Energy Reports: Huachun He, Hongjun Guan, Xiang Zhu, Haiyu Lee

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Assessment on the energy flow and carbon emissions of integrated


steelmaking plants
Huachun He a,d , Hongjun Guan b , Xiang Zhu c , Haiyu Lee a,d,∗
a
School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210046, China
b
Engineering Institute of Engineering Corps, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 21007, China
c
Yunnan Environment Monitoring Centre, Yunnan Provincial Environmental Protection Department, Kunming 650034, China
d
Key Laboratory of Coast and Island Development (Nanjing University), Ministry of Education, Nanjing 210023, China

article info abstract


Article history: China’s iron and steel industry has developed rapidly over the past two decades. The annual crude steel
Received 13 August 2016 production is nearly half of the global production, and approximately 90% of the steel is produced via
Received in revised form BF–BOF route that is energy-intensive. Based on the practice of integrated steelmaking plants, a material
31 December 2016
flow analysis model that includes three layers, i.e., material, ferrum, and energy, was constructed on
Accepted 9 January 2017
process levels to analyze the energy consumption and carbon emissions according to the principle of
mass conservation and the First Law of Thermodynamics. The result shows that the primary energy
Keywords:
intensity and carbon emissions are 20.3 GJ/t and 0.46 tC/t crude steel, respectively, including coke and
Iron and steel ancillary material’s preparation. These values are above the world’s average level of the BF–BOF route
Energy flow and could be regarded as a high-performance benchmark of steelmaking efficiency. However, the total
Material flow energy consumption and carbon emission from steelmaking industry were approximately 13 095 PJ and
Carbon emission 300 MtC, respectively, on the best practice estimation in 2011, and are still large numbers for achieving the
Energy efficiency goal of reducing global warming. The potential carbon reduction will be limited if no significant changes
are undertaken in the steel industry.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction furnace (BF–BOF) steelmaking and the electric arc furnace (EAF)
steelmaking. The former is based on the use of coal and iron ore,
The climate change has been a hot issue around the globe since which is a traditional way of steel production; the latter is based
the agreed framework for all international climate change delib- on the use of scraps and electricity. The BF–BOF route consumes
erations, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate significantly more energy and produces more carbon emissions
Change (UNFCCC), ratified in 1994 and implemented in the Kyoto than the EAF route. Besides, the BF–BOF steelmaking also produces
Protocol in 1997. Currently, China has become the world’s second- significant amounts of energy byproducts, such as coke oven gas,
largest economy and the biggest energy consumer. The iron and BF-gas, BOF-gas, and steam. If these gaseous energy carriers are
steel industry is one of the most important industrial sectors in
recycled, the energy efficiency will be improved significantly. As
term of CO2 emissions which is a major factor in global warm-
the world’s largest steel producer, China produced 683 Mt crude
ing. China alone responsible for over 50% of CO2 emissions from
steel in 2011, and about 92% of the steel were produced via the
global steel production, and the climate change objectives – keep-
BF–BOF route (World Steel Association, 2011).
ing global warming to below 2 °C by 2050 – will not be achieved
without the full participation of Chinese steel industry (European After the Circular Economy Promotion Law of China had been
Steel Association, 2009). ratified in 2008, the concept of circular economy in the iron
In the current steel industry, there are two main process routes and steel industry was adopted broadly. This law encourages
for crude steel production: the blast furnace and basic oxygen energy saving, emission reduction, material and energy recy-
cling as necessary foundations. Current steelmaking industry has
widely deployed various energy saving technologies such as Coke

Corresponding author. Fax: +86 25 83595387.
Dry Quenching (CDQ), Top-pressure Recovery Turbine (TRT), Coal
E-mail addresses: hhc@nju.edu.cn (H. He), ghjqq@163.com (H. Guan), Moisture Control (CMC), continuous casting, slab hot charging and
zx@ynepb.gov.cn (X. Zhu), haiyuli@nju.edu.cn (H. Lee). delivery, and recovering energy from coke oven gas, BF gas, con-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2017.01.001
2352-4847/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/).
30 H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36

