Iron & Steel

The energy consumption of the iron and steel industry in 2018 is based on the IEA energy balance (IEA 2020). The process of the iron and steel industry consists of extracting iron ore and recycling steel scrap to produce cast iron which is turned into finished steel to be commercialized. The energy and materials required to transform iron ore into steel depends on the process involved. For example, BF-BOF processes require oxygen, limestone, coke, coal and other dense energies to bring the process to a high temperature. Electric arc furnaces (EAF) require oxygen, limestone, electricity and steel scrap. Figure 1 simplifies the flows between primary energy (fossil fuels, biogenic fuels, electricity, hydrogen, heat), secondary energy and fuel mixes, primary materials (limestone, iron ore, fine ore, quicklime), secondary materials (oxygen, sinter, pellets, coke), base-year technologies (BF-BOF, EAF, Direct Reduction of Iron (DRI)), innovative technologies (see dedicated section below), CO2 emissions, and CO2 utilization and storage (CCUS), and finished products (cast iron and finished steel). The arrow from primary energy towards secondary energy represents the transofmration of hard coal into coke, pellets and sinter.


Figure 1: Simplified reference energy system

In addition to conventional technologies presented in the previous section, TIAM-FR is featured with alternative technologies including electricity-based processes, carbon capture processes, direct reduction of iron, and other innovative technologies embodied in groups presented in Table 1 and listed in Appendix 1 along with their techno-economic properties.
One important feature is that biomass use is available for both conventional and alternative steel production routes. Table 1 presents a summary of different substitution potentials between fossil fuels and bioenergy depending on the process. In general, charcoal can substitute only a small share of coke as it does not present the same physical and chemical characteristics. However, charcoal can substitute most of the coal (see the fifth column of Table 1), while biomethane is a perfect substitute for natural gas. Raw biomass cannot be used directly in any of these processes as it features high moisture content, volatile matter content, low calorific value, and low grindability, etc. (Mousa et al., 2016). Besides, biogas or syngas produced directly from anaerobic digestion and gasification cannot be used directly in the ISI as they do not present the same chemical composition as natural gas, and thus require purification and upgrading beforehand. The solver determines the optimal amount of bioproducts to substitute fossil fuels (any combination from 0% to 100% of biomass is the steel energy mix). Before 2030, charcoal is available only in Brazil, as around 11% of the country’s steel production uses charcoal instead of coal and in Norway, which uses some charcoal in their steel mills. The use of bioproducts in the remaining regions is made possible starting from 2030. The harvesting potentials of the different bioproducts (wood, agriculture residues, organic waste, etc.) are taken from Kang et al. (2017).

Table 1: Possible uses for bioenergy in the steel industry. Substitution potentials are based on fuels’ lower heating value.

Process

Availability date

Fossil fuel use

Bioproduct substitution

Maximum substitution potential based on LHV

Reference

Coke oven

2018

Coal

Charcoal

0%-5%

(Mousa et al. 2016)

Pelletization

2018

Coal

Charcoal

0%-100%

(Nwachukwu, Wang et Wetterlund 2021)

Sintering

2018

Coke

Charcoal

0%-40%

Blast Furnace / with CCS (including the Top Gas recycling option)

2018 / 2025

Coke

Charcoal

0%-6%

(Suopajärvi et al. 2017)

Coal

Charcoal

0%-100%

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

Direct Reduction of Iron (MIDREX) / with CCS

2018 / 2025

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

(Tanzer, Blok et Ramírez 2020)

COREX / with CCS

2020 /2025

Coal

Charcoal

0%-45%

(Norgate et al. 2012)

Coke

Charcoal

0%-45%

HIsarna / with CCS

2030

Coal

Charcoal

0%-45%

ULCORED / with CCS

2030

Coal

Charcoal

0%-100%

(Tanzer, Blok et Ramírez 2020)

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

ULCOWIN

2050

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

Coal

Charcoal

0%-100%

Cupola

2018

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

EAF

2018

Coal

Charcoal

0%-100%

(Yang, F., Meerman, J. C. et Faaij, A.P.C. 2021)

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

DRI-H2 integrated steel plant

2030

Coal

Charcoal

0%-100%

(Tanzer, Blok et Ramírez 2020)

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

Final production of steel

2018

Natural gas

Biomethane

0%-100%

This modeling of steel was leveraged in a publication about the net-negatvive emissions potential of the sector (Andrade et al., 2024)

Appendices

Appendix 1: techno-economic assumption of steel manufacturing processes in TIAM-FR

Units

Existing BF-BOF

Retrofitted BF-BOF w/CC

New BF-BOF

BF-BOF w/CC

BF-BOF w/TGR

BF-BOF w/CC & TGR

Existing coke oven

New coke oven

Corex

Corex w/CC

CUPOLA

Existing DRI

Retrofitted DRI-H2

New DRI-H2

DRI-H2 w/Electrolyzer

Existing EAF

NewEAF

Finishing process

New finishing process

Hisarna

Hisarna w/CC

Midrex

Midrex w/CC

Retrofitted Midrex w/CC

Existing oxygen production

New oxygen production

Existing pellet production

New pellet production

Existing sinter production

New sinter production

Ulcolysis

Ulcored

Ulcored w/CC

Ulcowin

Availability

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

95%

95%

85%

85%

90%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

90%

90%

90%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

95%

95%

95%

95%

85%

85%

85%

85%

Lifetime

y

25

25

25

20

25

20

25

30

25

30

25

25

40

40

25

25

20

20

25

20

25

20

25

20

30

25

25

25

25

20

25

Investment cost

[$2018/Mtpa]

