Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 55 (2016) 537–549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Present needs, recent progress and future trends of energy-efficient

Ultra-Low Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Steelmaking (ULCOS) program
M. Abdul Quader a,n, Shamsuddin Ahmed b, Dawal S.Z.a, Nukman Y.c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Department of Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Dhaka, Bangladesh
c
Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o ab s t ract
Article history: The iron and steel industry is the largest energy consuming manufacturing sector, consuming 5% of the
Received 14 November 2014
world's total energy consumption and producing 6% of the total world anthropogenic CO2 emission.
Received in revised form
Under the European Ultra Low CO2 Steelmaking (ULCOS) program, several breakthrough technologies for
7 August 2015
Accepted 22 October 2015 the drastic reduction of CO2 emissions from iron and steelmaking industry have been investigated,
including (1) blast furnace with top-gas recycling (TGR-BF),(2) a new smelting reduction process
(HIsarna), (3) advanced direct reduction (ULCORED) and (4) electrolysis of iron ore (ULCOWIN and
Keywords:
ULCOLYSIS). Besides, hydrogen-based steel making and the use of biomass as reducing agent have been
ULCOS
CO2 emission
evaluated as supporting technology to decrease CO2 emissions. The aim of the present article is to
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) analyze the technological developments in iron and steel industry and the progress of present experi-
Iron and steel industry mental works developed inside the ULCOS I and II projects by collating updated information from a wide
CO2 breakthrough technology range of sources. In addition, the breakthrough technologies expected to develop or are currently being
demonstrated at pilot/industrial scale for significant reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe have been
identified in this paper. Economic and environmental performance of the ULCOS cutting edge technol-
ogies shows that the implementation of CCS technology in coal-based integrated steel plants might
reduce 80% of CO2 emissions. However, hydrogen and biomass-based steelmaking also offers very
attractive perspectives, while raising lots of major challenges. Finally, comparative assessment of the
ULCOS program with others CO2 breakthrough programs around the world has also been done.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
2. ULCOS concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
3. ULCOS project outlooks and future target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
4. Current status and future research of ULCOS program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
4.1. ULCOS blast furnace process (SP1 & SP2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
4.1.1. ULCOS-EBF result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
4.2. HIsarna smelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
4.3. Direct-reduced iron with natural gas (ULCORED) (SP3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
4.4. Direct electrolysis of iron ore (ULCOwin & ULCOlysis) (SP5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
4.5. Hydrogen-based steel making (SP4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
4.6. Biomass-based steel production (SP7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
4.7. ULCOS CCS project (SP6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
5. Economic and environmental performance of ULCOS technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
6. Comparison between ULCOS and other CO2 breakthrough programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
7. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 60 183217269.
E-mail addresses: maquader.me@gmail.com (M.-n. Abdul Quader), sitizawiahmd@um.edu.my (Dawal S.Z.), nukman@um.edu.my (Nukman Y.).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.101
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Abdul
M. Abdul
Quader
Quader
et al.
et /al.Renewable
/ Renewable
andand
Sustainable
Sustainable
Energy
Energy
Reviews
Reviews
55 (2016)
55 (2016)
537–549
537–549
53 53
8. Concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548

1. Introduction 2Mn þ O2-2MnO

Global warming is one of the crucial challenges of humanity. In 2P þ 5FeO-P2O5 þ

order to combat climate change, several ambitious objectives have
been set in Europe such as 20–20–20 target and the 2050 Energy
Roadmap [1]. The 20–20–20 target aims to reduce 20% CO2
emissions compared to 1990 levels, produce 20% renewable
energy and reduce 20% primary energy consumption by 2020. The
2050 Energy Roadmap illustrates a European pathway for the
reduction of 80-95% greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2050
compared to the 1990 levels [2,3].
In 2008, EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) launched a
series of targets through EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan
(SET-Plan) for the development of clean, efficient and low-
emission technology in energy-intensive industries [4,5]. Iron
and steel production is one of the biggest energy-intensive and
CO2 emission industries worldwide. Due to the dominating iron
and steelmaking processes are still mainly coal-based and highly
dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, diesel, and substantial
amounts of fossil CO2 emissions are released [6]. Globally, iron and
steel production accounts for about 6% of anthropogenic CO2
emissions each year [7]. In the EU, the sector is accountable for
4.7% of the total CO2 emission (182 million tonnes of CO2) and
approximately 27% of CO2 emission from the global
manufacturing sector [8,9]. One ton of steel manufacturing emits
about 1.8 t of CO2 [10] and collective energy demand of steel
production is 21.0–
35.4 GJ/t steel [11].
There are two main methods for producing steel: (1) extracting
iron from iron ore through a reduction process, (2) recycling steel
scrap through a melting process. Steel production from crude iron
ore is preceded by iron production. The main refining process for
iron production is through the blast furnace and basic oxygen
furnace method (BF þ BOF), accounting for 95% of global iron
production and about 70% of global steel production [12]. On the
other hand, about 5% of global iron is produced via direct reduced
iron (DRI) method. Electric arc furnace (EAF) uses Steel scrap and
steel recycling, where the steel or solid iron from a direct reduced
iron process is melted by electric power [13]. About 30% of global
steel is produced via this method [14]. In the ironmaking process,
the blast furnace process extracts iron from crude iron ore (Fe2O3)
by heating the ore and melting the metal fractions to liquid pig
iron. An efficient reduction reaction is required, in order to extract
the O2 from the iron ore. This is achieved by adding a reducing
agent, usually coke, to the blast furnace. The carbon reacts with
the iron oxide and produces carbon monoxide, which again
reduces the iron oxides to pure iron during a combustion process.
Finally, iron oxides are chemically converted into molten iron (Fe),
which produces massive amounts of CO2 and carbon monoxide
(CO) as a by-product gas or blast furnace gas (BFG). The basic
chemistry of the iron-making processes is listed as the following
equations [15]:
5Fe
Thus, large amounts of CO2 are produced by the reduction
reaction in the blast furnace and the combustion reaction of car-
bonaceous materials (coke breeze, etc.) and carbon-containing
gases, such as blast furnace gas (B gas) and coke oven gas (C
gas) in the sintering machine, coke ovens, and hot stoves. There-
fore, controlling and reducing CO2 emissions from this industry is
now a pressing issue [16]. Over the last decade, a number of
researches and development initiatives around the world under
the ‘CO2 breakthrough Programs’ (ULCOS1, AISI2, POSCO3,
COURSE504, etc.) have been investigated [17] for carbon-free green
and sustainable iron and steel production. The target is to develop
CO2 breakthrough technologies in combination with top gas
recycling for the blast furnace (TGR-BF), direct reduction (DR) with
electric arc furnace (EAF), iron ore electrolysis also called elec-
trowinning (EW), carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) by using
fossil fuels, biomass, hydrogen and electricity as innovative redu-
cing agents for the reduction process [4,18]. Among all of this
research programs, the Ultra-low CO2 Steelmaking (ULCOS) is the
most extensive research program with big budget. It is a con-
sortium of 48 European companies and organizations from 15
European countries and is supported by European Commission.
ULCOS consists of all major European Union steel plants, engi-
neering partners, research institutes and universities [19]. It is
divided into two phases: ULCOS I in 2004 and ULCOS II in 2010. It
is proactively looking for solutions to the threat of global warming.
The main aim of this massive project is to reduce CO2 emission by
at least 50%, i.e., to reduce CO2 emission from 2 t CO2 per ton steel
to 1 t CO2 per ton steel production [20]. In addition, for large scale
industrial production it will develop potential and feasible ultra-
low CO2 steel production technologies that must be sustainable,
i.e. environmentally-friendly, economically viable and socially
acceptable [21,22].
From the beginning of the second phase of the ULCOS proposed
CO2 emission projections for the year of 2010–2050. According to
the ULCOS research, prediction, worldwide average CO2 emissions
are 1.8 t for every ton of steel produced in the year of 2010 [16]. In
2050, a trend scenario assumes that CO2 emissions will be cut by
Fe þ O2-2FeO
Si þ O2-SiO2

