How to Escape from the Iron Age?(solar.lowtechmagazine.com)
solar.lowtechmagazine.com
How to Escape from the Iron Age?
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2024/03/how-to-escape-from-the-iron-age/
42 comments
I was left with more hope than you, upon completing the article. Smaller cars, less cars in general, more bikes, public transportation, urbanization, smaller living spaces. All these things are quite in vogue these days.
At their list towards the end, I felt like I had heard of online communities in favor of all of them, for more reasons than just the climate impact that they have.
At their list towards the end, I felt like I had heard of online communities in favor of all of them, for more reasons than just the climate impact that they have.
We tried the "no material consumption" thing for a few hundred thousand years. It was slightly unpleasant. This material consumption thing though, it's got its pluses. We probably need to feed higher up on the energy food chain, now lower. Fission, fusion, and whatever is above that.
> A strong “degrowth” orientation based on a reduction of the demand, because steel production emits CO2.
There will always be a mismatch between steel demand for current projects, and steel scrap 'returning' from past projects. Trying to match those up short-term, is a futile effort that makes no sense. Especially with the raw material -iron ore- being as abundant as it is (as article points out).
Long-term: fine. See "circular economy".
Energy infrastructure like wind turbines are long-term investments. With energy & material cost embedded in that equipment.
As long as -over full lifetime of the equipment- overall resource use is lower than alternative options, it's worth doing. Even if it involves big, upfront GHG emissions.
Lower GHG footprint steelmaking (like, using H2) will only improve that equation further.
Also note that if building a wind turbine costs a lot of steel, then @ the end of that turbine's life, it will 'release' a lot of steel (reducing demand for steel made from ore).
There will always be a mismatch between steel demand for current projects, and steel scrap 'returning' from past projects. Trying to match those up short-term, is a futile effort that makes no sense. Especially with the raw material -iron ore- being as abundant as it is (as article points out).
Long-term: fine. See "circular economy".
Energy infrastructure like wind turbines are long-term investments. With energy & material cost embedded in that equipment.
As long as -over full lifetime of the equipment- overall resource use is lower than alternative options, it's worth doing. Even if it involves big, upfront GHG emissions.
Lower GHG footprint steelmaking (like, using H2) will only improve that equation further.
Also note that if building a wind turbine costs a lot of steel, then @ the end of that turbine's life, it will 'release' a lot of steel (reducing demand for steel made from ore).
I generally agree, but there’s three challenges with that math -
First, it’s difficult to predict the actual effective useful life or economic value of a piece of infrastructure - let’s just take the most absolutely optimistic case and say that, 10 years from now, we crack nuclear fusion and energy is now totally free (it’s a thought experiment, please don’t throw rocks at this part), and that completely changes the economics of the wind turbine - it’s not even worth the marginal cost of running the turbine and shipping the energy somewhere. Suddenly, all our long term payoff calculations go to hell. Similarly, say a hurricane comes through and rips down the wind farm - same deal. Long-term value prediction is very hard, and modern American society in particular seems to be especially bad at predicting, and then building and maintaining to that prediction.
Second, there’s an assumption that 100Gt of carbon today is cheaper than 10Gt of carbon over 20 years - that assumes a linear response to carbon, that time of emission doesn’t matter, and that our ability to draw down carbon remains constant. If any of those don’t hold true (and I’d at least strongly suspect 1 and probably 2 don’t), the equation changes unfavorably.
Finally, and drawing on the second point, it assumes that we have a carbon budget at all - that the allowable amount of carbon emissions is anything over zero at all at this point. There’s a lot of talk about “lowering” carbon emissions - this is why natural gas keeps getting brought up as an improvement (well, that, and the trillion-dollar industry built on top of hydrocarbons), while it’s pretty clear that can’t be a long term answer because our target emissions rate for the next century effectively needs to be negative. In other words, if this is one of those “horseshoes and hand grenades” situations where close enough doesn’t really cut it, the math on “eat carbon today, save it tomorrow” doesn’t really pen out.
I don’t know how the trade on any particular piece of energy infrastructure works out, and I don’t know what the answers to the above questions are, but I see a lot of people treating this like a minimization problem, where the thing we’re actually doing is perturbing a complex chaotic system, and the math here may not play like our engineering minds want it to.
