Nationalisation

kabayiri

I might as well throw a question in here, as it's vaguely 'steel related'.

Do we believe that the time is coming when something like graphene will start to offer commercial opportunities?

If not, why do we have expensive lab facilities in Manchester University?

martinsurrey

kabayiri wrote: »

I might as well throw a question in here, as it's vaguely 'steel related'.

Do we believe that the time is coming when something like graphene will start to offer commercial opportunities?

If not, why do we have expensive lab facilities in Manchester University?

depends on your definition of how long "time is coming" actually is, and what commercial opportunities are.

Graphene is still for all intents and purposes a lab product, lots of theoretical purposes, but no proven large scale production methods.

its time will come, but could be 10 years before the first cutting edge applications are common, and 20-20 years before it comes to consumer products. Along the lines of carbon fiber development.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

I might as well throw a question in here, as it's vaguely 'steel related'.

Do we believe that the time is coming when something like graphene will start to offer commercial opportunities?

If not, why do we have expensive lab facilities in Manchester University?

Isn't graphene a solution waiting for a problem.

FWIW, I think some things are worth having because they are good things themselves and some further good might come from them in future either monetary or intangible. I would put fundamental science and engineering research into that bracket.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Isn't graphene a solution waiting for a problem.

FWIW, I think some things are worth having because they are good things themselves and some further good might come from them in future either monetary or intangible. I would put fundamental science and engineering research into that bracket.

I'm not a materials person, so I have to ask more questions for answers.

A friend whose background makes him familiar with this area basically says that people do not realise the coming impact. New materials will change the way we see the world, just as the internet has changed so many aspects of communicating and disseminating knowledge.

For example, a plane becomes a lifting body. The seating arrangements; the potential shapes; the concept of windows; everything changes.

It sounds like a lot more consultancy work, and innovation work, to me. Opportunities then, just like the ones seized by Google; Amazon; Ebay; Facebook; in a very short space of time.

Holding on to steel feels like the past. A steel worker on telly thought we could prop up steel plants/jobs at a cost of £2bn over a decade. I think he was optimistic, but even so. Should we spend £2bn on legacy, or £2bn on a punt on the future?

martinsurrey

Just to add to the Graphene discussion, graphene is as far removed from steel as you can be.

Graphene weights 0.0077g per m2

You could make a sheet big enough to cover the entire UK mainland (209,000km2) and it would weigh only 1,600 tons, which is nothing really.

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

you do know that most of the UK ore left is unsuitable for the type of modern furnaces we have?

Even if we wanted to we'd need to build a new furnace to use UK ore, which we don't have mines for.

I was commenting upon the logical possibility that there was a intermediate space between self sufficiency and zero self sufficiency
I hold no brief for keeping an uncompetitive steel industry per se.

Andy_L

kabayiri wrote: »

There may be an argument to retain steel plants which recycle, but not plants like Port Talbot IMO.

AIUI we have them, as well as plants making high-quality specialised steel alloys (out of imported steel stock). The difference between them & the Tata plant is that they make money.

kabayiri

Andy_L wrote: »

AIUI we have them, as well as plants making high-quality specialised steel alloys (out of imported steel stock). The difference between them & the Tata plant is that they make money.

Yes we do. It's still a mixed bag because certain customers; some in the car industry; have a preference for virgin steel.

(Blimey, I hope Branson doesn't get involved, else we might have virgin steel and Virgin steel!)

cells

Generali wrote: »

Any steel works in operation on day 1 of a major war will be closed by day 2 because missiles. It's a completely specious argument. We will never fight WW2 again.

Exactly, people don't realise how 'dumb' and weak the weapons of WW2 were and how smart and powerful the weapons of now are.

No two modern nations can have a war they would send each other back to the stone age.

Also the economic reasons are completely different. Back in the days of WW1/2 land was the economy the more of it you had the more powerful you would become.

Today what would developed country A want to take from developed country B that they just cant buy or produce themselves? What could be worth the trillions in economic damage?

Also electricity is the blood of economies and well-being. it was not true in WW1/2. Even a large country like the UK losing a few of its power stations would be horrific. What good are out steel plants when a few missiles can take down the grid.


and finally no modern war can be lengthy. A war now would be fought with whatever stock of weapons exist. There will be no three year time frame to design and build a new battleship to try and win the war with that in 4-5 years time.

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm not a materials person, so I have to ask more questions for answers.

A friend whose background makes him familiar with this area basically says that people do not realise the coming impact. New materials will change the way we see the world, just as the internet has changed so many aspects of communicating and disseminating knowledge.

For example, a plane becomes a lifting body. The seating arrangements; the potential shapes; the concept of windows; everything changes.

It sounds like a lot more consultancy work, and innovation work, to me. Opportunities then, just like the ones seized by Google; Amazon; Ebay; Facebook; in a very short space of time.

Holding on to steel feels like the past. A steel worker on telly thought we could prop up steel plants/jobs at a cost of £2bn over a decade. I think he was optimistic, but even so. Should we spend £2bn on legacy, or £2bn on a punt on the future?

this is nonsense steel will be part of the materials we use for thousands of years.

better quality materials do not replace lower quality materials unless everything about it is better including the economic cost

We still use stones, we still use wood, they did not go away when we invented iron and steel.