vert gas and steams, all of which have improved energy conserva- heating value (LHV) to convert the physical quantities of fuels to a
tion and emission reduction impressively (Zhang and Wang, 2008; common energy unit by the convention of China’s energy statistics.
Chen et al., 2014). Many studies have been conducted to analyze The conversion rates are provided in the General Principles for
the reduction options of carbon emission within the iron and steel Calculation of the Comprehensive Energy Consumption, GB2589-
industry from the engineering or economic perspectives (Worrell 2008 (Standardization Administration of China, 2008a). Table 1
et al., 1997, 2001; Price et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2006). Different provides the conversion factors of fuels and energy carriers used
methods have been adopted to evaluate the energy efficiency and in this analysis. CO2 emissions are expressed in metric tons
reduction potential for carbon emissions and the driving forces for of carbon. The carbon conversion factors for calculating carbon
emission changes at present and in the future, which range from emissions from energy consumption are derived from the National
empirical analyses and decomposition analyses to scenario analy- Development and Reform Commission of China (NDRCC). We
ses, using various data models such as Malmquist Productivity In- define the energy intensity in terms of physical output rather than
dex (MPI) model, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model, Conser- others, e.g. economic output.
vation Supply Curve (CSC) model, logarithmic mean Divisia index The carbon emissions caused by the decarbonization of
limestone (CaCO3 ) and dolomite (MgCO3 ), which act as fluxes in
(LMDI) model, and the China TIMES model developed within the
ironmaking, were not counted, and these emissions amount to
Energy Technology System Analysis Program (ETSAP) of the Inter-
0.44 t CO2 /t limestone and dolomite (Gielen, 1997). The carbon
national Energy Agency (Liu et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2007; Wei
content in the crude steel, usually less than 1.7%, were not
et al., 2007; Guo et al., 2011; Choi et al., 2012; Bian et al., 2013;
subtracted from the primary steel production.
Tian et al., 2013; Lin and Wang, 2015; Ouyang and Lin, 2015; Zhang
In the sintering model, we assume the iron contents in ores
and Da, 2015). This paper provides an approach carried by the pro-
are between 62% and 65% Fe, because the Australian iron ores
cess of life cycle inventory to estimate the energy intensity and (62% Fe) are the benchmark throughout the industry, and the
carbon emissions in China’s integrated steelmaking plants, which grade of Brazilian iron ores is usually between 63.5% and 65%
offers some essential benefits that cannot be obtained from other Fe. Both Australia and Brazil are the major sources of iron ores
ways when the inventory is considered (Iosif et al., 2010). This ap- for China. Meanwhile, low-quality ores (≤60% Fe) were restricted
proach is based on the principle of mass conservation and the First to be imported by the official China Chamber of Commerce of
Law of Thermodynamics, which deal with the amounts of materials Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters, known
and energy of various forms transferred between a system and its as CCCMC, from 2010.
surroundings and also deal with the changes in the mass and en- As an illustration, Table 2 shows the major materials in the
ergy stored in the system. This approach is convenient for studying MFA model. When data on specific processes were not available,
changes in energy consumption and carbon emissions; however, it substitute values were adopted from the recent relevant literature
is insufficient for forecasting future emissions. This inadequacy can based on process energy intensity or just left it blank.
be remedied by empirical and scenario analyses.
2.3. Material flow analysis
2. Data and methodology
Material flow analysis (MFA) is a procedure to quantify and
evaluate the flows and stocks of goods and substances in the
2.1. Boundaries perspective of sustainable use of materials. It is used in the field of
industrial ecology on various spatial and temporal scales (Brunner
To analyze the potential for energy conservation and carbon and Ma, 2009). Over the past decades, MFA has become a reliable
reductions, we disaggregated the integrated steel plants by major instrument to describe material flows and stocks within varied
steelmaking processes. Materials, energy, and ferrum flows were systems.
identified and analyzed in each process under a unified framework. MFA is based on the principle of mass conservation, which
The system boundary includes four processes, coking, sintering, assumes that mass cannot vanish and could be expressed in the
iron making, and steel making, based on available data. Fig. 1 simple form of balance equation (1) below. Meanwhile, the energy
shows the interconnection of these processes. The processes of consumption obeys the First Law of Thermodynamics, which
steel casting, hot rolling, cold rolling, galvanizing and coating could also be used to establish the energy balance for process
were excluded because of their relatively less energy consumption investigation.
and carbon emission. For example, the average primary energy
 
