energies

Article
Decarbonization Pathways, Strategies, and Use Cases to
Achieve Net-Zero CO2 Emissions in the Steelmaking Industry
Josué Rodríguez Diez 1,2, * , Silvia Tomé-Torquemada 1 , Asier Vicente 1 , Jon Reyes 1 and G. Alonso Orcajo 2

1 ArcelorMittal Global R&D Basque Country Research Centre, 48910 Sestao, Spain;
silvia.tome@arcelormittal.com (S.T.-T.); asier.vicente@arcelormittal.com (A.V.);
jon.reyes@arcelormittal.com (J.R.)
2 Electrical Engineering Department, University of Oviedo, 33204 Gijón, Spain; gonzalo@uniovi.es
* Correspondence: josue.rodriguezdiez@arcelormittal.com

Abstract: The steelmaking industry is responsible for 7% of global CO2 emissions, making de-
carbonization a significant challenge. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of current
steel-production processes, assessing their environmental impact in terms of CO2 emissions at a
global level. Limitations of the current pathways are outlined by using objective criteria and a detailed
review of the relevant literature. Decarbonization strategies are rigorously evaluated across various
scenarios, emphasizing technology feasibility. Focusing on three pivotal areas—scrap utilization,
hydrogen integration, and electricity consumption—in-depth assessments are provided, backed by
notable contributions from both industrial and scientific fields. The intricate interplay of technical,
economic, and regulatory considerations substantially affects CO2 emissions, particularly considering
the EU Emissions Trading System. Leading steel producers have established challenging targets
for achieving carbon neutrality, requiring a thorough evaluation of industry practices. This paper
emphasizes tactics to be employed within short-, medium-, and long-term periods. This article
explores two distinct case studies: One involves a hot rolling mill that utilizes advanced energy
techniques and uses H2 for the reheating furnace, resulting in a reduction of 229 kt CO2 -eq per year.
The second case examines DRI production incorporating H2 and achieves over 90% CO2 reduction
Citation: Rodríguez Diez, J.;
per ton of DRI.
Tomé-Torquemada, S.; Vicente, A.;
Reyes, J.; Orcajo, G.A.
Keywords: decarbonization; steelmaking industry; renewable energy; green hydrogen; CO2
Decarbonization Pathways,
reduction; scrap; energy efficiency strategies; hydrogen integration; steel production; DRI
Strategies, and Use Cases to Achieve
Net-Zero CO2 Emissions in the
Steelmaking Industry. Energies 2023,
16, 7360. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en16217360 1. Introduction
Although steel is less carbon emitting per application than many other materials
Academic Editor: Praveen
Cheekatamarla
from primary sources, the sheer scale of global steel production means the steelmaking
industry contributes to around 7% of global CO2 emissions, 5% of the CO2 emissions
Received: 24 September 2023 in the European Union (EU), and 6% of the emissions in the United States of America
Revised: 23 October 2023 (USA) [1–10]. Emissions per ton of steel vary widely between countries, and the differences
Accepted: 25 October 2023 are based on the production routes, product mix, energy efficiency, fuel used, and the carbon
Published: 31 October 2023
intensity from the fuel and electricity [11]. The environmental impact of steel assumes
more significance when viewed within the context of wider global industries. In a net-zero
projection for 2030, direct CO2 emissions resulting from the iron and steel sector represent
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
a substantial 30% [12]. Steel is positioned at the forefront of industries that generate
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. significant emissions, followed by cement at 20%, the chemical and petrochemical sector at
This article is an open access article 15%, pulp and paper at 10%, and aluminum at 5% [12]. Globally, energy production
distributed under the terms and is the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), responsible for 73%
conditions of the Creative Commons of total emissions, with electricity and heat accounting for approximately 42% [13,14].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) rank second with about 24% of the total
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ emissions. Subsequently, the industry (21%), transport (14%), and building (3%) sectors are
4.0/). reported to emit greenhouse gases [14].

Energies 2023, 16, 7360. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16217360 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 7360 2 of 31

Global steel demand is forecast to increase by 2050 under the current consumption
pattern, driven primarily by continued growth in the developing world, as well as increased
steel demand to support the global energy transition since more steel will be needed per
unit of renewable electricity than conventional technologies [1,15]. The industry growth
forecast reaches an annual production of 200 Mt in 2050 for the EU-27 and the United
Kingdom (UK) [16]. In other scenarios, such as in the USA, production is forecasted to
increase by 12% by 2050 [10]. Nevertheless, the proportion of worldwide manufacturing
controlled by the People’s Republic of China is projected to decrease from its current 50%
to 35% by 2050, as India’s output is expected to grow more than threefold to fulfill domestic
requirements [2], in addition to the imposition of levies by the EU, the USA, and other
nations [17,18].
Over the last 150 years, the steel industry has seen significant energy and yield
improvements. While incremental improvements will continue, far more is needed to meet
the objectives of the Paris Agreement such as a 55% reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to
1990 levels and CO2 neutrality by 2050, whilst at the same time responding to the growing
demand for steel and preserving competitiveness [8,19,20].
Steel can be produced through different routes: the primary or integrated route and
the secondary or electric route. In the primary route, steel is produced from iron ore and
coal or coke in a blast furnace (BF) and a basic oxygen furnace (BOF), and it has high CO2
emissions despite being very efficient when it comes to energy consumption [2,4,20]. As
can be seen in Figure 1a, the CO2 emissions are around 2.2 tons of CO2 per ton of produced
crude steel [2,4,5,16,20]. It should be noted that these emissions vary from country to
country and that the CO2 emissions are between 1.8 and 4.0 tons of CO2 per ton of crude
steel for most of the countries, with China and the EU reporting lower CO2 emissions
(1.84 tons of CO2 and 1.81 tons of CO2 , respectively) and South Africa and India generating
more than 3.8 tons of CO2 per ton of steel [5,20]. The integrated route is predominant in
worldwide crude production, accounting for almost 71% of crude steel production. The
BF-BOF route for European steel production accounts for around 56% of the total steel
production, whereas in the USA, only 31% of the steel is produced through the primary
route [6].

Figure 1. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the steelmaking process: (a) BF-BOF route;
(b) EAF route [2,21,22].

The secondary route produces steel by melting scrap in the electric arc furnace (EAF)
with much lower CO2 emissions than those produced with the BF-BOF route. Another
alternative that still reduces the CO2 emissions from the integrated route is to use an
alternative iron input in the EAF such as direct reduced iron (DRI) produced with natural
gas (NG) [2,3]. Emissions from the scrap-EAF and DRI-EAF can be seen in Figure 1b. The
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 3 of 31

CO2 emissions from the electric route range from 0.6 to 1.4 tons of CO2 per ton of crude
steel, depending on the raw material used, in nearly all countries [20]. Most of the crude
production in the USA, specifically 69%, is produced through the secondary route, whilst
in the EU and worldwide, the EAF route accounts for 44% and 30% of the total crude
production, respectively, according to the data from 2021 [6].
The electrification of steel production significantly decreases CO2 emissions, enabled
by the EAF’s advantages: using scrap steel and adapting to cleaner energy sources. Despite
this, there are essential factors that ensure the continued widespread use of the BF-BOF
route. Historical roots of the existing BOF infrastructure demand significant capital and
time for successful BF/BOF-to-EAF conversion. Areas with abundant, reasonably priced
coal and iron ore maintain the appeal of the BOF. The integration of CCU in BOF facilities
moderates the push for complete electrification. Meeting demands for the exact steel
chemical compositions, particularly in Europe, presents obstacles. Although minimills have
shifted towards a more environmentally conscious approach, they encounter difficulties
in matching the integrated techniques for top-notch steel production. Given the intricacy
of maintaining precise residual control over scrap to produce high-quality steel while
rigorously monitoring its chemistry, the EAF with DRI and scrap route satisfies all criteria:
high-grade steel production, minimal CO2 emissions, and ample potential for implementing
CO2-free processes [23]. As a result, the industry is compelled to balance emissions
reduction with competitiveness and long-term sustainability as it strives towards achieving
ambitious environmental objectives.
When both steelmaking routes are considered, the country with the lowest CO2
emissions per ton of steel produced is the USA, as most of the steel is produced through
the secondary route. This is followed by Turkey and Europe (EU-27, UK, and Norway).
Among the countries that produce over 50% of their steel via the integrated route, the EU
has the lowest CO2 emissions whilst China has the highest [8,10].
Figures 2 and 3 show the latest data related to steel production and CO2 emissions. The
CO2 intensity of electricity primarily influences the EU and United States’ emissions, while
in China and India, the type of raw material used plays a significant role. For the secondary
route, the EU relies on scrap as the main raw material, whilst India and Russia widely
utilize DRI. In China, approximately 45% of the raw material comes from pig iron produced
in blast furnaces, resulting in higher emissions [24]. The CO2 footprint of DRI in India is
substantial, as around 80% is derived from coal [25], which is significantly more carbon-
intensive than natural-gas-based DRI [26]. In the United States, electric steel mills use a
combination of pig iron, DRI, and scrap to achieve higher-quality steel production [8,10].
Previous research has investigated the effects of pricing policies on the steel indus-
try [27,28], as well as examined the decarbonization processes within domestic steel man-
ufacturing [29,30]. The impact of hydrogen production on CO2 emissions has been an-
alyzed [31], and recommendations on how to identify suitable low-emission steel plant
configurations have been provided [32]. This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive
review of the literature, with a specific focus on three potential decarbonization pathways:
developments in scrap utilization, the integration of hydrogen, and finishing processes’
electrification by using local renewable energy sources. A range of detailed case studies is
presented, demonstrating effective CO2 emission-reduction strategies.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the decarbonization
pathways in the steelmaking industry, focusing on the current state of the technology.
Section 3 details the decarbonization strategies adopted by the main steelmakers. Section 4
presents some use cases of hydrogen and new electrification approaches in the steel industry.
Finally, Section 5 depicts the conclusions reached from the proposed review.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 4 of 31

Figure 2. Crude steel production by production route for the year 2021 [6].

Figure 3. Total CO2 emissions from the steel industry per ton of steel produced [10,20].

2. Decarbonization Pathways
Different literature sources [26,33–42] highlight how changes through new disruptive
technologies in the steel industry are required to bring emissions on trend to meet the
GHG reduction target by 2050 [8]. This entails a change in the steel industry’s production
processes and a greater sense of immediacy in implementing them. Due to the long-lived
capital assets of this industry, 2050 is only one investment cycle away [8]. This urge to act
is reflected not only in the update by the European Commission in its Industrial Strategy
2020 and accompanying steel working roll [43] but also in steel industry assessments [16],
as well as in the plans and strategies of the manufacturing companies [21,44–48]. These
commitments are not only within the EU framework, but the USA Administration has
also set targets of 100% CO2 -free electricity by 2035 and net-zero GHG emissions by
2050 [49]. The US Long-Term Strategy, called LTS [50], presents, like those of the EU,
multiple pathways to achieve a zero-emission economy by 2050 [10].
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 5 of 31

A growing industrial deployment of decarbonization technologies is being imple-

mented not only in the steel industry but in all sectors where GHG production has a strong
impact. In broad terms, there is a common strategy: the use of alternative energies and
renewable sources, improvement in the efficiency of the processes and the materials, reduc-
tion in methane and other non-CO2 emissions, increased removal of the CO2 produced by
capturing it, and use of alternative carbon sources [10,50].
Focusing on the steel process, the availability of the energy and material flow required
for steel production should be evaluated as key elements for decarbonization. In this
context, eight points are presented as critical by Green Steel for Europe [51]:
• The consumption of electrical energy from renewable sources.
• The use and generation of green hydrogen (H2 ).
• The consumption of NG.
• The transition to alternative carbon sources.
• The consumption of iron ore and pellets.
• The increased use of scrap.
• The development and implementation of CO2 storage technologies.
• The production and use of CCU products.
All of them must be complemented by other framework conditions: the technological
maturity of each solution, supply aspects, availability of infrastructure, energy and raw
materials, plant-specific investment cycles, as well as financial and legislative conditions,
including the EU ETS and the CBAM [7,16,22,51].
Decarbonization in the steel industry requires substantial changes in the supply and
production chains. Consequently, the challenge could be likened to a new industrial
revolution, both in terms of complexity and duration. The current scenario presents a
situation where the global transformation would be possible thanks to a hydrogen-based
steel industry, as well as the adaptation of fossil-fuel-based steel processes for residual
carbon capture and utilization technologies and, finally, an increase in the consumption of
scrap as a raw material and the recycling of steel byproducts. To this end, as illustrated
in Figure 4, there are two technological pathways for CO2 reduction in the sector: smart
carbon utilization (SCU) and carbon direct avoidance (CDA) [16]. Some proposed and
ongoing projects of the EU steel industry have been identified for this purpose [16,52].
Energy, feedstock, and carbon storage are therefore the most important elements in this
major challenge.

