life cycle assessment of steel production in poland: a case study
TRANSCRIPT
Accepted Manuscript
Life Cycle Assessment of Steel Production in Poland: A Case Study
Dorota Burchart-Korol
PII: S0959-6526(13)00266-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.031
Reference: JCLP 3420
To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 24 June 2012
Revised Date: 22 April 2013
Accepted Date: 23 April 2013
Please cite this article as: Burchart-Korol D, Life Cycle Assessment of Steel Production in Poland: ACase Study, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.031.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Highlights 1
This article presents: 2
• An environmental assessment of steel production in Poland 3
• Different environmental impact categories of steel production 4
• Alternative solid fuels used for iron making 5
6
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Life Cycle Assessment of Steel Production in Poland: A Case Study 1
Dorota Burchart-Korol 2
Central Mining Institute, Department of Energy Saving and Air Protection, 3
Plac Gwarków 1, 40-166 Katowice, Poland 4
e-mail: [email protected] 5
phone: +48 32 259 26 97 6
fax: +48 32 259 22 67 7
8
Abstract. The goal of this study is to perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) of steel 9
production through the integrated steel production and electric arc furnace routes in Poland. 10
The study defines the major sources of environmental impacts and proposes pollution 11
prevention methods for the most pollutive steelmaking processes. The LCA methodology 12
based on the ISO 14044 standard is used with SimaPro 7.3.3 software and the Ecoinvent 13
database. The life cycle inventory shows data averaged from the existing steel plants in 14
Poland, and the impact assessment results indicate that the production of pig iron in blast 15
furnaces has the highest impact on greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption in 16
the national integrated steel production route, while the iron ore sintering process, which is 17
the largest contributor to dust and gas emissions in the national iron and steel industry, uses 18
the most minerals and depletes the most metal. Electricity consumption has the highest impact 19
on greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption in the national electric arc furnace 20
route. Therefore, this article presents the results of an LCA of alternative fuel consumption in 21
a national iron ore sinter plant. The study concludes that pollution prevention methods related 22
to raw material substitutions in iron-making processes should be used to reduce 23
environmental impacts in the iron and steel industry. The results of this study can be used as 24
the first step in performing a full cradle-to-grave steel LCA that includes all phases of the 25
steel life cycle. 26
27
Keywords: Environmental assessment, Integrated steel plant, Electric arc furnace, LCA, 28
Greenhouse gas emissions, Poland 29
30
31
1 Introduction 32
1.1. Life cycle assessment in the steel industry 33
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
The iron and steel industry is highly energy-intensive and the production of steel is associated 34
with significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Poland, crude steel is produced at a rate 35
of 8.8 million tons per year, an increase of 9.8% from that of 2010. Fig. 1 presents data on the 36
production of the Polish steel industry’s main products in 2007-2011 (PPS 2012). In 2011, 37
CO2 emissions made up the largest share (98.5%) of the national steel industry’s total gas 38
emissions. The emission of the other gases, including NO2, SO2, and CO, represented 39
approximately 1.5% of the total, while the average dust emission factor was 0.52 kg/t crude 40
steel (average for EAF and BOF operations) (PPS 2012). 41
The World Steel Association provides the most consistent and accurate information for LCAs 42
of the steel industry. It collects life cycle inventory data on the steel life cycle, including raw 43
material extraction, manufacturing, use phase and end-of-life processes. The researchers 44
focusing on the world steel industry have stressed the importance of LCA in environmental 45
assessment. Iosif et al. (2008, 2010) have proposed a methodological framework based on the 46
interconnection between environmental LCA and the process simulation software Aspen 47
PlusTM that could be used to model new steelmaking breakthrough technologies for the 48
environmentally friendly production of steel (Iosif et al. 2008, 2010). The European Steel 49
Industry has created a consortium of industries and research organizations that have taken up 50
the mission of developing breakthrough technologies called ULCOS (Ultra-Low CO2 51
Steelmaking). The consortium has developed a breakthrough steelmaking process that has the 52
potential to meet GHG emissions reduction targets. LCA analyses have been performed 53
within the framework of ULCOS to assess the influence of metallurgical processes on both 54
the environment and the selection of new technologies (Rynikiewicz 2008, Iosif et al. 2010). 55
A few life cycle assessments of steel production have been conducted in countries such as 56
Australia (Norgate 2007) and China (Huang 2010 and Zhang et al. 2012). Zhang et al. (2012) 57
have presented the main sources of CO2 emissions, which include the burning of fossil fuels, 58
electricity consumed during steel production and non-energy-related emissions. Lee et al. 59
(2011) have described different technological strategies for reducing greenhouse gas 60
emissions in Korea’s steel industries, the most important of which are energy-saving methods, 61
process innovation, energy source substitution, material substitution and GHG emission 62
capture and storage. Raw material substitution has been presented by Gielen et al. (2002) and 63
Rynkiewicz (2008). Caneghem et al. (2010) have demonstrated the evolution of the 64
ArcelorMittal Gent production site’s environmental impact and highlighted eco-efficiency 65
improvement in the steel industry. Yellishetty et al. (2011) have presented the importance of 66
abiotic resource depletion in the steel industry, showing that a more comprehensive 67
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
understanding of the current production trends in iron ore and steel, which also require several 68
vital metals such as copper, manganese, and nickel, can provide useful insights into assessing 69
potential future shortages due to the depletion of abiotic mineral resources. Burchart-Korol 70
(2011a) has already stressed the importance and significance of LCA techniques to the iron 71
and steel industry. The first LCA of a Polish integrated steel plant was conducted in Główny 72
