(Editor's Note: This article is part of a series following "How Hydrogen Can Fuel The Energy Transition," published Nov. 19, 2020.)
Key Takeaways
- For steelmakers, the most feasible way to reduce emissions is to plan raw-material and process efficiencies.
- A technology switch to electric arc furnaces (EAFs) would yield a major reduction in energy intensity and emissions, but requires huge investments that steelmakers can ill afford at the moment.
- Using hydrogen-fueled direct reduced iron for EAFs is even more costly and can only be part of the equation well beyond 2030 in our view, if net zero carbon policies provide sufficient incentives and support.
The steel industry represents almost 10% of total energy-related emissions globally, and more than 20% in some countries, whether starting from iron ore and coke (consumed in blast furnaces) or scrap metal (using EAFs). S&P Global Ratings believes steelmakers first need to plan raw-material and process efficiencies, alongside technologies such as gas-fired EAFs. But few can foot the bill for very large investments because of years of low profitability.
A change to EAFs fueled with scrap or direct reduced iron (DRI) from the traditional high-emission blast furnaces is the most obvious way to reduce emissions in steel production. China, the world's largest steel producer, is targeting to raise its share of EAFs from a low 10% to 20% by 2025. The U.S. is well ahead, with 67% of steel produced through EAFs, versus 41.5% for the EU.
Hydrogen can be part of a future solution, but the huge cost for a fully decarbonized process may put it out of the steelmakers reach during this decade. The hydrogen pilot projects, European steel producers SSAB, ThyssenKrupp, and ArcelorMittal have embarked on will provide more insights, but in our view, the likelihood of a large scale roll-out remains low.
Europe's Steel Industry Needs To Evolve More Rapidly
European steel producers are at a disadvantage versus U.S. global peers because of stricter regulations and older, more polluting blast-furnace technology, with basic oxygen furnaces (BOFs) accounting for a significant 59% of the fleet. EU initiatives to cut carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, and achieve net-zero emissions across Europe by 2050, will test local players.
We expect changes will include consolidation of small companies, along with the closure of old and less competitive facilities. Another question is whether Europe will see an increase in lower-emission EAFs, which currently make up about 41% of steel production in Europe, compared with about 67% in Turkey and the U.S. On the face of it, a sensible move could be a shift toward EAFs, especially mini mills, which generally have a lighter environmental impact. For example, a typical BOF requires close to 2,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per ton, while EAFs use about 450kWh.
China Is Far Behind Europe In The Emissions Reduction Race
China has one of the highest proportions of blast furnaces globally, at around 90%, and EAFs account for only around 10% of crude steel production. The steel industry makes up about 15% of the country's CO2 emissions after power generation, which is the largest contributor at 40%. Consequently, having a cleaner steel industry is essential for China to achieve its goals of peak carbon emission by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2060. The government's targets include EAFs accounting for up to 20% of crude steel production by 2025.
The expansion of EAF use in China has been constrained by the availability of scrap, power costs, and the cost of purchasing equipment, typically via imports. Domestic scrap supply totaled 240 million tons in 2019 and this will rise to 300 million tons by 2025 or about 30% of the raw materials supply by 2025, according to government's plan. China is also exploring the role of hydrogen in the steel industry but this is still at an early stage. Some recent developments include Hebei Iron & Steel Group Co. Ltd. partnering with BHP Group to study technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including hydrogen-based direct reduction technology.
More Efficient Furnaces Are A Prerequisite To Hydrogen Solutions
In our view, the use of hydrogen as a power source for steel production can address only part of the emissions issue. We assume that hydrogen technology would contribute to, at most, just 10% of the sector's total CO2 emission reduction by 2050. Steel companies are trying to reduce their carbon footprint by executing ongoing efficiency programs, shutting down some capacity, and increasing the use of sustainable energy (solar photovoltaic, wind, and batteries). They are also improving their raw materials mix, for example through using higher quality ore; or injecting more oxygen into the process.
Chart 1
However, these steps are not a game changer, and their full accumulative effect will be visible only in the distant future. According to the IEA, raw material efficiency will reduce CO2 emissions by slightly less than 1 gigaton (Gt) between 2020 and 2030, and by less than 8 Gt through to 2050. We believe another part of the solution will come from gradually mothballing BOFs and replacing them with EAFs. The problem, in our view, is that most of the BOFs, notably the ones in China, are fairly new (less than 20 years old) so replacing them may not be an attractive option.