Figure 4. Summary of strategic technology pathways [16]. * Carbon capture and storage.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 6 of 31

While it is important to reduce demand for primary steel by increasing the circularity
of materials and expanding the secondary steelmaking, achieving net-zero-emissions
steel will require reducing emissions from conventional steelmaking as well. To build
the groundwork for net-zero steel by 2050, it is essential to commercialize and expand
near-zero-emissions primary steelmaking. Several studies have presented a roadmap
for achieving net-zero emissions in the production of primary steel, utilizing predictive
modeling to outline the essential objectives that need to be met in the medium term [22,53].
These objectives encompass various aspects such as increasing near-zero primary steel
production; addressing energy requirements; developing the necessary infrastructure; and
incorporating renewable electricity; H2 ; and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
technologies. Additionally, the concept of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) has been
introduced to assess the maturity and feasibility of different technologies during each
projected period.
Determining the mix of technologies that will be used in the future for the EU steel
industry is challenging due to state and regional conditions such as energy costs, availability,
infrastructure, legal restrictions, and the degree of local industrialization. However, a global
provider of consultancy services and some steel manufacturers have proposed several
scenarios for steel production between now and 2050 based on a CO2 reduction options
analysis. These scenarios include business as usual, continued retrofitting, current projects
with low-CO2 energy, alternative low-CO2 energy, current projects with CO2 -free energy,
and alternative pathways with CO2 -free energy. Emission reductions ranging from 10% to
95% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels could be achieved depending on the scenario, with
energy, raw materials, and carbon storage being critical factors. The scenarios highlight
the need for the steel industry to undergo significant changes to reduce its emissions in all
energy channels (gas and electricity) used in the steel-production process [16].
Once several promising decarbonization technologies have been identified, they
can be grouped into four technological routes and subdivided based on some specific
actions [3,10,51]:
• The optimized blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route (Route 1).
• A route based on direct reduction (DR) (Route 2).
• Reduction by smelting (Route 3).
• The electrolysis of iron ore (Route 4).
Route 1 is subdivided into the use of alternative carbon sources, CCUS, and other
actions (Route 1A, 1B, and 1C, respectively). The DR route is divided into NG (Route 2A)
and hydrogen-based reduction (Route 2B). Potential CO2 reduction ranging from 17% to
95% could be achieved depending on the technological route between 2030 and 2050 [51].
Optimized BF-BOF routes (Routes 1A/B/C) and direct reduction-based routes (Routes
2A/B) are considered to reach TRL 9 in 2030–2035 and would start industrial deployment,
while smelter reduction (Route 3) and iron ore electrolysis (Route 4) could become options
for later industrial deployment in 2050 [51]. Of course, the use of scrap as a raw material
must be considered for all routes, as well as HBI for routes where an EAF is present.

2.1. Energy, Raw Materials, and Carbon Capture Overview

The industrial sector, including the iron and steel, chemicals, petroleum refining, and
cement subsectors, accounts for a significant portion of energy-related CO2 emissions in
the United States. The industrial sector is considered challenging to decarbonize due to its
diverse energy consumption and complex processes. In the US steel industry, electricity
consumption constitutes around 17% of the total energy consumption [10], with NG being
the dominant resource used, making up 37% of the final energy used [54]. Furthermore,
NG represented less than 1% in China [24]. Process heating is the largest energy-consuming
process in the steel industry, representing around 63%, followed by electric drives at
12% [54]. The future steel sector will have a substantial energy demand, estimated to be
around 400 TWh/year in the EU, requiring low-carbon electricity, 162 TWh/year, and
green hydrogen, 234 TWh/year, for a production of 5.5 million tons in 2050 [16]. However,
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 7 of 31

there are challenges in terms of the availability of emission-reduction technologies, such

as CCS, which may not be universally accessible in the EU. The lack of CCS could limit
CO2 reduction to 67% instead of the targeted 74% [16]. Alternative pathways may require
increased CO2 -free electricity and H2 , as well as an enhanced CO2 storage capacity.
Another challenge that arises is the lack of suppliers for key emission-reduction
technologies. The availability of an adequate quantity and quality of scrap is also crucial
for the decarbonization pathways. Ensuring a steady supply of scrap is essential for
achieving the desired emission-reduction targets in the steel industry. Additionally, the
development of advanced technologies that enable the efficient use of scrap and promote
circular economy principles will be critical for addressing this challenge [55,56]. Table 1
tackles these challenges by demonstrating the primary research strategies to address them,
enumerating multiple analyses, solutions, and studies.

Table 1. Developments in the scrap domain.

Development Description Literature

Advancements in the scrap recycling technologies, such as shredding,
sorting, and separation techniques, have improved the efficiency and
Scrap Recycling Technologies effectiveness of scrap processing. These technologies help maximize [57–62]
the recovery of valuable materials from scrap, reducing the reliance
on virgin resources.
Innovations in scrap sorting and classification systems enable more
precise identification and segregation of different types of scrap. This
allows for better material utilization and enhances the quality of the
Scrap Sorting and Classification recycled steel. Automated sorting technologies, including sensors [57,58,62–65]
and artificial intelligence, are being employed to optimize the scrap
sorting process.
Quality assessment techniques for scrap, such as spectroscopic
analysis, enable the determination of the chemical composition and
Scrap Quality the impurity levels. Accurate assessment of the scrap quality helps [58,62,63,66–69]
Assessment optimize steelmaking processes, maintain product quality, and
reduce rejections and waste.
Digital solutions and software platforms are being developed to
facilitate scrap management and traceability. These systems enable
better tracking of scrap from the collection to processing, ensuring
Scrap Management and Traceability [64,70–73]
transparency, compliance with regulations, and verification of
Systems
sustainability claims. They also enhance supply chain efficiency and
ease the selection of the most suitable scrap that meets specific
steelmaking requirements.
Optimization tools and algorithms are being employed to optimize
the entire scrap supply chain, including collection, transportation,
and processing. These tools help minimize logistical costs, reduce
Scrap Supply Chain Optimization carbon emissions, and improve overall operational efficiency. They [64,69,73–76]
consider factors such as scrap availability, transportation routes, and
processing capabilities to streamline the supply chain and maximize
the resource utilization.

Collaboration between stakeholders, including steel producers, scrap suppliers, and

policymakers, is necessary to overcome these obstacles and establish a sustainable and
low-carbon steel industry.

2.2. Hydrogen
Hydrogen is emerging as a critical component in the decarbonization of the steel
industry [31,32,53,77,78]. It serves as a versatile resource, finding applications in the
production of DRI as well as in various processes that require thermal energy provided by
burners, such as the reheating furnaces and the refractory heating in the ladles. By using or
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 8 of 31

increasing the use of H2 to replace NG in these processes, the industry can significantly
reduce its carbon footprint. Currently, 70 million tons of H2 are directly produced, 76% of
which are derived from NG, 23% from coal, and 1–2% from electrolyzers, while 48 million
tons of H2 are produced as byproducts. Considering that almost all these tons of H2
are produced from fossil fuels, the annual production of H2 results in the emission of
approximately 830 million tons of CO2 per year [79]. The analysis of CO2 emissions
associated with various H2 productions reveals important insights into both production
technology and energy origins, as revealed by the inclusive dataset [79,80]. Electrolysis
with 100% renewable energy is the greenest option, emitting no CO2 . In stark contrast,
coal-based electrolysis emits a significant 51.6 kg CO2 /kg H2 , while NG and nuclear energy
emit 23 kg and 1 kg CO2 /kg H2 , respectively. Among the steam methane reforming (SMR)
technologies, those based on biowaste and landfill gas exhibit the lowest CO2 emissions.
Alternative gasification methods feature numerous variations, wherein waste wood and
solid recovered fuel (SRF) emit less than coal-based techniques. This exhaustive analysis
highlights the pivotal significance of factoring in both the technology and energy source to
create a carbon-neutral course for hydrogen production, thus supporting the reduction in
CO2 emissions [81]. Onsite renewable-based hydrogen production could drive 35–45% of
steel production by 2050, demanding 52–75 million tons of H2 yearly [22,82].
In 2018, Europe had a total annual H2 production capacity of 11.5 Mt [51]. The Interna-
tional Energy Agency (IEA) [83] estimates a range of 47–68 kg H2 /t DRI for hydrogen-based
DRI production, so assuming a H2 demand of 60 kg H2 /ton of crude steel through direct re-
duction, this H2 production capacity would only cover 0.2% of the primary steel-production
demand [51,84]. Current H2 production capacities are either onsite for self-consumption in
commercial production facilities or in plants where hydrogen is a byproduct coming from
other processes. The distribution of production capacities varies among different countries,
with Germany leading in hydrogen production, followed by the Netherlands, Poland, and
Italy [51]. Thus far, most of the produced H2 has been used in oil refineries and chemical
synthesis production (ammonia and methanol, among others), with only a small portion,
around 2%, being utilized by other industries [9,54].
Hydrogen-production methods differ in technology and energy sources, leading to
varying CO2 emissions. Produced hydrogen is categorized and classified with different col-
ors based on the method used [85,86]. “Green” or “renewable hydrogen” is made through
water electrolysis with renewable energy, resulting in minimal CO2 emissions [24,82,87].
Water-based production is less than 1%, using Alkaline, PEM, and the less-mature SOEC
electrolysis [79]. Currently, the EU primarily produces grey hydrogen, with steam methane
reforming being the most common production process [9,87]. Depending on the technology
and feedstock used, fossil-based processes emit between 12 and 30 t CO2 -eq./t H2 [82].
It is important to emphasize that H2 production, transportation, storage, and cor-
responding infrastructure are crucial for the successful deployment of hydrogen-based
technologies. Assuming a strong grid connection to supply the necessary electricity, steel
producers can potentially produce hydrogen onsite, significantly reducing transportation
costs [51]. Other options for H2 production include locations with easy access to large quan-
tities of low-cost renewable electricity or locations where electricity availability fluctuates
drastically and H2 production can be used for grid balancing, such as large offshore wind
farms connected to the national grid [88]. The main drawback of H2 is its low density, which
makes its storage and transportation complex. A classification of the different technologies
for storage and transportation is presented in [89].
Currently, there are approximately 1500 km of hydrogen pipelines in operation in
Europe, but most H2 is currently produced at the point of demand [88]. According to
the Hydrogen Backbone Initiative [90], a hydrogen network of 6800 km is projected for
2030, expanding it to 22,900 km by 2040 [51]. The EU and several countries have already
published hydrogen strategies to foster its development by 2050 [85]. Other national
strategies are still under development [9,51].
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 9 of 31

2.3. Electricity
This decarbonization paradigm leads to the highest-ever need for affordable and
CO2 -free electricity. The 5700–6700 TWh/year of clean electricity required by the global
steel sector by the midcentury would be more than twice the total energy production of the
European Union member states in 2020 [22]. Providing a robust and secure supply for these
enormous amounts of clean energy represents a critical factor in unlocking decarbonization
in the steelmaking industry and will require extensive infrastructure construction and
improvement [91]. Given the high level of planning required for this infrastructure, as well
as for the transmission and the distribution networks and the generation assets, preparation
must start now.
In 2020, the total electricity production in Europe was 2760 TWh, 38% of which
was generated from renewable sources, 25% from nuclear power, and 37% from fossil
fuels [51,92]. Most of the energy generated in the past was based on fossil fuels. However,
in recent years, the share of electricity generation from fossil fuels has decreased in all
European countries due to the development and expansion of renewable energy generation,
as well as the decommissioning of several thermal power plants [92]. Since cross-border
electricity flows account for less than 10% of total electricity production in the EU-27 [93],
electricity generation was assessed at the national level.
From 2010 to 2020, the average annual growth of wind and solar energy was 38 TWh,
which means that the annual increase would need to nearly triple between 2020 and 2030 to
achieve the European Green Deal target for 2030 [94]. According to the literature, national
energy and climate plans currently reach around 72 TWh/year, which would mean that
the necessary increase of 100 TWh/year and the associated energy targets would not be
met [51,92].
Alongside the increase in renewable energy generation, carbon intensity has decreased
in the EU from an average of 317 g of CO2 /kWh in 2015 to 226 g in 2020 [51]. This represents
a 29% decrease between 2015 and 2020. In addition to considering the CO2 intensity of
electricity production and its price, the overall availability of electricity must be considered.
Approximately 43% of steel plants are in areas with access to low-cost renewable energy
and resources, including locations that also have access to low-cost NG. On the other hand,
up to 39% of the current steel plants may not be situated in optimally suited areas for
low-cost renewables, NG, or CO2 storage. The remaining 17% is attributed to plants that
have access to low-cost CO2 storage [91].
Forecasts for the year 2050 estimate a demand of approximately 400 TWh/year of
CO2 -free electricity solely for the European steel industry. This quantity also includes the
production and use of hydrogen and is equivalent to 15% of the current total electricity
production in the EU-27 [51].
Although the trajectory of scenarios is to achieve net zero by 2050, early advancements
in the 2030s are essential. Gradual improvements in current steel technology and the
progressive decarbonization of electricity grids could reduce emissions by 10% in 2030 com-
pared to 2020, with a reduced additional cost. However, incentivizing an early transition
to technologies with a higher reduction potential could achieve much more pronounced
reductions in this decade and drastically reduce cumulative emissions [22].