Instytut Górnictwa (Central Mining Institute) in 2010 (Burchart-Korol 2010), and the results 73
of that research have shown that the iron ore sintering process is a dominant emission source 74
in national steel plants. LCA and eco-efficiency analysis for the iron ore sintering process in 75
Poland have also been carried out using laboratory tests and industry data (Burchart-Korol 76
2011c, 2012). A life cycle inventory (LCI) (as of 2005) for the BOF and blast furnace at 77
ArcelorMittal Poland (AMP) S.A. in Kraków has also recently been published (Bieda 2012a, 78
Bieda 2012b). Life cycle assessments of the iron and steel industry have been widely 79
developed around the world, and researchers have used many different tools for the 80
environmental assessment of steel production. Spengler et al. (1998) have used a multi-81
criteria decision (MCDA) support system for the environmental evaluation of the steel 82
industry, while Zhang et al. (2009) have applied an eMergy analysis to the sustainability of 83
Chinese steel production. Giannetti (et al. 2012) have applied eMergy to reverse logistics 84
network evaluation in steel recycling, while Huang et al. (2010) have used the Tornado Chart 85
Tool to calculate the variation in CO2 emissions caused by the change of each LCI input 86
variable for integrated steelworks in China. The results have indicated that the CO2 emissions 87
factors with the greatest influence on the steelworks include blast furnace gas (BFG), the 88
liquid steel unit consumption of continuous casting, the continuous casting slab unit 89
consumption of hot rolling and the hot metal ratio of steelmaking (Huang et al. 2010). 90
91
1.2 Pollution prevention methods 92
93
The Best Available Techniques for iron and steel production (BAT, 2012) describe techniques 94
considered to have potential for achieving a high level of environmental protection. BAT 95
covers process-integrated techniques and end-of-pipe measures and also describes techniques 96
for reducing the consumption of raw materials, water and energy. BAT considers techniques 97
for sinter plants, the blast furnace process, basic oxygen steelmaking and alternative iron 98
making techniques. Material management is a recommended technique with which to 99
optimize the management and control of internal material flows and prevent pollution, 100
provide adequate input quality, enable reuse and recycling, and improve the process 101
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
efficiency and optimization of the metal yield in steel production. Material management can 102
help minimize airborne dust emissions (BAT 2012). Feedstock recycling is of interest as an 103
effective pollution prevention method. Sekine et al. (2009) have found that the reduction 104
potential of CO2 emissions through the coke oven and blast furnace feedstock recycling of 105
municipal waste plastics can be estimated by summing the potential of each resin multiplied 106
by the composition of each resin in municipal waste plastics. It has also been clarified that the 107
feedstock recycling of waste plastic in steelworks is effective for avoiding the increase in CO2 108
emissions caused by the incineration of waste plastics, such as those from household mixtures 109
of different resins. A study by Ooi et al. (2011) has focused on the use of supplementary fuels 110
in the iron-ore sintering process. 111
This study is the first to account for the entire national steel production of the 112
integrated steel plant and electric arc furnaces in Poland. Such an approach allows for the 113
creation of a cradle-to-factory gate steel production LCI (as of 2010) and a steel production 114
life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). This paper presents the results of the LCA created of 115
national iron and steel production. 116
117
2 Methods 118
2.1. Goal and scope of analysis 119
The LCA was conducted following the requirements of the ISO 14040:2006 International 120
Standards. The four stages of the LCA applied in this work included determination of the 121
goal, scope and system boundary; inventory analysis of inputs and outputs; assessment of 122
environmental impact; and interpretation of results with proposals for improvement. 123
The objective of this study was to carry out a LCA of national steel production that included 124
the integrated steel plant and electric arc furnaces (EAF). In Poland steel is produced by two 125
process routes, the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) route and the electric arc furnace (EAF) route. 126
There are 7 Polish companies equipped with eight electric arc furnaces and only one company 127
producing steel in an integrated process. In 2011, BOF and EAF steel production accounted 128
for 4.42 million tons, 50.4% of which came from the BOF route and 49.6% from the EAF 129
route. 130
Electric arc furnaces use iron scrap as a major iron component in the manufacturing of steel. 131
EAF is a method of steelmaking used in casting and rolling. The study included a detailed 132
LCI via the EAF route. Data (input and output) were converted to FU cast steel to enable a 133
comparison analysis of BOF steel and EAF steel. 134
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
The integrated steel plant system boundary included the following processes in the steel plant 135
under analysis: the iron ore sinter plant, blast furnace, lime production plant, basic oxygen 136
furnace, continuous casting plant and hot rolling plant. Fig. 2 presents the system boundary 137
with a process flow diagram of the steel manufacturing process in Poland’s integrated steel 138
plant and the associated inputs and outputs during each step of the steel production process. A 139
materials flow containing mainly inputs and intermediate products for each process in the 140
national integrated steel plant is presented in Table 1. 141
142
The primary raw material in the EAF steelmaking process is ferrous scrap, which is melted 143
using electric energy. Additional inputs include fluxes and additions such as alloying 144
elements, while the desired product of the EAF process, including secondary metallurgy 145
processes, is crude steel. There are also two other outputs next to this main output: co-146
products such as EAF slag and certain by-products. The EAF route system boundary included 147
the following processes: handling inputs and preparation of the furnace, charging, melting and 148
decarburization. A materials flow containing mainly inputs and intermediate products in the 149
national electric arc furnaces are presented in Table 2. 150
The selected functional unit (FU) of this study was one ton of cast steel produced in the 151
national steel plants. Co-product allocation in parallel to mass allocation was used. 152
