ENERGY USE IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY

Ladislav Horvath

IEAGHG/IETS Iron & Steel Industry CCUS and Process

Integration Workshop 5th – 7th November 2013,Tokyo, Japan

Disclaimer text

For presentations to the general public:

This document is protected by copyright. Distribution to third parties or reproduction

in any format is not permitted without written permission from worldsteel. worldsteel

operates under the strictest antitrust guidelines. Visit worldsteel.org\About us for

detailed antitrust guidelines.

Agenda

Global Steel Industry Overview

Energy use in the steel industry

- aims & goals

- methodology

- results analyzes

Technology survey

worldsteel web based tool

Other issues related to steel industry

3

The iron and steel industry – where we are

Total world crude steel production in 2012: 1 542 Mt

Energy costs represent around 20 to 25 % of the total input of steel producers

and it becomes one of the most important topic of steel producers

Coking coal accounts for more than 65% of primary source of energy

4

BF / BOF: 69.6% EAF: 29.3 %

OHF: 1.1%

Average CO2 Intensity: 1.8 t CO2 / tCS

Average Energy Intensity: 18.2 GJ / tCS

Energy use in the steel industry

5

Active Members of the Energy use Project:

Project objectives and background

Enable steel producers to make a fair comparison of their own

energy consumption with a standard reference plant and their

peers on a site and facility level

Enable steel producers to analyze the performance gap between

of their own performance, the reference and peers on a site and

facility level

Enable steel producers to monitor their trend of change of their

energy performance taking into account all key factors, e.g.

process production level, raw material selection, technologies.

Provide an ongoing web based tool for the worldsteel members to

measure their performance on an annual or ad-hoc basis.

Be able to evaluate technologies and build a business case for

implementation based on practical performance

7

8

The study covers these plant types

Sintering

Pelletizing

Direct Reduced Iron

Coking

Iron making (BF/SR)

BOF

EAF

Continuous Casting

Hot Rolling Mill

Air Separation Unit

Power Plant

Flares

GJ / t of Crude Steel /

Cast Steel or process

Product

or / and

GJ / t of HR Coil

Principle of performance assessment for multi-step

production routes

Reference plant #1: This Reference Plant values were developed on

the base of the Energy specialist data and core group experience and

data collected from more than 60 sites all around the world over a 5 year

period. The energy intensity of analyzed steel facilities will be compared

with the Reference Plant #1 values.

Energy survey top quartile results: In the future further reports will

use worldsteel reference plant direct data from an average of the best 25

% data of member’s sites in the future.

worldsteel reference plant definition

11

Reference plant vs. site energy intensity

Coke Plant (RP)

Unit Flow Energy (MJ)

In

Coking coal kg/t 1,267.5 40,725

Light oil l/t 2.6 91

CO gas MJ/t 489.6 490

BF gas MJ/t 2,224.9 2,225

BOF gas MJ/t 550.7 551

Electricity MWh/t 38.3 375

HP Steam kg/t 81.7 310

Oxygen m3N/t 1.1 8

Nitrogen m3N/t 5.4 11

Compressed air m3N/t 7.3 8

Out

Coke kg/t 1,000.0 30,135

CO gas MJ/t 7,652.2 7,652

Tar kg/t 34.5 1,286

Heating fuels 3,265

Utilities 712

(Coal+Oil) 40,816

Coke +Tar 31,421

Coke oven gas 7,652

Total energy 5,719

Processing Energy 3,977

Coke Plant (Analyzed plant)

Unit Flow Energy (MJ)

