PDF format (503 kB) - ECN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Blast furnace routes Smelting reduction routes Direct reduction routes Scrap based routes 1 2 1 2 5* 4 6* 4 3 7* 4 8* 4 11 11 3 Air blast furnace route Oxygen blast furnace route 11 11 COREX route CCF route Midrex route Circofer route 9* 10* 12 12 AC EAF DC EAF 12 13 CO2 removal [11] is only attractive in processes that produce gas volumes with sufficiently high CO2 concentrations. The figures 4 and 5 display emissions in case of CO2 removal. CO2 removal amount 80 % from the air-based blast furnace at 32 ECU/t CO2 and 90 % from the oxygen based blast furnace, COREX and CCF at 30 ECU/t (see table 1). CO2 removal takes place by the water gas shift reaction which converts most carbon to CO2, and is followed by removal of the CO2. The overall removal processs consumes steam and electricity. MIDREX and Circofer already include CO2 removal; additional costs of compression, transport and storage amount to 10 ECU/t CO2. 4
From figures 4 and 5, CO2 removal evidently emerges as a key technoloy in achieving emission reductions within primary production routes. However, the emission factors of electricity and steam are very important for the ranking of the primary routes. As shown in figure 4, with emission factors of 0.1 for electricity and 0.06 for steam, Corex is the outright winner, thanks to its large excess energy production, which in this scenario prevents CO2 emissions by the electricity generation. Of the primary routes, CCF has second lowest emissions, followed by MIDREX and Circofer. The blast furnace routes profit least from the removal, due to the large share of processes without removal, and the small excess energy production. With zero emissions for electricity and steam (figure 5), the picture changes profoundly. Going from Circofer, MIDREX, CCF to COREX, the emissions rise, the exact opposite of the previous ranking. CCF and COREX do no longer profit from their excess energy productions. The ranking of the blast furnace routes does not change, they have the highest emissions. Overall this scenario offers the highest possibilities for emissions reduction, without in any way compromising the steel quality by the addition of extra scrap. With regard to the costs, CCF is the outright winner in all included scenarios. Tables 3 and 4 give an overview of the emissions and costs of the production routes in the various scenarios, including scenarios with high, 30%, scrap addition in primary production routes, not shown in the figures. When slight decreases of steel quality are acceptable, further reduction of emissions results from maximum scrap input. tonne CO2/tonne liquid steel ECU/tonne 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 CO2 emissions of steel production 0.1 t CO2/GJe, low scrap bf 150 bf 250 corex ccf midrex circofer ac eaf dc eaf Production route Costs of steel production Low scrap bf 150 bf 250 corex ccf midrex circofer ac eaf dc eaf Production route
Page 1 and 2: Workshop Factor 2/Factor 10 Proceed
Page 3 and 4: The Impact of GHG Emission Reductio
Page 5 and 6: N2O INDUSTRY OTHER GHG CH4 LANDFILL
Page 7 and 8: history of use. The figure indicate
Page 9 and 10: Emission mitigation options The fol
Page 11 and 12: The contribution of the materials s
Page 13 and 14: [MT AL/YEAR] 25 20 15 10 5 0 BC 50
Page 15 and 16: What are the dynamics of the materi
Page 17 and 18: Material efficiency improvement for
Page 19 and 20: Table 1.1 First order estimate of e
Page 21 and 22: PET bottles normally are made out o
Page 23 and 24: To model the category boxes we will
Page 25 and 26: 2.8 Pallets The last packaging cate
Page 27 and 28: they are not a result of the MARKAL
Page 29 and 30: Table 4.1 (continued) The use of pa
Page 31 and 32: or keep it fresh and their second c
Page 33 and 34: [33] Packaging Week 1992-1997, many
Page 35 and 36: GER values Direct energy use (MJ/vk
Page 37 and 38: ogy for igniting the engine, valve
Page 39 and 40: Table 1 gives an overview of improv
Page 41 and 42: Implementing growth of mobility dem
Page 43 and 44: Realising the 80% reduction potenti
Page 45 and 46: CO2 Emissions of Metal Production T
Page 47: tion routes that are important for
Page 51 and 52: Table 3 Emissions per tonne liquid
Page 53 and 54: Table 6 CO2 emissions per tonne liq
Page 55 and 56: DCEAF Direct Current Electric Arc F
Page 57 and 58: Verslag van de workshop commentaren
Page 59 and 60: Transportmiddelen Referent dhr. Smo
Page 61 and 62: Gebouwen en Infrastructuur Referent
Page 63 and 64: Referent dhr. Gouwens, TNO-Bouw 1 R
Page 65 and 66: Metalen Referent dhr.de Jong, Hoogo
Page 67 and 68: Algemene vragen en forumdiscussie D
Page 69 and 70: 3 Wat voor problemen zouden we als
Page 71: ir. R. van Duin (Bureau B&G) drs.ir

PDF format (503 kB) - ECN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?