153
2.2. Data inventory 154
A data inventory was obtained from existing steel plants in Poland (as of 2010/2011) and used 155
to assess the inventory for eco-innovation and pollution prevention in the Polish steel 156
industry. This study created a full flow sheet of the integrated steelmaking plants in Poland, 157
which consisted of the sinter plant, blast furnace, lime plant, basic oxygen furnace, and 158
continuous casting and rolling. The energy and raw materials required for the production of 159
one ton of cast steel were identified 160
A life cycle inventory (LCI) of national steel production in the integrated steel plant is shown 161
in Table 3, while a LCI of national steel production in the electric arc furnaces is shown in 162
Table 4. The heating values of the fuels used in national steel plants are presented in Table 5. 163
These Tables display data averaged from the existing steel plants in Poland. 164
All raw materials, fuel and additives, and electricity required to operate the processes were 165
considered in the system boundaries, while intermediate products (internal flow) were 166
excluded from the analysis. In addition, the LCI included the auxiliary materials, oils, 167
lubricants and materials for maintenance used in each process as along with the dust and gas 168
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
emissions from each plant. The LCA included all external data used in the steel production 169
process and the dust and gas emissions and wastewater. The wastewater from each process 170
unit is submitted to a sewage treatment plant, while refractory wastes are recycled. Blast 171
furnace (BF) gas and basic oxygen furnace (BOF) gas are used to meet energy demands in the 172
integrated steel plant, while by-products including sludge, dust and scale are returned to the 173
iron ore sintering process. Iron scrap is consumed in the basic oxygen furnace. In the EAF 174
process, sludge, dust and refractory waste are recycled and iron scrap is consumed in the 175
furnace. The construction stages of the steel plant, and the use and end-of-life phases were 176
excluded from the LCA, and the quality of the environmental assessment results based on the 177
LCA was dependent on the quality of the data used to complete the LCI. Obtaining quality 178
data is important to assure the study’s reliability and properly interpret the outcomes. 179
Therefore, the input and output data obtained from the Polish steel plants were compared with 180
the LCI data on steel production in Europe taken from Best Available Technique (BAT 2012) 181
and data in the literature (Iosif et al. 2008 and Iosif et al. 2010). 182
183
2.3. Life cycle impact assessment methods 184
The life cycle assessment of steel production was carried out using the LCA software package 185
SimaPro v.7.3.3 (Pre Consultants B.V) and the database within the program. The study 186
performed an environmental evaluation according to three life cycle impact assessment 187
methods: the IPCC 2007 GWP 100a (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, 188
global warming potential, 100 years), the cumulative energy demand (CED), and the ReCiPe 189
Midpoint H. The results of the LCIA methods were calculated and the main sources of 190
environmental burdens identified. In selecting LCIA methods, the study covered the important 191
categories of environmental impacts present in Polish steel production. The most important 192
aspect of the steel industry is GHG emissions, so the IPCC 2007 GWP 100a method was 193
chosen for that purpose. The IPCC method allows for a quantitative assessment of the impact 194
of GHGs on the greenhouse effect as a function of the CO2 released during the assumed time 195
horizon of 100 years (IPCC 2007). The second important aspect of steel production is energy 196
consumption, so the CED method was selected and further expanded for the energy resources 197
available in the SimaPro database. The CED of a product represents the direct and indirect 198
energy used throughout the product’s life cycle, including the energy consumed during the 199
extraction, manufacturing, and disposal of raw and auxiliary materials (Deutscher 1997). This 200
method covers five resource categories: two nonrenewable (fossil and nuclear) and three 201
renewable (biomass, water and “wind, solar, geothermal”), which are given for the energy 202
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
resources as characterization factors (Frischknecht et al. 2007). The iron and steel industry 203
also negatively affects human health and resource consumption, so the ReCiPe Midpoint H 204
method was chosen to model these categories. The primary objective of the ReCiPe method 205
(Goedkoop et al. 2009) is to transform the long list of life cycle inventory results present in a 206
study into a limited number of indicator scores, which express the relative severity of an 207
environmental impact category (ReciPe 2012). In ReCiPe, the indicators are determined at 208
two levels with eighteen midpoint indicators and three endpoint indicators. This method is 209
considered a follow-up to the CML 2002 and EI 99 methods (Śliwi ńska and Czaplicka-Kolarz 210
2012). The basic structure of the impact assessment methods in SimaPro is comprised of 211
characterization, damage assessment, normalization and weighting, the last three of which are 212
optional according to the ISO standards. 213
In this study, the LCIA (life cycle impact assessment) phase includes only mandatory 214
elements such as classification and characterization, while optional elements such as 215
normalization, grouping and weighting are excluded. 216
217
3 Results and discussion 218
The results of the environmental impact assessment of steel production in Poland are 219
presented in Table 6. Detailed results on the GHG emissions analysis are presented in Table 7. 220
Based on the LCA carried out using the IPCC method, it was concluded that the carbon 221
footprint of steel production in the national integrated steel plant was 2459 kg CO2 eq/FU. 222
The direct GHG emissions were related to the emissions from combustion sources, while the 223
indirect emissions (1086 kg CO2 eq/FU) were related mainly to coke and coke oven gas 224
consumption in the blast furnace and electricity demand. 225
The following results were obtained according to the mass allocation: 1703 kg CO2 eq/FU for 226
steel production, 516 kg CO2 eq/FU for BF slag and 240 kg CO2 eq/FU for BOF slag. 227
Using the CED method, it follows that the total energy demand was 35413 MJ/FU (24520 228
MJ/FU for steel production, 7433 MJ/FU for BF slag and 3460 MJ/FU for BOF slag). 229
Detailed results for the total energy demand analysis were calculated using the CED method 230