In

Coking coal kg/t 1,245.93 40,119

CO gas MJ/t 1,172.00 1,172

BF gas MJ/t 2949.6 2949.6

Natural gas MJ/t 1.7 1.7

Electricity MWh/t 0.1 360.4

HP Steam kg/t 0 0

Oxygen m3N/t 0 0

Nitrogen m3N/t 3.57 7

LP Steam kg/t 196.6 680.2

Compressed air m3N/t 11.2 12.1

Out

Coke kg/t 882.4 26,561

Coke Breeze kg/t 117.6 3,539

CO gas MJ/t 7,952.00 7,952

Benzole kg/t 4 163

Naphtalenic oil kg/t 0 0

Tar kg/t 36.7 1357.7

Heating fuels 4,124

Utilities 1,059

Coking blend 40,119

Products 31,621

Coke oven gas 7,952

Recovered Energy 0

Total energy 5,729

Processing Energy 5,183

12

Roll up Methodology of EI assessment

1 Roll-up Primary Metal level Sinter Plant + Coke Oven Plant + ….. + BF Plant

2 Roll-up Crude Steel level (1 + Steel Shop)

3 Roll-up Hot Rolled level (2 + Hot Rolling Mill)

4 Roll-up site level (3 + Power Plant + ASU + Flares)

Coke oven plants EI comparison with worldsteel reference

13

-80.00%

-60.00%

-40.00%

-20.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

JTB

M0

01

PA

GO

00

1

QTO

L00

1

PD

MS0

02

JFU

H0

01

YLO

M0

06

QEI

U1

73

RD

HE0

01

QR

DT0

03

QR

DT0

04

TLK

B0

01

QW

CE0

01

QR

DT0

01

JEV

S00

3

PD

MS0

01

MO

PE6

58

YBX

N0

01

-64.49%

-56.31%

-21.93% -19.26%

-3.04%

0.18% 1.90% 3.64%

19.37%

28.10% 30.87% 33.95% 34.58%

41.47% 47.33%

55.49%

80.74%

Off

set

to r

efe

ren

ce [

%]

Sites

Analyzed site waterfall graph

14

BF plant – process waterfall graph

15

Energy saving potential

16

Sinter plant direct energy vs. total energy intensity

17

-17.8 -14.6

-11.7 -10.7 -7.5 -6.3 -5.6 -2.8 -1.4

0.9 2.3 4.2

7.8 7.9

13.4 18.9

20.8

40.9

70.6

-5.2 -8.6 -7.6 -5.2

0 2

6.4 2.2

10.5

0.8 4.4

8.7

15.9 13.4

31.1

21.4

32

50.1

67

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Direct Energy Total Energy

Technology Survey

18

Technology survey

- A technology questionnaire was developed to analyze the gap

between the energy intensity of plants and sites depending on

equipment used.

- Contains more than 190 energy efficient techniques and technologies

and analyze the impact of the energy efficient technologies on the

totally energy intensity of plant.

- Each defined technology must be able to decrease the energy

intensity of the steel production process or can increase the

productivity or quality of the products.

- Project members analyzed the implemented technologies and

determined the reason for implementing these technologies.

20

List of techniques and technologies

Based on the IISI report from 1998

- 100 Energy Efficiency Techniques & Technologies were identified

On the base of other reports

- 90 Energy Efficiency Techniques and & Technologies were identified

• Are these techniques and technologies used in your plant?

• The main drivers / reasons for implementation.

• Years of experience with these technologies.

• Did the technologies deliver the expected performance or

improvement?

• Do you have development plans to implement energy reducing

technologies?

Basic questions in the list:

Most widely implemented EST within

Energy use project members

24 23 22 22 22 20 20 19

15 14 12 11 10 10

8 6 6

3 1 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

EST implemented at BF plant and BOF Shop

20 19 18 17 17 15 15 14

12 11 10 9 9 9

5 5 3 3

1 1 1 1 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

No. of analyzed energy

saving technologies: 20

No. of analyzed energy

saving technologies: 23

40% of EST are widely

implemented at BF

plants

30% of EST are widely

implemented at BOF

plants

• Blast furnace charge distribution control (reduce coke consumption)

• Blast furnace Injectants (Tar, NG, PCI, etc.) (reduce coke

consumption / Saving energy (coke rate) and better control of raceway

(heat level control) / Increased BF-productivity)

• Computer aided control (blast stoves) (monitoring and controlling

the combustion process, improve energy Eff. / Heat demand software -

better control and energy savings)

• Hot blast stove automation (Higher average blast temperature, lower

coke consumption, lower energy intensity of hot metal production)

Top 4 Energy Saving technologies implemented at blast

furnace plants

• BF Gas recovery: The BF gas exported from the BF is typically used to

fire hot stoves, coke batteries and any excess sent to power plant or

HRM (5.4 – 6.5 GJ/t HM).

• Pulverized coal injection to BF: Energy saving depends on a total

amount of pulverized coal injection to BF and it is in the range from 0.5

– 1.4 GJ/t HM.

• Top recovery turbine: The electricity production by TRT is in the range

from 30 – 60 kWh / ton of hot metal (it depends on a type of gas

cleaning system, BF operation mode, TRT turbine, etc.)

