UK steel still needs Brexit deal - split from Brexit benefits

[bjn]

FFS, and you can't smelt steel with an arc furnace

https://www.britannica.com/technology/s ... teelmaking

25% of world steel production. needs cheap electricity though.

Arc furnaces are used to melt scrap steel to make new steel, as described in your link. That is not smelting.

Yep, melting steel scrap into low quality rebar can be done in an arc furnace, which can be powered by cheap renewable electricity.

[sheldrake]

Yep, melting steel scrap into low quality rebar can be done in an arc furnace, which can be powered by cheap renewable electricity.

I do not know why you are so convinced renewable electricity in the UK is cheap.

Compare global kwh prices

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263 ... countries/

China - $0.09
UK - $0.26

We're currently paying treble what the Chinese are and planning to make it even more expensive.

Note the edit earlier to show electrical smelting was being used as far back as 1910 in the UK and the US. It's just too expensive to compete with until we bring electricity costs down.

[IvanV]

Minford was the economist ...

The politest way to put it is that for much of the later part of his career Minford was a part time economist. The rest of his time was spent on political advocacy. If you look at his publication list on Wiki article about Minford, you will see it is mostly political advocacy. And mostly based on ideas that were against-the-mainstream in economics, to find another polite way to put it. In the later part of his formal academic career (a while ago now as he is 78), he had very little repute in the profession.

Initially in the Brexit debate, Minford argued that Britain's trade position would be improved by Brexit. His papers on this were widely ridiculed at the time. I suppose you could credit him with a degree of honesty in later saying, which I hadn't read before, that our trade position would be so improved by Brexit we would largely exit manufacturing and farming. You can then decide whether you believe that we would get enough work in other higher value-added trades to make us rich. Like Trump, people like Minford say these seemingly unacceptable things, but it establishes their credentials with a particular political audience.

[Gfamily]

An image from the 'Fossil Fuel' thread that has some relevance to the cost of Electricity for Steel



Wind is priced at about 3-5 p/kWh

[sheldrake]

The ‘certain circumstances’ and definition of subsidy used in that chart are not spelled out and mysteriously fail to explain why electricity is always cheaper in nations that use lots of fossil fuels and our own electricity bills go up much faster than inflation.

[sheldrake]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

In Norway for example, coal power is cheaper than hydroelectric

Norway 1.916 coal-fired power average 7 December 2020
5.8 hydroelectric power average

If you look at the table most countries don't break out their energy costs per source but you'll see higher prices in all the countries trying hard to be 'green' and cheap prices in countries that couldn't care less, like China. It's very likely the costs table you have has a treatment of subsidies etc.. that factors in externalities from fossil fuels which countries still using as much coal as they want simply don't price.

[bjn]

An image from the 'Fossil Fuel' thread that has some relevance to the cost of Electricity for Steel



Wind is priced at about 3-5 p/kWh

Thanks. I’ve no interest in chasing Sheldrake’s gish gallops down stupid rabbit holes.

[sheldrake]

You mean you don't have a reply and don't want to acknowledge being wrong about electric smelting or energy costs.

[plodder]

I *think* they were referring to the OP which is about how a lack of a trade deal with our major partners appears to be having an impact, rather than the awful burden placed on polluters by modern climate policy.

[sheldrake]

I *think* they were referring to the OP which is about how a lack of a trade deal with our major partners appears to be having an impact, rather than the awful burden placed on polluters by modern climate policy.

Theres very little impact from it so far, because it only represents a rollback from something Trump threatened in 2018. Most of the damage you’ve seen to UK heavy industry has been from energy costs. I fully accept I’m not going to change your mind about the externalities of fossil fuels, but there are some mitigations you should consider for making our industry compete against countries like China who dont seem to care.

1) much more funding for research on cheaper non-fossil energy
2) carbon tarrifs so you dont just shift the emissions east

[plodder]

There’s been very little impact so far because it’s just happened.

From the OP, for people with distraction issues:

“President Biden has signed a deal to end tariffs on steel imports from the EU, which were imposed by his predecessor Donald Trump.
But the agreement does not cover exports from the UK, putting British steelmakers at a disadvantage”.

[sheldrake]

There’s been very little impact so far because it’s just happened.

From the OP, for people with distraction issues:

“President Biden has signed a deal to end tariffs on steel imports from the EU, which were imposed by his predecessor Donald Trump.
But the agreement does not cover exports from the UK, putting British steelmakers at a disadvantage”.

Its a rollback to where they were pre-2018. Have you actually checked how (little) steel we exported to the US then? How stee production in the UK was in stark decline before then? You’re ascribing properties to this deal it doesnt really possess whilst ignoring the real issue.

Eta the US gets most of its imported steel from Canada and China and produces plenty of its own because it has shale gas energy (one of Obama’s largest contributions to US economic prospects, if not its carbon footprint)

[plodder]

we are still subject to these tariffs, so they haven’t been rolled back for us?

[sheldrake]

we are still subject to these tariffs, so they haven’t been rolled back for us?

