Moon Base Work Yields Clean Steel Process

A new method to make steel using electricity rather than flame could produce virtually no carbon emissions. David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Flaming cauldrons of molten metal have long been the primary venues for steel production. But blast furnaces require a lot of coal, which means greenhouse gas pollution. In fact, worldwide, steelmaking is responsible for 5 percent of annual emissions.

But scientists working on a way to harvest oxygen from the iron oxide in lunar soil for future moon bases realized that they happened on a better way to make steel here on Earth. The trick? Produce steel the way we make aluminum: use electricity rather than flame. [Antoine Allanore, Lan Yin and Donald R. Sadoway, A new anode material for oxygen evolution in molten oxide electrolysis, in Nature]

To make steel the old-fashioned way, you blast iron ore with heat and purify the resulting molten metal with oxygen. The process removes carbon from the steel, but produces carbon dioxide. Making a ton of steel releases roughly two tons of CO2—and the world uses a lot of steel in cars, buildings and other infrastructure.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The new method involves passing a current through a molten pool of iron oxide, which drives off the originally sought-after oxygen. The by-product is steel. And depending on the source of the electricity, the process could be nearly CO2-free. Which, as far as the atmosphere is concerned, would be very cool.

—David Biello

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe