Evaluation of low and high level integration options for carbon capture at an integrated iron and steel mill

Sundqvist, Maria; Biermann, Max; Normann, Fredrik; Larsson, Mikael; Nilsson, Lennart

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.07.008

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The capture cost typically decreases with increased concentration in the flue gas and increased size of the flue gas flow (Garðarsdóttir et al, 2018), although this is not necessarily valid in the cases where there is access to excess heat within the process to which CCS is applied. Two recent examples from the iron and steel industry are given by Sundqvist et al (2018), who investigate alternatives for partial CO 2 capture in the steel industry by utilizing excess heat to power the capture process, and Mandova et al (2019) who explore the CO 2 emission reduction potential of bio-CCS in European steel industry. An example from the cement industry is the techno-economic case study assessment presented by Jakobsen et al (2017), who conclude, amongst other things, that economy of scale of full-scale capture (in terms of specific capture cost) is nearly outweighed by higher steam cost compared to partial capture, in which case the steam demand can be covered by excess heat.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of Industrial CO2 Capture and Storage – A Swedish Case Study

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is expected to play a key role to achieve deep emission cuts in the energy intensive industry sector. The implementation of carbon capture comes with a considerable investment cost and a significant effect on the plants operating cost, which both depend on site conditions, mainly due to differences in flue gas flow and composition and depending on the availability of excess heat that can be utilized to power the capture unit. In this study we map the costs required to install and operate amine-based post-combustion CO 2 capture at all manufacturing plants in Sweden with annual emissions of 500 kt CO 2 or more, of both fossil and of biogenic origin, of which there are 28 plants (including a petrochemical site, refineries, iron and steel plants, cement plants and pulp and paper mills). The work considers differences in the investment required as well as differences in potential for using excess heat to cover the steam demand of the capture process. We present the resulting total CO 2 capture costs in the form of a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) for the emission sources investigated. Cost estimations for a transport and storage system are also indicated. The MACC shows that CO 2 capture applied to 28 industrial units capture CO 2 emissions corresponding to more than 50% of Swedish total CO 2 emissions (from all sectors) at a cost ranging from around 40 €/t CO 2 to 110 €/t CO 2 , depending on emission source. Partial capture from the most suited sites may reduce capture cost and, thus, may serve as a low-cost option for introducing CCS. The cost for transport and storage will add some 25 to 40 €/t CO 2 , depending on location and type of transportation infrastructure.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of Industrial CO2 Capture and Storage – A Swedish Case Study

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other technologies undergoing development include the sorption-enhanced Water-Gas Shift technology (Gazzani et al, 2015;ECN, 2019) with a TRL of 3-6 (Gazzani et al, 2015;Axelson et al, 2018), and Top-Gas-Recycling Blast Furnace (Meijer et al, 2009;Birat, 2020), which involves the recirculation of the BFG as a reducing gas. The choice of BFG over flue gases as the source of CO 2 for partial capture is advantageous in the techno-economic sense due to the higher CO 2 partial pressures (Sundqvist et al, 2018;Biermann et al, 2019) and the absence of oxygen (Dreillard et al, 2017) in the BFG. Near-term efforts will focus on partial CO 2 capture from one or a few stacks, to minimize the absolute and specific (per tCO 2 -captured) costs by avoiding the high integration costs linked to having several stacks and to utilize excess heat as a low-cost heat source (Ali et al, 2018;Biermann et al, 2018Biermann et al, , 2019.…”

Section: Co 2 Capture From Steel Mill Gasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thereafter, the gas is distributed to the hot stoves, coking plant, and CHP plant, or it is flared in case of excessive amounts. The heat requirement, based on a previous work (Sundqvist et al, 2018), together with the power consumption, including compression at 7 bar for ship transportation (Deng et al, 2019), and the BFG composition are listed for various capture rates in Supplementary Table S5. As a default value, a capture rate of 90% is assumed, which is within the range of capture rates associated with the lowest investment cost per captured ton of CO 2 (Rao and Rubin, 2006;Biermann et al, 2018).…”