C þ ½O2-

CO C þ O2-

CO2

Fe2O3 þ 3CO-2Fe þ
3CO2
 M. Abdul
M. Abdul
Quader
Quader
et al.
et /al.Renewable
/ Renewable
andand
Sustainable
Sustainable
Energy
Energy
Reviews
Reviews
55 (2016)
55 (2016)
537–549
537–549
53 15% (1.1 tCO2/crudesteel), mainly dependent on the extensive
only 53
deployment of advanced technologies like Best Available Tech-
nologies (BATs) [23]. On the other hand, low carbon (LC) scenario
assumes that global emissions can be dropped around 0.2 t CO2/t
crude steel in such a way, if CO2 breakthrough technologies are
available and policies have been designed to be applied (Fig. 1)
[24–27].
There are a few numbers of studies have been done on
worldwide CO2 breakthrough programs focusing on their current
research status and environmental assessment. To the best of our
knowledge, there is no study focusing on comprehensive study on
ULCOS and comparative assessment of the ULCOS program with

1
ULCOS ¼ Ultra-Low CO2 Steelmaking (EU).
2
AISI ¼ American Iron and Steel Institute with technology roadmap
programme.
3
POSCO ¼ CO2 Breakthrough Framework (Korea).
4
COURSE50 ¼ CO2 Ultimate Reduction in Steelmaking process by innovative
technology for cool Earth 2050.
others CO2 breakthrough programs. This paper therefore proposes
to close this gap by providing a holistic, long-term analysis of the
potential role of ULCOS CO2 breakthrough technologies in Europe.
In addition, in this paper, we try to understand the role of tech-
nological change and the diffusion of energy efficient low-carbon
technologies to explain the trends in emissions reduction
improvement. Following research questions could be answered in
this paper:
What is the present status of ULCOS CO2 breakthrough tech-
nologies in the steel sector as a tool for CO2 emissions mitigation?
How mature is CCS (Carbon capture and storage) technologies as a
solution against other approaches? Are there gaps in the tech-
nologies and barriers to its implementation in the iron and steel
sector? What are the future prospects of others ‘CO2 breakthrough
program’?
The presented paper begins with the description of ULCOS
concept (Section 2). ULCOS project outlooks and future targets are
presented in Section 3. The following section briefly discussed
regarding new ULCOS breakthrough technologies and their
experimental results are given in Section 4. Section 5 provides
economic and environmental performance of ULCOS technologies
and Section 6 illustrates a comparative analysis of the ULCOS with
others CO2 breakthrough programs. Finally, Sections 7 and 8 pro-
vide future research and a summary of the paper with
conclusions. This paper, hopefully, will be useful for engineers,
researchers, steel companies, policy makers, investors and
other interested parties to build sustainable green iron and steel
industry.
Fig. 1. Simplified projections of CO2 emission from iron and steel industry [27].
Fig. 2. Pathways of ULCOS breakthrough technology [27].
2. ULCOS concept
The EU CO2 breakthrough program, ULCOS proposed a concept
in terms of CO2 breakthrough technologies as shown in Fig. 2. This
triangle matrix explains how reducing agents and fuels can be
selected from three possibilities such as carbon, hydrogen, and
electrons. The mock ternary diagram represents all existing energy
sources where coal is near to carbon on the carbon–hydrogen line,
natural gas is near to hydrogen and hydrogen from electrolysis of
water is on the hydrogen-electricity line, etc. [27].
The exiting steel technologies are based on fossil fuels, i.e.
mostly on carbon, natural gas, mix of carbon and hydrogen and
electric arc furnaces are shown in blue boxes in the Fig. 2. On the
other hand, for CO2-lean process routes, ULCOS has identified
three major way of solutions: (1) decarbonizing whereby coal
would be replaced by hydrogen or electricity in hydrogen reduc-
tion or electrolysis of iron ore processes (2) CCS technology
introduction (3) use of sustainable biomass are presented in green
boxes in the diagram [28].
3. ULCOS project outlooks and future target
Initial phase of ULCOS research program has investigated 80
different concept routes using mathematical modeling and
laboratory tests to evaluate their feasibility in terms of energy
consumption and CO2 emissions, operating cost of steelmaking
and sustainability [29]. Among all of these, six processes routes
have been selected for further investigation and commercial
implementation. In Table 1 their present progress and future tar-
get including timelines has been illustrated.
In its last meeting of European Steel Technology Platform
(ESTEP) has decided to further move forward the ULCOS I. It would
be completed in 2010 and to launch ULCOS II. The ULCOS II would
be run from 2010 to 2015 and the results of ULCOS II can be
potentially moved into commercial deployment within 15–20
years from now (Table 1 and Fig. 3).
The development and implementation of ULCOS breakthrough
technologies into mature steel industries includes a level of risk
Table 1
Summary of ongoing and future project.

