maintenance cost. There are many fairly empty places where space is not an issue. Obviously, they're not usually put in the middle of a city or something.
    1
  39.  @wolfpackgames4674  "they can take up land that can be used for better things such as farming" Many wind farms are in remote places that are not used for agriculture (or they can be offshore). Even among agricultural land the base of the tower doesn't take that much space. "they also don't make much energy" They do make a decent amount of energy. "can require tons of maintenance" Most forms of power generation require maintenance. The maintenance and installation costs are worth the electricity generated in good locations.
    1
  40.  @wolfpackgames4674  "They have massive concrete bases hidden under dirt." But the underground part is not disruptive as long as it's not close to other structures. You can easily e.g. farm on it. "All the maintenance requires money and more materials that need to be forged and takes power. They simply take too many resources and can't make enough power to work in the long run." No, the amount of materials is small relative to the power generated.
    1
  41.  @wolfpackgames4674  "260 tons of steel" Is this a lot? Let's do some calculations. Let's assume a turbine with a capacity of about 2.6 MW and a capacity factor of about 35% (both of which are typical). That makes the average output about 0.9 MW. A typical lifespan for a wind turbine is at least 25 years. The average house in UK consumes about 3,940 kWh of electricity per year. Let's compare that to the total amount of electricity generated by the wind turbine over its lifetime with the assumptions above. The result is that it's equal to about 50,000 annual consumption of an average UK house. If such house would get its electricity 100% from such wind turbines it would on average consume (with the assumption of 260 tons of steel) a bit over 5 kg of steel per year through electricity. An average house produces way more waste per year some of which is steel. If there's at least one car in that household it's already many times more steel consumed per year. 260 isn't really that much compared to the electricity generated. Also, most of that steel can be recycled when the turbine is decommissioned.
    1
  42.  @wolfpackgames4674  "thing is, a house/household doesn't require it" The house requires electricity. Getting it through wind power requires some amount of steel but we have seen that the amount is small. Having e.g. a car consumes many times more steel. "The household/house is going to last longer." That's irrelevant for these calculations (of annual figures). "The turbine can be recycled but it takes energy even for that. So much energy goes into building, maintenance, etc. that it's never going to be worth it." No, quite the opposite. We already saw that the amount of materials used is small relative to the power produced. It is clearly worth it in locations with good wind conditions.
    1
  43.  @wolfpackgames4674  "Turbines simply aren't good." Turbines are good in good locations. The amount of steel relative to electricity produced is low, as we saw.
    1
  44.  @wolfpackgames4674  "5k homes isn't many compared to nuclear or thermal." That's just from one turbine. You can build many to match the output of a larger plant.
    1
  45.  @wolfpackgames4674  The alternatives you mentioned take tons of resources too. In good locations wind power is clearly justifiable. We can easily see that from its commercial success. Geothermal has not achieved anywhere near the same level of success so far. Clearly in its present state it's the one which is mostly not justifiable except in some favorable locations. That could change in the future but it's hardly certain. (Here I'm talking about geothermal electricity generation. Geothermal heating is easier.)
    1
  46.  @wolfpackgames4674  "geothermal at it's best and nuclear both make up for their resources needed" Wind at its best also makes up for the resources needed. "They require more but [...] power way more homes/buildings" They may power more than a single turbine but that's not a meaningful comparison. You can just build more turbines. Likewise that requires more resources but also powers more homes. That a single plant produces more power than a single wind turbine is an irrelevant argument.
    1
  47.  @wolfpackgames4674  "it's not irrelevant" It is. It's just divided into smaller units. But the cost per unit is also smaller. "Any other source of electricity makes up its own usage and resources (material or not) faster than wind or solar." Any other? That's just false. "Wind at it's best makes up for it's own but doesn't power enough homes to be viable whether it's one or multiple." State of the art wind farms do power enough homes to be well worth it. It might be different if you only look at turbines from decades ago which are smaller and less efficient. Modern turbines are much better and easily justify their cost.
    1
  48.  @cafhead  No, that's just false (currently). The cost of kWh from solar and wind have gone down a lot and in many places they're currently seeing much more commercial success than nuclear. That may of course change in the future, e.g. if SMRs become a success, but currently wind and solar are still beating nuclear in many places. This is money speaking, not semantics. I'm rather pessimistic about geothermal for electricity generation. Electricity generation requires quite high temperatures for a reasonable efficiency and in most places those high temperatures require drilling very deep which is too costly to make economic sense.
    1
  49. That's not what this video was talking about. Steel production causes greenhouse emissions.
    1
  50. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that steel production causes greenhouse emissions. Recycling causes less emissions.
    1
  51. "Some steel mills are ran on hydroelectric dams." That's not enough. Refining iron ore into steel usually used carbon as a reducing agent. That means it binds with the oxygen in the ore to release the iron. That inevitably causes carbon dioxide emissions completely separate from the electricity generation.
    1
  52.  @joshdifulvio5049  "yes but preventing water from leaving one area. Causes less water in another." Hydroelectric dams have to let the water flow through to generate electricity.
    1
  53.  @_Circus_Clapped_  Dams can cause environmental damage (e.g. by preventing certain fish from travelling upstream). However, it still tends to be on the more environmental end of the different energy sources, at least compared to fossils. "water is a finite resource" But a hydroelectric dam doesn't consume that resource. Electricity generation requires that the water passes through the dam. "Hoover Dam is an example of how hydro isn't sustainable" In the case of the Colorado River the main problem is the use of water for irrigation. That actually consumes the water unlike just generating electricity with it.
    1