She said efforts toward this end are underway in Germany, organized by the German Steel Federation, and other participants pointed to similar moves in the EU and India.
Ekdahl said her organization is closely involved in many of the discussions about landing on a definition of green steel — and from her perch, she can report that the topic is an extremely controversial one. For one thing, there’s no straightforward, technical way to pin down what green should mean; carbon emissions are only one part of the equation.
Jaroni worried that a definition that is too simplistic could penalize pioneers. For example, if a producer were to melt scrap metal, relying on green electricity, the resulting steel would have a very low carbon footprint. However, there’s not enough scrap metal in the world for all producers to follow that strategy. So, who gets credit for doing the hard work of having produced the virgin steel and finding better, if imperfect, methods of doing so?
“Can we define green iron first, before we talk about green steel?” asked Electra’s Nijhawan. “I think it would help simplify the debate we’re having and help create consensus. Iron is the constraint. Iron is iron, and hopefully we can get to that definition easier.”
And for what it’s worth, workshop participants noted, arriving at a consensus definition of clean iron could come with policy benefits for sustainable steelmakers too. Many advocated for a production tax credit (PTC) for green iron, but for that, a clear definition is needed.
“We need to make iron a critical material,” said Nijhawan. “And based on the definition of green iron we decide on, we should put a PTC on it.”
Go to next insight:
Insight 3: The world needs a consensus definition of green steel (and green iron).
Insight 4: A just transition for steel should include resources for educational and training programs.