Technology Programs Main advantages compared to reference Potential drawbacks com- Technological Maturity
pared to reference prediction

ULCOS-BF (Top gas recycling) With FP6 ULCOS 50% CO2 reduction compared to average blast Higher operational costs 2010: Pilot phase
CCS furnace Demonstrator
RFCS ULCOS 2020: Commercial
RFCS IDEOGAS Expected to be the standard for newly built deployment
RFCS TGR-BF plants (retrofit option)
Green BF
HIsarna (Coke free steelmaking) FP6 ULCOS 80% CO2 reduction compared to average blast Needs replacement of existing 2020: Pilot phase
with CCS HIsarna RFCS furnace with CCS, 20% without CCS. blast furnaces demonstrator
Lower investments and operational costs 2030: Commercial
due to broader range of available inputs deployment
ULCORED (Fastmelt process of direct FP6 ULCOS 55% CO2 reduction compared to average blast Essentials replacement of 2015: Pilot phase
reduction)with CCS furnace with CCS, 5% without CCS existing blast furnaces demonstrator
ULCORED RFCS Lower operational costs due to broader range Higher investment costs 2020: Commercial
of available inputs deployment
Electrolysis (ULCOWIN &ULCOLYSIS) FP6 ULCOS Probably no carbon is needed in the pro- 2030: Pilot phase
RFCS IERO duction process demonstrator
ANR ASCOPE
Auto thermal
cell
H2 Reduction FP6 ULCOS 2010: not developed
Further work…
Use of sustainable biomass FP6 ULCOS Not developed
Further work…

*RFCS (Research Fund Coal Steel) *FP6 (EU's 6th Framework Programme).

Fig. 3. Project perspectives [30].

and at least one additional scale up step. In ULCOS II all kinds of
demonstration stages would start as well as ULCOS II will explore Table 2
some technological investigation of ULCOS I to assess their ULCOS project details.
potential feasibility under large scale, industrial production [30]. In
ULCOS I ULCOS II
that case, a considerable R&D investment by the ULCOS con-
sortium, the European Commission and other financing partners Start date 2004-09-01 2010
will be needed. Project cost 35280915 euro N/B
Both ULCOS I and ULCOS II programs are funded by privately Contract type Integrated project N/B
End date 2010-08-31 2050
and publicly. In ULCOS I 60% cost was supported by ULCOS con- Project status Completed N/B
sortium and 40% was contributed by European commission Project funding 19996966 euro N/B
through its 6th Framework and the RFCS programmes. Conversely,
the level of public and private funding of ULCOS II has not been N/B: not available.

unveiled yet, but the structure of the funding makes it clear that
it would be more than 50% [31]. (Table 2)
4. Current status and future research of ULCOS program
From the beginning of quite a few breakthrough technologies
for the reduction of CO2 emissions from iron and steelmaking
industry have been investigated in the context of Ultra Low CO2
Steelmaking (ULCOS) program. Finally, ULCOS has selected four
process concepts that could lead to a drastic reduction of CO2
emissions by more than 50% compared to the present best prac-
tices. This four cutting edge technologies are: (1) Top Gas Recy-
cling Blast Furnace with CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS),
(2) HIsarna with CCS, (3) ULCORED with CCS, (4) Electrolysis.
Additionally, hydrogen-based steel making and the use of biomass
as reducing agent have been evaluated as supporting technology
to decrease CO2 emissions [32,33]. The ULCOS experiment and
program structure has been illustrated in Fig. 4. The key strategies
of ULCOS have been included in this program as described below
[17].
 M. Abdul
M. Abdul
Quader
Quader
et al.
et /al.Renewable
/ Renewable
andand
Sustainable
Sustainable
Energy
Energy
Reviews
Reviews
55 (2016)
55 (2016)
537–549
537–549
54 54

Fig. 4. ULCOS program experimental setup and structure [34].

