Monatspromi-Interview des DWV mit Dr.-Ing. Thomas Hansmann (CTO Paul Wurth SMS Group)

Thank you, yes, I think you could put it that way. Young entrepreneurship needs companies like yours that are brave enough to take bold steps.

Yes, of course. Everyone had been diligently writing proposals and hoping that the announced funding measures would materialize. And so, I think this is a big step forward. We are glad that we can now finally move into implementation. It's an exciting matter, and I think we are witnessing a mood — a transformation in the steel industry that I have never experienced in my 25 years. In a very traditional industry, driven by the topic of CO2 and the aspect of hydrogen and everything in between, to achieve CO2-free steel. This is a very exciting time, and I'm glad that things are now moving forward step by step. We are eager to get started as quickly as possible with our partners. We are not alone.

There were two considerations. First, from our position in the steel industry, with our technological portfolio, we cover the primary area — and that is unfortunately where about 80 percent of CO2 emissions are generated, namely blast furnace technology and coking plant technology. It was foreseeable even back then that the CO2 issue would provoke a transformation in the steel industry. The question was: what comes next? What do we need to do to help our customers shape the path toward CO2-free steel production? And then you relatively quickly arrive at the topic of hydrogen as the ideal substitute for carbon as the reducing agent in iron metallurgy — not just through metallurgical processes. We looked around and said, what would be the ideal technology that fits into our world of steel? And you relatively quickly arrive at the topic of high-temperature electrolysis, because we saw that the system-inherent advantage of high electrical efficiency could be a decisive criterion in the future. The logic is: we need renewable energy to produce hydrogen, but renewable energy is limited. So if you use an electrolysis technology that produces 30 percent more hydrogen with the same amount of electrical energy, that can be a decisive argument. And the coupling with waste heat from steel production into electrolysis is actually clear. Those were the first considerations. The second technological feature that convinced us is the possibility of so-called co-electrolysis. With high-temperature electrolysis, you can produce not only hydrogen from steam but also from CO2, which brings you directly into the production of synthetic gases that are the starting point for all downstream chemical processes. Initially we were only thinking about the steel industry — a mixture of syngas and hydrogen. But of course, the whole field opened up for producing synthetic fuels like kerosene through downstream chemical processes. That's another argument. We believe this combination of high-temperature electrolysis with the industries we know works wonderfully together, and this is a path that will keep us busy. We are finally where we want to be, and the potential is there. I think this can be very decisive.

The fundamental idea was, just like with steel, to demonstrate technological feasibility as quickly as possible and to show that the technology is there to open this chapter. In this case, the topic was e-fuels with a specific focus on kerosene. When you do that, you want to develop a scenario that covers all aspects, and that starts with renewable energy. That's why we went to Norway, because we have access to 100 percent renewable energy there — to truly say what is produced is green. The project is a partnership: Sunfire, SMS Group, and a small Swiss company called Climeworks, which will provide the required CO2. They have developed technology to capture CO2 from ambient air, which means the kerosene produced there is truly environmentally neutral because we use recycled CO2 to create the fuel. The current status of development is advanced. We have founded a company, defined the site, framed the project, and are now in concrete planning of how the installation should look, how it should be financed, and how the product off-take will be regulated.

That is good.

There are several aspects. First, to go back to what was said earlier: this is not a German or European topic alone. Even in the steel industry, we have found that this topic generates worldwide interest. We are working together in Canada, in Chile, on how to decarbonize existing steelworks or how to produce green steel in other parts of the world that can be used in existing structures. So the topic is global. This is one of the conditions actually required for such a transformation, because the market expects this product — our customers' market, the steel consumers, the automotive industry or whoever — demand CO2-optimized precursor products. And that closes the loop. So we have on one hand the pressure to reduce CO2 emissions, we have a market that demands these products, and we have a technological development that actually makes it possible to enter this transformation relatively quickly. So the conditions are set. What's missing is the money, because you have to imagine that a radical transformation in heavy industry, in steel — that can only be done with investments that are gigantic, and that is naturally a problem our customers are raising. That's why discussions like the one I initiated are absolutely central: that the European community truly supports and intervenes to make these investments possible. It is simply not possible for a major industry to carry this alone. If you want to embark on this path, you need this support, and I think that is understood.

Yes, I think that's always an argument, and the argument that comes first is always: if we do this, because it's completely clear — green steel costs more money. That's an issue you can't escape. It is possible, but it costs more money. You can think about what effect that has on the end customer. If you consider that a car, for example, uses perhaps one ton of steel in its production, and if that steel costs 100 euros more, that means very little for the end consumer — just a few euros. So it costs more, yes, but these are not killing criteria that prevent the path. But the question is always: what happens if the countries around us don't follow along and continue producing under different conditions, undercutting the market? That's a topic that is being addressed — there's the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism discussion, and I think more will come. I would only caution against believing we are the only ones in Europe thinking about this and that we'll be overrun by surrounding countries with cheap steel. The discussion is happening everywhere, and the dominant steel market is China, and this topic has been raised there too. And as we know, their program implementation is advancing. I wouldn't want to imagine what happens if even a fraction of China's annual steel production is converted to green steel and exported to Europe — then we have a completely different situation. So there are conditions that must be met, but we need to embark on this path. So we really need the framework conditions quickly, and technology is at least substantially ready. The topic of investments needs to be pushed. We need movement, make possible what is possible, so that this path is taken. And then — I think we are on a good way, which is why we have the working group. We have achieved quite a bit: a memorandum for electrolysis has now been passed. Not everything is a building block yet, and it's getting more complex, but I'm pleased. I'm also glad that a company like yours is engaged and has joined us. I find the message very important to say: we are not alone on this path. This is happening strongly alongside China — a lot is happening there too. And in mobility, people still don't believe it — we shouldn't think we're the only ones doing this. Many believe we need to adapt. These are the markets of tomorrow, and I believe we need to maintain our competitive lead.

It's about maintaining the lead.