426

335

412

632

692

9

414

507

1126

437

587

989

240

195

918

961

510

531

462

353

126

71

775

593

658

731

Fixed costs

[$2018/Mtpa]

19

80

58

64

70

77

54

51

113

16

59

59

69

13

25

56

56

103

151

32

37

34

18

18

3

6

3

3

51

58

62

76

Variable costs

[$2018/Mt]

59

64

19

23

19

23

2

2

18

23

225

51

41

40

42

59

36

11

11

56

67

40

44

56

5

5

6

6

38

42

36

Start year

2030

2020

2020

2030

2030

2020

2025

2025

2020

2030

2030

2030

2020

2020

2030

2030

2020

2030

2030

2020

2020

2020

2050

2030

2030

2050

Inputs

Coke or biochar

[PJ]

13.43

15.9

15.17

10.44

7.7

7.7

0.07

0.02

24.3

24.3

13.41

13.41

3.92

2.15

2.67

0.89

Coal or biochar

[PJ]

3.37

6.53

6.53

1.35

1.46

3.02

3.02

Gas or biogas

[PJ]

0.51

0.25

0.16

0.14

11.4

13.85

0.77

0.77

1.41

16.17

12.79

12.79

10.91

11.41

Hydrogen

[PJ]

6.41

6.41

Electricity

[PJ]

0.97

0.15

0.88

0.39

1.02

4.6

2.32

1.66

12.35

2.29

3.17

2.36

1.03

0.72

14.2

3.16

3.57

11.24

Heavy fuel oil

[PJ]

0.64

0

Limestone

[Mt]

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.28

0.28

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.05

0.17

0.17

0.18

Lump ore

[Mt]

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.54

0.54

1.42

1.42

1.27

1.27

1.27

1.51

1.27

1.27

1.51

Fine ore

[Mt]

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.14

0.15

0

0

0

0

1.51

1

1

1.16

1.15

Oxygen

[Mt]

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.17

0.17

0.41

0.41

0.03

0

0.05

0.05

1.09

1.09

0.11

0.11

Pellets

[Mt]

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.72

0.72

0.68

0.68

Quick lime

[Mt]

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.03

0.03

Scrap

[Mt]

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.17

0.17

0.18

0.18

1.3

0.16

0.12

0.12

0.12

1.23

1.23

0.17

0.17

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.16

Sinter

[Mt]

1.09

1.09

1.09

1.09

0.7

0.7

Crude steel

[Mt]

1

1

Outputs

Crude steel

[Mt]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Gases

[PJ]

5.09

4.11

4.11

4.11

0.25

0.25

0.16

0.14

11.55

0.65

Slags

[Mt]

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.34

0.34

0.44

0.44

0.17

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.26

0.17

0.26

0.17

0.17

0.17

Process CO2

[kt]

44

44

32

3

11

1

144

14

31

31

31

44

44

14

1

62

6

6.16

Finished steel

[Mt]

1

1

Oxygen

[Mt]

1

1

Pellets

[Mt]

1

1

Coke

[PJ]

1

1

Sinter

[Mt]

1

1

References

Kang, S., 2017. La place de la bioénergie dans un monde sobre en carbone: Analyse prospective et développement de la filière biomasse dans le modèle TIAM-FR. MINES ParisTech.
Mousa E, Wang C, Riesbeck J et al. (2016) Biomass applications in iron and steel industry: An overview of challenges and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65:1247–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.061
Nwachukwu, C.M., Wang, C., Wetterlund, E., 2021. Exploring the role of forest biomass in abating fossil CO2 emissions in the iron and steel industry – The case of Sweden. Applied Energy 288. Suopajärvi, H., Kemppainen, A., Haapakangas, J., Fabritius, T., 2017. Extensive review of the opportunities to use biomass-based fuels in iron and steelmaking processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 148, 709–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.029
Tanzer, S.E., Blok, K., Ramírez, A., 2021. Decarbonising Industry via BECCS: Promising Sectors, Challenges, and Techno-economic Limits of Negative Emissions. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 8, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-021-00195-3
Norgate, T., Haque, N., Somerville, M., Jahanshahi, S., 2012. Biomass as a Source of Renewable Carbon for Iron and Steelmaking. ISIJ International 52, 1472–1481. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.52.1472
Yang, F., Meerman, J.C., Faaij, A.P.C., 2021. Carbon capture and biomass in industry: A techno-economic analysis and comparison of negative emission options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144, 111028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111028
Andrade, C., Desport, L., Selosse, S., 2024. Net-negative emission opportunities for the iron and steel industry on a global scale. Applied Energy 358, 122566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122566