4.1. ULCOS blast furnace process (SP1 & SP2)
Blast Furnace (BF) is the most energy consuming process in
integrated steel plants. So it is essential to reduce fossil CO2
emissions from this process [35]. ULCOS has invented top gas
recycling blast furnace (TGR-BF) is a blast furnace gas separation
technology for clean steel production. Top gas used to absorb CO2
inside blast furnace acts as a reducing agent. It effectively reduces
carbon emission around 50%. The integrated use of TGR-BF and
CO2 capture and storage (CCS) technologies is helpful to remove
nitrogen from the TGR-BF and oxygen injection into BF can also
effectively recover CO2. After extraction of CO2 from recycled gas
by using VPSA CCS technology, the cryogenic techniques is applied
to store [36].The following three different versions were tested
[37]:
Version 4, the treated is a recycled gas in the main tuyeres and
additional tuyeres located in lower stack at 1250 °C and 900 °C
respectively. The expected carbon saving is 26%.
Version 3, the treated gas is recycled through the main tuyeres
only and expected carbon saving is 24%.
Version 1 has the same flow sheet like version 4 but the recy-
cled gas is cold and expected carbon saving is 22%.
In 2007 the first experiment was successfully done at LKAB's
Experimental Blas Furnace (EBF) in Lulea, Sweden and it ran
efficiently with high thermal stability, including up to 24% CO2
reduction. After this for the second phase ULCOS 2, EU invested
hundreds of million euros for the promotion and planning of TRG-
BF. It was successful, this technology will hopefully, mitigate CO2
emission of almost 1.5 Mt per year, i.e. about 1/3 for a BF [39].
(Fig. 5)
Status [40–42]:
Demonstration project in Florange as a part of EU ETS
(NER 300)
Top gas recycling has been experimentally tested at the LKAB s'
Experimental Blast Furnace (EBF) in Luleå, Sweden, two RFCS
projects: ULCOS-NBF (2004 to 2009) and ULCOS TGR-BF RFCS
(started in 2009).
ULCOS BF, version 1, 3, 4 were tested, finally V4 was preferred
for the follow-up ULCOS BF demonstration project on industrial
scale under ULCOS II at ArcelorMittal, Florange (France) and
ArcelorMittal Eisenhüttenstadt (Germany).
ULCOS BF mode without CO2 storage is expected at Eisenhüt-
tenstadt plant in 2014
ULCOS BF mode with CO2 storage is expected at Florange plant
in 2016
First full scale ( industrial ) CCS project
Operational within 2014–2015
Test phase of þ / 10
years
Industrial implementation after 2020
 Fig. 5. Different types of the ULCOS blast furnace with process flow [37,38].

4.1.1. ULCOS-EBF result

Within the research teams, lots of works have been done to
study ULCOS BF process such as theoretical studies (e.g. heat and
mass balance models; tuyere and raceway model; model of the BF
internal state) using mathematical models and laboratory inves-
tigations (e.g. reduction; hot degradation; softening-melting).The
results of the ULCOS EBF campaigns are very promising in view of
carbon saving. In all versions (1, 3, 4) of ULCOS-EBF connected with
Vacuum Pressure Swing Adsorption (VPSA), a new CCS technology
for the removal of the CO2 of the top gas was built by Air Liquide
and worked very well during the campaigns [38].

4.1.1.1. Blast furnace operation. More importantly, during the

three testing coal and coke input dropped from around 530 kg to
400 kg and carbon input was reduced from 470 kg to about 350
Fig. 6. Results of reductant rate, recycled gas injection and carbon saving [43].
kg/thm, resulting in a carbon saving 120 Kg C/thm, which
represents a considerable carbon saving (Fig. 6) [43].
ULCOS-BF version 3 could be reduced up to 15% of carbon
consumption with a top gas recycling ratio of 72%. In contrast,
version four found 24% carbon saving with 90% top gas recycling
ratio. Besides, approximately 123 kg/thm coal and coke con-
sumption were saved in this new process compared to the refer-
ence operation period. From these results a good correlation
between injected CO þ H2 and reductant rate where coal and
coke
3
could be reduced by 17 kg per 100 N m ( CO þ H2) injected ( Fig.
7)
[37].