First, it’s difficult to predict the actual effective useful life or economic value of a piece of infrastructure - let’s just take the most absolutely optimistic case and say that, 10 years from now, we crack nuclear fusion and energy is now totally free (it’s a thought experiment, please don’t throw rocks at this part), and that completely changes the economics of the wind turbine - it’s not even worth the marginal cost of running the turbine and shipping the energy somewhere. Suddenly, all our long term payoff calculations go to hell. Similarly, say a hurricane comes through and rips down the wind farm - same deal. Long-term value prediction is very hard, and modern American society in particular seems to be especially bad at predicting, and then building and maintaining to that prediction.
Second, there’s an assumption that 100Gt of carbon today is cheaper than 10Gt of carbon over 20 years - that assumes a linear response to carbon, that time of emission doesn’t matter, and that our ability to draw down carbon remains constant. If any of those don’t hold true (and I’d at least strongly suspect 1 and probably 2 don’t), the equation changes unfavorably.
Finally, and drawing on the second point, it assumes that we have a carbon budget at all - that the allowable amount of carbon emissions is anything over zero at all at this point. There’s a lot of talk about “lowering” carbon emissions - this is why natural gas keeps getting brought up as an improvement (well, that, and the trillion-dollar industry built on top of hydrocarbons), while it’s pretty clear that can’t be a long term answer because our target emissions rate for the next century effectively needs to be negative. In other words, if this is one of those “horseshoes and hand grenades” situations where close enough doesn’t really cut it, the math on “eat carbon today, save it tomorrow” doesn’t really pen out.
I don’t know how the trade on any particular piece of energy infrastructure works out, and I don’t know what the answers to the above questions are, but I see a lot of people treating this like a minimization problem, where the thing we’re actually doing is perturbing a complex chaotic system, and the math here may not play like our engineering minds want it to.
We can lower carbon emissions while still using steel, but it would require factoring in sequestering equivalent CO2 or switching to renewable in the price of steel.
Obviously, this would dramatically increase the price of steel but this would now be more realistic price after accounting for how damaging it is to the environment and how costly it is to make that steel carbon neutral.
Or another point of view, the current price of steel is extremely cheap because people who benefit from it do not have to pay for the environmental cost of it.
Obviously, this would dramatically increase the price of steel but this would now be more realistic price after accounting for how damaging it is to the environment and how costly it is to make that steel carbon neutral.
Or another point of view, the current price of steel is extremely cheap because people who benefit from it do not have to pay for the environmental cost of it.
Well, I, for one, am trying really hard. My attention has lately turned to the possibilities offered by ‘new’ materials, especially ceramics. I have a hunch that 40% of everything the industry produces with steel could be built with oxides and rare earths.
We’re making experiments with ceramics, with interesting results[0]. Different forms different demands, different textures.
(*)This links to my blog, so I’m breaking the url so as not to be accused of spamming the board.
[0]h\\ps://voxleone.com/2024/03/05/3d-printing-im-making-a-500c-ceramic-hot-end/
Edited for clarity
We’re making experiments with ceramics, with interesting results[0]. Different forms different demands, different textures.
(*)This links to my blog, so I’m breaking the url so as not to be accused of spamming the board.
[0]h\\ps://voxleone.com/2024/03/05/3d-printing-im-making-a-500c-ceramic-hot-end/
Edited for clarity
For what it's worth, nobody's going to mind you linking your own blog when that isn't disguised, i.e. you said 'we're' and the domain matches your username, not like you said 'this company is doing amazing stuff I'm investing and so should you' without disclosing your involvement or something!
I'm in the same boat as you and have decided to focus on vacuum infused resins for my production process. I don't plan on high volume and although the article states that composites use more energy than steel I have a hard time believing it.
I decided on this process becuase I can pair almost any material with the resin. I can also select resin for particular properties.
I decided on this process becuase I can pair almost any material with the resin. I can also select resin for particular properties.
> My attention has lately turned to the possibilities offered by ‘new’ materials, especially ceramics.
Are new materials, such as ceramics, recyclable?
Are new materials, such as ceramics, recyclable?
Appreciate your concern about spamming but please fix your url. Very painful esp on mobile
I love low tech magazine, but the citation for “African and Asian metallurgists developed high quality steels much earlier and this knowledge eventually allowed Europeans to do the same on a much larger scale?” Is an article in the same publication (low tech magazine) that hasn’t even been written. It makes the whole article feel fast and loose when making such a revisionist claim with a pretend citation.
I think India famously produced wootz steel quite early, right?
Anyway, I’m not really sure what they mean, I’d assume steel was invented in a bunch of places. Is getting carbon into your iron a rare accident to make? I’d both be shocked if European steel makers didn’t integrate information from around the world, and if they didn’t integrate information from local sources. (like the Celts, famously fans of the stuff, right?)