Inputs = Outputs + Changes in stock. (1)
intensity for casting and rolling that use thin slab is merely
0.6–0.9 GJ/t steel (Worrell and Moore, 1997). These principles serve as means of control in the case where all
Products imported to these processes such as oxygen, fresh flows are known, and they can be used to determine one unknown
water and electricity were counted by adding the energy used flow per process. Therefore, we constructed an MFA model that
for producing these products to the total energy input. The includes three layers (material, ferrum, and energy) to count both
electricity required to operate the processes was considered within the material and energy consumption in integrated steelmaking
the system, which included an internal power station using the plants.
steelwork gas (e.g. BF gas, Coke gas, and BOF gas). For the first stage In this paper, the aim of MFA is to describe and analyze the
of this study, the system does not count the embodied energy of steelmaking system as simple as possible, where only the primary
scraps used in the BOF process and the energy demands for mining inputs and outputs are of interest, but it is in enough detail to
and beneficiation of raw materials, their transportation, and the make right results to evaluate the energy efficiency and carbon
waste storage. emissions. This MFA model can also effectively avoid the double
counting of material and energy consumption by considering the
interactions between processes.
2.2. Data description In this model, we assume that all the materials and energy
in the system boundary are used to preheat material handling
The heating value of a fuel source represents the amount equipment, and the transfer efficiency of substance and energy
of heat released during combustion. This study uses the lower between processes is not examined.
H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36 31

Fig. 1. The key iron and steelmaking processes and the system boundary.

Table 1
Energy content of fuels and energy carriers.a .
Fuel Unit LHV (MJ/unit) Energy carrier Unit Energy intensity (MJ/unit)

Coke kg 28.435 Fresh water t 2.51


Cleaned coal kg 26.344 Oxygen m3 11.72
Steam (low pressure) t 3.763 Nitrogen m3 11.72
BF gas m3 3.763 Argon m3 –
Coke gas m3 16.726–17.981 Blow m3 0.88
Electricity kWh 3.6b
a
Energy intensity in China is measured in units of kilograms of coal equivalent per metric tonne (kgce/tonne). To convert kgce to MJ, multiply by 29.307.
b
Energy equivalent value.

Table 2
Materials consumed in the main processes of China’s integrated iron and steel industry (Standardization Administration of China, 2008a,b, 2007; Ministry of Environmental
Protection of China, 2008a,b,c; Yin, 2008).
Catalog Input material Unit Quantity Output material Unit Quantity

Coking Coking coal kg 1326 Coal coke kg 1000


BF gas m3 970 Coke gas m3 420
Electricity kWh 35 Recovered steam kg 574.24
Fresh water m3 0.72 Waste gas m3 2000
Electricity kWh 1000
Sintering Concentrate fines kg 895.50 Sinter kg 1000
Hearth kg 97.85 others kg –
Flux kg 140.70 Waste gas m3 –
Others kg 98.10 Dust kg 3±1
Coke gas m3 3.12 Recovered steam kg 75
Fine coke kg 51.04
Fresh water kg 87
Steam kg 1.1
Electricity kWh 4.93

Iron making Sinter kg 1314.17 Hot iron kg 1000


Raw ore kg 269.17 Slag kg 298
Coke kg 288 Dust kg 20 ± 5
Injected coal kg 205 BF gas m3 1391.96
Electricity kWh 110 TRT electricity kWh 36.44
Hot blast GJ 1.89

Steel making Hot iron kg 950 Hot steel kg 1000


Scrap kg 140 Slag kg 85
Fresh water kg 310 Dust kg 10
Steam kg 5.5 BOF gas m3 105
Oxygen m3 51.08 Recovered steam kg 41.3
Nitrogen m3 23.11 Others –
Argon m3 0.98
Coke gas m3 1.25
Electricity kWh 35.5

3. Results are iron ores 55.7%, coal 23.8%, flux 6.5%, scrap 5.2%, and oxygen
2.7%, respectively, to the total input mass.
After understanding the material and energy flows in the main The MFA model shows that the direct energy consumption is
processes, we estimate that the primary energy intensity and 18.7 GJ/t, which is mainly from coal (16.9 GJ) and hot blast (1.8 GJ)
carbon emission of the integrated steelmaking plants are 20.3 GJ/t and represents 92% of the comprehensive energy intensity (Fig. 3).
and 0.46 tC/t crude steel, respectively, including coke and ancillary This model also examined the recovered energy and recycled
material’s preparation. The material consumption is 2.69 t/t crude energy, which are mainly in the forms of gas, steam, and electricity
steel, excluding water and air. Table 3 shows the detail of the mass (Fig. 4).
and energy consumption and the carbon emissions. Fig. 2 ranks the Table 3 also reveals the change in ferrum at each process. The
top 5 materials and byproducts by the mass quantity of producing total ferrum consumption was about 1.1 tons to produce a ton of
one metric ton of crude steel. The proportions of mass consumption crude steel that contains about 0.99 tons of ferrum. Therefore, the
32 H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36