Section: Amine Absorption Of Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A representative example of this is the "TORefying wood with Ethanol as a Renewable Output" (Torero) project for the co-processing of fossil and biogenic feedstocks in the blast furnace (Torero Consortium, 2017), with subsequent fuel synthesis from the steel mill gases (Steelanol Consortium, 2015). The injection of biomass into the blast furnace has been extensively studied (Mousa et al, 2016;Suopajärvi et al, 2017, Suopajärvi et al, 2018, as has been the application of CCS to steel mill gases (Ho et al, 2013;IEAGHG, 2013;Ramírez-Santos et al, 2018;Sundqvist et al, 2018). Although studies of the life cycle emissions of fuel from steel mill gases have been performed (Ou et al, 2013;Handler et al, 2016), quantification of the renewable content of cogenerated fuel and steel product due to a preceding biomass injection according to the abovementioned allocation principles is unprecedented and explored in detail in this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Carbon Allocation in Multi-Product Steel Mills That Co‐process Biogenic and Fossil Feedstocks and Adopt Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Technologies

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work investigates the effects of carbon allocation on the emission intensities of low-carbon products cogenerated in facilities that co‐process biogenic and fossil feedstocks and apply the carbon capture utilization and storage technology. Thus, these plants simultaneously sequester CO2 and synthesize fuels or chemicals. We consider an integrated steel mill that injects biomass into the blast furnace, captures CO2 for storage, and ferments CO into ethanol from the blast furnace gas. We examine two schemes to allocate the CO2 emissions avoided [due to the renewable feedstock share (biomass) and CO2 capture and storage (CCS)] to the products of steel, ethanol, and electricity (generated through the combustion of steel mill waste gases): 1) allocation by (carbon) mass, which represents actual carbon flows, and 2) a free-choice attribution that maximizes the renewable content allocated to electricity and ethanol. With respect to the chosen assumptions on process performance and heat integration, we find that allocation by mass favors steel and is unlikely to yield an ethanol product that fulfills the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) biofuel criterion (65% emission reduction relative to a fossil comparator), even when using renewable electricity and applying CCS to the blast furnace gas prior to CO conversion into ethanol and electricity. In contrast, attribution fulfills the criterion and yields bioethanol for electricity grid intensities <180 gCO2/kWhel without CCS and yields bioethanol for grid intensities up to 800 gCO2/kWhel with CCS. The overall emissions savings are up to 27 and 47% in the near-term and long-term future, respectively. The choice of the allocation scheme greatly affects the emissions intensities of cogenerated products. Thus, the set of valid allocation schemes determines the extent of flexibility that manufacturers have in producing low-carbon products, which is relevant for industries whose product target sectors that value emissions differently. We recommend that policymakers consider the emerging relevance of co‐processing in nonrefining facilities. Provided there is no double-accounting of emissions, policies should contain a reasonable degree of freedom in the allocation of emissions savings to low-carbon products, so as to promote the sale of these savings, thereby making investments in mitigation technologies more attractive to stakeholders.

show abstract

“…A previous study by the authors (Sundqvist et al, 2018) examined how the excess energy from the steel mill in Luleå, Sweden, that is currently used for district heating, process heat, and electricity production could be extended to drive also partial capture. The heat sources, which ranged from power plant steam (back-pressure operation) to the installation of excess heat recovery units, were mapped, and they allowed for a reduction of up to 43% in site emissions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Excess heat-driven carbon capture at an integrated steel mill – Considerations for capture cost optimization

Biermann

Abou‐Hassan

Sundqvist

et al. 2019

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of low and high level integration options for carbon capture at an integrated iron and steel mill

Cited by 21 publications

References 15 publications

Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of Industrial CO2 Capture and Storage – A Swedish Case Study

Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of Industrial CO2 Capture and Storage – A Swedish Case Study

Carbon Allocation in Multi-Product Steel Mills That Co‐process Biogenic and Fossil Feedstocks and Adopt Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Technologies

Excess heat-driven carbon capture at an integrated steel mill – Considerations for capture cost optimization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About