Anyway, I’m not really sure what they mean, I’d assume steel was invented in a bunch of places. Is getting carbon into your iron a rare accident to make? I’d both be shocked if European steel makers didn’t integrate information from around the world, and if they didn’t integrate information from local sources. (like the Celts, famously fans of the stuff, right?)
It’s a little ambiguous, but it seems as though they’re specifically talking about industrial steel making as it emerged in the 18th century (the Bessemer Process).
“That is a little-known fact in the Western world, where steel production only took off in the nineteenth century with fossil fuels”
Was the sentence immediately prior.
Regardless, making a claim and citing an article you haven’t written/published is essentially very weak.
“That is a little-known fact in the Western world, where steel production only took off in the nineteenth century with fossil fuels”
Was the sentence immediately prior.
Regardless, making a claim and citing an article you haven’t written/published is essentially very weak.
It's more getting carbon out of your iron bloom than getting it in that's difficult. "Cast iron" and "wrought iron" have even more carbon than high-carbon steels, let alone low-carbon steels.
Wootz (and Damascus) steels for example were of much higher quality than what was usually produced in Europe. I can't say if this is what gave European smiths the knowledge they needed to create their own quality steels, or if it was a case of parallel invention, but for a time Asia was producing much better stuff.
Can't find the source I want to share, but my understanding is that it was developed accidentally in multiple places, as it's a matter of accidentally getting the carbon content of the iron correct to make steel. Then you pass down your accidents and people gradually improve on it. It wasn't until relatively recently that we understood the chemistry of what's going on and were able to reliable make different grades of steel.
Found it, this blog is great if you're interested in the history of blacksmithing: https://acoup.blog/tag/blacksmithing/
Found it, this blog is great if you're interested in the history of blacksmithing: https://acoup.blog/tag/blacksmithing/
I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to state that non-European cultures were making and working steel. I think it’s fairly revisionist (a narrative outside the academic mainstream) to state they passed this knowledge to Europeans and this knowledge was useful in at scale steel making (implying that Bessemer process has its origins outside of Europe/America).
Late modern Europeans were aware of crucible steel, and tried really hard to replicate them - IIRC this involved expeditions to India ? - (and seem to have succeeded) :
https://www.thoughtco.com/wootz-steel-raw-material-damascus-...
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-rise-of-steel-par...
https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/tale-crucible-wootz-steel-...
https://www.thoughtco.com/wootz-steel-raw-material-damascus-...
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-rise-of-steel-par...
https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/tale-crucible-wootz-steel-...
Africa probably refers to the Haya people of Tanzania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haya_people), developing carbon steel 2000 years ago. And it's well known for Turkey, China, and India right? I don't know about the part about knowledge transfer, there is also Celtic steel going back 2800 years, but 4000 for Asia with Anatolia.
Conflating Asia with Asia Minor/Middle east muddies things (there is a lot of history going on in both places), but then the implication is Europe didn't know about steel till fairly recently seems at odds with current understanding -it appears to go as far back as the African instance and perhaps further back. So, there may be some nuance with regard to purity or method or composition, but without putting that forward, it appears really sloppy in this area --so where else is he or she playing fast and loose?
"That is a little-known fact in the Western world, where steel production only took off in the nineteenth century with fossil fuels. However, Asian and African metallurgists developed high-quality steels much earlier, and this knowledge eventually allowed Europeans to do the same – on a much larger scale."
Did it "take off" elsewhere? What does take off mean? Oh, is the topic high-quality? What is that? What defines high-quality? Try to be a little precise rather than throw things out there.
"That is a little-known fact in the Western world, where steel production only took off in the nineteenth century with fossil fuels. However, Asian and African metallurgists developed high-quality steels much earlier, and this knowledge eventually allowed Europeans to do the same – on a much larger scale."
Did it "take off" elsewhere? What does take off mean? Oh, is the topic high-quality? What is that? What defines high-quality? Try to be a little precise rather than throw things out there.
It may also refer to this, going back 4000 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery#Sub-Saharan_Africa
More in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_metallurgy_in_Africa
They mention inhomogenous steel there though, it sounds like the Tanzanian one was more purely directed at making steel instead of iron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery#Sub-Saharan_Africa
More in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_metallurgy_in_Africa
They mention inhomogenous steel there though, it sounds like the Tanzanian one was more purely directed at making steel instead of iron.
> Is an article in the same publication (low tech magazine) that hasn’t even been written.
It seems particularly odd as a first citation too.
I assume the article is written, but is unpublished. Better, but less than ideal.
