scholarly journals Understanding of Blast Furnace Performance with Biomass Introduction

Minerals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Joel Orre ◽  
Lena Sundqvist Ökvist ◽  
Axel Bodén ◽  
Bo Björkman
Keyword(s):  
Blast Furnace ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Direct Reduction ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Model Calculations ◽  
Furnace Performance ◽  
Blast Furnace Performance ◽  
Torrefied Biomass

The blast furnace still dominates the production and supply of metallic units for steelmaking. Coke and coal used in the blast furnace contribute substantially to CO2 emissions from the steel sector. Therefore, blast furnace operators are making great efforts to lower the fossil CO2 emissions and transition to fossil-free steelmaking. In previous studies the use of pre-treated biomass has been indicated to have great potential to significantly lower fossil CO2 emissions. Even negative CO2 emission can be achieved if biomass is used together with carbon capture and storage. Blast furnace conditions will change at substantial inputs of biomass but can be defined through model calculations when using a model calibrated with actual operational data to define the key blast furnace performance parameters. To understand the effect, the modelling results for different biomass cases are evaluated in detail and the overall performance is visualised in Rist- and carbon direct reduction rate (CDRR) diagrams. In this study injection of torrefied biomass or charcoal, top charging of charcoal as well as the use of a combination of both methods are evaluated in model calculations. It was found that significant impact on the blast furnace conditions by the injection of 142 kg/tHM of torrefied biomass could be counteracted by also top-charging 30 kg/tHM of charcoal. With combined use of the latter methods, CO2-emissions can be potentially reduced by up to 34% with moderate change in blast furnace conditions and limited investments.

scholarly journals Pathways for Low-Carbon Transition of the Steel Industry—A Swedish Case Study

Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 3840
Author(s):  
Alla Toktarova ◽  
Ida Karlsson ◽  
Johan Rootzén ◽  
Lisa Göransson ◽  
Mikael Odenberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blast Furnace ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Steel Industry ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Direct Reduction ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Steel Production ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Production Plant ◽  
Low Carbon

The concept of techno-economic pathways is used to investigate the potential implementation of CO2 abatement measures over time towards zero-emission steelmaking in Sweden. The following mitigation measures are investigated and combined in three pathways: top gas recycling blast furnace (TGRBF); carbon capture and storage (CCS); substitution of pulverized coal injection (PCI) with biomass; hydrogen direct reduction of iron ore (H-DR); and electric arc furnace (EAF), where fossil fuels are replaced with biomass. The results show that CCS in combination with biomass substitution in the blast furnace and a replacement primary steel production plant with EAF with biomass (Pathway 1) yield CO2 emission reductions of 83% in 2045 compared to CO2 emissions with current steel process configurations. Electrification of the primary steel production in terms of H-DR/EAF process (Pathway 2), could result in almost fossil-free steel production, and Sweden could achieve a 10% reduction in total CO2 emissions. Finally, (Pathway 3) we show that increased production of hot briquetted iron pellets (HBI), could lead to decarbonization of the steel industry outside Sweden, assuming that the exported HBI will be converted via EAF and the receiving country has a decarbonized power sector.

Numerical Analysis of Blast Furnace Performance Under Charging Iron-Bearing Burdens With High Reducibility

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Man-sheng Chu ◽  
Xian-zhen Guo ◽  
Feng-man Shen ◽  
Jun-ichiro Yagi ◽  
Hiroshi Nogami
Keyword(s):  
Blast Furnace ◽  
Numerical Analysis ◽  
Furnace Performance ◽  
Blast Furnace Performance ◽  
Iron Bearing

Evolution of Gases from the Pyrolysis of Raw and Torrefied Biomass and from the Oxy-combustion of their Bio-Chars

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Xiaoxiao Meng ◽  
Wei Zhou ◽  
Emad Rokni ◽  
Xigang Yang ◽  
Yiannis Levendis
Keyword(s):  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Heating Rates ◽  
Renewable Biomass ◽  
Carbon Capture And Utilization ◽  
Combustion Emissions ◽  
Torrefied Biomass ◽  
High Heating ◽  
Pyrolysis Of Biomass ◽  
N Compounds

Abstract The current research assessed the evolution of gases from pyrolysis of biomass and from subsequent combustion of bio-chars. Raw and torrefied biomass was pyrolyzed in nitrogen or carbon dioxide under high heating rates (104 K/s) and high temperatures (1450 K). Pyrolyzates gases were monitored for carbon, nitrogen and sulfur oxides. Subsequently, generated bio-chars were burned in both conventional (air) and simulated oxy-combustion (O2/CO2) gases. In principle, oxy-combustion of renewable biomass coupled with carbon capture and utilization/sequestration can help remove atmospheric CO2. Pyrolysis of biomass in CO2 generated lower char yields, lower SO2 and NO, and higher CO2, CO and HCN mole fractions, compared to pyrolysis in N2. HCN was the most prominent among all measured nitrogen-bearing gases (HCN, NH3, NO) from biomass pyrolysis. Compared to their combustion in air, bio-chars burned more effectively in 30%O2/79%CO2 and less effectively in 21%O2/79%CO2. Emissions of CO were the lowest in 21%O2/79%CO2. Emissions of HCN were the highest in air combustion, and decreased with increasing O2 mole fraction in oxy-combustion; emissions of NO were highest in 30%O2/79%CO2, and emissions of NO were dominant during bio-char oxy-combustion compared with other N-compounds. In oxy-combustion bio-chars released the lowest emissions of SO2. Finally, the emissions of CO, NO, HCN, and SO2 from combustion of DDGS bio-chars were higher than those from RH bio-chars, because of different physicochemical properties.

Influence of the Quality of Iron Ore and Coke on Blast-Furnace Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 793-801
Author(s):  
V. P. Lyalyuk ◽  
A. K. Tarakanov ◽  
D. A. Kassim ◽  
P. I. Otorvin ◽  
A. A. Gusev
Keyword(s):  
Blast Furnace ◽  
Iron Ore ◽  
Furnace Performance ◽  
Blast Furnace Performance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document