Table 3
Materials and energy consumption per metric ton of crude steel.
Process Material Mass (kg) Ferrum (kg) Energy (MJ) CO2 emission (kg C)

Coke making
Input Coking coal 447.3 11 783.3 269.4
Heating gas (BF gas) 163.6 ± 16.4 1368.2
Electricity 42.5 1.0
Output Coal coke 337.3 10 320.6
Coke gas 70.8 ± 7.1 2458.6 ± 88.9
Recovered steam 193.7 728.9
Waste gas & etc. 202.7 ± 17.8 414.9 ± 88.9
Recovered electricity 1214.4
Sintering
Input Concentrate fines 1118.0 715.5 ± 11.2
Hearth 122.2 78.2 ± 1.2
Flux 175.6
Others (OG slurry, etc.) 122.5
Coke gas 2.0 ± 0.2 67.6 ± 2.4
Fine coke 63.7 1811.8
Fresh water 108.6 0.3 0.01
Steam 1.4 5.2 0.1
Electricity 180.4 4.1
Output Sinter 1248.5 786.5 ± 8.8
Others –
Waster gas –
Dust 3.8 ± 1.3 7.2 ± 14.3
Recovered steam 93.6 352.4
Iron-making (BF)
Input Sinter 1248.5 786.5 ± 8.8
Raw ore 255.7 163.7 ± 2.6
Coke 273.6 7779.8
Injected coal 194.8 5130.5 117.3
Electricity 376.2 8.6
Hot blast 1795.5 41.1
Output Hot iron 950.0 916.8 ± 6.7 9195.7 ± 24.5a
Slag & etc. 283.1 33.4 ± 11.4 523.7 ± 24.5
Dust 19.0 ± 4.8
BF gas 720.4 ± 4.8 5238.0
TRT electricity 124.6
Steel-making (BOF)
Input Hot iron 950.0 916.8 ± 6.7 9195.7 ± 24.5a
Scrap 140.0 138.6 ± 1.4
Fresh water 310.0
Steam 5.5 20.7 0.5
Oxygen 73.0 598.7 13.7
Nitrogen 28.9 270.9 6.2
Argon 1.8
Coke gas 0.6 ± 0.1 21.7 ± 0.8
Electricity 127.8 2.9
Output Hot steel 1000.0 990.0 ± 10.0 9140.5 ± 103.5a
Slag 85.0 65.4 ± 12.1 157.3 ± 12.8
Dust 10.0
BOF gas 52.5 ± 5.3 782.3 ± 99.8
Recovered steam 41.3 155.4
Others 321.0 ± 5.3
a
The enthalpy of pig iron is 1221 kJ/kg at 1350 °C.

conversion efficiency of ferrum is about 90.3% for the integrated 4. Discussion


steelmaking plants.
We use the Sankey diagrams, in which the width of arrows is 4.1. Energy consumption and carbon emissions
shown proportionally to the flow quantity, to visualize the material
and energy transformation between processes (Fig. 5). These Studying the material and energy flows in each process, we
diagrams provide a clear framework to summarize the complex found that the primary energy intensity and carbon emission
information of the material and energy efficiency and flows in each were 20.3 GJ/t and 0.46 tC/t crude steel, respectively, including
process. Fig. 5(a) and (b) compare the material and energy flows of coke and ancillary material’s preparation, which represented the
producing one metric ton of crude steel. Leaving aside of the minor performance of advanced integrated steelmaking plants in China
portion of mass and energy supply and reproduction, it is clear that by 2011. However, this energy intensity was 14.7% higher than
the material and energy flows track the ways obviously different the official average value of 605 kgce/t (17.7 GJ/t) of China’s steel
before the BF process and couple together similarly after the BF. industry in 2010 (State Council of China, 2012), and that is quite
It reveals that the reduction of coal consumption is the primary contrary to the performance as we expected. A most possible
issue for the reduction of carbon emissions, and the recycle of reason is that the Chinese official energy-use statistics for the
byproducts could improve the energy efficiency. iron and steel industry are based on enterprise information, as
H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36 33

the steelmaking plants themselves produce the other one-third.