Because we’re still having that discussion, but the critical thing to focus on is that it wont make very much difference whilst Canada and the US use shale gas and China does wtf it wants using coal.

[sheldrake]

If you want to be roll back fossil fuel use whilst protecting jobs you have to price in carbon externalities on behalf of countries that refuse to do it themselves using tarrifs, at least until our renewables and nuclear are genuinely cheaper than coal and gas.

[plodder]

If you want to be roll back fossil fuel use whilst protecting jobs you have to price in carbon externalities on behalf of countries that refuse to do it themselves using tarrifs, at least until our renewables and nuclear are genuinely cheaper than coal and gas.

or have trade deals in place

[sheldrake]

The trade deal wont nearly compensate for our difference in energy prices. I know this because british steel was f.cked well before the trump tarrifs these deals roll back.

[Bird on a Fire]

If you want to be roll back fossil fuel use whilst protecting jobs you have to price in carbon externalities on behalf of countries that refuse to do it themselves using tarrifs, at least until our renewables and nuclear are genuinely cheaper than coal and gas.

I agree, and brexit makes it much easier for the UK to get on with doing do. The EU will have heaps of trouble with places like Poland.

Has the UK steel industry suggested such a deal?

[bjn]

If you want to be roll back fossil fuel use whilst protecting jobs you have to price in carbon externalities on behalf of countries that refuse to do it themselves using tarrifs, at least until our renewables and nuclear are genuinely cheaper than coal and gas.

I agree, and brexit makes it much easier for the UK to get on with doing do. The EU will have heaps of trouble with places like Poland.

Has the UK steel industry suggested such a deal?

The EU is implementing a carbon tariff from 2026. I know of no such thing planned for the UK, but I haven't looked hard. Industries inside the EU will need to buy carbon credits if they wish to pollute. So Polish steelmaking may be somewhat screwed, that's if they are still in the EU given their recent shenanigans.

[plodder]

The trade deal wont nearly compensate for our difference in energy prices. I know this because british steel was f.cked well before the trump tarrifs these deals roll back.

It was f.cked well before we priced in carbon, too. This is why people like Minford think it should be canned.

[Bird on a Fire]

If you want to be roll back fossil fuel use whilst protecting jobs you have to price in carbon externalities on behalf of countries that refuse to do it themselves using tarrifs, at least until our renewables and nuclear are genuinely cheaper than coal and gas.

I agree, and brexit makes it much easier for the UK to get on with doing do. The EU will have heaps of trouble with places like Poland.

Has the UK steel industry suggested such a deal?

The EU is implementing a carbon tariff from 2026. I know of no such thing planned for the UK, but I haven't looked hard. Industries inside the EU will need to buy carbon credits if they wish to pollute. So Polish steelmaking may be somewhat screwed, that's if they are still in the EU given their recent shenanigans.

So they are - I'd forgotten that, thanks.

The UK and EU were supposed to be "considering" linking their Emissions Trading Schemes after Brexit, but I'm not sure how that's going or whether it's likely to happen. Suggests it should be pretty feasible for the UK to protect its steel industry from undercutting by climate criminals, though.

[sheldrake]

This is exactly the kind of thing I don't trust a Tory government to do (too many interests happy to talk greenfuzz for the cameras whilst keeping their business-interest claws firmly in cheap chinese imports) and hope a refreshed Labour party would.

[sheldrake]

The trade deal wont nearly compensate for our difference in energy prices. I know this because british steel was f.cked well before the trump tarrifs these deals roll back.

It was f.cked well before we priced in carbon, too. This is why people like Minford think it should be canned.

Maybe. Energy prices triple those of China certainly played their part in the last decade though.

[plodder]

Minford was the economist ...

The politest way to put it is that for much of the later part of his career Minford was a part time economist. The rest of his time was spent on political advocacy. If you look at his publication list on Wiki article about Minford, you will see it is mostly political advocacy. And mostly based on ideas that were against-the-mainstream in economics, to find another polite way to put it. In the later part of his formal academic career (a while ago now as he is 78), he had very little repute in the profession.

Initially in the Brexit debate, Minford argued that Britain's trade position would be improved by Brexit. His papers on this were widely ridiculed at the time. I suppose you could credit him with a degree of honesty in later saying, which I hadn't read before, that our trade position would be so improved by Brexit we would largely exit manufacturing and farming. You can then decide whether you believe that we would get enough work in other higher value-added trades to make us rich. Like Trump, people like Minford say these seemingly unacceptable things, but it establishes their credentials with a particular political audience.

lol yes. I have words for disarmingly honest idiots I work with, too.

[sheldrake]

Initially in the Brexit debate, Minford argued that Britain's trade position would be improved by Brexit. His papers on this were widely ridiculed at the time.

Many of the people ridiculing these papers made wildly wrong predictions themselves. I would not treat the group think of economists as a strong indicator. eta: Brexit is one of the clearest recent examples of a whole establishment of 'bien pensant' being caught talking bollocks.