2.4. Policy and Decarbonization Barriers

Decarbonizing the steel industry is crucial, but it faces numerous complex challenges.
It is essential to integrate decarbonization technologies into existing steel plants due to
their extended investment cycles, coupled with the need for energy, material, and cost
efficiency in mixed integrated facilities. Nevertheless, the staggering cost, potentially
amounting to EUR 20 billion per year, presents a significant financial hurdle [7]. Although
funding opportunities have expanded, there is still a significant shortfall. Creating a policy
environment that promotes low-carbon steel production through funding mechanisms is
crucial. Moreover, ensuring the availability of affordable renewable electricity is essential,
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 10 of 31

despite facing obstacles such as permitting procedures, electricity storage, and regional
pricing disparities.
Decarbonization strategies entail CCUS, yet face regulatory-, infrastructural-, and
consciousness-related obstacles. Tackling these difficulties calls for more flexible regula-
tions, enhanced infrastructure, and greater public awareness. Vital components of steel
decarbonization comprise the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and green
procurement. The CBAM stimulates demand for low-carbon steel, ensuring equitable pric-
ing and generating revenue. Public procurement constitutes a significant share of the EU’s
gross domestic product and can bolster the demand for low-carbon steel by integrating
environmental criteria. An enabling policy framework is necessary to promote the circular
economy, specifically with regard to high-quality steel scrap. It is highly desirable to have
public support for research and to restrict scrap exports. Stakeholders have highlighted the
considerable challenges posed by financial barriers to decarbonization. Addressing these
obstacles requires policy-driven solutions, which are of critical importance. In addition,
stakeholders have stressed the need to ensure the availability of renewable energy and long-
term environmental legislation. Overcoming these obstacles requires policy adjustments at
both national and European levels [7,95].
To overcome the challenges of decarbonizing the steel industry, a thorough policy
framework, innovation, and cross-sectoral collaboration are indispensable. The European
Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is a significant factor in this regard, as it has
a considerable impact on carbon emissions [96]. Figure 5 shows the progression of EU
ETS prices from the beginning of 2021 to the end of 2022. Although the steel industry has
been shielded from carbon pricing by the allocation of free emission allowances within the
EU ETS, it has not been incentivized to adopt low-carbon technologies [97]. Innovative
breakthrough technologies may be disadvantaged, and low-carbon investments have
been hindered by low and volatile carbon prices [8]. The introduction of the CBAM
is proposed as an alternative to free allowances to mitigate carbon leakage risks and
integrate the carbon cost into production [98]. This is especially pertinent to the steel sector.
Addressing the decarbonization challenges faced by the steelmaking industry necessitates
the implementation of wide-ranging policy measures that properly align carbon pricing,
encourage innovation, and promote investments in low-carbon technologies.

Figure 5. Price data from 2021 to 2022 for the EU ETS [93,99].

3. Decarbonization Strategies by Top Steel Producers

In the second decade of the 21st century, overcapacity became one of the main concerns
from the industrial benefits’ point of view due to the global economic situation. This concern
needs a major focus on innovation to face the new challenging scenario. Apart from this,
the need for new measures to abate global climate change is provoking a new shift in the
steelmaking paradigm as the steel industry is responsible for 7–9% [100] of the 40 Gt of
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 11 of 31

CO2 emitted by human activities each year. Consequently, the international steel industry
is under immense pressure to lower its CO2 emissions.
Top steel producers have already set ambitious goals to become carbon neutral in
the coming years (EU by 2050 [101] and China, by far the largest steel-producing country,
by 2060 [102]). To fulfill these goals, many technologies are being proposed, developed,
and evaluated.
The proposed roadmap of some of the main steelmakers [103–111] can be simplified
as follows:
• Short term: sinter replacement by pellets, ferrous scrap usage’s increase, increase the
energy efficiency of the processes, and start replacing NG with H2 .
• Midterm: include CCS and start using pure H2 as a reductant.
• Long term: full deployment of H2 technologies to produce steel and use renewable
energy sources.
Within this context, H2 plays a critical role in the decarbonization pathway in steel-
making, and this can be seen by looking at some of the ongoing hydrogen-based projects in
Europe [107].
Although replacing NG with H2 as a reductant element seems to be one of the main
pillars in the decarbonization roadmap, no technoeconomic feasibility study nor the in-
dustrial gas volume availability for coping with future steel demands are assured for the
time frame set by the steelmakers. Moreover, all the models are based on predictions over
energy markets, CO2 taxes, and novel technologies’ prices’ evolution.
Apart from the hydrogen-based technologies, near-net-shape casting, smelting re-
duction, top gas recycling in the BF, CCU, and iron ore electrolysis are other technology
near-zero-emissions options [111].
Table 2 depicts a simplified technological view of different decarbonization strategies,
highlighting the main challenges, the time horizon for implementation, as well as the
cost impact.

Table 2. Low-emission steelmaking technological pathways by different steel technologies [21,44].

Energy Source Steel Technology Horizon Challenges Incremental Cost

High energy requirements
Long-term
Renewable Energy Iron electrolysis and cost. High
2050
Transition to electrolysis.
Scalability of production
Medium-term and cost.
Green hydrogen DRI with green hydrogen Moderate
2040 Integration of DRI with
green hydrogen.
Utilizing circular carbon
and hydrogen (green or Scaling up and commercial
Medium-term
Smart Carbon blue), carbon-based viability. High
2040
products manufactured Transition to Smart Carbon.
from waste gases
Carbon capture and
storage infrastructure and
DRI with blue hydrogen
Blue Hydrogen Near-term cost. Moderate
(from reformed NG)
Integration of DRI with
blue hydrogen.
DRI and Carbon DRI current technology Near-term
High
Capture with CCS 2030 CCS infrastructure,
Blast Furnace and BF current technology and Near-term integration, and cost.
High
Carbon Capture incorporate CCS 2030
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 12 of 31

The other main driver for achieving decarbonization is steel recycling. The endless
cyclic use of scrap as a raw material is one of the most important characteristics from a
sustainability point of view and one of the strengths of steel. In fact, when scrap is recycled,
the new steel inherits the properties of the original materials, and these can be modified
during the steelmaking process or through ulterior thermal processes.
Consequently, scrap-based steelmaking and the replacement of the BF-BOF route with
the DRI-EAF route seem to be the industrial trend for most steelmakers.
Although scrap-based processes will gain importance in future steelmaking, primary
steel production will be kept. One of the main reasons for this is the scrap’s availability,
which is defined by the past production and the current recycling rate. Nowadays, steel’s
recycling rate is around 85% since there is some low-quality scrap that is not being reused.
To increase the recycling capacity and energy efficiency, innovative technologies
to “treat” the scrap before it reaches the steelmaking reactors need to be implemented;
impurities in postconsumer scrap should be reduced before melting the scrap with a better-
classified one. In this way, scrap use would increase while achieving the same quality in
the finished product. To achieve this, the following goals have been proposed [55]:
• Identify and characterize new opportunities to use and reuse lower-quality scrap by
having a better understanding of the scrap market and the opportunities.
• Select and integrate the best available technologies to upgrade, sort, and characterize
lower-quality scrap to enhance the scrap quality.
• Create industrial demonstrators of scrap sorting/cleaning based on innovative combi-
nations of BATs.
• Define valorization routes of the waste generated by the upgrading schemas.
To outline a path towards climate-neutral steelmaking, Table 3 shows the four pillars
for decarbonizing: (1) efficiency; (2) industrial electrification; (3) the adoption of low-carbon
fuels, feedstocks, and energy sources; and (4) carbon capture and utilization [10]. Energy
efficiency pillars offer the greatest opportunities for short-term decarbonization solutions.
In many cases, it does not require major changes in the industrial processes and can
immediately contribute to emission reductions. Regarding industrial electrification, more
than 50% of all energy is used for thermal processes, and less than 5% of these operations
are electrified [112]. Low-carbon fuels, feedstocks, and energy sources (LCFFES) propose
the adoption of clean energy technologies that do not release GHGs into the atmosphere
from energy production or use. Finally, the energy efficiency, LCFFES, and electrification
pillars can be implemented before CCUS and, together, can reduce 40% of the projected
emissions [14]. These pillars offer a framework for implementing sustainable practices and
achieving near-zero CO2 emissions.

Table 3. Pillars for achieving near-zero CO2 emissions in the steelmaking sector [10].

Pillar Description Literature

Improve system efficiency, process performance, and thermal energy recovery.
Expand energy management practices.
Energy efficiency Increase application of smart manufacturing strategies to reduce energy [113–128]
consumption.
Transition from high-carbon process heat technologies to low-carbon energy sources.
Industrial electrification Electrify thermal processes to reduce emissions from fossil fuel combustion. [113,129–133]
Adopt clean energy technologies that do not release GHGs.
Develop low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources, including clean hydrogen and [32,53,77,113–
LCFFES
synthetic fuels. 115,134–136]

Implement CCUS as a primary source of long-term emission reductions.

CCU [4,137–144]
Utilize carbon utilization and storage to achieve additional carbon reductions.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 13 of 31

4. Use Cases
The decarbonization of the steel industry necessitates exploring various vectors; hy-
drogen has emerged as a promising solution, and electricity is considered one of the key
pathways. This section describes the incorporation of hydrogen and the advantages of inte-
grating renewables and storage and their impact on efficiency and emissions. By exploring
these use cases, valuable insights are gained into the transformative potential of hydrogen
and new electrification approaches in driving decarbonization and shaping the future of
the steel industry.

4.1. Hydrogen in the Steel Sector

Nowadays, the steel industry demands 4 million tons of H2 per year through the DRI
route. Additionally, in the integrated route (BF-BOF), approximately 14 million tons of H2
are produced annually as a byproduct of steel gases, mainly coke oven gas (COG) and blast
furnace gas (BFG). Of all the H2 produced as a byproduct, around 9 million tons of H2 are
consumed internally, while the remaining amount is exported to other sectors. The primary
use of this internal H2 is for combustion or electricity generation. However, the use of H2
contained in COG for injection into the BF or for chemical synthesis purposes is gaining
importance [79]. Currently, around 60% by volume of COG is H2 gas.
Figure 6 shows different applications of hydrogen in the steel sector, ranging from
direct reduction processes to combustion, injection into blast furnaces, synthesis gas pro-
duction, and participation in chemical reactions. Each utilization method offers unique
benefits in terms of CO2 emission reduction, energy efficiency, and process optimization,
contributing to the overall goal of decarbonizing the steel industry.

Figure 6. Hydrogen’s potential future applications in the steel sector [79,84].

Focusing on the DRI route, the goal is to gradually decarbonize the process. Several
stages have been identified to achieve this objective:
1. Utilize renewable energy for the EAF operation.
2. If fossil fuels such as NG are still being used:
a. Gradually increase the H2 content.
b. Capture CO2 emissions from the DRI process.
c. Reuse the captured CO2 within the process.
3. Incorporate H2 in the DRI process:
a. Use blue hydrogen.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 14 of 31

b. Transition to 100% green hydrogen.

c. Achieve the goal of complete decarbonization.
On the other hand, for the BF route, various initiatives to decarbonize this pathway
using H2 include:
1. Injecting H2 -rich streams or biogas to replace coke consumption.
2. Fix CO2 into a chemical compound by using additional H2 .
These strategies aim to progressively reduce carbon emissions in the steelmaking
industry, both in the DRI and BF routes. By implementing these steps, the sector can move
towards its decarbonization goals while considering the specific challenges and opportu-
nities associated with each process. It is important to note, as stated in Section 2.2, that a
thorough evaluation of the carbon emissions related to hydrogen production necessitates
a dual approach. This entails examining both the production technology and the energy
source used in the process with equal consideration.

4.2. Use Case 1: Hot Rolling Mill

4.2.1. Average Values of Electrical Energy Demand in a Hot Rolling Mill
For the calculation of the average values of the electrical energy demanded, an average
consumption of between 70 and 80 kWh/tsteel is considered; it is also considered that the
rolling mill is capable of rolling between 20 and 30 slabs/h, that each slab has a weight of
between 22 and 26 t-steel/slab, and that between 470 and 530 slabs/day are rolled daily.
The result of these numbers means that the average daily consumption of electrical energy
is 1 GWh. The annual electricity consumption of a classical hot rolling mill is thus estimated
at 365 GWh.
The heating furnace serving the rolling mill is assumed to consume 1.2 GJ/tsteel [145,146]
or 333 kWh/tsteel . Multiple parameters (some related to the dimensions of the steel slabs,
others to the characteristics of the furnace itself) affect the average energy consumption.
Depending on the type of fuel and the combustion technology, energy consumption is also
different (air-fuel combustion using methane as fuel would demand 400 kWh/tsteel while
conventional oxyfuel using methane as fuel would demand 290 kWh/tsteel and flameless
oxyfuel using methane as fuel would demand 270 kWh/tsteel ) [147]. Considering that an
average of 500 slabs are rolled daily and that each slab has a weight of 24 tons, this means
the average consumption is 3.9 GWh/day. The slab heating can be optimized with existing
techniques and achieve a reduction in the heat losses in the furnace by up to 20%. An
average daily consumption of 3.2 GWh is therefore considered, which results in an annual
energy consumption of 1100 GWh. Figure 7 depicts a standard layout of a hot rolling mill,
with the consumption values justified above.

