• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works - Technology, Location and Greenhouse Gases
 

Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works - Technology, Location and Greenhouse Gases

on

  • 1,938 views

- Impact of cokemaking technology on costs and greenhouse gas emissions for different steel works configurations ...

- Impact of cokemaking technology on costs and greenhouse gas emissions for different steel works configurations
- Regional implications that drive cokemaking technology selection
- Identifying implementation niches for the available cokemaking technologies

Author:
Ian Cameron, Senior Director - Iron & Steel, HATCH, Canada

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,938
Views on SlideShare
1,938
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • ....................
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works - Technology, Location and Greenhouse Gases Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works - Technology, Location and Greenhouse Gases Presentation Transcript

    • Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works Technology, Location and Greenhouse Gases Ian Cameron Senior Director – Iron & Steel, Hatch Ltd. Met Coke World Summit 2010 November 1-3, 2010, Pittsburgh, PA
    • ThemesImportant strategic considerations for coke supply to an integratedsteel works• Theme 1 – Impact of cokemaking technology on greenhouse gas emissions and costs for different integrated steel works configurations• Theme 2 – Regional implications that drive cokemaking technology selection• Theme 3 – Identifying implementation niches for the available cokemaking technologies
    • Theme 1: Impact of Cokemaking Technology on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs forDifferent Integrated Steel Works Configurations
    • Cokemaking TechnologiesConsidered • Basic Technologies – By-Product Battery – Heat Recovery Battery – Stamp Charging • Energy Efficiency Technologies – Coke Dry Quenching – Coal Moisture Control
    • Technology Advantages Each basic cokemaking technology brings some key advantages Aspect By-Product Heat Stamp Coke Plant Recovery Charging Coke PlantUS EPA Best Available √TechnologyCoke Oven Gas √Available for HeatingBy-Products for Sale √Improved Coke Quality √Simple Operation √ √Flexible Coal Selection √ √Small Plant Foot Print √
    • Traditional Integrated Steelworks (ISW)ISW with By-Product Coke Plant, Sinter Plant and Blast Furnace Operations to produceHot Rolled Coil (HRC)
    • Integrated Steel Works with a Heat Recovery Coke PlantMore export power is produced but a supplemental fuel gas like Natural Gas is neededfor heating purposes
    • Where to draw the GHG Box?Capturing the entire carbon cycle on a life cycle basis is needed tomake objective comparisons• Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions – Scope 1: From fuel combustion and industrial processes in the ISW – Scope 2: Indirect emissions from coal or oil fired power plant – Scope 3: Indirect emissions from pellets, limestone and oxygen – Used to prevent double counting and account for all upstream GHGs related to steel production• Important to have a common and saleable end product like Hot Rolled Coil (HRC)
    • Scope 1 – CO2 Emissions are Similar for both TechnologiesVirtually all carbon input is released as CO2 except small amounts in by-products and HRC By-Product Coke Plant 97.3% of input C emitted as CO2 Heat Recovery Coke Plant 99.8% of input C emitted as CO2 Heat-Recovery Coke Plant Sinter Plant Coal 67% Blast Furnace Carbon Dioxide BOF Steelmaking Emission 99.8% Anthracite 4% Continuous Caster PCI 22% External Scrap 0.02% Power Plant Limestone 2% Dolomite 2% Natural Gas 3% Hot Strip Mill HRC 0.2%
    • Scope 2 Emissions – The Electricity Balance All purchased electricity is assumed to be produced by a coal fired power plant, a similar C-credit is provided for power salesNote: Conversion of in-plant fuel gas to electric power set to 30% conversion efficiency
    • Scope 3 Emissions – Other SourcesLimestone calcination, pellet and oxygen production provided an identicalCO2 contribution for both cokemaking technologies
    • GHG Emissions are SimilarPortion of input carbon emitted by HRCP is higher but this is offsetby a lower C-Input due to better quality coke produced from thesame coal blend
    • The CO2 Emission Profile for Various Integrated Steel Works Arrangements A greenfield BF based steel works using best technology will be competitive on CO2 with most coal-based alternative ironmaking technologies (AITs) Scope 1 CO2 Emissions vs. Technology 4.0 3.5 3.0 Note: Conversion of in-plant (CO2 tonnes/tonne HRC) fuel gas to electric power set to 2.5 40% conversion efficiency forCO2 Emitted By-product Plants using CCPP Technology 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Byproduct Byproduct Heat Recovery Heat Recovery 18 AITs Non-Stamp Stamp Non-Stamp Stamp WQ WQ WQ WQ
    • Cost Performance is Similar for ISWs using Various Cokemaking Technologies Rates of return are very close, heat recovery has a slightly lower IRR due to a lower coal yield related to coal burnt in each oven HRC OPEX for Different HRC CAPEX for Different HRC %IRR for Different Cokemaking Technology Cokemaking Technology Cokemaking Technology Options Options OptionsBF + Byproduct+ Wet Quench BF + Stamp Charged Byproduct+Wet Quench BF + StampCharged + HeatRecovery +Wet Quench BF + Heat Recovery+Wet Quench -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% Relative IRR (% at HRC) Relative OPEX (% at HRC) Relative CAPEX (% at HRC)
    • Theme 1 – CommentsGHG emissions are not strongly dependant on the ironmaking technologyselected when coal-based processes are considered • GHG emissions are similar for a steel works using either heat recovery and by-product cokemaking processes • Each cokemaking technology can offer the steel works a strategy to lower the GHG emissions – A heat recovery process can lower the steel work’s C-input via increased coke quality and greater injected coal at the blast furnace – Using Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP) technology, a by-products plant could improve the conversion of latent gas energy into electric power and reduce power purchases • Alternative coal-based ironmaking technologies provide similar GHG emissions to BF based ISWs