• Waste heat recovery of molten BF slag: Heat recovery from slag, i.e.

dry slag granulation, is being developed. Slag contains about 2 GJ/t

slag of sensible heat at 1500oC. This is high grade heat, with the

possibility to produce high pressure steam.

Top 4 energy saving technologies that can save most

energy at the blast furnace plant:

0.01

1.29

0.1 0.04 0 0.11

5.5

0.125 0.15 0.05 0.4

24 23

22 22 22

20 20 19

15 14

12 11

10 10

8

6 6

3

1 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

No

. of

Ene

rgy

Savi

ng

Tech

no

logi

es

Ene

rgy

savi

ng

/ to

nn

e o

f h

ot

me

tal (

GJ/

t h

ot

me

tal)

Top 4 energy saving technologies that can save most

energy at the blast furnace plant:

Site Energy Intensity vs. No. of Energy Eff. Technologies

BF-BOF process route

75

84

62

35

58

26

48

34

43

27

57 57

70 74

48

67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No

. of

imp

lem

ente

d t

ech

no

logi

es

Off

set

to r

efer

ence

(%

)

Site Energy Intensity vs. No. of Energy Eff. Technologies

EAF process route

-26.24

-20.17

-13.34 -7.40 -7.30 -6.76 -1.45

2.94

11.01

28.93

35.27

61.47

68.00

19

23

27

20 21

11

22

16

22

29

19 20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-30.0

-10.0

10.0

30.0

50.0

70.0

No

. of

imp

lem

ente

d e

ne

rgy

savi

ng

tech

no

logi

es

Off

set

to w

orl

dst

eel r

efer

ence

pla

nt

(%)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

36.5 29.2

86.8

55.9

78.1

44.6

28.4 20.3

9.6

57.6

27.7 27.0

100.0

18.8

36.0

100.0

30.2

69.7

51.9 70.8

12.9

44.1

21.9

55.4

71.5 79.7

84.7

42.4

72.3 73.0 81.2

63.8

56.8

30.3

11.59 4.27

12.97

0.22 0.04 1.36 0.14 G

as f

uel

inp

ut

to t

he

coke

ry (

%)

COG BFG BOFG NG

Gaseous fuel input rate to the coke oven process

Sinter plant, 1.7%

Coke making, 20.0% Pellet plants, 2.3%

Blast Furnace, 5.9%

BOF process, 2.3%

EAF, 0.2%

Hot strip mill, 16.3%

Plate mill, 4.4% Long product mill,

5.7%

Gas Flares, 2.4%

PP, 20.7%

Others, 18.3%

Sinter plant Coke making Pellet plants Blast Furnace

BOF process EAF Hot strip mill Plate mill

Long product mill Gas Flares PP Others

Destination of coke oven gas within metallurgy plants

COG flared: 2.46%

BFG flared: 5.5%

BOFG flared: 26.4%

Energy saving potential of metallurgy industry

- The energy savings identified from the surveyed plants shows that if the

industry moves from an average value to a reference plant value, this is BF-

BOF average value 18.934 GJ / t Crude Steel. BF-BOF Reference value is

17.674 GJ / t Crude Steel or a gap of 1.26 GJ / tonne of Crude Steel or 6.6%

saving.

- For the EAF route this is less as they are not as complex and use as energy

mainly electricity. EAF average energy intensity is 7.33 GJ / tonne of CS. EAF

reference value is 6.81 GJ / tonne of CS. Leaving a gap and potential saving of

0.512 GJ / tonne of Crude Steel or 7.09% energy saving.

4th Step: Raw materials quality improvement

3rd Step: Maintenance

2nd Step: Yield improvement

1st Step: Effective management & operation

decisions

5th Step: Energy saving tech. implementation

Energy efficiency improvement – worldsteel suggestions

What value is able to be created from this work:

By saving 0.1 GJ / tonne of hot rolled coil is

worth about 1.61 Euro per tonne @58 Euro/MWh

The worldsteel methodology and process developed can

help you find out where and how to save energy by:

- Making the right raw materials procurement decision

- Making different management & operation decisions

- By evaluating and justifying the implementation of

technologies

33

Energy Data Collection System (V2)

- Database developed in 4 languages

- Standard safety data store

- Multilevel data entry (administrator and user entry)

- 1 system used for 4 worldsteel projects (Safety, Energy, CO2 data collection

and Maintenance & Reliability)

- Allow to entry for more users at the same time

44 energy surveys already uploaded to the EDCS

34

Thank you for your

attention

Questions??

worldsteel.org