Figure 7. Average annual energy consumption values.

4.2.2. Hydrogen as a Reheating Furnace Fuel

To ascertain the required quantity of green hydrogen to achieve the target of 1100 GWh
illustrated in Section 4.1, it is imperative to account for the energy content inherent in the
hydrogen. The lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen is approximately 33.6 kWh/kg. It
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 15 of 31

is important to note that this value may vary slightly depending on the production method
and the purity of the hydrogen. However, as a general approximation, 33.6 kWh/kg is
commonly used as the specific energy of green hydrogen. Thus, to obtain 1100 GWh of
energy, 32,738 tons of hydrogen would be required.
On average, modern electrolyzers have an electrical energy consumption of approxi-
mately 45 to 60 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen produced [80]. This value represents the
amount of electrical energy required to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen
through the electrolysis process. It should be emphasized that Figure 8 solely reflects
the energy consumption attributed to the electrolysis process and does not encompass
any supplementary energy losses occurring during hydrogen compression, storage, or
transportation. Thus, to obtain the required 32,738 tons of hydrogen, 1310 GWh of green
electrical energy would be needed. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy to mention that con-
tinuous advancements in electrolyzer technology and ongoing system optimizations are
steadily enhancing the energy efficiency of green hydrogen production. Newer electrolyzers
may achieve higher efficiencies and reduce the energy consumption required per kilogram
of hydrogen produced.

Figure 8. Most representative data on the decarbonization of the reheating furnace.

Figure 8 presents a summary of the energy requirements and hydrogen levels needed
to decarbonize the reheating furnace based on the given assumptions.
One observation to make is that while H2 is employed as a fuel in other sectors like
petrochemical or steam production, manufacturers of air burners for reheating purposes
have recently begun improving their best low NOx technique burners to operate solely
on 100% H2 . This is due to a spike in NOx during the combustion process for H2 . Many
industrial suppliers have conducted successful trials and integrated these new burners,
along with innovative advancements for H2 combustion applications [148–151].

4.2.3. New Electrification Approaches

The steel industry is actively pursuing decarbonization strategies, and one promising
avenue is the incorporation of new power system approaches. This section explores
renewable energy production, battery storage systems, drive upgrading, and the use cases
of direct current (DC) buses with a focus on two inspiring concepts [152,153] and energy-
management optimizers. The emission reductions resulting from the incorporation of
these cases are quantified and presented in Section 4.2.4. These concepts and innovative
technologies leverage these advantages in use cases to revolutionize steel production and
minimize its environmental impact.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 16 of 31

Renewable-Energy-Production Systems
Overall, as outlined in Section 4.2.2, the hot rolling mill and the reheating furnace
would require 1675 GWh of electrical energy annually from renewable sources. Four
renewable-energy-production systems are evaluated to meet this energy requirement.
This includes two wind farms. Each wind farm consists of 25 wind turbines with a
rated power of 4.5 MW/turbine that forms a wind farm with a rated power of 112.5 MW.
The wind farms are in an area where the average annual wind speed has been estimated at
7 m/s. Under these conditions and considering that the manufacturer’s estimated annual
production for that wind speed is 13.5 GWh (Figure 9), each wind farm could potentially
generate 337.5 GWh/year, thus covering 20.15% of the electricity needs. Globally, the two
wind farms would cover 40.3% of the energy needs.

Figure 9. Annual energy production as a function of average wind speed by a commercial 4.5 MW
wind turbine [154].

A solar photovoltaic plant consists of two plants with a peak power of 60 MWp. Based
on the annual peak sun hours (PSH) forecast for the chosen location (1800 PSH) and the
global average performance ratio (of an approximate value of 85%), each of them would
cover 91.8 GWh/year. Overall, the solar plant would produce 183.6 GWh/year, which
would provide 11% of the energy needs of the rolling mill.
A biomass power plant is capable of producing 50 MW of electrical power from
agricultural and forestry byproducts from areas near the facility. The biomass power
plant produces 400 GWh/year, which would provide 23.88% of the energy needs of the
rolling mill.
The remaining energy required to meet the demand will be acquired from a power
plant that uses residual gases from the steel-manufacturing process as fuel to drive a
125 MW gas turbine. The capacity factor of gas turbines in industrial plants that use
residual gases can vary greatly. It may vary from as little as 20% to as much as 80% or more,
depending on the following factors. Maintaining a reliable and abundant supply of high-
quality residual gases and optimizing the gas turbine for the specific gas composition can
result in a higher capacity factor for the industrial plant. However, the limited availability
of residual gases or inferior quality with lower heating values can lead to a lower gas
turbine capacity factor. Given a capacity factor of 40%, the residual gas-based system can
generate up to 438 GWh/year, accounting for approximately 26.15% of the plant’s energy
requirements. Together, the three systems can provide 101.3% coverage of the energy
demand. The surplus of 1.3% is consumed during storage system charging and discharging
processes and energy-distribution periods. Obviously, with the current technology and
considering an ambitious scenario in which all the energy used is of renewable origin, the
rated power of the generation units required is, at present, high.
Figure 10 summarizes the integration of renewable energy systems in production,
highlighting the high energy demands and the requirement for various systems to address
the annual production of a hot rolling mill.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 17 of 31

Figure 10. Most representative data on the decarbonization of the hot rolling mill and the contribution
of renewable sources.

Battery Storage Systems

Wind and photovoltaic systems rely on highly variable primary sources of energy
throughout the day and year. Therefore, to fully utilize the energy they generate, it is
essential to have energy-storage systems to stock energy during periods of low demand
and incorporate that energy into the grid during periods when energy generation does
not meet the demand. It is important to consider that the power demand from the rolling
mill also varies, depending on the position of the slab in the roughing and finishing mill.
During those hourly periods when the rolling mill stops to change the rolls or simply
due to production needs, the energy generated can exceed the energy consumed. To
take advantage of the possible energy generated during these periods of stoppage or low
demand, it is proposed to transfer this surplus to the energy-storage system.
The power-generation unit based on the utilization of residual gases would be man-
ageable, just like the storage system.

Upgrading of the Rolling Mill Drives

The transformation of the electrical system of the rolling mill, within the framework
of decarbonization, is not only based on the incorporation of renewable energy generation
systems, but also considers an update of the drives of each of the rolling mill stands,
replacing the classic drives based on cycloconverters by multilevel back-to-back converters
with active rectification stages capable of controlling the facility’s displacement factor,
minimizing harmonic distortion and even helping to cancel pre-existing distortion rates,
and with inverter stages capable of performing regenerative braking. Between the two
converters, there is a DC bus operating under standardized voltage. In this way, the DC
bus is connected to the existing DC distribution circuit in the plant. The remodeling of a
traditional hot rolling mill plant by incorporating new technology into its mill drives makes
it possible to improve the efficiency and productivity thanks to (a) the elimination of the
passive filtering stages responsible for maximizing the displacement factor and minimizing
the harmonic distortion rate in the classic installation based on cycloconverters; (b) the
dynamic adjustment of the reactive injection/demand according to the reactive setpoints
integrated in the facility, which would allow the reactive flows to be canceled, leading
to a reduction in the rms current value and therefore a reduction in the losses and an
adjustment in the voltage according to the setpoint conditions; and (c) an improvement
in the efficiency of the AC/AC conversion and improvement in the controllability of the
driven synchronous motor [118].
Figure 11 illustrates the integration of the proposed new topologies into the electrical
installation to address the system updates that facilitate all the previously mentioned
improvements in efficiency and productivity.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 18 of 31

Figure 11. New topology of the roughing and finishing mill drives in the hot rolling mill.

Integration of Renewable Energy Sources into the Distribution Network

To facilitate the integration of solar power plants, wind power systems, and energy-
storage systems, it is proposed that AC and DC distribution systems be deployed simulta-
neously. To this end, two types of distribution networks are built, one in DC and the other
one in AC. The objective is twofold. On the one hand, unnecessary DC/AC transformations
are avoided, which would subsequently require AC/DC conversions, thus improving the
performance of the installation by reducing losses and eliminating maintenance costs. On
the other hand, the DC distribution network to which the storage system is connected
might have a direct connection to the DC bus of the back-to-back converters of the rolling
mill drives, offering backup in the event of anomalies in the AC distribution network
(such as a voltage sag) and a more efficient distribution network of energy recovery during
braking processes.
Figure 12 depicts the integration of the proposed electrical systems with the back-to-
back converters of the rolling mill in a simplified manner, using a DC bus.

Figure 12. Distribution networks that allow for the integration of the electrical systems that take part
in the new rolling mill.

Energy-Management Optimization
The need for the correct management of the grid’s energy resources requires a control
system that charges the storage batteries when surplus power is generated. This same
control stage will facilitate the discharge of this available stored energy in those periods
of time when power demand exceeds generation. Additionally, the storage system can
perform load leveling or frequency-regulation tasks.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 19 of 31

Similarly, reactive power management is also possible, considering the different sys-
tems that participate in the grid with the capacity to control this variable. With the new
configuration, it is possible to manage reactive power with the power margins of the
rolling stands, solar inverters, and DFIG-type wind turbines. The appropriate management
of reactive power can obey different setpoints: the minimization of losses in the distri-
bution network, minimization of voltage variations at certain nodes of the network, or
maximization of the displacement factor at the point of coupling to the network.
The management algorithms can be based on metaheuristic techniques, neural net-
works, or genetic algorithms. The reactive power references sent to the various dispatchable
elements in the virtual plant must be updated in a few seconds to maximize the positive
impact of this solution. Some studies have shown that it is possible to reduce the consump-
tion of losses in the distribution network of a steel plant by up to 20% by managing the
reactive power flow with such algorithms [115].

4.2.4. CO2 Emissions

CO2 emissions per kWh are determined by the primary energy source used in power
generation. Consequently, a wind farm emits 6 g of CO2 per kWh. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that the median life cycle emissions for
rooftop solar energy, based on peer-reviewed studies, stand at 41 g of CO2 -eq./kWh for
electricity production. Biomass (BM) is generally regarded as a carbon-neutral fuel source.
According to data released by the CNMC on 20 April 2022, the carbon emissions associated
with the Spanish electricity grid’s energy mix amount to 259 g CO2 -eq./kWh.
Carbon footprint estimates for high-temperature industrial heating distinguish emis-
sions according to the primary source. In the case of methane, the carbon footprint varies
depending on the efficiency (and age) of the different systems. The range in the variation is
between 200 and 330 g of CO2 -eq./kWh [155].
If it is considered that the 365 GWh of electrical energy consumed by the rolling mill
is provided by a distribution network that is supplied by the Spanish energy mix, this
365 GWh represents 94,535 t of CO2 -eq emitted annually. However, if 40.3% of this energy
is covered by wind energy (WF) (882.5 t CO2 -eq), 11% comes from the solar generator (PV)
(1646 t CO2 -eq), and 26.15% comes from the use of waste gases (WG) (23,862 t CO2 -eq), the
365 GWh would result in 26,390 t CO2 -eq. Thus, with this new energy-supply scheme, a
saving of 68,145 t CO2 -eq is achieved.
The 1100 GWh consumed by the reheating furnace is obtained from the natural gas
distribution network, amounting to 247,500 t CO2 -eq emitted annually. If the primary
source is replaced by electricity from renewable sources as described in Section 4.2.1,
1310 GWh would be required. With the same distribution ratio as in the previous section
(40.3% WF, 11% PV, 26.15% WG, and 23.88% BM), emissions of 86,152 t CO2 -eq would be
achieved (3167 t by WF; 5908 t by PV; and 77,077 t by WG). Thus, with this new energy-
supply scheme, a saving of 161,350 t CO2 eq is achieved. Overall, the emission savings
achieved are in the order of 229 kt CO2 -eq per year.

4.3. Use Case 2: DRI Production—CO2 Emissions and H2 Break-Even Price for H2 -DRI
The H2 break-even price is the maximum cost that H2 has to be to be competitive in the
scenario of the NG and CO2 selected. This study assumes the MIDREX™ process [156–160]
harnessing full H2 for the iron ore reduction; for heating requirements, we assume the use of
part of the purge, and for the remaining energy requirements, we assume the use of different
heat sources [161]. The NG-MIDREX™ process is the most widely used technology for
DRI production [162]. In this analysis, a portion of the exiting top gas in the shaft furnace,
following the water removal step in the scrubber, undergoes purging to serve as fuel for
heating the fresh reducing gas injected into the shaft. However, the purged gas alone does
not provide sufficient energy to heat the reducing gas entirely. To compensate for this
shortfall, additional energy is sourced from fuel or electricity. Table 4 illustrates a simplified
diagram depicting the gas flow, wherein a volume of gas is recycled, another portion is
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 20 of 31

consumed within the shaft furnace, and the remainder is purged for use in the heater.
Considering that some H2 is consumed during the process, it is replenished with fresh H2 .
Fresh H2 is not pure but rather part of a stream with its composition and characteristics.
Before proceeding with the analysis, it should be noted that the carbon (C) content of
DRI using 100% H2 as a reducing agent is virtually zero, which is a significant advantage in
terms of reducing carbon emissions in the steel industry. However, most EAF steelmakers
prefer to use DRI with a carbon content of 1.5–3% to have adequate conditions in the EAF
fusion process [160,163]. As the amount of H2 in the reduction increases, it is necessary to
add hydrocarbons somewhere in the process to achieve the required carbon levels. There
are several options for injecting natural gas into the DRI process [163,164]. By injecting
natural gas in appropriate percentages, the reduction conditions can be controlled and, as a
result, the carbon content of the final DRI can be adjusted [160,163].
The main carbon input in the DRI process with NG is through the NG used in gas
reduction or heating. In the case of H2 -based production, the main input is also via NG
for the carburization of DRI if this is used. Then, through this simple approximation, the
CO2 associated with the NG is calculated. The first step is to fix the composition of the NG.
Table 4 shows an example of a typical NG composition.

Table 4. NG composition [165–167].

Component Composition (%) Mass (kg) LHV * (MJ/Nm3 ) Element Mass (kg) Mass (%)
Nitrogen 0.03 0.84 12.6 N 0.8 0.05
Methane 91.21 1459.36 35.8 H 422.8 24
Ethane 6.43 192.9 63.73 C 1337.3 75.94
Propane 1.95 85.8 91.16
Butane 0.38 22 118.6
Total 100 1760.9 38,979.32 1760.9 100
* Lower heating value.

Several scenarios can be envisaged. The carbon content of DRI can vary between 1.5
and 3% [162]. Based on [81,156,160,163,164,168], the following assumptions are made:
• Around 10 GJ of NG is needed per ton of DRI.
• Data coming from Table 4:
a. The NG LHV is 38,979.32 MJ/Nm3 .
b. The NG density is 0.79 kg/Nm3 .
c. 75.94% is the NG carbon mass in %.
• In total, 1 mol of C is equal to 1 mol of CO2 .
• The ratio of kmol of CO2 to kg of CO2 is 44.
• H2 harnesses and electricity are green.
Table 5 shows the CO2 emissions for several scenarios that were studied. The first
three scenarios refer to DRI that uses NG for gas reduction and heating. Scenario 4 refers to
DRI considering a H2 -based production that uses NG to maintain the desired reduction
temperature [163]. Scenario 1: DRI containing 1.5% carbon corresponds to −15 kg C in the
DRI (the value is negative because the carbon stays inside the DRI, it does not “leave”).
Scenario 2: for DRI with 3.5% carbon, it is −35 kg C. Scenario 3: as the CO2 is finally released
to the atmosphere in the later steelmaking processes, the value set can be 0. Scenario 4: the
addition of 50 Nm3 /tDRI of NG for temperature control leads to a DRI carbon content of
approximately 1.4–1.7% in H2 -DRI production [160,163]. Equation (1) relates the volume of
NG used per ton of DRI, VolNG , to the ratio between the energy input of NG per ton of DRI,
ENG , and the LHV of the NG, dENG . Equation (2) then calculates the kilograms of NG per
ton of DRI by multiplying the equality by the density, ρNG . A similar exercise is carried out
to determine the mass of CO2 per ton of DRI. It is first necessary to determine the amount
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 21 of 31

of carbon present, which is dependent on the composition of the NG (see Table 4) and
the mass percentage of C extracted. To calculate the required mass of carbon (kg) for a
particular case, one can use the straightforward ratio of the mass of a compound or mixture
to the % mass of the element:
E
Vol NG = NG , (1)
dE NG
ENG
Vol NG ·r NG = ·r NG . (2)
dE NG

Table 5. CO2 associated with DRI.

GJ/tDRI Nm3 NG/tDRI kg NG/tDRI kg C/tDRI Scenario kg C in DRI Total C out kg CO2 /tDRI
1 −15 139.1 510
257 203 154.1 2 −35 119.1 437
10
3 0 154.1 565
50 40 30 4 −15 15 55

This simple approximation shows that by partially replacing NG with H2 , it is possible

to achieve a CO2 reduction of 89.2% per ton of DRI for DRI with a carbon content of 1.5%
(a comparison between scenario 2 and 4). The production of H2 -DRI with an appropriate
addition of NG results in DRI containing an acceptable percentage of carbon for steelmakers
whilst also significantly reducing CO2 emissions [163].
A comparative analysis of the MIDREX™ process with H2 instead of NG is presented.
Three key parameters are considered: the NG amount, which is substituted by H2 ; the CO2
emissions associated with this NG; and finally, the H2 cost per kg. Based on the literature
reviewed [79–81,84,156,158,163,168], the following assumptions are made:
• Around 10 GJ of NG is needed per each DRI ton. NG prices usually oscillate between
1 and 12 EUR/GJ [169].
• CO2 prices oscillate between 0 and 100 EUR/tCO2 [93], and per GJ of NG, 56 kg of CO2
is associated, considering 257 Nm3 NG/tDRI , 1 mol C = 1 mol CO2 , and around 500 kg
of CO2/tDRI .
• A total of 550 Nm3 H2 /tDRI is fixed. Additionally, up to 250 Nm3 H2 /tDRI or other
heat sources, e.g., NG or electricity, are required as fuel for the reduction gas heater.
• H2 harnesses and electricity for heating is green; therefore, no CO2 emissions are
associated.
• The theoretical energy required for H2 heating is set to 450 kWh/tDRI (considering that
the electrical heating efficiency is 85%, 530 kWh/tDRI , using gas and with an efficiency
of 60%, 750 kWh/tDRI is needed).
• The cost of electricity is set at 100 EUR/MWh.
Applying a relation between H2 , the price of electricity, the NG required per ton of DRI,
and the associated CO2 , Equation (3) is obtained. Then, by adjusting (3) as a function of H2 ,
a ratio of euro/kg H2 is acquired. Based on the literature [160,163,164] and using NG as a
reference, replacing NG with H2 in the process results in reduced electricity consumption:

H2 required tDRI + ∆ ElectricityNG-H2 per tDRI = NG required per tDRI + CO2 associated per GJNG . (3)
Tables 6 and 7 provide the required information to calculate the price of H2 according
to Equation (3) and perform the analyses presented. Figures 13 and 14 show the various
scenarios discussed in this section.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 22 of 31

Table 6. Energy and gas flow required for different DRI production processes [160,163,164].

H2 with NG as Fuel 100% H2 with 100% H2 with

Energy 100% NG
(1.5% C in DRI) Only H2 as Fuel Only Electrical Heating
NG process (GJ/tDRI ) 7.5–7.9 - -
NG fuel (GJ/tDRI ) 1 2.1–2.9 2–2.5 -
H2 process (GJ/tDRI ) - 6.1–7 5.9 5.9
H2 fuel (GJ/tDRI ) 1 - - 2.7 -
Electricity (kWh/tDRI ) 2 90–135 80–125 80–125 530–620
tCO2 /GJ NG 0.0565 0.0565 -
The gas flow required
255–300 60 (NG)/600 (H2 ) 800 550
(Nm3 /tDRI )
1 Efficiency 60%. 2 Efficiency 85% for heating, including auxiliary needs.

Table 7. Comparison between NG-DRI and H2 -DRI with NG to guarantee 1.5% DRI C content.

H2 with NG as Fuel
Energy 100% NG Comparison
(1.5% C in DRI)
NG process (GJ/tDRI ) 7.7 - -
NG fuel (GJ/tDRI ) 2.5 2.1 0.4
H2 process (GJ/tDRI ) - 6.5 -
H2 fuel (GJ/tDRI ) - - -
Total NG (GJ/tDRI ) 10.2 2.1 8.1
Total H2 (kg/tDRI ) 1 - 54.2 -
Electricity (kWh/tDRI ) 120 90 30
1 0.12 GJ per kg is considered [170].

Figure 13. Simplified H2 DRI diagram with heater and electricity for heating [156,158,160,163].

Figure 14. Simplified DRI diagram with a fuel heater [156,158,160,163].

Energies 2023, 16, 7360 23 of 31

Table 8 shows the H2 break-even price results for the comparison between 100% NG
and H2 with NG as fuel. This exercise helps in identifying the highest cost at which H2
should be available, based on the price of NG and CO2 , to produce DRI with a percentage
of carbon that is acceptable to those involved in steel production.

Table 8. H2 break-even price for H2 -DRI with NG as fuel providing DRI 1.5% carbon content.

NG Price (EUR/GJ) CO2 Price (EUR/tCO2 )

0 20 40 60 80 100
1 0.20 0.37 0.54 0.71 0.87 1.04
2 0.35 0.52 0.69 0.86 1.02 1.19
3 0.50 0.67 0.84 1.01 1.17 1.34
4 0.65 0.82 0.99 1.16 1.32 1.49
5 0.80 0.97 1.14 1.30 1.47 1.64
6 0.95 1.12 1.29 1.45 1.62 1.79
7 1.10 1.27 1.44 1.60 1.77 1.94
8 1.25 1.42 1.59 1.75 1.92 2.09
9 1.40 1.57 1.74 1.90 2.07 2.24
10 1.55 1.72 1.88 2.05 2.22 2.39
11 1.70 1.87 2.03 2.20 2.37 2.54
12 1.85 2.02 2.18 2.35 2.52 2.69

The cost of green hydrogen is currently 3.5–5 USD/kg, but projections suggest it
could be around 1.8 EUR/kg by 2030 [44,54,87]. Green hydrogen production costs for 2050
vary from 17 EUR/MWh to 84 EUR/MWh [82]. In comparison, grey hydrogen costs 1 to
2 EUR/kg H2 , while electrolysis-based hydrogen ranges from 3 to 6 USD/kg H2 [9,87]. For
ArcelorMittal, achieving green hydrogen costs of 1.5 EUR/kg through initiatives like the
Hydeal consortium [171] is crucial for competitive steel [44]. This value of 1.5 EUR/kg puts
the focus on the middle of Table 8 to set the price limit values for NG and CO2 at 7 EUR/GJ
and 60 EUR/t, respectively.

5. Conclusions
The steel industry is at a crucial turning point, driven by the challenges of overcapacity
and the imperative to address climate change by meeting the EU, USA, and China’s carbon
targets. As a significant contributor to global CO2 emissions, decarbonization in the steel-
making sector has become a priority. In this context, the present work reviews the existing
steel production pathways, highlighting their current limitations and comparing them in
terms of CO2 emissions versus production levels according to the current global situation.
For a complete evaluation and contextualization, an extensive bibliography is analyzed to
show in a clear and forceful way the decarbonization paths that are and will be considered
in the steel industry. After presenting the technologies that have been implemented, their
level of impact is assessed and compared under different scenarios, providing a clear vision
of the prospects and the impact they will have. For the three main pillars, scrap utilization,
hydrogen, and electricity consumption, a more in-depth assessment is presented, supported
by a review of the main industrial–scientific contributions. Conversely, the article suggests
that achieving carbon neutrality requires navigating complex technical, economic, and
regulatory landscapes. CO2 emissions are significantly influenced by the EU ETS and have
the potential to have an impact on them. Implementing the CBAM as a substitute for free
emission allowances could prove advantageous for the steel industry. These topics are also
explored in detail.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 24 of 31

Major steel manufacturers have set out ambitious goals to achieve carbon neutrality,
requiring a comprehensive review of the industry’s operations. This article assesses the
decarbonization roadmap proposed for leading steel producers, emphasizing strategies
to be implemented in the short, medium, and long term. These include measures such
as increasing the use of ferrous scrap and its characterization, improving the process’s
energy efficiency, and the gradual integration of hydrogen. While hydrogen is a promising
abatement alternative, its widespread adoption depends on the evolution of energy markets,
the dynamics of CO2 taxation, technological developments, and availability.
In addition to hydrogen, there are alternative decarbonization technologies, including
near-net-shape casting, smelter reduction, and iron ore electrolysis, which can result in
significant emission reductions and energy savings. These technologies, each with their
own TRL, are presented in this paper and demonstrate their potential to reduce emissions
and save energy.
Two specific use cases are explored in the text. The first pertains to the hot rolling mill,
which implements new methodologies for electricity, such as renewable energy sources,
battery storage, advanced drives, innovative distribution systems, and optimized energy
management. This use case also considers the energy necessary to produce H2 for the
reheating furnace. On the other hand, the second use case addresses the production of DRI
incorporating H2 . All of this provides important ways to further reduce emissions. The
first approach for the case of the rolling mill, which is connected to the reheating furnace
mentioned earlier, achieves an emissions savings of 229 kt CO2 -eq per year, which involves
the rolling mill’s annual electricity consumption of 365 GWh/year. For the second case,
the analysis shows that for DRI production in which NG is partially replaced with H2 ,
providing an energy of 10 GJ/tDRI , a CO2 reduction of more than 90% per ton of DRI with
a carbon content of about 1.5% occurs. For this case, the studies end with an analysis of
the result of the equilibrium price of H2, comparing a typical DRI production with 100%
NG and H2 with NG as fuel. A price of 7 EUR/GJ NG and 60 EUR/t CO2 are justified so
that the steel produced is competitive. These accomplishments represent a significant step
forward in the decarbonization of the industry.
The steel industry’s journey toward decarbonization involves a complicated mix of
technological innovation, economic realignment, and sustainable energy sourcing. To
achieve carbon neutrality, the principal steel producers must carefully negotiate delicate
technical, economic, and regulatory landscapes. Continuous advancements, collaborative
efforts, and adaptive strategies are necessary to pursue sustainable steel production and to
align with global climate objectives for a more environmentally responsible future.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.R.D. and G.A.O.; methodology, J.R.D. and G.A.O.;
formal analysis, J.R.D. and G.A.O.; investigation, J.R.D. and G.A.O.; resources, J.R.D., A.V., J.R. and
G.A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R.D., S.T.-T., G.A.O. and A.V.; writing—review and
editing, J.R.D., G.A.O., S.T.-T., A.V. and J.R.; visualization, J.R.D. and S.T.-T.; supervision, J.R.D.,
G.A.O., S.T.-T., A.V. and J.R.; project administration, G.A.O.; funding acquisition, G.A.O. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Spanish Government, MCIN/AEI/FEDER, and the EU
under grants PID2021-122704OB-I00 and TED2021-131498B-I00.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the ArcelorMittal Global Basque Country
Research Center, University of Oviedo, and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness,
within the framework of the National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation, for
their technical and financial support during this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 25 of 31

Abbreviations

AFOLU Agriculture, forestry, and land use

BAT Best Available Technique
BF Blast furnace
BFG Blast furnace gas
BM Biomass
BOF Basic oxygen furnace
C Carbon
CBAM Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
CCS Carbon capture and storage
CCU Carbon capture and usage
CCUS Carbon capture, utilization, and storage
CDA Carbon direct avoidance
COG Coke oven gas
DC Direct current
DR Direct reduction
DRI Direct reduced iron
EAF Electric arc furnace
ETS Emissions Trading Scheme
EU European Union
EU ETS European Union Emissions Trading System
GHG Greenhouse gases
H2 Hydrogen
HBI Hot Briquetted Iron
IEA International Energy Agency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCFFES Low-carbon fuels, feedstocks, and energy sources
LHV Lower heating value
LTS US Long-Term Strategy
NG Natural gas
PSH Peak sun hours
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
PV Solar generator
SCU Smart carbon utilization
SMR Steam methane reforming
SRF Solid recovered fuel
TBD To Be Defined
TRL Technology Readiness Level
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
WF Wind energy
WG Waste gases

References
1. Beck, A.; Unterluggauer, J.; Helminger, F.; Solís-Gallego, I. Decarbonisation Pathways for the Finishing Line in a Steel Plant and
Their Implications for Heat Recovery Measures. Energies 2023, 16, 852. [CrossRef]
2. International Energy Agency. Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap—Towards a More Sustainable Steelmaking; IEA: Paris, France, 2020.
3. Draxler, M.; Sormann, A.; Kempken, T.; Hauck, T.; Pierret, J.-C.; Borlee, J.; Di Donato, A.; De Santis, M.; Wang, C. Technology
Assesment and Roadmapping (Deliverable 1.2); Green Steel for Europe Consortium: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
4. Mandova, H.; Patrizio, P.; Leduc, S.; Kjärstad, J.; Wang, C.; Wetterlund, E.; Kraxner, F.; Gale, W. Achieving Carbon-Neutral Iron
and Steelmaking in Europe through the Deployment of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218,
118–129. [CrossRef]
5. Kim, Y.; Worrell, E. International Comparison of CO2 Emission Trends in the Iron and Steel Industry. Energy Policy 2002, 30,
827–838. [CrossRef]
6. Worlsteel Association. 2022 World Steel in Figures; World Steel Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 26 of 31

7. European Commission; European Research Executive Agency; Vu, H.; Cecchin, F.; Iacob, N.; Stroia, C. Climate-Neutral Steelmaking
in Europe: Decarbonisation Pathways, Investment Needs, Policy Conditions, Recommendations; Stroia, C., Iacob, N., Eds.; Publications
Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022.
8. Somers, J. Technologies to Decarbonise the EU Steel Industry; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxemburg, 2022.
9. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050; U.S. Energy Information Adminis-
tration: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
10. U.S. Department of Energy. Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007—Mitigation of Climate Change; Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2007.
12. Direct CO2 Emissions from Industry in the Net Zero Scenario, 2000–2030—Charts—Data & Statistics. Available online: https:
//www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/direct-co2-emissions-from-industry-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2000-2030 (accessed on
21 October 2023).
13. Campbell-Davis, R.; Graham, A.; Witteveen, M.; Gamage, C.; Hutchinson, L. Net-Zero Steel. Sector Transition Strategy; Mission
Possible Partnership: 2021. Available online: https://missionpossiblepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/MPP-Steel-
Transition-Strategy-2021.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2023).
14. Ritchie, H.; Rosado, P.; Roser, M. Emissions by Sector; Our World in Data: Oxford, UK, 2023.
15. Sun, Y.; Tian, S.; Ciais, P.; Zeng, Z.; Meng, J.; Zhang, Z. Decarbonising the Iron and Steel Sector for a 2 ◦ C Target Using Inherent
Waste Streams. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 297. [CrossRef]
16. The European Steel Association (EUROFER). Low Carbon Roadmap Pathways to a CO2-Neutral European Steel Industry; The European
Steel Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
17. Bazo, M. Nuevas Rutas Comerciales y Aranceles al Acero: La UE le Planta Cara a China. Available online: https://logistica.
cdecomunicacion.es/sector-logistico/134636/nuevo-corredor-aranceles-acero-ue-china (accessed on 21 October 2023).
18. Aplauden la Imposición de Arancel de 25% al Acero Asiático. Available online: https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/empresas/20
23/08/17/aplauden-la-imposicion-de-arancel-de-25-al-acero-asiatico/ (accessed on 21 October 2023).
19. European Union. EU Climate Target Plan 2030—Building a Modern, Sustainable and Resilient Europe; European Union: Brussels,
Belgium, 2020.
20. Koolen, D.; Vidovik, D. Greenhouse Gas Intensities of the EU Steel Industry and Its Trading Partners; Publications Office of the
European Union: Luxembourg, 2022.
21. ArcelorMittal. Climate Action Report 1; ArcelorMittal: Luxembourg, 2019.
22. Making Net-Zero Steel Possible. An Industry-Backed, 1.5 ◦ C—Aligned Transition Strategy; Mission Possible Partnership: 2022.
Available online: https://missionpossiblepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Making-Net-Zero-Aviation-possible.
pdf (accessed on 21 October 2023).
23. Hölling, M. Decarbonising the Energy Intensive Steel Industry by Usage of Hydrogen—Technological and Economical Aspects.
In Proceedings of the Hydrogen & Fuel Cells Energy Summit 2019, Madrid, Spain, 6–7 February 2019.
24. Hasanbeigi, A.; Springer, C. How Clean Is the U.S. Steel Industry? An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities; Global
Efficiency Intelligence: São Francisco, CA, USA, 2019.
25. Ministry of Steel. Government of India Annual Report 2020–2021. Available online: https://steel.gov.in/sites/default/files/
Annual%20Report-Ministry%20of%20Steel%202020-21.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2023).
26. Toktarova, A.; Karlsson, I.; Rootzén, J.; Göransson, L.; Odenberger, M.; Johnsson, F. Pathways for Low-Carbon Transition of the
Steel Industry—A Swedish Case Study. Energies 2020, 13, 3840. [CrossRef]
27. Vercoulen, P.; Lee, S.; Han, X.; Zhang, W.; Cho, Y.; Pang, J. Carbon-Neutral Steel Production and Its Impact on the Economies of
China, Japan, and Korea: A Simulation with E3ME-FTT:Steel. Energies 2023, 16, 4498. [CrossRef]
28. Kim, J.; Sovacool, B.K.; Bazilian, M.; Griffiths, S.; Lee, J.; Yang, M.; Lee, J. Decarbonizing the Iron and Steel Industry: A Systematic
Review of Sociotechnical Systems, Technological Innovations, and Policy Options. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 89, 102565.
[CrossRef]
29. Gajdzik, B.; Wolniak, R.; Grebski, W. Process of Transformation to Net Zero Steelmaking: Decarbonisation Scenarios Based on the
Analysis of the Polish Steel Industry. Energies 2023, 16, 3384. [CrossRef]
30. Harpprecht, C.; Naegler, T.; Steubing, B.; Tukker, A.; Simon, S. Decarbonization Scenarios for the Iron and Steel Industry in
Context of a Sectoral Carbon Budget: Germany as a Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 134846. [CrossRef]
31. Suer, J.; Traverso, M.; Jäger, N. Carbon Footprint Assessment of Hydrogen and Steel. Energies 2022, 15, 9468. [CrossRef]
32. Digiesi, S.; Mummolo, G.; Vitti, M. Minimum Emissions Configuration of a Green Energy–Steel System: An Analytical Model.
Energies 2022, 15, 3324. [CrossRef]
33. Arens, M.; Worrell, E.; Eichhammer, W.; Hasanbeigi, A.; Zhang, Q. Pathways to a Low-Carbon Iron and Steel Industry in the
Medium-Term—the Case of Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, 84–98. [CrossRef]
34. Bataille, C.; Åhman, M.; Neuhoff, K.; Nilsson, L.J.; Fischedick, M.; Lechtenböhmer, S.; Solano-Rodriquez, B.; Denis-Ryan,
A.; Stiebert, S.; Waisman, H.; et al. A Review of Technology and Policy Deep Decarbonization Pathway Options for Making
Energy-Intensive Industry Production Consistent with the Paris Agreement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 960–973. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 27 of 31