(expressed in MJ/FU) and are shown in Table 8. The largest energy demand in the national 231
integrated steel production system occurred during the blast furnace system production. Coke 232
comprised 52% of the energy demand and coke oven gas comprised 12.5%. The energy 233
demands and fossil fuel consumption were related mostly to the coke consumption for each 234
LCIA method used, while metal and mineral depletion were related to iron ore consumption 235
in the sintering process (Table 9). 236
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
The carbon footprint of the steel production in the national EAFs was 913 kg CO2 eq/FU, and 237
the indirect emissions (644 kg CO2 eq/FU) in the EAF steel production route were related 238
mainly to the electricity required for the process. The following results were obtained from 239
the mass allocation: 766 kg CO2 eq/FU for crude steel and 147 kg CO2 eq/FU for EAF slag. 240
The total energy demand was 8066 MJ/FU and the largest energy demand in the national EAF 241
production system was due to electricity consumption (68.5%). 242
243
The results of a comparison analysis including this study’s environmental analysis and others 244
that account for the carbon footprint and total energy demand, with references, are presented 245
in Table 10. The greenhouse gas emissions are higher in the Polish steel plant compared to the 246
others. This situation follows from the fact that electricity, which is one of the largest sources 247
of greenhouse gas emissions, is based on the combustion of coal and lignite in Poland. 248
249
The results obtained for the integrated steelmaking route show that iron ore sinter and pig iron 250
production processes have a major impact on the total fossil energy use and GHG emissions 251
in Poland. Fossil fuel consumption is the main source of GHG emissions in steel production. 252
Depending on the coke consumption and blast furnace process conditions, the greenhouse gas 253
emissions and environmental impact assessment can be widely divergent, depending, inter 254
alia, on whether a substitute fuel has been used (Burchart-Korol 2011b). 255
256
Out of all the raw materials used in the national steel production, it is coke that has a 257
considerable impact on environmental resources, followed by iron, which has a comparatively 258
lower impact on the environment and mineral resources. 259
260
The sinter plant had significant impacts on the environment due to fuel consumption, raw 261
materials and waste generation s. This study conducted an evaluation of the alternative solid 262
fuels used in the iron ore sintering process. One of the methods for increasing the ecological 263
efficiency of this process can be the replacement of a share of coke breeze with cleaner fuels, 264
and research was conducted on the use of anthracite and charcoal as supplementary fuels in 265
the iron ore sintering process. An environmental assessment was performed for three process 266
scenarios that were dependent on the share of fuel: 267
Scenario 1 – solid fuels: 100% coke breeze (basic scenario) 268
Scenario 2 – solid fuels: 70% coke breeze + 30% anthracite 269
Scenario 3 – solid fuels: 80% coke breeze + 20% charcoal 270
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
271
The first step in this study was to determine the amount of anthracite used in the process. 272
According to laboratory tests conducted by Burchart-Korol et al. (2012), it has been 273
concluded that when the rates of coke breeze energy substitution with anthracite are higher 274
than 30%, the observed sinter performance is lower. The next stage involved determining the 275
amount of charcoal to be used in the iron ore sinter plant, and the results of the laboratory 276
tests conducted by Ooi et al. (2011) have suggested that it is feasible to substitute 20% of the 277
coke breeze with charcoal in the iron ore sintering process. Experimental results have 278
indicated that fuel blends in which 20% of the heat input is provided by charcoal may 279
improve both the sinter yield and productivity by up to 8% under normal sintering conditions. 280
Moreover, the replacement of 20% of the coke energy with charcoal means that part of the 281
carbon dioxide emitted from the process comes from a renewable source and could be used to 282
offset carbon dioxide emissions from nonrenewable fossil fuels. At the optimum rate of 20% 283
substitution of the coke breeze energy input with charcoal, the emission of polychlorinated 284
dibenzo-para-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) have been similar 285
to those observed when coke breeze as the only fuel being used (Ooi et al. 2011). 286
287
Table 11 presents the results of the environmental assessment of three iron ore sintering 288
process scenarios. The LCA analysis showed that Scenario 1 had a greater environmental 289
impact than the other scenarios. It was found that the highest impact on the environment 290
occurred in the category of human health. It also appeared that Scenario 3, which included 291
charcoal, had a greater impact than the other scenarios in two impact categories, total energy 292
demand and land use. 293
In 2011, Polish integrated steel plants produced 4.42 million Mg of steel (PPS 2012). 294
According to Scenario 3, in which charcoal was substituted for 20% of the coke breeze, 52900 295
Mg of charcoal would be needed for 4.42 million Mg of steel production. 10.6 Mg of biomass 296
is required to produce 1 Mg of charcoal (Norgate 2011), so 560000 Mg of biomass would be 297
required to produce 52900 Mg of charcoal (for the 4.42 million Mg of steel production in 298
Poland in 2011). Average yields of 15 Mg/ha/y have been reported for well-managed timber 299
plantations to which fertilizer is applied (Nonhebel, 2005). Therefore, 37000 ha of plantation 300
area would be required for an annual production of 560000 Mg of biomass. This area 301
corresponds to 0.12% of Poland’s total area. In the case of charcoal substitution for coke 302
breeze, charcoal would need to be imported to Poland, which would lead to increased costs 303
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
and higher environment impact due to its transport. The use of charcoal for steel production in 304
Poland would require additional detailed eco-efficiency analyses. 305
An environmental assessment of coke breeze, anthracite and charcoal production is presented 306
in Table 12. The highest GHG emissions impact during iron ore sinter production was related 307
to fuel consumption. Solid fuels constituted only 5% of the raw materials, but were 308
responsible for 38.4% of the process’s carbon footprint. During sinter production using only 309
coke breeze (Scenario 1), the average indicator of GHG emissions was 568 kg CO2 310