In this study, the net energy consumption in the coking process
was 3.6 GJ/t crude steel. Therefore, if the coking process had
been excluded, the energy intensity would drop to 16.7 GJ/t
crude steel, that may correctly represent the actual performance.
Worldsteel (World Steel Association, n.d.a) provided 20.9 GJ/t
and 0.51 tC/t pig iron as world’s average energy intensity and
carbon emission. This study shows that the energy intensity and
carbon emissions were 15.9 GJ/t and 0.44 tC/t pig iron, respectively,
including the coal combustion in coke-making and BF processes,
which are much better than the average.
Price et al. (2002) pointed out that the primary energy intensity
and carbon emission were 36.7 GJ/t and 0.87 tC/t crude steel
respectively in China in 1995, after adjusting the statistical data not
directly associated with steel production and double-count energy
consumption. They also indicated that the best practice energy
intensity and carbon emission were 20.2 GJ/t and 0.43 tC/t crude
steel, if best practice technology had been used to produce the
same amount and types of steel. This study shows the goal has been
almost achieved by the integrated steelmaking plants in China. It
may also mean that a further improvement of energy efficiency
and carbon reduction will be difficult in the future. Reviewing
Fig. 2. Ranks of material consumption and byproducts per metric ton of crude steel.
the development of China’s steel industry (Fig. 6), we found that
the steel production increased 555 Mt from 2000 to 2011. In
other words, 81% of the steel production was produced from the
newly established steelmaking capacity compare to 2000. The
newly constructed or upgraded steel plants usually have similar
technology and energy efficiency as we analyzed in this paper.
Especially, there were about 80% of steel production are produced
from the key medium and large-size steel enterprises in China.
However, published studies (International Energy Agency,
2010; Xu, 2010) indicate there is still 10%–20% potential reduction
of energy and carbon emission in China’s steel industry, compare
to its counterparts such as the Europe Union, US, and Japan. Based
on the analysis above, the explanatory variables are primarily due
to the structural difference in steelmaking. For example, China
produced a significantly greater share of the high energy-intensive
BF–BOF steel, accounting for 92% of the total crude steel in 2011.
Fig. 3. The shares of comprehensive energy consumption for one metric ton of
crude steel.
The final energy intensity of the US iron and steel industry in 2003
showed that the energy intensity of BF–BOF route (22.7 GJ/t) was
about 3.7 times higher than the EAF route (6.1 GJ/t) (American Iron
and Steel Institute, 2005). Sakamoto and Tonooka (2000) pointed
out the emission factor of CO2 from integrated steel plants was
approximately 3.8 times higher than that from EAF route mills
in Japan. Based on this assumption and the discussion above, we
could estimate the total energy consumption and carbon emission
caused by the crude steel production of China were 13 095 PJ and
300 MtC, respectively, in 2011.
It should be pointed out that China’s economic development
is unbalanced in eastern, central, and western regions. For the
iron and steel industry, there are obvious regional gaps in energy-
saving technologies and equipment, productive efficiency, and
investment. The eastern region is ahead of the central and
western regions (Yao et al., 2015) and plays a dominant role.
The difference of firm-level efficiency for the enterprises in the
eastern region and coastal areas is not obvious (Zhang and Wang,
2008). Since the referenced plants in this study are located in the
eastern region, these estimations should be regarded as the best
practice benchmark for the steel industry. Therefore, based on this
Fig. 4. The shares of recovered and recycled energy for one metric ton of crude estimation, the potential reduction of energy and carbon emission
steel. would be limited if no significant changes were undertaken.

stipulated in the corporate law rather than product laws, in which 4.2. Comparison of the energy consumption and carbon emissions
the enterprise energy use does not always correspond to products.
In China, about two-thirds of consumed coke in the steel industry Although China’s iron and steel industry is one of the major
are produced separately by independent coking plants, and sources of energy consumption and carbon emissions, studies on
34 H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36

Fig. 5. Material and energy flow model for one metric ton of crude steel.

