Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Unfortunately you can't really rely on this sort of comparison between numbers obtained from different sources, except in the most unambiguous circumstances, which rarely arise for a complex topic such as sector emissions and cost of mitigation. The 1.5% and 2.4% figures may use different methodologies. The total-cost-to-decarbonize estimate probably entails a variety of unrealistic assumptions; it's hard to take into account future improvements in technology, all of the different ways the market will find to minimize costs, etc.

If you're interested, I discuss the general danger of working with such quick-grab numbers in https://climateer.substack.com/p/numbers.



Fair point.

FWIW from the same gov source "The blast furnace route forms the majority of UK and global steel production. In 2018, 82% of UK steel (5.9 million tonnes) was produced using the blast furnace route at Tata Steel’s Port Talbot site and British Steel’s Scunthorpe site. The Government estimated that 95% of iron and steel industry emissions (and around 15% of total industrial emissions) come from the Scunthorpe and Port Talbot blast furnace sites."

It does not differentiate between the two, though.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: