RE:I must to repost my answer to developbcSadly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The article in question is about using hydrogen to make green steel, not green pellets. The green steel made using hydrogen is made from pellets, downstream.
It has been written about conclusively many times, including by me on August 23:
https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=t.pyr&postid=33747136 Green steel is different, downstream, and not a threat. If anything, it will put more pressure on the broader industry to go green across the value chain.
Even HYBRIT says the future of pellet making must be "100% about electricity" using torches. To prove a point, this particular Hybrit initiative that produced the green steel for Volvo, is going the extra step of showing that green pellets are also possible, so are initially replacing the bunker diesel burners with biofuel in the pilot project. They are doing this because Sweden has a history of using this particular biofuel, but its not a long term solution. LKAB themsevles says so.
However, in the video below, at the 1:20 mark, the lead engineer for HYBRIT says:
"First we try out the biofuel, and then we will try out the electrification. And that is pure hydrogen or plasma burners. It's an electrical flame, with no CO2 emissions at all. To really get rid of all the CO2, we need to go to 100% electric." YouTube video shows how Hybrit makes pellets PYR is not involved in green steel-making; it is involved in iron ore pellet making. PYR torches are not involved (at least currently) in the actual steel-making process; PYR has not ever indicated they are selling or promoting plasma torches to replace the burners in steel-making furnaces, for either blast furnaces or electric DRI furnaces.
The torches for which PYR
have patented the approach are used in the
pellet-making process, which is prior to (or "upstream") from steel-making.
Pellet-making is turning raw chunks or powders of iron ore into small round balls, making them suitable for transport, and also more consistent in regards to how the heat impacts the ore in the blast furnace during steel-making.
Even green steel requires pellets. LKAB themselves says so. The particular green steel mentioned in the article you posted was made by the HYBRIT consortium (steel-maker SSAB, mining company LKAB, and electrical utility Vattenfall). HYBRIT's own diagrams show that the process still requires pellets to start:
Link: Diagram showing how the Hybrit steel process requires pellets Biofueled burners are not going to be the primary long-term approach to pellet making. Bio-fuel pelletization is both very early stage and not dependable due to shortage of biofuel and questions about its true “carbon free” or “renewable” status.
Bio-fuels are fuel substitutes made from renewable organic matter, such as vegetables. The major north American biofuel is of course ethanol, made from corn, and in some cases wheat.
The biofuel being used by HYRBIT in their pilot pelletization plant is “tallol”, which is a derivative of the wood pulp process. (The word tallol (or "tall-oil") is based on the Swedish word for pine trees and pine oil.) HYBRIT is going this route because, at least on the surface, Sweden has an abundance of pine trees and so they have the stock. Tallol is often considered a “waste byproduct” of the forestry industry, but there’s more to that, as it’s not easy to make, and there isn’t enough producers of it over there. In fact, for this project, HYBRIT had to commission a whole bio-fuel plant just to make enough for that one pilot pellet line.
Its use, and the growing use of biofuel in Sweden in food production (replacing old edible petroleum products) was causing an impact on overall biofuel price which was affecting food prices. So, big Swedish oil refiner Preem announced it was planning to start making it, financing a new plant, plus revamping part of an existing crude oil refinery in Gothenburg to switch it to biofuel.
Canada too has tallol; it can be bought on the broader market as a commodity (Chemtrade in Canada is a big seller of it). But it's not cheap, and the usage is mostly already accounted for, so a huge amount of new production would be needed if it were to be used in other than existing applications, especially in large industries like steel.
sonjrkv19031147 wrote: I must repost my answer to developbc:
But I understand the situation in this way: PYR's technology offers to use electricity powered plasma torches instead of gas or oil for the iron ore palletization. The LKAB’s technology offers to use hydrogen instead of gas, oil, or coal (Sweden is rich with coal) for the pellets production. Since hydrogen is expensive these days, the PYR’s technology is preferred. But in 3-5 years from now, when hydrogen production expenses might decrease profoundly, the LKAB’s technology might become more valuable than the PYR’s one. I think that iron ore pellets producers are trying to solve the dilemma: to start with the PYR’s technology right now or wait 3-5 years and then use the LKAB’s technology. Probably, it is a reason of delays in signing contracts with PYR. As an investor in PYR since 2015 with more than 100K shares, I hope that the PYR’s technology will be the winner.
Read this carefully:
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/using-world-first-green-steel-040043991.html I guess we should not be expecting a big torch contracts in the near future