4.1.1.2. Results of the VPSA plant. The operation of VPSA process

was smooth and proven to be without failure. It processed up to
97% of blast furnace top gas and average CO2 content in injected
gas was 2.67%, while the required value was 3%. The CO recovery
was 88%. It always delivered the essential gas amount and quality Fig. 7. EBF ULCOS results on carbon input/savings and decarbonated top gas
injection [43].
[38].

furnace in an integrated steelmaking plant at a much lower fossil

4.1.1.3. Reduction of CO2 emission. Top gas recycling blast carbon consumption level as today's blast furnaces do by applying
furnace combined with VPSA CCS technology reduced CO2 top gas recycling and CCS technology.
emissions up to
1270 kg/thm, which shows 76% of CO2 emitted during the refer- 4.2. HIsarna smelter
ence period. Result is 24% mitigation by gas recycling and 52%
reduction by VPSA with considering the underground storage of The HIsarna process is based on a modified version of the
the extracted CO2 (Fig. 8) [38]. HIsmelt smelter technology. It is a concept using a combination of
Fig. 9 illustrates how CO2 emission reduction depends on the
volume of treated gas injected at the blast furnace. The results of
ULCOS-EBF campaigns proved that it is promising to run a blast
 Fig. 8. Reduction of CO2 emissions for the different operation periods [38].
Fig. 9. Reduction of CO2 emissions versus injected gas volume [38].
three new ironmaking technologies: (a) coal preheating and par-
tial pyrolysis in a reactor, (b) melting cyclone for ore melting and,
(c) melter vessel for final ore reduction and iron production [44].
HIsarna is a bath-smelting technology that combines coal
preheating and partial pyrolysis in a reactor. It uses a smelter
vessel for final ore reduction and a melting cyclone for ore
smelting. By removing sintering and coking processes it reduces
CO2 emission. Moreover, by using biomass or natural gas instead of
coal, processing combustion gases, storing CO2 and recycling heat
energy HIsarna technology reduces almost 70% CO2 emission [45].
Benefits of the HIsarna process are:
Reduction of the CO2 emissions per ton with 20%.
Reduction of the CO2 emissions per ton with 80% if the process
is combined with CCS.
Elimination of coke and sinter/pellet plant emissions.
Use of non-coking coal qualities.
Use of low cost iron ores, outside the blast furnace
quality range.
Economically attractive even at small unit size (0.8–1.2 M thm/
y).
A pilot plant of this technology was set up by TATA Iron and
Steel Group of European Companies in Holland IJmuiden in Sep-
tember 2010 with 65 kt annual outputs under ULCOS II project
Design output of TATA Steel HIsarna pilot plant is 8 t/h of hot
metal. Ore and coal injection capacity are 8 t/h and 15 t/h
respectively. However, if it is going to be successful, the
technology will be used at a commercial level before 10–20 years
[46]. (Fig. 10)
Status [40]:
Demonstration plant built in Ijmuiden, Germany(TATA Steel) in
2011 without CCS
Fig. 10. overview of HIsmelt smelter technology.
Fig. 11. ULCORED direct reduction process [48].
Piloting continued until 2012
Industrial scale demonstration would be launched within 2014–
2018
Industrial implementation would be done in 2020 and beyond
4.3. Direct-reduced iron with natural gas (ULCORED) (SP3)
The project ULCORED is built up for iron ore pretreatment
especially for sintering and preheating. To produce direct-reduced
iron (DRI) for sending to electric arc furnace (EAF) the reducing
agent such as natural gas or biomass gas is used in a reactive level
for the iron ore sintering process. In gas purification process tra-
ditional reducing agent is replaced by natural gas. Top gas recy-
cling and preheating processes, reduce natural gas consumption
(Fig. 11) [47].
By this technology, we can reduce 60% CO2 emission and also it
is an economical and efficient process since natural gas is
expensive.
Status [40]:
Reduction likely up to 70% CO2 including CCS compared to
average EU BF
Direct Reduction with natural gas mainly through Midrex
technologies
Still need to move to pilot phase
4.4. Direct electrolysis of iron ore (ULCOwin & ULCOlysis) (SP5)
The principle of the direct electrolysis of iron ore has been
applied in ULCOWIN project, which products are iron and oxygen
with zero carbon emission. The ULCOWIN technology is different
from others conventional smelting process where employs a new
method for steel production. Its reaction temperature is around
 Fig. 12. Electrolysis of iron ore [49].
110 °C where iron ore and iron are used as an anode and cathode
precipitation respectively. Electrolysis of iron ore does not emit
