The “Cost Tool”: operating and capital costs of existing and breakthrough routes in a future studies framework

Birat, Jean‐Pierre; Lorrain, Jean-Paul

doi:10.1051/metal/2009061

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these yield limited emissions reductions and new low‐carbon production routes are needed. The ULCOS project assessment concluded that no‐regret options are lacking (Birat & Lorrain, 2009). At the time, the reference steel production route cost around USD 220 while the DRI‐EAF route cost around USD 300 per tonne of steel.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewables‐based decarbonization and relocation of iron and steel making: A case study

Gielen¹,

Saygin

Taibi³

et al. 2020

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article assesses the future role of hydrogen-based iron and steel making and its potential impact on global material flows, based on a combination of technology assessment, material flow analysis, and microeconomic analysis. Renewable hydrogen-based iron production can become the least-cost supply option at a carbon dioxide (CO 2) price of around United States dollars (USD) 67 per tonne. Availability of low-cost renewable electricity is a precondition. Australia is the world's largest producer of iron ore and at the same time a country with significant low-cost renewable electricity potential. A shift to direct reduced iron (DRI) exports could reduce global CO 2 emissions substantially and at the same time increase value added in Australia, while maintaining steel production in countries that are currently processing ore into iron and steel, such as China, South Korea, and Japan. The approach could be expanded to other parts of the world and other energy-intensive industry sectors. Such relocation analysis in a climate context can become a new industrial ecology research area. Iron and steel industry CO 2 emissions can be reduced by nearly a third, around 0.7 gigatonnes (Gt) CO 2 per year. To achieve these emission reductions, investment of USD 0.9 trillion, or 0.7% of the total energy sector investment needs, would be required, global DRI production would have to increase seven-fold from today's level, and the hydrogen energy used would equal 1% of global primary energy supply. Such a shift could develop from 2025 onward at scale, if the right policies are put in place. K E Y W O R D S commodity trade, decarbonization, hydrogen, industrial ecology, iron and steel, renewable energy 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Industrial competitiveness in times of decarbonization policies The Paris Climate Agreement and the subsequent Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2018) have created a new level of urgency that has prompted policy makers to revisit industrial greenhouse gas emissions. There is a renewed effort to find and deploy innovative solutions to decarbonize industry, a sector that has made limited progress to date. High costs have hampered action to date. Morfeldt, Nijs, and Silveira (2015) estimate a carbon dioxide (CO 2) price range of United States dollars (USD) 25-120 per tonne 1 for the blast furnace (BF)-CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) route to be globally cost competitive by 2050. Ruijven van et al. (2016)) estimate a CO 2 tax of USD 100 in 2020 rising to USD 324 per tonne by 2050 to reduce global iron and steel sector emissions by 80-90% compared to the 2010 level. Mousa, Wang, Riesbeck, and Larsson (2016) calculate a USD 50-200/t CO 2 tax for cost-competitive BF charcoal injection. Vercoulen et al. (2018) estimate a 70% reduction in East Asia iron and steel sector CO 2 emissions in 2050 with a CO 2 tax of USD 200/t. 1 All tonnes (t) refers to metric tons.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewables‐based decarbonization and relocation of iron and steel making: A case study

Gielen¹,

Saygin

Taibi³

et al. 2020

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An exhaustive assessment of various existing or new process routes made possible through new technology developments (45 routes, altogether) was carried out in the framework of the ULCOS program [49]. Energy needs, CO 2 emissions, and total production costs were evaluated [14,50].…”

Section: Benchmarking Of Various Iron Reduction Routesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Society, Materials, and the Environment: The Case of Steel

Birat¹

2020

Metals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the relationship between the production of steel and the environment as it stands today. It deals with raw material issues (availability, scarcity), energy resources, and generation of by-products, i.e., the circular economy, the anthropogenic iron mine, and the energy transition. The paper also deals with emissions to air (dust, Particulate Matter, heavy metals, Persistant Organics Pollutants), water, and soil, i.e., with toxicity, ecotoxicity, epidemiology, and health issues, but also greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., climate change. The loss of biodiversity is also mentioned. All these topics are analyzed with historical hindsight and the present understanding of their physics and chemistry is discussed, stressing areas where knowledge is still lacking. In the face of all these issues, technological solutions were sought to alleviate their effects: many areas are presently satisfactorily handled (the circular economy—a historical’ practice in the case of steel, energy conservation, air/water/soil emissions) and in line with present environmental regulations; on the other hand, there are important hanging issues, such as the generation of mine tailings (and tailings dam failures), the emissions of greenhouse gases (the steel industry plans to become carbon-neutral by 2050, at least in the EU), and the emission of fine PM, which WHO correlates with premature deaths. Moreover, present regulatory levels of emissions will necessarily become much stricter.

show abstract

“…The current paper does not take into account possible BATs. The two plants described in the following sections consider as reference the work in [6] and different publications from the ULCOS project [9][10][11][12]. Ref.…”

Section: Iron and Steel Industrymentioning

confidence: 99%

CO2 Capture and Utilization in Cement and Iron and Steel Industries

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates different technological options for the reduction of CO 2 emissions in heavy industries through their capture and use of best available technologies. This work presents the approach and the preliminary results obtained in the evaluation of iron and steel industry using oxygen blast furnace gas recycling after CO 2 capture in a pressure swing adsorber. It also evaluates the use of post-combustion capture using amines for retrofitting in the cement industry. Both are considered the most feasible technologies to be deployed in Europe in the medium term. Calibration, validation and future work regarding iron and steel industry model are described. The study finally assess the potential of cement and iron and steel industries to supply CO 2 to urea and methanol industries, which are two prospective users of CO 2 captured in Europe.

show abstract

The “Cost Tool”: operating and capital costs of existing and breakthrough routes in a future studies framework

Cited by 11 publications

References 3 publications

Renewables‐based decarbonization and relocation of iron and steel making: A case study

Renewables‐based decarbonization and relocation of iron and steel making: A case study

Society, Materials, and the Environment: The Case of Steel

CO2 Capture and Utilization in Cement and Iron and Steel Industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About