    • Theme 1 – CommentsFinding a winning balance – a competition between coal blend price, fuelgas costs and power/by-product sales • With a heat recovery coke plant, the ISW needs a cost competitive supplemental fuel gas for heating purposes • Using non-coking coal to reduce raw material costs – More carbon is needed to make hot rolled coil due to a loss of coke quality, as a result GHGs emitted increases • Power – A high selling price of electrical power strongly drives the benefits of a heat recovery based steel works. The same is true for coke dry quenching – Should green power be available to the ISW, the steel works using a by-product coke plant would have a lower C-footprint
    • Theme 2:Regional Implications that Drive Cokemaking Technology Selection
    • Operating Cost Drivers Coal dominates the operating cost driver of coke produced by either by-product and heat recovery processes Cokemaking OPEX Breakdown $350 $300 Power Credit $250 COG CreditOPEX ($/tonne coke) $200 Byproducts $150 Labor, Utilities $100 and R&M Materials $50 Total $0 ($50) ($100) Byproduct Byproduct Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Non-Stamp Stamp Non-Stamp Stamp WQ WQ WQ WQ
    • Regional Cost DriversCoal is internationally priced, power and by-product credits varyregion-to-region
    • Regional Coking Coal Blend CompositionsGermany aims to produce a high quality coke and operate the blast furnace at<300 kg/t coke rate, reducing the total metallurgical coal required to producehot rolled coil. India and China focus on reducing the cost of the coal blend byusing leaner coals Non- Stamp Charge Coking Coal Blend VM % India Brazil 26.2 USA Germany China 24.8 23.3 21.9 Moisture % Ash % 9.30 8.20 7.10 6.00 8.1 8.6 9.2 9.7 64.7 66.5 68.2 70.0 Fix C %
    • Stamped vs. Non-Stamped BlendsIntroducing lean coals to the coking blend, increases volatile contentand reduces ash input, coke quality such as CSR decreases Coking Coal Blends VM % 27.0 India - NSC India - SC 26.3 25.7 25.0 Moisture % Ash % 9.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 9.50 9.57 9.63 9.70 63.5 64.1 64.7 NSC = Non-Stamp Charged 65.3 SC = Stamp Charged Fix C %
    • Regional DriversCoal, by-product and power sale credits can drive the technologychosen to make blast furnace coke• Availability of a low cost external fuel gas – Where not available, by-product coke making will be the best choice• Coal Costs – Regions rich with coking coals and steel companies that control the supply chain are less likely to change technology away from by- product technology – Regions with poor coking coal supplies and dependant on imports have an imperative to use technology to introduce non-coking coals to the coal blend – Quality coals + quality coke can reduce total metallurgical coal required by operating the blast furnace at <300 kg/t coke rate• By-Product Credits and Power Sales – Power sales have a large regional differences and can contribute to technology selection – In some regions, traditional chemical by-products can be a challenge to sell
    • Theme 3:Identifying Implementation Niches for the Available Cokemaking Technologies
    • A Southeastern Brazilian Niche Most of the Brazilian Steel Plants are located in the Southeast region in a 1000 km circle due to abundant iron ore resources. USIMINAS BELGO Belo Horizonte ACESITA Vitória AÇOMINAS CST BELGO (JF) CSN Rio de Janeiro São Paulo Railways COSIPASteelworks Plants Ports
    • A Southeastern Brazilian Niche Potential oversupply of traditional by-products with low or negative prices gives Heat Recovery Cokemaking an opportunity to grow•Five (5) new steel works are planned•Major off shore oil field development willincrease natural gas availability•Brazil needs electricity! USIMINAS BELGO Belo Horizonte ACESITA Vitória AÇOMINAS CST BELGO (JF) CSN Rio de Janeiro São Paulo Railways COSIPA Steelworks Plants Ports
    • A European Niche A regional Heat Recovery Coke Plant may be attractive in EuropeLocation of ArcelorMittal’s blast furnaces Key 9-12 Mt • Heat Recovery is favored by 6-9 Mt – High power price 3-6 Mt 0-3 Mt – Strong environmental credentials 3 Number of blast furnaces at the site • A regional heat recovery coke plant able to serve several steel mills may offer 2 2 a better solution to 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 rebuilding by-product plants – Coastal location 2 4 2 – Polish coal field location Source: Hatch Beddows 26
    • An Indian Niche A combination of By-product and Heat Recovery Coke Plants may best service India’s fast growing steel industry • Integrated steel works need gas and electricity • Coals amenable to stamp charging areTraditional Blast Furnace based available domestically and beingSteelmaking Region developed to reduce raw material costs • By-products are hard to sell due to logistical challenges creating a disposal problem • A two prong solution – On-site by-product plant to meet the steel works fuel gas needs – A heat recovery plant to produce needed power, either on-site or a regional facility
    • Closing Comments• Greenhouse gas emissions from integrated steel works are weakly dependant on coking technology.• Stamp-charging and other methods to increase bulk density will grow to reduce coal raw material costs by using greater amounts of non-coking coals• Niche opportunities that exploit power sales will foster the implementation of heat recovery cokemaking• The combination of by-product and heat recovery technology can be used for various steps of a plant implementation where low cost heating gases are not available• Heat recovery offers the possibility of regional coke production supplying several steel plants that may be preferred to on-site production
    • Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works Technology, Location and Greenhouse GasesIan Cameron Sectors: Mining & Metals, Infrastructure and EnergySenior Director – Iron & Steel Offices Beijing, Belo Horizonte, Brisbane,Phone +1-905-403-4052 Johannesburg, London, Mississauga,icameron@hatch.ca Moscow, New Delhi, Oakville, Pittsburgh, Santiago, São Paulo