Moreover, low availability of scrap metal in certain countries, such as China and India, could slow down the transition to the more efficient EAFs. Another route would be to fuel EAFs with direct reduced iron (DRI). This would allow companies to make steel without coal. In this process, natural gas replaces coal, producing pig iron (with 90%-94% iron content) that can be used as feedstock for EAFs. The use of DRI could reduce the steel industry's total energy consumption by 40%-50%. However, despite this method being a cheaper alternative, it is still very costly for the majority of steelmakers. This solution is mainly applicable in regions with low natural gas prices, notably the Middle East and North America.
The next technological leap will come from replacing fossil-fuel powered units with hydrogen produced with renewable energy. The hydrogen will subsequently be used, instead of gas, in the DRI process. All major European players are currently testing the technology, but full adoption will take years, due to the extremely high cost (see chart 2 and Box).
Chart 2
SSAB's Hydrogen And DRI Project
At midyear 2018, Sweden-based steelmaker SSAB launched a pilot involving the construction of hydrogen and DRI units between 2020 and 2024 to replace the existing BOF facility. The commercial trial is set for 2026. If successful, the company plans to roll over the technologies in the next decade and become fossil free by 2045.
The success of this pilot is critical, since Sweden needs to meet its obligation under the Paris Climate agreement. But even before that, in 2016, SSAB and energy company Vattenfall teamed up to find ways to replace coking coal with fossil-free electricity and hydrogen. Based on their prefeasibility study, the new technology (HYBRIT) would increase the cost of production by 20%-30%. However, once energy prices reduce in the future and with higher CO2 emission certificates, the technology could become cost effective and profitable over time.
Today, SSAB is a major contributor of the nation's overall CO2 emissions. According to the company, meeting its objectives will cut emissions by 25%. The small pilot comes at a very large cost, of about Swedish krona (SEK) 2.0 billion (about €200 million), 25% of which will be funded by the Swedish Energy Agency. SSAB's share of about SEK0.6 billion is equivalent to 25%-30% of the company's average free cash flow in 2017-2020.
With Tight Budgets Curbing Investment, The Credit Impact Is Difficult To Predict
After more than a decade of low returns, the steel industry has no deep pockets to keep up with changes needed to meet new environmental regulations. According to ArcelorMittal, Europe's top steelmaker, the decarbonization of the European industry will come with a price tag of up to €40 billion. Based on the company's analysis, for ArcelorMittal to achieve its initial target of a 30% emissions reduction by 2030, production costs will increase by 30%-80% depending on the facility. The company has started a few pilot projects (for example, one in Dunkirk France; and a feasibility study for a facility in Hamburg). But moving from pilots to large-scale facilities would take several years. A similar pilot is currently being tested by SSAB AB, which estimates that its hydrogen-based route will initially be at least 20%-30% more expensive.
What's more, the steel industry's performance since the global economic crisis in 2018 has been weak, excluding short periods of healthy operating conditions. This handicaps companies' ability to upgrade or invest in more efficient technologies. We think that, inevitably, a solution will involve the raising of carbon taxes or import tariffs, which would pass costs through to end consumers. In our view, costs transferred in this way would not be a significant proportion of the final product price. For example, the cost of steel manufactured using renewable energy would increase car prices by only up to 5%, assuming sustainable steel is twice as expensive as steel produced the conventional way; an average car needs about 900 kilograms of steel.
Editor: Bernadette Stroeder
Related Research
- The Hydrogen Economy: Industrial Gas Companies Are In Pole Position, April 22, 2021
- The Hydrogen Economy: For Light Vehicles, Hydrogen Is Not For this Decade, April 22, 2021
- The Hydrogen Economy: Green Hydrogen May Transform The Fertilizer Industry, April 22, 2021
- The Hydrogen Economy: Green H2 Offers Energy And Process Technology Majors A Long-Term Growth Opportunity, April 22, 2021
- The Hydrogen Economy: Can Natural Gas And H2 Have A Symbiotic Relationship?, April 22, 2021
- The Hydrogen Economy: Storage Is Paramount For Utilities In The Long Term, April 22, 2021
- How Hydrogen Can Fuel The Energy Transition, Nov. 19, 2020
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analyst: | Elad Jelasko, CPA, London + 44 20 7176 7013; elad.jelasko@spglobal.com |
| Secondary Contacts: | Karl Nietvelt, Paris + 33 14 420 6751; karl.nietvelt@spglobal.com |
| Massimo Schiavo, Paris + 33 14 420 6718; Massimo.Schiavo@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.