the energy conservation and carbon reduction in this industry are still in use. Therefore, the results calculated in this study should
are still limited in the scientific literature. In addition, it is be considered as the best practice benchmark that reflects the
relatively difficult to compare the results of carbon emissions from energy conservation for China’s integrated steel industry.
different research groups because of the rapid changes in boundary Tian et al. (2013) pointed out that the greenhouse gas (GHG)
conditions, such as the development of technology and update emissions from coke, sinter and steel production in BOF were
of equipment in the steel industry, the steady growth of steel approximately 1.088 billion tons CO2 e, which is about 297 MtC,
production, and the complicity of steelmaking. and contributed to 99% of the total energy-related emission from
According to the CEInet Industry Database (China Economic
iron and steel industry in 2010. The total production of crude steel
Information Network, 2012), the total energy consumption of
of China is 637 Mt and 683 Mt in 2010 and 2011, respectively. If
China’s steel industry in 2011 is 588.96 Mtce (17 261 PJ), which
we assume the energy efficiency had not improved and the steel
include the consumption of coal (299.7 Mt), coke (329.1 Mt), crude
industrial structures had not changed in the two adjacent years,
oil (1.8 kt), gasoline (111.3 kt), kerosene (3.1 kt), diesel (841.4 kt),
the GHG emissions would be 318 MtC, which are very close to
fuel oil (91.3 kt), natural gas (2.9 billion m3 ), and electricity
(524.8 billion kWh). This energy consumption is 32% higher than the estimation of 300 MtC in this study. Applying more detailed
what we estimate of 13 095 PJ in this study. Two major reasons may data and making the system framework correspond more closely
cause the discrepancy. First, the system boundary of steelmaking to the reality, the MFA model will yield more accurate results for
in CEInet is broader than that in this study, which extends to the the carbon emission evaluation.
process of casting, rolling, and alloy smelting. Second, the statistics The comparisons indicate that the result of energy consumption
of CEInet are for the whole country, which includes local middle and carbon emissions is more comparable on a process level than
and small enterprises where outdated and inefficient technologies on a country level. In most of China’s key state-owned steel plants,
H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36 35

Fig. 6. Comparison of China and world crude steel production (1990–2011).


Source: World Steel Association (n.d.b).

an entire community was devoted to the production of steel, there- inefficient plants which consume too much energy and should be
fore, the statistics of energy and materials consumption usually eliminated or phased out from the market. At present stage, this
include those used for various other function departments, both study shows that what is particularly required for reducing energy
directly and indirectly related to the production of steel. Double consumption and carbon emissions is integration more than tech-
counting is another problem to overestimate the inefficiency of nique innovation or plant migration.
steel industry (Worrell et al., 2001; Ouyang and Lin, 2015). The Paris Agreement of UNFCCC in 2015 has been favorable
to new initiatives for the goal of reducing global warming.
4.3. Policy implications Government and the public society need more accurate and
reliable results to evaluate their actions. In this study, we perform
The rapid industrialization and urbanization in China are ac- the MFA model to identify and quantify the changes and flows
companied by large-scale infrastructure construction and enor- after the materials and energy are put into the steelmaking system,
mous office and residential buildings to accommodate the huge through their usage, recovery, and reuse in processes. However,
population. Therefore, a significant amount of steel consumption these results are still insufficient. In developing the MFA model,
is inevitable. The steel industry plays an important role in the pro- a major obstacle has been the data absence. Many data are initially
cesses, and it also needs to take responsibility for global carbon used for other works than estimating material or energy flows,
emissions. and some data are considered commercial secrets. In fact, the
The results show that the coal-related fuels account for 90% of iron and steel making processes are more complex than this
the direct energy consumption, or 83% of the total comprehensive simplified model. However, by applying adequate monitoring
energy consumption which includes coke and ancillary material’s methods and providing necessary data, this model could be
preparation. Therefore, coal is the major driving force for carbon improved substantially and express detailed and accurate results
emission in the steel industry, and a substitution of coal by other on a firm-level to improve energy efficiency or on regional and
environment-friendly energy sources such as renewable energy national levels for policy recommendation.
or nuclear power will considerably reduce carbon emissions. That
means the structure of current steel industry has to be changed 5. Conclusions
from the BF–BOF dominated steel production to the EAF dominated
steel production. The EAF route is essentially a steel recycling This study adopts the MFA model to estimate the energy con-
process; therefore, the recovery and recycling of steel industry sumption and carbon emission in China’s integrated steelmaking
should be encouraged by government policies. plants. This method, which includes three layers (material, ferrum,
However, the ongoing urbanization progress needs an enor- and energy), reveals the material and energy flows in the primary
mous amount of steels, which are too large to be depended on production processes and tackles the data uncertainty problems
scraps or to be imported from other countries. Besides, there is no to make the assessment successful and accurate. According to this
contribution to the global environment if all of the BF–BOF steel analysis, the primary energy intensity of 20.3 GJ/t and carbon emis-
production capacity are migrated to other developing regions be- sion of 0.46 tC/t crude steel, including coke and ancillary material’s
cause the enterprises producing only pig iron have the lowest tech- preparation, could be regarded as a high-performance benchmark
nical efficiency compare to those producing only finished steel of integrated steelmaking plants currently in China. Further esti-
products (Ma et al., 2002). Integrated steelmaking plants possess mation of the total energy consumption and carbon emission of
a substantial efficiency advantage over small and medium-scale the steel making were roughly about 13 095 PJ and 300 MtC, re-
enterprises (Zhang and Wang, 2008). The result comparison also spectively, in 2011. We believe this estimation is relatively conser-
implies that a small portion of steel products may come from the vative since we have not included all possible efficiency measures
36 H. He et al. / Energy Reports 3 (2017) 29–36

