ENERGY USE IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY and Steel 2...The iron and steel industry – where we are Total...
Transcript of ENERGY USE IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY and Steel 2...The iron and steel industry – where we are Total...
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