equivalent, while the lowest rate was for Scenario 3, at 543 kg CO2 equivalent. The results of 311
the analysis indicated that the use of charcoal and anthracite could reduce greenhouse gas 312
emissions. It was also found that the use of alternative fuels in the process could be an 313
effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet in the case of charcoal, an increase in 314
the share of charcoal would increase the rate of land use and total energy demand. 315
316
4 Conclusions 317
Steel production, and the iron-making process in particular, is a very energy-intensive 318
industry. The application of environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) allows steel 319
producers to improve the manufacturing process by reducing environmental impacts. 320
This paper discussed the environmental impact of iron and steel technologies and was the first 321
study covering the life cycle assessment of all the processes at an integrated steel plant in 322
Poland. The life cycle assessment of steel production in a national integrated steel plant was 323
performed based on inventory data obtained from 2010 production results. The environmental 324
impacts of steel production in Poland were estimated using a cradle-to-factory gate boundary. 325
It was found that the most significant environmental impact was damage to human health, 326
which was related to coke consumption in the blast furnace and iron ore consumption in the 327
sinter plant. The largest energy demand in the entire steel production system occurred in the 328
blast furnace system production, and the major source of environmental impacts was the 329
consumption of fossil fuels. Direct GHG emissions were related to the emissions of 330
combustion sources. Significant sources of GHG emissions included coke, coke breeze, coke 331
oven gas and electricity, and the biggest source of metal and mineral depletion was iron 332
consumption in the sintering process. 333
The results obtained for the EAF steel production route in Poland showed that electricity 334
consumption had a major impact on the process’s total fossil fuel depletion and greenhouse 335
gas emissions. 336
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
The results of the analysis indicated that the use of alternative fuels could reduce greenhouse 337
gas emissions, but the use of charcoal increased other impact categories such as land use and 338
total energy demand. Pollution prevention methods related to raw material substitution in 339
iron-making processes should be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the iron and 340
steel industry. 341
This study showed that LCA can support eco-efficiency because it can help improve steel 342
quality while also lowering its impact on the environment. LCA is a creditable tool with 343
which to compare various alternative fuel scenarios for steel production with respect to 344
environmental sustainability. 345
346
5 Recommendations and perspectives 347
This work was the first to account for the entire steel production chain in Poland. The results 348
of this study offered a comprehensive environmental analysis of Polish steel production and 349
could be used as the first step in performing a holistic LCA of steel from cradle to grave that 350
includes all the phases of the steel life cycle. 351
352
A subsequent study will expand the LCA to include alternative steel production technologies 353
such as DRI (direct reduction iron) and SR (smelting reduction), and future work will extend 354
the environmental analysis based on LCA to incorporate thermodynamic analysis, including 355
exergy analysis in conjunction with LCA for integrated steel production in Poland. 356
The results obtained from this work can help practitioners and decision makers in the steel 357
production field understand the nature of the life cycle assessment technique and the 358
importance of pollution prevention in a steel plant. 359
360
References 361
BAT, 2012. Best Available Techniques - Reference Document for Iron and Steel Production 362
Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. http://eippcb.jrc.es Accessed 1st June 2012 363
Bieda B., 2012. Life cycle inventory processes of the ArcelorMittal Poland (AMP) S.A. in 364
Krakow, Poland—basic oxygen furnace steel production. Int. J. LCA 17:463–470 365
Bieda B., 2012. Life cycle inventory processes of the Mittal Steel Poland (MSP) S.A. in 366
Krakow, Poland—blast furnace pig iron production—a case study. Int. J. LCA DOI 367
10.1007/s11367-012-0422-y 368
Burchart-Korol D., 2010. Application of LCA to environmental assessment of iron ore sinter 369
technology. Hutnik-Wiadomości Hutnicze, (in Polish) 9, 448-450 370
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
Burchart-Korol D., 2011a. Significance of environmental LCA method in the iron and steel 371
industry. Metalurgija 50, 205-208 372
Burchart-Korol D., 2011b. Evaluation of environmental impacts in iron-making based on Life 373
Cycle Assessment. METAL 2011: 20th Anniversary International Conference on Metallurgy 374
and Materials. TANGER, Ostrava, ISBN 978-80-87294-24-6, pp. 1246-1252. 375
Burchart-Korol D., 2011c. Broadening Life Cycle Assessment for the eco-efficiency 376
evaluating and improving. 2nd International Exergy Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability 377
Workshop and Symposium. Nisyros 2011 378
Burchart-Korol D., Korol J., Francik P. 2012. Application of the new mixing and granulation 379
technology of raw materials for iron ore sintering process. Metalurgija, 51, 187-190 380
Caneghem J.V., Block C., Crammc P., Mortier R., Vandecasteele C. 2010. Improving eco-381
efficiency in the steel industry: The ArcelorMittal Gent case. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (8) 807–814 382
CIBEH, 2012. Bulletin of the economic performance of the steel sector in Poland. 383
http://www2.cibeh.com.pl Accessed 1st June 2012 384
Das A., Kandpal T. C. 1997. Iron and Steel manufacturing technologies in India: estimation of 385
CO2 emission. Int. J. Energ. Res. 21, 1187-1199 386
Deutscher V., 1997. VDI-richtlinie 4600. Cumulative Energy Demand, Terms, Definitions, 387
Methods of Calculation; Verein Deutscher Ingenieure: Düseldorf 388
Finnveden, G., P. Hofstetter, J.C. Bare, L. Basson, A. Ciroth, T. Mettier, J. Seppala, J. 389
Johansson, G. Norris, and S. Volkwein, 2002. Normalization, Grouping, and Weighting in 390
Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving Towards Best 391
Available Practice, SETAC-Europe. 392
Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment 393
Methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 394
Dübendorf, Switzerland. 395
Giannetti B.F., Bonilla S.H., Almeida C.M., 2012. An emergy-based evaluation of a reverse 396