of steelmaking. Given the fact that the steel industry continues to Ministry of Environmental Protection of China, 2008a. Cleaner production standard
evolve, additional updates of the analysis would be necessary to – Blast furnace. Technical Report HJ/T 427-2008. Beijing. (in Chinese).
Ministry of Environmental Protection of China, 2008b. Cleaner production standard
reflect the changing industry. Furthermore, many integrated steel- – Sintering industry. Technical Report HJ/T 426-2008. Beijing. (in Chinese).
making plants are located in the economic zones of coastal areas Ministry of Environmental Protection of China, 2008c. Cleaner production standard
usually with other energy-intensive industries, such as chemical, – Steelmaking industry. Technical Report HJ/T 428-2008. Beijing. (in Chinese).
Ouyang, X., Lin, B., 2015. An analysis of the driving forces of energy-related carbon
petroleum, power, and cement. The material and energy intercon- dioxide emissions in China’s industrial sector. Renewable Sustainable Energy
nection and flows between different industries are worthwhile to Rev. 45, 838–849.
be evaluated in the next study. Price, L., Sinton, J., Worrell, E., Phylipsen, D., Xiulian, H., Ji, L., 2002. Energy use and
carbon dioxide emissions from steel production in China. Energy 27, 429–446.
Sakamoto, Y., Tonooka, Y., 2000. Estimation of co2 emission for each process in the
Acknowledgments Japanese steel industry: a process analysis. Int. J. Energy Res. 24, 625–632.
Standardization Administration of China, 2007. The norm of energy consumption
per unit product of major procedure of crude steel manufacturing process.
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds Technical Report GB 21256-2007. Beijing. (in Chinese).
for the Central Universities (Contract No. 1082020904); the Na- Standardization Administration of China, 2008a. General principles for calculation
of the comprehensive energy consumption. Technical Report GB/T 2589-2008.
tional Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41206092); the Pri-
Beijing. (in Chinese).
ority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Educa- Standardization Administration of China, 2008b. The norm of energy consumption
tion Institutions; and the Administrative Commission of Tangshan per unit product of coke. Technical Report GB 21342-2008. Beijing. (in Chinese).
Caofeidian Industry Zone. Many thanks to the anonymous review- State Council of China, 2012. The twelfth fine year guideline of energy conserva-
tion and emission reduction. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2012-
ers for their valuable and constructive comments. 08/21/content_2207867.htm [accessed on 03.02.13].
Tian, Y., Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2013. An analysis of energy-related greenhouse gas
References emissions in the Chinese iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 56, 352–361.
Wang, K., Wang, C., Lu, X., Chen, J., 2007. Scenario analysis on co2 emissions
reduction potential in China’s iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 35,
American Iron and Steel Institute, 2005. Saving one barrel of oil per tonne. Available 2320–2335.
from: https://www.steel.org/∼/media/Files/AISI/Public%20Policy/saving_one_ Wei, Y.M., Liao, H., Fan, Y., 2007. An empirical analysis of energy efficiency in China’s
barrel_oil_per_ton.pdf [accessed on 03.02.13]. iron and steel sector. Energy 32, 2262–2270.
Bian, Y., He, P., Xu, H., 2013. Estimation of potential energy saving and carbon World Steel Association, 2011. Steel production 2011. Available from:
dioxide emission reduction in China based on an extended non-radial dea http://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/2011-steel-
approach. Energy Policy 63, 962–971. production.html [accessed on 03.02.13].
Brunner, P.H., Ma, H.W., 2009. Substance flow analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 11–14. World Steel Association, n.d.a. Co2 emissions data collection-user guide,