It seems particularly odd as a first citation too.
I assume the article is written, but is unpublished. Better, but less than ideal.
I don't know about Africa, but it is not exactly controversial that China and other places had high quality steel before Europe.
Please provide citations and what is meant by "high quality", and if you are referring to at scale using blast furnaces vs small artisanal production.
AFAIK Serendib had "large" artisanal "blast" furnaces making "high tech" crucible steel maybe as far back as 300 BC :
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/06/science/ancient-smelter-u...
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/06/science/ancient-smelter-u...
Very cool, thanks for the link!!
[deleted]
Seanambers(1)
Either there is some nuance going on or this person disagrees with Wikipedia on when cultures and civilizations around the old world developed steel.
If they are sloppy about the history, I have to wonder what else they are sloppy about.
If they are sloppy about the history, I have to wonder what else they are sloppy about.
From the footnotes/references:
> 2. Forthcoming article, Kris De Decker, Low-tech Magazine.
The veracity of their claim is still in question, but based on that I'm going to assume good faith that they have facts to back up their claim. I haven't checked the rest of their citations yet, but based on their quantity I'm going to assume the rest of the article isn't sloppy either.
> 2. Forthcoming article, Kris De Decker, Low-tech Magazine.
The veracity of their claim is still in question, but based on that I'm going to assume good faith that they have facts to back up their claim. I haven't checked the rest of their citations yet, but based on their quantity I'm going to assume the rest of the article isn't sloppy either.
According to Wikipedia the oldest known steel artifacts are from Asia Minor (the Kaman-Kalehöyük site in modern-day Turkey) which predates European steal by about a millenium which seems to support part of their claim.
For the claim about African metallurgists I suppose I'll have to wait to see what kind of evidence they provide before deciding if they are being "sloppy".
For the claim about African metallurgists I suppose I'll have to wait to see what kind of evidence they provide before deciding if they are being "sloppy".
One thing that bothers me about this sort of "Europe / Asia" division is how anachronistic it is when we talk about events in deep history.
In Antiquity, this division would be unnatural. Asia Minor was an integral constituent part of the Mediterranean civilization, unlike, say, contemporary Germany. The ancients would be fairly confused if we told them that we now put dividing lines between North Africa, Asia Minor+Levant and so-called Europe. For them, it was a bigger civilizational unit, a maritime continent so to say. And the idea that Asia Minor somehow belongs to the same unit as India or China would feel positively weird.
In Antiquity, this division would be unnatural. Asia Minor was an integral constituent part of the Mediterranean civilization, unlike, say, contemporary Germany. The ancients would be fairly confused if we told them that we now put dividing lines between North Africa, Asia Minor+Levant and so-called Europe. For them, it was a bigger civilizational unit, a maritime continent so to say. And the idea that Asia Minor somehow belongs to the same unit as India or China would feel positively weird.
[deleted]
Also appears to disagree on the electric arc furnace. 300 kWH is apparently close to the theoretical minima for steel melting and arc furnaces are somewhere around 440 kWH. Which frankly, being that close to the minima seems fairly impressive on the scale of industrial steel melting.
The general note about blast furnaces using more energy in the form of coal and gas is probably still relevant.
The general note about blast furnaces using more energy in the form of coal and gas is probably still relevant.
[deleted]
I find it a huge red flag that the article tries to combine together several “woke” talking points. It often indicates that each points is a product of ideology more than anything else:
- the strange, I am quite sure straight up false, self-referring point about African and Asian metallurgists of the past, which basically add nothing to the core message
- A strong “degrowth” orientation based on a reduction of the demand, because steel production emits CO2. It seems to be the core message. It doesn’t address the issue the author himself raise that most steel is used for machinery or buildings
- A digression which tries to find an additional reason to reduce steel production: reducing potential war output. If someone needs two reasons for something it usually smells fishy, plus I would love to hear what the Ukrainians and NATO members have to say about reducing the already failing western arm production.
- A strong “degrowth” orientation based on a reduction of the demand, because steel production emits CO2. It seems to be the core message. It doesn’t address the issue the author himself raise that most steel is used for machinery or buildings
- A digression which tries to find an additional reason to reduce steel production: reducing potential war output. If someone needs two reasons for something it usually smells fishy, plus I would love to hear what the Ukrainians and NATO members have to say about reducing the already failing western arm production.
[deleted]
Despite being very inefficient, it feels like this is the option we’re going to go with anyway, because the suggested alternative of reducing material consumption seems completely out of reach of human behavior as we know it. Sadly.