35. Fischedick, M.; Marzinkowski, J.; Winzer, P.; Weigel, M. Techno-Economic Evaluation of Innovative Steel Production Technologies.
J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 84, 563–580. [CrossRef]
36. Energiewende, A.; Institute, W. Breakthrough Strategies for Climate-Neutral Industry in Europe: Policy and Technology; Smart Energy
for Europe Platform (SEFEP) gGmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2021.
37. Bloomberg NEF. Decarbonizing Steel: Technologies and Costs; Bloomberg NEF: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
38. Mission Possible: Reaching Net-Zero Carbon Emissions from Harder-to-Abate Sectors. 2018. Available online: https://www.
energy-transitions.org/publications/mission-possible/ (accessed on 11 June 2023).
39. Fleiter, T.; Arens, M.; Herbst, A.; Rehfeldt, M. Industrial Innovation: Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation of Industry. Part 2: Scenario
Analysis and Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation; ICF: Lexington, KY, USA, 2019.
40. Agency, I.E.; Kueppers, M.; Hodgson, D.; Levi, P.; Vass, T.; Lechtenbohmer, T. IEA 2022, Iron and Steel; IEA: Paris, France, 2022.
41. Material Economics. Industrial Transformation 2050 Industrial Transformation 2050. 2019. Available online: https:
//materialeconomics.com/material-economics-industrial-transformation-2050.pdf?cms_fileid=303ee49891120acc9ea3d13bbd4
98d13 (accessed on 11 June 2023).
42. McKinsey. Decarbonization of Industrial Sectors: The Next Frontier; McKinsey: London, UK, 2018.
43. European Commission. Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy: Building a Stronger Single Market for Europe’s Recovery; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
44. ArcelorMittal. Climate Action Report 2; ArcelorMittal: Luxembourg, 2021.
45. Tata Steel. Carbon Neutral Steelmaking Is a Major Challenge for the Steel Industry Worldwide; Tata Steel: London, UK, 2022.
46. Tata Steel. Tata Steel Opts for Hydrogen Route at Its IJmuiden Steelworks; Tata Steel Group: London, UK, 2021.
47. Tata Steel. Transformation of the Steel Industry Can Become a Successful Model for the Transition to Climate Neutrality. Avail-
able online: https://www.tatasteeleurope.com/corporate/news/tata-steel-opts-for-hydrogen-route-at-its-ijmuiden-steelworks
(accessed on 11 June 2023).
48. Thyssenkrupp. Transformation of the Steel Industry Can Become a Successful Model for the Transition to Climate Neutrality.
Available online: https://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/pressdetailpage/transformation-of-the-steel-
industry-can-become-a-successful-model-for-the-transition-to-climate-neutrality-113235 (accessed on 11 June 2023).
49. Register, U.S.A.F. Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad; Executive Office of the
President: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
50. United States Department of State and the United States Executive Office of the President. The Long-Term Strategy of the United
States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050; Executive Office of the President: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
51. Kempken, T.; Hauck, T.; Wang, C.; Santis, M.; Szulc, W.; Draxler, M.; Sormann, A.; Queipo, P.; Miranda, M.; Croon, D.; et al.
Decarbonisation Pathways 2030 and 2050 (Deliverable D1.7); Green Steel for Europe Consortium: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
52. Green Steel Tracker. Available online: https://www.industrytransition.org/green-steel-tracker/ (accessed on 11 June 2023).
53. Toktarova, A.; Göransson, L.; Johnsson, F. Design of Clean Steel Production with Hydrogen: Impact of Electricity System
Composition. Energies 2021, 14, 8349. [CrossRef]
54. United States Energy Information Administration. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS): 2018 MECS Survey Data;
United States Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
55. Vicente, A. Ferrous Scrap—A Key Factor in Steel Decarbonization; Steel Times International: Guildford, UK, 2022.
56. Improve the EAF Scrap Route for a Sustainable Value Chain in the EU Circular Economy Scenario. Roadmap. An Evolution Document for a
Strategic Look to the Future of European EAF Steelmaking; ESTEP: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
57. CirculArity Enhancements by Low Quality Scrap Analysis and Refinement; Horizon Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
58. de la Peña, B.; Iriondo, A.; Galletebeitia, A.; Gutierrez, A.; Rodriguez, J.; Lluvia, I.; Vicente, A. Toward the Decarbonization of
the Steel Sector: Development of an Artificial Intelligence Model Based on Hyperspectral Imaging at Fully Automated Scrap
Characterization for Material Upgrading Operations. Steel Res. Int. 2023. [CrossRef]
59. ArcelorMittal. ALTXOR. Proceso Robotizado Optimizado Para Mejorar La Calidad de Chatarras de Acero; ArcelorMittal: Luxembourg,
2023.
60. Nogueira, C.A.; Trancoso, M.A.; Pedrosa, F.; Crujeira, A.T.; Oliveira, P.C.; Gonçalves, A.M.; Margarido, F.; Santos, R.N.; Durão, F.;
Guimarães, C. The Role of Automated Sorting in the Recovery of Aluminium Alloys Waste. In Wastes: Solutions, Treatments and
Opportunities; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
61. Margarido, F.; Santos, R.N.; Durão, F.; Guimarães, C.; Nogueira, C.; Oliveira, P.; Pedrosa, F.; Gonçalves, A.M. Separation of
Non-Ferrous Frations of Shredded End-of-Life Vehicles for Valorising Its Alloys. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the
International Conference on Mining, Material and Metallurgical Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, 11–12 August 2014.
62. Vicente Rojo, A. New Methods for Ferrous Raw Materials Characterization in Electric Steelmaking; Universidad del País Vasco: Bilbao,
Spain, 2020.
63. Vicente, A.; Picon, A.; Barco, E. New Method for Estimating the Economic Penalties of Ferrous Scraps in the Steelmaking Industry
Due to Material Degradation during Its Storage in Scrap Yards. Ironmak. Steelmak. 2020, 47, 473–481. [CrossRef]
64. Rodríguez, D.J.; Vicente, A.; Jaras, R.; Sorrosal, G.; Arteche, J.A.; Lago, R.A. Digital Solution for Optimazing Scrap Yard
Management. 2023. Available online: https://imis.aist.org/store/detail.aspx?id=PR-387-082 (accessed on 11 June 2023).
65. ArcelorMittal HYPER-DEEPSCRAP. Clasificador Avanzado de Residuos Procedente Del Tratamiento de Chatarra Férrica de Acería;
ArcelorMittal: Luxembourg, 2021.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 28 of 31

66. Le Coq, X.; Russo, P. Birat Quality of Heavy Market Scrap—Development of New and Simple Methods for Quality Assessment and Quality
Improvement: Final Report; European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
67. Trancoso, M.A.; Nogueira, C.; Calisto, S. Validation and Setting up Quality Control for Characterization of Aluminum Alloys in
Non-Ferrous Fraction of Auto-Shredders. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1762. [CrossRef]
68. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Grieco, R.; Zani, M.; Bengtson, A.; Brunk, M.; Noll, R.;
Appell, A.; Gurell, J.; Chiarotti, U.; et al. Inline Elemental Characterisation of Scrap Charging for Improved EAF Charging Control and
Internal Scrap Recycling (IPRO); Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2015.
69. Nuñez, E.; Priyadarshi, H.; Picco, A.; Vicente, A. New Methodology for Estimating the Influence of Cu Content of Ferrous Scrap
Materials in the Total Cost of Operation (TCO) of Scrap Mix in Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking. In Proceedings of the EASES
(European Academic Symposium on EAF Steelmaking), Oulu, Finland, 5 June 2023.
70. Armellini, D.; Ometto, M.; Ponton, C. 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2022.
71. Bavestrelli, G. AISTech 2023. In Proceedings of the Iron & Steel Technology Conference, Detroit, MI, USA, 8–11 May 2023.
72. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Pierre, R.; Ansseau, O.; Pierret, J.; Gutierrez, J.; Frittella,
P.; Unamuno, I.; Milling, O. Optimization of Scrap Charge Management and Related Process Adaptation for Performances Improvement
and Cost Reduction (OPTISCRAPMANAGE): Final Report; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2021.
73. AUTOMATIA—Soluciones de Inteligencia Artificial Para La Automatización y Control de Sistemas y Procesos Productivos
(ZE-2020/00032) 2022. Available online: https://www.hinegroup.com/es/innovacion/proyectos-hazitek/ (accessed on 11
June 2023).
74. Romagnoli, S.; Tarabu, C.; Maleki Vishkaei, B.; De Giovanni, P. The Impact of Digital Technologies and Sustainable Practices on
Circular Supply Chain Management. Logistics 2023, 7, 1. [CrossRef]
75. SCHROTT24 GMBH Scrap Dealing in the Digital Age: A Transparent and Efficient Platform for Price and Supply Chain
Management. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/816314 (accessed on 25 June 2023).
76. Miletic, I.; Garbaty, R.; Waterfall, S.; Mathewson, M. Model-based optimization of scrap steel purchasing. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2007, 40,
263–266. [CrossRef]
77. Dock, J.; Wallner, S.; Traupmann, A.; Kienberger, T. Provision of Demand-Side Flexibility through the Integration of Power-to-Gas
Technologies in an Electric Steel Mill. Energies 2022, 15, 5815. [CrossRef]
78. Bampaou, M.; Panopoulos, K.; Seferlis, P.; Sasiain, A.; Haag, S.; Wolf-Zoellner, P.; Lehner, M.; Rog, L.; Rompalski, P.; Kolb, S.; et al.
Economic Evaluation of Renewable Hydrogen Integration into Steelworks for the Production of Methanol and Methane. Energies
2022, 15, 4650. [CrossRef]
79. International Energy Agency (IEA). The Future of Hydrogen; IEA: Paris, France, 2019.
80. International Renewable Energy (IRENA). Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction: Scaling up Electrolysers to Meet the 1.5 ◦ C Climate Goal;
IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020.
81. IEA. Global Hydrogen Review 2022; IEA: Paris, France, 2022.
82. Turner, L.A.; Delasalle, F.; Kettleborough, I.; Wagner, A.; Hall, A.; Atreya, M.; Graham, A.; Mazzanti, T.; Meldrum, M.; Morrison,
H.; et al. Making the Hydrogen Economy Possible: Accelerating Clean Hydrogen in an Electrified Economy; Mission Possible Partnership,
Energy Transitions Commission: Leusden, The Netherlands, 2021.
83. IEA—International Energy Agency. Available online: https://www.iea.org (accessed on 25 June 2023).
84. Hölling, M.; Gellert, S. Direct Reduction: Transition from Natural Gas to Hydrogen? ASMET: Viena, Austria, 2018.
85. Cheng, W.; Lee, S. How Green Are the National Hydrogen Strategies? Sustainability 2022, 14, 1930. [CrossRef]
86. World Energy Council, in Collaboration with EPRI and PwC World Energy Council. National Hydrogen Strategies 2021; World
Energy Council: London, UK, 2021.
87. Pawelec, G.; Muron, M.; Bracht, J.; Boonet-Cantalloube, B.; Floristean, A.; Brahy, N. Hydrogen Europe. Clean Hydrogen Monitor 2020;
Hydrogen Europe Intelligence Department: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
88. European Commission. A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
89. Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (MITERD). Hoja de Ruta Del Hidrógeno: Una Apuesta Por El
Hidrógeno Renovable; Ministry for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MITERD): Madrid, Spain, 2020.
90. The European Hydrogen Backbone (EHB) Initiative|EHB European Hydrogen Backbone. Available online: https://www.ehb.eu/
(accessed on 11 June 2023).
91. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States Energy Sector;
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
92. European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electriciy (ENTSO-E). Electricity in Europe 2017: Synthetic Overview of
Electric System Consumption, Generation and Exchanges in 34 European Countries; ENTSO-E: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
93. Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets 2022; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
94. European Commission. European Green Deal: Delivering on Our Targets; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
95. Kempken, T.; Hauck, T.; Santis, M.D.; Rodriguez, P.Q.; Miranda, M.; Gonzalez, D.; Simonelli, F.; Vu, H.; Szulc, W.; Croon, D.; et al.
Collection of Possible Decarbonisation Barriers; Green Steel for Europe Consortium: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
96. EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) 2022; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 29 of 31

97. Stede, J.; Pauliuk, S.; Hardadi, G.; Neuhoff, K. Carbon Pricing of Basic Materials: Incentives and Risks for the Value Chain and
Consumers. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107168. [CrossRef]
98. Establishing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/
?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0564 (accessed on 25 June 2023).
99. Ember. EU Carbon Price Tracker; Ember: Galston, UK, 2022.
100. World Steel Association. Climate Change and the Production of Iron and Steel; World Steel Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
101. European Commission 2050 Long-Term Strategy. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/climate-strategies-
targets/2050-long-term-strategy_en (accessed on 25 June 2023).
102. Mallapaty, S. How China Could Be Carbon Neutral by Mid-Century. Nature 2020, 586, 482–483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. China Baowu Steel Group Corporation Limited. Corporate Social Responsibility Report; China Baowu Steel Group Corporation
Limited: Shanghai, China, 2020.
104. ArcelorMittal. ArcelorMittal Integrated Annual Review 2021; ArcelorMittal: Luxembourg, 2021.
105. Nippon Steel. Nippon Steel Sustainability Report 2021; Nippon Steel Corporation: Tokyo, Japan, 2021.
106. POSCO Corporate. Citizenship Report 2020; POSCO: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2020.
107. SALCOS Saltziger. Available online: https://salcos.salzgitter-ag.com/en/index.html?no_cache=1 (accessed on 25 June 2023).
108. Tata Steel. Tata Steel in Europe Sustainability Report 2019/2020; Tata Steel Europe Limited: Ijmuiden, The Netherlands, 2020.
109. Voestalpine Corporate. Responsability Report 2020; Voestalpine AG: Linz, Austria, 2020.
110. García Higuera, A.; Van Woensel, L. Carbon-Free Steel Production: Cost Reduction Options and Usage of Existing Gas Infrastructure;
European Parliamentary Research Service: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
111. Chan, Y.; Petithuguenin, L.; Fleiter, T.; Herbst, A.; Arens, M.; Stevenson, P. Industrial Innovation: Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation of
Industry. Part 1: Technology Analysis; ICF Consulting Services Limited and Fraunhofer ISI: London, UK, 2019.
112. U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Office. Manufacturing Energy and Carbon Footprint: All Manufacturing (2018
MECS); U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
113. Otto, A.; Robinius, M.; Grube, T.; Schiebahn, S.; Praktiknjo, A.; Stolten, D. Power-to-Steel: Reducing CO2 through the Integration
of Renewable Energy and Hydrogen into the German Steel Industry. Energies 2017, 10, 451. [CrossRef]
114. Orcajo, G.A.; Pedrayes, F.; Cano, J.M.; Norniella, J.G.; Rojas, C.H.; Rodríguez, J. Voltage Sag Ride-Through in a Joint Installation of
a Hot Rolling Mill Plant and a Wind Farm. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2023, 59, 5190–5200. [CrossRef]
115. Orcajo, G.A.; Diez, J.R.; Cano, J.M.; Norniella, J.G.; Pedrayes González, J.F.; Rojas, C.H. Coordinated Management of Electrical
Energy in a Steelworks and a Wind Farm. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2022, 58, 5488–5502. [CrossRef]
116. Rodríguez, D.J.; Alonso Orcajo, G.; Cano, J.M.; GNorniella, J.; Vicente, A. Thermal Analysis of Dry-Type Air-Core Coils for the
Optimization of Passive Filtering Systems. Energies 2020, 13, 4540. [CrossRef]
117. Alonso Orcajo, G.A.; Rodríguez Diez, J.; Cano, J.M.; Norniella, J.G.; Pedrayes González, J.F.; Rojas, C.H.; Ardura, G.P.; Cifrián,
R.D. Enhancement of Power Quality in an Actual Hot Rolling Mill Plant Through a STATCOM. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2020, 56,
3238–3249. [CrossRef]
118. Orcajo, G.A.; Rodríguez, J.; Cano, J.M.; Norniella, J.G.; Ardura, P.; Llera, R.; Cifrián, D. Retrofit of a Hot Rolling Mill Plant with
Three-Level Active Front End Drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2018, 54, 2964–2974. [CrossRef]
119. Orcajo, G.A.; Ardura, P.; Rodríguez, J.; Cano, J.M.; Norniella, J.G.; Llera, R.; Cifrián, D. Overcurrent Protection Response of a Hot
Rolling Mill Filtering System: Analysis of the Process Conditions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2017, 53, 2596–2607. [CrossRef]
120. Dudin, M.N.; Reshetov, K.Y.; Mysachenko, V.I.; Mironova, N.N.; Divnenko, O.V. “Green Technology” and Renewable Energy in
the System of the Steel Industry in Europe. IJEEP 2017, 7, 310–315.
121. de Beer, J.; Worrell, E.; Blok, K. Future Technologies for Energy-Efficient Iron and Steel Making. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1998,
23, 123–205. [CrossRef]
122. Xu, Z.; Zheng, Z.; Gao, X. Energy-Efficient Steelmaking-Continuous Casting Scheduling Problem with Temperature Constraints
and Its Solution Using a Multi-Objective Hybrid Genetic Algorithm with Local Search. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 95, 106554.
[CrossRef]
123. Lian, X.; Zheng, Z.; Wang, C.; Gao, X. An Energy-Efficient Hybrid Flow Shop Scheduling Problem in Steelmaking Plants. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 2021, 162, 107683. [CrossRef]
124. Energy Efficient Solutions for EAF Steelmaking|Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering. Available
online: https://journalamme.org/resources/html/article/details?id=180436&language=en (accessed on 11 June 2023).
125. Full Article: News of 50 Hertz. Available online: https://www.50hertz.com/en/News/FullarticleNewsof50Hertz/13545/using-
renewables-to-ensure-grid-stability-50hertz-and-enertrag-launch-voltage-stability-pilot-project (accessed on 6 August 2023).
126. Alvarez, M. Gobierno Vasco y Sidenor se Asocian para Comprar Ocho Parques Solares en Cataluña. Available online: https:
//www.elcorreo.com/Economia/gobierno-vasco-sidenor-asocian-comprar-ocho-parques-cataluna-20230728115254-nt.html (ac-
cessed on 6 August 2023).
127. Storm Builds Belgium’s First Subsidy-Free Wind Farm at the ArcelorMittal Site in Ghent|Storm Be. Available online:
https://www.storm.be/en/windfarm/haven-gent-phase-3b-0/news/storm-builds-belgiums-first-subsidy-free-wind-farm-
arcelormittal-site-ghent (accessed on 6 August 2023).
128. Fontenoy, E. Eneco and ArcelorMittal Unveil Belgium’s Largest Solar Roof. Available online: https://belgium.arcelormittal.com/
en/eneco-and-arcelormittal-unveil-belgiums-largest-solar-roof/ (accessed on 6 August 2023).
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 30 of 31