CO2 (Fig. 12).
Although, its initial production rate is very low production
efficiency, only 5 kg iron per day, but its cost is reasonable. Hence,
the ULCOS team developed a process named ULCOLYSIS for melt-
ing iron ore at 1600 °C by using electric direct reduction [50]. This
is the least developed technology in contrast with other three
alternatives [49].
Status [40]:
Still in Laboratory phase but proof of concept is achieved
Shows diverge when market-ready post 2030 (EU) or post
2050 (US)
MOE is becoming a “hot” field in metallurgic research, espe-
cially as potential (cheap) storage technology for intermittent
renewable energy (MIT)
4.5. Hydrogen-based steel making (SP4)
By hydrogen-based steel making route, CO2 emissions would be
reduced by more than 80%. Hydrogen steelmaking will depend
profoundly on the availability of green hydrogen. It can be gen-
erated from natural gas by steam reforming (SMR) or from water
by electrolysis. Today hydrogen based steel making is a potential
low carbon and economically attractive route in a few countries
where natural gas is cheap [34,51].
A few number of studies have been done focusing on utilization
of hydrogen in industrial furnace [52], H2 production from BFG
(Blast Furnace Gas) and COG (Coke oven gas) [53,54], nuclear
hydrogen steelmaking system [55–57] in different countries out of
ULCOS. In 2013 Ranzani da Costa et al. [57] proposed pure H2
based steel making process by developing mathematical modeling
where pure hydrogen (H2) used as reducing agent in the direct
reduction (DR) process. It might be the core process of a new and
cleaner way to produce steel with lower CO2 emissions. ULCOS
studied a hydrogen-based steelmaking breakthrough route where
H2 would be generated by water electrolysis using hydraulic or
nuclear electricity. In a shaft furnace, by using H2 iron ore would
be reduced to direct reduced iron (DRI) and carbon-free DRI would
be processed in an electric arc furnace (EAF) to produce steel
(Fig. 13) [57]. This route would be a promising breakthrough
technology regarding CO2 emissions up to 300 kg CO2/ton steel, as
well as the CO2-cost of electricity, and emissions from the DR
furnace almost zero. It shows an 84% cut in CO2 emissions com-
pared to the current 1850 kg CO2/ton steel of the best blast
furnace route [58].
Fig. 13. Hydrogen-based steelmaking route [57].
This new route would be a more sustainable way for iron and
steel production. Nevertheless, its future development and
deployment is largely dependent on the emergence of a so-called
H2 economy, when this gas would become available in large
quantities, at competitive cost, and with low CO2 emissions for its
production. In addition, the uncertainties lay with the competition
of other sectors for hydrogen consumption, for example, trans-
portation sector would be ready to pay much higher prices for it
than the steel industry.
4.6. Biomass-based steel production (SP7)
Using biomass as a bioreducer in the blast furnace could be one
of the processes to reduce the fossil CO2 emissions of steelmaking.
Biomass constitutes mainly carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O),
nitrogen (N), and sulfur (S) and 50 wt% (dry matter, dm) shear of
carbon in the wood. The carbon content in the wood biomass is
low compared to fossil fuels for example coal, coke or oil used in
iron and steelmaking [59]. Besides, the sulfur content is also low
approximately 0.01–0.1 wt% (dm) which is advantageous for blast
furnace ironmaking [60].The key challenges in using biomass,
whether it might be considered sustainable are: (1) the cultivation
of biomass does not damage the environment in terms of defor-
estation, air and water pollution and reduction of biodiversity
(2) the use of biomass will not be occurring undesirable social and
economic impact such as food price increment and removal of the
original people from their land [61].
The most prospective solution for biomass production for the
steel industry is charcoal by planting eucalyptus trees in tropical
countries (e.g. Brazil or Angola). In Brazil eucalyptus plantation
technology is mature and has advanced conversion process. A
small size BF with 100% charcoal is being run in Brazil (e.g. Acesita)
and bringing a version of this technology to Europe is the chal-
lenge for ULCOS. However, it is difficult to sustain high hot
strength of coke required in blast furnace when charcoal is added
in the coal blend [61].
In 2013, Srivastava et al. [62] produced a self-reducing iron
oxide and biomass composite pellet to develop a sustainable iron
making process. It would utilize an environmental friendly