Chen, W., Yin, X., Ma, D., 2014. A bottom-up analysis of China’s iron and ver. 6. Available from: http://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/climate-
steel industrial energy consumption and co2 emissions. Appl. Energy 136, change/data-collection.html [accessed on 03.02.13].
1174–1183. World Steel Association, n.d.b. Annual crude steel production archive. Available
China Economic Information Network, 2012. Ceinet industry database. Avail- from: http://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/annual-steel-
able from: http://cyk.cei.gov.cn/aspx/Subject.aspx?NodeURL=gt [accessed on archive.html [accessed on 03.02.13].
23.12.16]. Worrell, E., Moore, C., 1997. Energy efficiency and advanced technologies in the
Choi, Y., Zhang, N., Zhou, P., 2012. Efficiency and abatement costs of energy-related iron and steel industry. In: Proceedings 1997 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
co2 emissions in China: A slacks-based efficiency measure. Appl. Energy 98, Efficiency in Industry. ACEEE, Washington, DC.
198–208. Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., 2001. Energy efficiency and carbon dioxide
European Steel Association, 2009. Global co2 emissions from steelmaking will rise
emissions reduction opportunities in the us iron and steel sector. Energy 26,
without Chinese commitment. Available from: http://www.eurofer.org/index.
513–536.
php/eng/News-Media/Press-Releases [accessed on 03.02.13]. Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Farla, J., Schaeffer, R., 1997. Energy intensity in
Gielen, D., 1997. Technology characterization for ceramic and inorganic materials: the iron and steel industry: a comparison of physical and economic indicators.
Input data for Western European MARKAL. Technical Report ECN-C-97-064. Energy Policy 25, 727–744.
Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands, Petten. Wu, L., Kaneko, S., Matsuoka, S., 2006. Dynamics of energy-related co2 emissions in
Guo, X.D., Zhu, L., Fan, Y., Xie, B.C., 2011. Evaluation of potential reductions in carbon China during 1980 to 2002: The relative importance of energy supply-side and
emissions in Chinese provinces based on environmental dea. Energy Policy 39, demand-side effects. Energy Policy 34, 3549–3572.
2352–2360. Xu, K.D., 2010. Low carbon economy and iron and steel industry. Iron Steel 45, 1–12.
International Energy Agency 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010. IEA Publications,
(in Chinese).
Paris.
Iosif, A.M., Hanrot, F., Birat, J.P., Ablitzer, D., 2010. Physicochemical modelling of Yao, X., Zhou, H., Zhang, A., Li, A., 2015. Regional energy efficiency, carbon
the classical steelmaking route for life cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle emission performance and technology gaps in China: A meta-frontier non-
Assess. 15, 304–310. radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy 84, 142–154.
Lin, B., Wang, X., 2015. Carbon emissions from energy intensive industry in China: Yin, R.Y., 2008. The essence and function of iron and steel manufacturing process
Evidence from the iron & steel industry. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 47, and the future development model of steel making plant. Sci. China 38,
746–754. 1365–1377. (in Chinese).
Liu, L.C., Fan, Y., Wu, G., Wei, Y.M., 2007. Using lmdi method to analyze the change Zhang, Y.J., Da, Y.B., 2015. The decomposition of energy-related carbon emission
of China’s industrial co2 emissions from final fuel use: An empirical analysis. and its decoupling with economic growth in China. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Policy 35, 5892–5900. Energy Rev. 41, 1255–1266.
Ma, J., Evans, D.G., Fuller, R.J., Stewart, D.F., 2002. Technical efficiency and Zhang, J., Wang, G., 2008. Energy saving technologies and productive efficiency in
productivity change of China’s iron and steel industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 76, the Chinese iron and steel sector. Energy 33, 525–537.
293–312.

You might also like