129. Wei, M.; McMillan, C.A.; de la Rue du Can, S. Electrification of Industry: Potential, Challenges and Outlook. Curr. Sustain. Renew.
Energy Rep. 2019, 6, 140–148. [CrossRef]
130. Hasanbeigi, A.; Kirshbaum, L.A. Industrial Electrification in U.S. States; Global Efficiency Intelligence: St. Petersburg, FL, USA.
131. Lechtenböhmer, S.; Nilsson, L.J.; Åhman, M.; Schneider, C. Decarbonising the Energy Intensive Basic Materials Industry through
Electrification—Implications for Future EU Electricity Demand. Energy 2016, 115, 1623–1631. [CrossRef]
132. Barberouss, M.; Apostolou, M.; Debregeas, A.; Bono, C. Electrification of Primary Steel Production Based on ΣIDERWIN Process:
Simulation the European Power System in 2050; European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020.
133. ArcelorMittal. ArcelorMittal and John Cockerill Announce Plans to Develop World’s First Industrial Scale Low Temperature, Iron
Electrolysis Plant. Available online: https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/media/press-releases/arcelormittal-and-john-cockerill-
announce-plans-to-develop-world-s-first-industrial-scale-low-temperature-iron-electrolysis-plant/ (accessed on 6 August 2023).
134. Ren, L.; Zhou, S.; Peng, T.; Ou, X. A Review of CO2 Emissions Reduction Technologies and Low-Carbon Development in the Iron
and Steel Industry Focusing on China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110846. [CrossRef]
135. Fan, Z.; Friedmann, S.J. Low-Carbon Production of Iron and Steel: Technology Options, Economic Assessment, and Policy. Joule
2021, 5, 829–862. [CrossRef]
136. Elsheikh, H.; Eveloy, V. Assessment of Variable Solar- and Grid Electricity-Driven Power-to-Hydrogen Integration with Direct
Iron Ore Reduction for Low-Carbon Steel Making. Fuel 2022, 324, 124758. [CrossRef]
137. Birat, J.-P. 16—Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) Capture and Storage Technology in the Iron and Steel Industry. In Developments and
Innovation in Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) Capture and Storage Technology; Maroto-Valer, M.M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy;
Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 492–521. ISBN 978-1-84569-533-0.
138. Rosa, L.; Mazzotti, M. Potential for Hydrogen Production from Sustainable Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112123. [CrossRef]
139. Koukouzas, N.; Christopoulou, M.; Giannakopoulou, P.P.; Rogkala, A.; Gianni, E.; Karkalis, C.; Pyrgaki, K.; Krassakis, P.;
Koutsovitis, P.; Panagiotaras, D.; et al. Current CO2 Capture and Storage Trends in Europe in a View of Social Knowledge and
Acceptance. A Short Review. Energies 2022, 15, 5716. [CrossRef]
140. Leeson, D.; Mac Dowell, N.; Shah, N.; Petit, C.; Fennell, P.S. A Techno-Economic Analysis and Systematic Review of Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) Applied to the Iron and Steel, Cement, Oil Refining and Pulp and Paper Industries, as Well as Other
High Purity Sources. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2017, 61, 71–84. [CrossRef]
141. D’Amore, F.; Romano, M.C.; Bezzo, F. Carbon Capture and Storage from Energy and Industrial Emission Sources: A Europe-Wide
Supply Chain Optimisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125202. [CrossRef]
142. Swennenhuis, F.; de Gooyert, V.; de Coninck, H. Towards a CO2 -Neutral Steel Industry: Justice Aspects of CO2 Capture and
Storage, Biomass- and Green Hydrogen-Based Emission Reductions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 88, 102598. [CrossRef]
143. ArcelorMittal. ArcelorMittal Inaugurates Flagship Carbon Capture and Utilisation Project at Its Steel Plant in Ghent, Belgium.
Available online: https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/media/press-releases/arcelormittal-inaugurates-flagship-carbon-capture-
and-utilisation-project-at-its-steel-plant-in-ghent-belgium/ (accessed on 6 August 2023).
144. ET EnergyWorld. Tata Steel Commissions India’s First Plant for CO2 Capture from Blast Furnace Gas. Available online:
https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/tata-steel-commissions-indias-first-plant-for-co2-capture-from-
blast-furnace-gas/86219103 (accessed on 6 August 2023).
145. Khalid, Y.; Wu, M.; Silaen, A.; Martinez, F.; Okosun, T.; Worl, B.; Low, J.; Zhou, C.; Johnson, K.; White, D. Oxygen Enrichment
Combustion to Reduce Fossil Energy Consumption and Emissions in Hot Rolling Steel Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320,
128714. [CrossRef]
146. Lu, B.; Chen, D.; Chen, G.; Yu, W. An Energy Apportionment Model for a Reheating Furnace in a Hot Rolling Mill—A Case Study.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 112, 174–183. [CrossRef]
147. Von Scheele, J. Decarbonisation and Use of Hydrogen in Reheat Furnaces. In Proceedings of the Aachener Ofenbau- und
Thermprocess-Kolloquium, Aachen, Germany, 7–8 October 2021.
148. Tenova. TSX SmartBurner Burning up to 100% Hydrogen. Available online: https://tenova.com/newsroom/latest-tenova/tsx-
smartburner-burning-100-hydrogen (accessed on 22 October 2023).
149. Reheating Furnaces for Steel. Available online: https://www.sms-group.com/es-es/plants/reheating-furnaces (accessed on 22
October 2023).
150. Danieli. HYDRO MAB to Take a Step Ahead in Green Steel. Available online: https://www.danieli.com/en/news-media/news/
danieli-hydro-mab-take-step-ahead-green-steel_37_596.htm (accessed on 22 October 2023).
151. OVAKO. Ovako First in the World to Heat Steel Using Hydrogen. Available online: https://mb.cision.com/Main/1471/3098033
/1236951.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2023).
152. SMS. Green Power Supply with X-Pact®Eco Grid. Available online: https://www.sms-group.com/services/x-pact-eco-grid
(accessed on 15 July 2023).
153. Shuli, J.; Collini, V. The Revolutionary MIDA Hybrid Minimill for a competitive green steel production. La Metall. Ital. Int. J. Ital.
Assoc. Metall. 2023, 75–80. Available online: https://www.aimnet.it/la_metallurgia_italiana/2023/gennaio/10.pdf (accessed on
22 October 2023).
154. VESTAS. 4 MW Platform Brochure V136-4.5 MW. Available online: https://www.vestas.com/en/products/4-mw-platform/v1
36-4-5-mw (accessed on 15 July 2023).
Energies 2023, 16, 7360 31 of 31

155. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II
Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2023; ISBN 978-1-00932-584-4.
156. MIDREX®Process. Available online: https://www.midrex.com/technology/midrex-process/ (accessed on 6 August 2023).
157. Energy Transition in the European Steel Industry—Reality Not Exception. Available online: https://www.midrex.com/tech-
article/energy-transition-in-the-european-steel-industry-reality-not-exception/ (accessed on 6 August 2023).
158. Atsushi, M.; Uemura, H.; Sakaguchi, T. MIDREX Processes. Kobelco Technol. Rev. 2010, 29, 50–57.
159. Metius, G.; Gaines, H.; Riley, M.F.; Iii, L.E.B.; Damstedt, B. DRI Production Using Coke Oven Gas (COG): Results of the MIDREX®
Thermal Reactor SystemTM (TRS® ) Testing and Future Commercial Application; AIST: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2015.
160. Rechberger, K.; Conde, A.S.; Spanlang, A.; Kofler, I.; Rechberger, K. Green Hydrogen for Low-Carbon Steelmaking; Primetals
Technologies: London, UK, 2021.
161. voestalpine Steel Division. Comparison of Process Technology: MIDREX vs. ENERGIRON; Voestalpine Steel Division: Linz,
Austria, 2013.
162. Midrex Technologies, Inc. 2021 World Direct Reduction Statistics; Midrex Technologies, Inc.: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2021.
163. Cavaliere, P. Direct Reduced Iron: Most Efficient Technologies for Greenhouse Emissions Abatement. In Clean Ironmaking and
Steelmaking Processes: Efficient Technologies for Greenhouse Emissions Abatement; Cavaliere, P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing:
Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 419–484. ISBN 978-3-03021-209-4.
164. Duarte, P. Hydrogen-Based Steelmaking; Millennium Steel: Botany, Australia, 2019.
165. ISO 6976:2016; Calculation of Calorific Values, Density, Relative Density and Wobbe Indices from Composition. ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2016. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/55842.html (accessed on 12 August 2023).
166. Kidnay, A.J.; Parrish, W.R.; McCartney, D.G. Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; ISBN
978-0-42913-564-4.
167. Información Básica de Los Sectores de La Energía En España; Comisión Nacional de Energía (CNE): Madrid, Spain, 1999.
168. MIDREX NGTM with H2 Addition: Moving from Natural Gas to Hydrogen in Decarbonizing Ironmaking. Available online:
https://www.midrex.com/tech-article/moving-from-natural-gas-to-hydrogen-in-decarbonizing-ironmaking/ (accessed on 5
August 2023).
169. EU Natural Gas. 2023 Data—2010–2022 Historical—2024 Forecast—Price—Quote. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.
com/commodity/eu-natural-gas (accessed on 6 August 2023).
170. Thomas, G. Overview of Storage Development DOE Hydrogen Program; Natural Gas: Livermore, CA, USA, 2000.
171. ArcelorMittal en España. HyDeal España: Hub de Hidrógeno. Available online: https://spain.arcelormittal.com/comunicados/
hydeal-espana-hub-hidrogeno/ (accessed on 18 September 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.