logistics network for steel recycling, J. Clean. Prod. , DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.024. 397
Gielen, D.J., Moriguchi, Y., Yagita, H., 2002. CO2 emission reduction for Japanese 398
petrochemicals. J. Clean. Prod. 10, 589-604. 399
Goedkoop M, 2008. SimaPro Database Manual Methods library, PRé Consultants, the 400
Netherlands, May 2008 www.pre.nl. Accessed on 2nd July 2012. 401
Goedkoop, M., R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs, Van Zelm R. 2009. 402
ReCiPe 2008 - A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmonised 403
Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level: First edition, Report I: 404
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
Characterisation, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM), The 405
Netherlands, htpp://www.lcia-recipe.net Accessed on July 2012. 406
Golak S., Burchart-Korol D., Czaplicka-Kolarz K., Wieczorek T. 2011. Application of neural 407
network for the prediction of eco-efficiency. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, D. Liu et al. 408
(Eds.): ISNN 2011, Part III, LNCS 6677, pp. 380–387, 2011 (Springer-Verlag Berlin 409
Heidelberg 2011). 410
http://www.worldsteel.org/publications/position-papers/lca.html Accessed 1st June 2012 411
Hu C., Chen L., Zhang C., Qi Y., Yin R. 2006. Emission mitigation of CO2 in steel industry: 412
current status and future scenarios. J. Iron Steel Res. Int., 13, 38-42 413
Huang Z., Ding X., Sun H., Liu S. 2010. Identification of main influencing factors of life 414
cycle CO2 emissions from the integrated steelworks using sensitivity analysis, J. Clean. Prod. 415
18 (10-11), 1052–1058 416
Iosif A.M., Hanrot F., Ablitzer D. 2008. Process integrated modelling for steelmaking – Life 417
Cycle Inventory analysis, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. , 28, 429 – 438 418
Iosif A.M., Hanrot F., Birat J.P., Ablitzer D. 2010. Physicochemical modelling of the classical 419
steelmaking route for Life Cycle Inventory analysis, Int. J. LCA, 15, 304 –310 420
IPCC, 2007. IPCC Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. 421
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm Accessed on 25 May 2012 422
Lee, S.Y. 2011. Existing and anticipated technology strategies for reducing greenhouse gas 423
emissions in Korea’s petrochemical and steel industries, J. Clean. Prod., 424
DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.052 425
Norgate T.E., Jahanshahi S., Rankin W.J. 2007. Assessing the environmental impact of metal 426
production processes. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (8-9), 838-848 427
Norgate T. E. 2004. Metal recycling: An assessment using life cycle energy consumption as a 428
sustainability indicator. CSIRO Minerals 429
Norgate T.E, Haque N., Somerville M., Jahanshahi S.: The greenhouse gas footprint of 430
charcoal production and of some applications in Steelmaking, 431
http://www.conference.alcas.asn.au/2011/norgateetalv2.pdf 432
Nonhebel S. 2005. Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land?, 433
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9, 191-201 434
Ooi T. C., Thompson D., Anderson D. R., Fisher R., Fray T., Zandi M. 2011. The Effect of 435
Charcoal Combustion on Iron-ore Sintering Performance and Emission of Persistent Organic 436
Pollutants, Combust. Flame, 158 , 979-987 437
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
EN ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and 438
framework 439
PPS, 2012. Polish Steel industry, Polish Steel Association http://www.hiph.org/ Accessed 1st 440
June 2012 441
Rynikiewicz C., 2008. The climate change challenge and transitions for radical changes in the 442
European steel industry, J. Clean. Prod. , 16 781 – 789 443
Sakamoto, Y., Tonooka, Y., Yanagisawa, Y. 1999. Estimation of energy consumption for 444
each process in the Japanese steel industry: a process analysis. Energ. Convers. Manage. 40, 445
1129-1140 446
Sekine Y., Fukuda K., Kato K., Adachi Y., Matsuno Y. 2009 CO2 Reduction Potentials by 447
Utilizing Waste Plastics in Steel Works, Int. J. LCA, 14, 122-136 448
SimaPro Analyst version 7.3 LCA software and database, PRé Consultants, The Netherlands. 449
Available at: www.pre.nl. Accessed on 25 May 2012. 450
Śliwi ńska A., Czaplicka-Kolarz K., 2012. Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts of coal-451
power by using coal-mine methane, Int. J. Energ. Res. DOI: 10.1002/er.2908 452
Spengler T., Geldermann J., Htihre S., Sieverdingbeck A., Rentz 0. 1998. Development of a 453
multiple criteria based decision support system for environmental assessment of recycling 454
measures in the iron and steel making industry. J. Clean. Prod. 6, 37-52 455
The ReCiPe methodology. http://www.lcia-recipe.net/ Accessed on 25 May 2012 456
Yellishetty M., Mudd G.M, Ranjith P.G. 2011. The steel industry, abiotic resource depletion 457
and life cycle assessment: a real or perceived issue? J. Clean. Prod. 19, 78-90 458
Zhang B., Wang Z., Yin J., Su L. 2012. CO2 emission reduction within Chinese iron and steel 459
industry: practices, determinants and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 167-178 460
Zhang X., Jiang W., Deng S., Peng K. 2009. Emergy evaluation of the sustainability of 461
Chinese steel production during 1998–2004. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1030–1038 462
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
List of tables 1 2 3
Table 1 Materials flow of steel production in Poland –national integrated steel plant 4 Table 2 Materials flow of steel production in Poland – national electric arc furnaces (EAF) 5 Table 3 Life cycle inventory of national steel production –national integrated steel plant 6 Table 4 Life cycle inventory of national steel production – national electric arc furnaces 7 Table 5 Low heating value (LHV) of fuels used in national steel plants 8 Table 6 Results of the life cycle impact assessment of Polish steel production 9 Table 7 Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Polish steel production (IPCC method) 10 Table 8 Energy demand of the Polish steel production system (CED method) 11 Table 9 Results of the environmental impact assessment of steel production based on the Recipe Midpoint (H) 12 Table 10 Comparative analysis of steel production’s energy requirements and carbon footprint 13 Table 11 Comparative analysis of the environmental indicators for three iron ore sinter plant scenarios 14 Table 12 Comparative analysis of the environmental indicators of alternative solid fuels 15
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
Table 1 Materials flow of steel production in Poland – national integrated steel plant 16
Plants Raw materials, additives and fuels
Intermediate products (by-products)
