PDF format (503 kB) - ECN

The table allows an overall view
on the influence of the chosen
scenario on the CO2 emissions.
The emissions of primary production
routes decrease strongly
with CO2 removal. COREX is
the most sensitive, also with regard
to the electricity emission
factor. The table confirms the
role of CO2 removal as a key
technology for steel production
with low CO2 emissions.
Though the influence of maximum
scrap addition is clear, it
does not change the ranking of
the production routes with regard
to emissions. Maximizing
scrap addition reduces the emissions
of the primary routes by
about 20 to 30 %, as table 3
shows.
With regard to costs, COREX again is very sensitive to CO2 removal. The CCF route always is cheapest,
though its lead diminishes in the removal scenarios. High scrap addition results in slight increases in costs in
the cheap production routes, and
decreases in the more expensive
routes and, in some cases, in
routes which have become more
expensive by CO2 removal. In
all scenarios the electricity price
is the same, however, a higher
electricity price in the scenarios
with a low electricity emission
factor is very likely and would
harm the competitiveness of the
routes using EAF and of the
routes with high CO2 removal
rates, such as COREX. On the
other hand, profits from excess
energy production would increase.
tonne CO2/tonne liquid steel
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
bf 150 bf 250 corex ccf midrex circofer ac eaf dc eaf
Production route
tonne CO2/tonne liquid steel
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
CO2 emissions of steel production
0.1 t CO2/GJe, low scrap
CO2 emissions of steel production
0 t CO2/GJe, low scrap
bf 150 bf 250 corex ccf midrex circofer ac eaf dc eaf
Production route