Products and co-products
Wastes
Iron ore sinter plant
Iron ores Dolomite Limestone Lubricant oil Coke breeze Anthracite Coke oven gas Electricity
Recycled materials (scale, sludges, dust) Quicklime BF gas BOF gas Circulating cooling water
Iron ore sinter
Wastewater
Blast furnace
Iron ores Pellets Tap water Coke Anthracite Natural gas Coke oven gas Electricity
Iron ore sinter BF gas Circulating cooling water Dust Iron scrap Sludges
Pig iron BF slag
Wastewater Refractory waste
Lime production plant
Limestone Coke oven gas Natural gas Electricity
BF gas Dust
Quicklime Wastewater
Basic oxygen furnace
Iron scrap Dolomite Tap water Coke oven gas Natural gas Electricity
Pig iron Quicklime BF gas Circulating cooling water BOF gas Iron scrap Dust Sludges
Crude steel BOF slag
Wastewater
Continuous casting plant
Tap water Refractory Lubricant oil Natural gas Electricity
Crude steel Circulating cooling water Scale
Cast steel
Refractory waste
Hot rolling plant
Tap water Lubricating oil Natural gas Coke oven gas Electricity
Cast steel BF gas Circulating cooling water Scale
Rolled steel
Wastewater
17
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
Table 2 Materials flow of steel production in Poland – national electric arc furnaces (EAF) 18 Raw materials, additives and fuels
Intermediate products (by-products)
Products and co-products
Wastes
Iron scrap Quicklime, milled Refractory Electricity Natural gas
Iron scrap EAF slag
Wastewater Refractory waste Dust
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
19 Table 3 Life cycle inventory of national steel production – national integrated steel plant 20
Inputs and outputs Unit
Iron ore sinter plant
Blast furnace
Lime production
plant
Basic oxygen furnace
Continuous casting plant
Hot rolling
External flux
Internal flux -
intermediate products
INPUTS
Materials
Iron ores kg/FU 1202.68 36.76 - - - - 1239.44 -
Limestone kg/FU 180.16 - 123.13 - - - 303.29 -
Dolomite kg/FU 34.25 - - 5.34 - - 39.59 -
Quicklime kg/FU 20.61 - - 62.46 - - - 83.07
Iron ore sinter kg/FU - 1307.71 - - - - 1307.71
Pellets kg/FU - 250.00 - - - 250.00
Pig iron kg/FU - - - 947.16 - - - 947.16
Iron scrap kg/FU - - - 295.54 - - 209.32 86.22
Crude steel kg/FU - - - - 1042.66 - - 1042.66
Cast steel kg/FU - - - - - 358.30 - 358.30 Lubricating oil kg/FU 3.50 2.19 0.03 - 2.46 33.85 42.03 -
Refractory kg/FU - - - 63.19 0.14 - 63.33 -
Tap water m3/FU - 0.35 - 90.60 0.54 13.27 104.76 - Circulating cooling water m3/FU 0.43 23.08 - - 9.78 1.40 34.69
Sludges kg/FU 21.55 - - - - - - 21.55
Dust kg/FU 49.72 - - - - - - 49.72
Scale kg/FU 13.09 - - - - - - 13.09
Energy inputs
Electricity kWh/FU 79.20 25.52 2.52 27.80 10.62 40.49 186.15 -
Anthracite kg/FU 10.56 10.68 - - - - 21.24 -
Coke breeze kg/FU 59.83 - - - - - 59.83 -
Coke kg/FU - 428.27 - - - - 428.27 - Coke oven gas m3/FU 4.81 72.76 0.54 3.85 - 38.76 120.72 - BF gas m3/FU 7.25 596.06 1.20 8.45 - 28.65 641.61 BOF gas m3/FU 0.36 - - - - - - 0.36
Natural gas m3/FU - 0.39 5.53 0.41 0.10 2.71 9.14 -
OUTPUTS
Products
Iron ore sinter kg/FU 1307.71 - - - - - - 1307.71
Pig iron kg/FU - 947.16 - - - - - 947.16
Quicklime kg/FU - - 83.07 - - - - 83.07
Crude steel kg/FU - - - 1042.66 - - - 1042.66
Cast steel kg/FU - - - - 1000.00 - 641.70 358.30
Rolled steel kg/FU - - - - - 358.30 358.30 -
Co-products
BF slag kg/FU - 303.22 - - - - 303.22 -
BOF slag kg/FU - - - 141.11 - - 141.11 -
Emissions CO2 g/FU 377064 808452 50566 29500 106791 1372375 -
SO2 g/FU 1014 10 - 6 4 1034 -
NO2 g/FU 773 18 6 4 21 821 -
CO g/FU 25849 963 5 4797 19 31633 -
Heavy metals g/FU 136.53 62.61 0.55 75.77 0.05 275.51 -
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
Pb g/FU 6.11 0.05 0.03 0.97 - 7.16 -
Cr g/FU 0.04 0.02 - 0.13 - 0.19 -
Cd g/FU 0.12 - 0.00 0.05 - 0.17 -
Cu g/FU 0.67 0.49 0.03 3.22 0.00 4.41 -
Zn g/FU 1.08 0.90 0.08 7.82 0.00 9.88 -
Ni g/FU 0.06 0.07 - 0.29 - 0.42 -
Fe g/FU 128.45 61.08 0.39 63.29 0.05 253.26 -
Dust g/FU 458.55 87.91 16.03 188.97 0.09 751.55 -
HF g/FU 0.52 - - - - - 0.52 -
HCl g/FU 4.99 - - - - - 4.99 -
H2S g/FU - 0.11 - - - - 0.11 -
HCN g/FU - 0.88 - - - - 0.88 -
Waste
Wastewater m3/FU 0.39 0.20 0.39 1.12 0.75 1.42 4.27 - Refractory waste kg/FU - 0.57 - 5.77 1.92 - 8.26 - Recycled materials BF gas m3/FU - 641.61 - - - - 641.61 BOF gas m3/FU - - - 0.36 - - - 0.36
Sludges kg/FU 1.79 0.90 - 18.86 - - - 21.55
Dust kg/FU 32.79 13.08 2.20 1.65 - - - 49.72
Iron scrap kg/FU - 10.87 - 19.19 25.75 30.42 - 86.23
Scale kg/FU - - - - 2.34 10.76 - 13.10 21
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
Table 4 Life cycle inventory of national steel production – national electric arc furnaces 22
Inputs and outputs Unit External
flux Internal flux
- intermediate products
INPUTS
Materials
Iron scrap kg/FU 1201.21 -
Quicklime kg/FU 44.70 -
Refractory kg/FU 59.44 -
Electrode kg/FU 2.21 -
Alloys kg/FU 2.23 -
Electricity kWh/FU 416.89 -
Natural gas m3/FU 4.71 -
OUTPUTS
Products
Crude steel kg/FU 1042.66 -
Co-products
EAF slag kg/FU 192.14 -
Emissions
CO2 g/FU 269007 -
SO2 g/FU 7 -
NO2 g/FU 1 -
CO g/FU 2717 -
Heavy metals g/FU -
Pb g/FU 0.53 -
Cr g/FU 0.09 -
Cd g/FU 0.09 -
Cu g/FU 0.13 -
Zn g/FU 10.97 -
Ni g/FU 0.04 -
Dust g/FU 67 -
HF g/FU 0.04 -
Waste -
Wastewater m3/FU 0.54 -
Refractory waste kg/FU 7.43 -
Recycled materials
Iron scrap kg/FU - 8.19
Dust kg/FU 3.50 -
Sludge kg/FU 8.86 - 23 24 25
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
Table 5 Lower heating values (LHV) of fuels used in national steel plants 26 Fuel Unit Quantity Anthracite MJ/kg 30.46 Coke breeze MJ/kg 29.57 Coke MJ/kg 30.52 Coke oven gas MJ/m3 16.8 BF gas MJ/m3 3.55 BOF gas MJ/m3 7.70 Natural gas MJ/m3 36.00
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
27 Table 6 Results of the life cycle impact assessment of Polish steel production 28 LCIA method
Damage/impact category
Result (according to mass allocation)
Unit Result
IPCC Carbon footprint Total BOF steel kg CO2 eq/FU 2459 Steel production kg CO2 eq/FU 1703 BF slag kg CO2 eq/FU 516 BOF slag kg CO2 eq/FU 240 CED Energy demand Total BOF steel MJ/FU 35413 Steel production MJ/FU 24520 BF slag MJ/FU 7433 BOF slag MJ/FU 3460 IPCC Carbon footprint Total EAF steel kg CO2 eq/FU 913 Crude steel kg CO2 eq/FU 766 EAF slag kg CO2 eq/FU 147 CED Energy demand Total EAF steel MJ/FU 8066 Crude steel MJ/FU 1291 EAF slag MJ/FU 6775
29
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
30 Table 7 Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Polish steel production (IPCC method) 31
Impact category BOF steel EAF steel
Unit kg CO2 eq/FU % kg CO2
eq/FU %
Greenhouse gases include: 2459 100.0 913 100.0 Direct GHG emissions 1372 55.8 269 29.6 Indirect GHG emissions from: 1086 44.2 644 70.4 Coke 246 10.1 - -
Coke oven gas 236 9.6 - - Electricity 209 8.5 469 51.4 Anthracite 61 2.5 - -
Coke breeze 33 1.4 - - Natural gas 19 0.9 - -
Refractory - - 71 7.7
Iron scrap - - 50 5.5
Quicklime - - 44 4.8
Other 282 11.2 10 1.0
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
Table 8 Energy demand of the Polish steel production system (CED method) 32 Impact category BOF steel EAF steel
Unit MJ/FU % MJ/FU % Total 35413 100.0 8066 100.0 Coke 18372 51.9 - - Coke oven gas 4421 12.5 - -
Lubricating oil 3353 9.5 - - Electricity 2465 7.0 5521 68.5 Coke breeze 2486 7.0 - - Anthracite 581 1.6 - - Refractory - - 1209 15.0 Iron scrap - - 882 10.9 Quicklime - - 260 3.2 Other 3735 10.5 194 2.4
33
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
34 Table 9 Results of the environmental impact assessment of steel production based on the Recipe Midpoint (H) 35
Impact category Unit BOF steel
BF slag
BOF slag
EAF crude steel
EAF slag
Climate change kg CO2 eq 1703 516 240 766 147 Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 4.81 1.46 0.68 2.48 0.48 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 0.81 0.25 0.11 0.46 0.09 Marine eutrophication kg N eq 0.30 0.09 0.04 0.14 0.03 Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 643 195 91 347 65 Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 4.89 1.48 0.69 1.39 0.27 Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 4.61 1.40 0.65 0.78 0.15 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.01 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 12.77 3.87 1.80 6.96 1.34 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 13.32 4.04 1.88 7.10 1.36 Ionizing radiation kg U235 eq 82.83 25.11 11.69 24.13 4.64 Agricultural land occupation m2a 45.55 13.81 6.43 13.57 2.61 Urban land occupation m2a 12.21 3.70 1.72 4.13 0.79 Natural land transformation m2 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.01 Water depletion m3 87.44 26.51 12.34 1.88 0.36 Metal depletion kg Fe eq 850 258 120 13 2 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 529 160 75 143 28
36
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
Table 10 Comparative analysis of steel production’s energy requirements and carbon footprint 37 BOF steel EAF steel Reference Energy
requirement, MJ/kg steel
GHG emissions, Mg CO2 eq/Mg steel
Energy requirement, MJ/kg steel
GHG emissions, Mg CO2 eq/Mg
steel Das et al. 1997 29.20 2.12 14.40 1.18 Hu et al. 2006 25.50 1.97 11.20 0.59 Sakamoto et al. 1999 25.00 2.15 9.4 0.56 Norgate 2004 22.00 2.30 - - This paper 35.41 2.46 8.07 0.91 38
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
Table 11 Comparative analysis of the environmental indicators for three iron ore sinter plant scenarios 39 40
LCIA method
Damage/impact category Unit Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
IPCC Carbon footprint kg CO2 eq 568 559 543 CED Total energy demand MJ 3761 3518 3926 Nonrenewable, fossil MJ 3527 3294 3098 Nonrenewable, nuclear MJ 171 163 166 Renewable, biomass MJ 26 25 625 Renewable, wind, solar,
geothermal MJ 3 3 3 Renewable, water MJ 34 33 34 Recipe Midpoint (H) Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 2.69 2.62 2.51 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 0.16 0.16 0.15 Marine eutrophication kg N eq 0.09 0.08 0.08 Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 202 196 191 Photochemical oxidant
formation kg NMVOC 1.87 1.90 1.89 Particulate matter
formation kg PM10 eq 2.99 2.96 2.94 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 0.03 0.03 0.03 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 2.55 2.42 2.32 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq 2.68 2.55 2.46 Ionizing radiation kg U235 eq 16.90 16.11 16.44 Agricultural land
occupation m2a 6.77 6.28 44.36 Urban land occupation m2a 2.21 2.05 2.27 Natural land
transformation m2 0.03 0.03 0.03 Water depletion m3 2.12 2.06 2.06 Metal depletion kg Fe eq 706 706 706 Fossil depletion kg oil eq 80 75 70
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
41 Table 12 Comparative analysis of the environmental indicators of alternative solid fuels 42 43
LCIA method
Damage/impact category Unit Coke breeze Anthracite Charcoal
IPCC Carbon footprint kg CO2 eq/MJ 0.166 0.095 0.041 CED Nonrenewable, fossil MJ/MJ 1.990 0.879 0.051 Nonrenewable, nuclear MJ/MJ 0.043 0.013 0.017 Renewable, biomass MJ/MJ 0.011 0.005 2.070 Renewable, water MJ/MJ 0.005 0.002 0.003 Recipe Midpoint (H) Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq/MJ 0.00085900 0.00042900 0.00002310 Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq/MJ 0.00006760 0.00002960 0.00000198 Marine eutrophication kg N eq/MJ 0.00002450 0.00000982 0.00000157 Human toxicity kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ 0.05850000 0.02640000 0.00259000 Photochemical oxidant
formation kg NMVOC/MJ 0.00065600 0.00050900 0.00057400 Particulate matter
formation kg PM10 eq/MJ 0.00026400 0.00011300 0.00003000 Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ 0.00000486 0.00000262 0.00001150 Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ 0.00107000 0.00045600 0.00003250 Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ 0.00106000 0.00045900 0.00003390 Ionizing radiation kg U235 eq/MJ 0.00424000 0.00128000 0.00165000 Agricultural land
occupation m2a/MJ 0.00437000 0.00196000 0.13300000 Urban land occupation m2a/MJ 0.00145000 0.00067000 0.00132000 Natural land
transformation m2/MJ 0.00001280 0.00000592 0.00000984 Water depletion m3/MJ 0.00027900 0.00007910 0.00003200 Metal depletion kg Fe eq/MJ 0.00085300 0.00032300 0.00032800 Fossil depletion kg oil eq/MJ 0.04520000 0.01990000 0.00113000
44 45 46 47
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
List of figure captions 1 2 Fig. 1 Pig iron, crude steel and hot rolled product production from 2007 to 2011 (PPS 2012) 3 Fig. 2 System boundary and process flow diagram in an integrated steel plant in Poland 4
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
5 6
7 Fig. 1 Pig iron, crude steel and hot rolled product production from 2007 to 2011 (PPS 2012) 8
5.8
10.6
8.0
4.9
9.7
7.6
3.0
7.1
6.2
3.6
8.0
6.9
4.0
8.8
7.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mt
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 pig iron crude steel hot rolled products
MANUSCRIP
T
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
Blast Furnace
SinterPlant
Basic OxygenFurnace Plant
Hot RollingPlant
Lime Plant
CastSteel
5
PigIronSinter
RolledSteel
ContinuousCasting Plant
CrudeSteel
86
1 2 3 4
5 6 87
568
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
5 6 87
QuickLime
QuickLime
1 2 3 4
5 6
5 86
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 1 – Raw materials 5 – Dust and gas emissions 29 2 – Fuels 6 – By-products 30 3 – Additives 7 – Co-products 31 4 – Electricity 8 – Wastewater 32
33 Fig. 2 System boundary and process flow diagram in an integrated steel plant in Poland 34 35
36