Fig. 14. The use of biomass as a reducing agent for ironmaking process [62].
reducing agent which was renewable and not derived from fossil
fuels. He proposed a process where biomass utilizes atmospheric
CO2 for plant growth and converts into carbohydrate that can
further be used as reducing agent for iron oxide reduction. In
contrast removal of coal from ground adds CO2 to the atmosphere
as shown Fig. 14 [62]. Although the CO2 mitigation cost of using
biomass is considerably high in current cost structures, they would
provide a flexible alternative to CO2 emission reduction in the steel
industry.
4.7. ULCOS CCS project (SP6)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) presents one of the most
promising options for large scale CO2 emission reduction for the
future. Iron and steel plants are suitable for CCS because emissions
generated from single fixed and easily accessible points. In order to
capture CO2 from emissions needed to separate from flue gases
and then compressed and/or cooled and transported by pipelines
network for underground storage [63].
ULCOS incorporated different CCS technologies in its ongoing
experimental projects in Europe. A new CCS technology named
VPSA (Vacuum Pressure Swing Adsorption) built by Air Liquide has
5 these revolutionary technologies in the conventional BF process.
been deployed in Lulea TGR-BF experimental project . For a larger
scale experiment, a commercial blast furnace6 will be set up under
ULCOS II. In this plant the flue gases will be stored in deep saline
aquifer where higher level of purity in CO2 is required. By using
cryogenics further purification of the steam would be done in the
BF. Here, the optimized system consists of a combination of a PSA
and of a cryogenics (Fig. 15).
ULCOS TGR-BF experiments show that chemisorption technol-
ogies such as amine scrubbing, physisorption, the VPSA or PSA and
cryogenics have different fields of optimality. The level of CO2
concentration of the gas stream to be treated in the TGR-BF for
physisorption systems are the best in terms of technical perfor-
mance and economical operation. It has also been efficient if CCS is
applied in ULCORED. For HIsarna only a cryogenics unit is enough
because it directly delivers a very-high concentration of CO2. In
contrast, if CCS is deployed in others stack of the steel mill, and
then an amine scrubbing unit would be the best solution. Input
gases composition of TGR-EBF shows in Table 3.
5
The size of EBF is 1.1 m that produces 1.5 t/h of hot metal. A production BF
produces between 50 and 500 t/h
depending on its size.
6
The pilot planned for the Eisenhüttenstadt is 0. 6 Mt/year and the Florange
Demonstrator is 1.4 Mt/year.
Besides, ULCOS program considered commercial MDEA amines
for restoring the sorbent of 3.2 GJ/tco2. R&D is trying to improve
this performance up to 1.8 GJ/tco2 by reducing temperature and
wasted heat. Table 4 shows the comparison of various CO2 capture
technologies that are available nowadays for the iron and steel
industry. ULCOS decided to storage CO2 in geological reservoirs
(geo-storage) in the deep ocean or by the mineralization of some
other compounds, chemical reactants or rocks. For CO2 storage
ULCOS has been examined mineral sequestration seriously [68,69].
5. Economic and environmental performance of ULCOS
technologies
Table 5 summarizes indicative figures for the environmental
and economic performance of the ULCOS breakthrough technolo-
gies compared with the current average blast furnace in Europe.
These figures illustrate the basic configuration for the processes.
If we compare with formerly proposed benchmark level for the
EU ETS allocation in phase 3, which is 1460 kg CO2 eq./tonne HM,
it shows that all selected technologies are score better. It finds out
that HIsarna process of coke-free ironmaking and steelmaking
would offer the better environmental and economic benefits
compared to the existing blast furnace with and without top gas
recycling. It is significantly more energy efficient than the current
technology such as pelleting/sintering and comparable to other
innovative processes. By combining with CCS technology it might
reduce 80% of CO2 emissions. On the other hand, energy con-
sumption for TGR-BF is not given as coke consumption is replaced
by electric power necessity for CO2 separation [70].
In the long term ULCORED might be available as breakthrough
technology by complete coverage of electricity energy consump-
tion from renewable energy. It might be able to reduce CO emis-
sions up to 80–95%. Currently this technology is not under
development and not all aspects would be evaluated yet [73].
The ULCOS program updates are shown in Table 6 for carbon
reduction technology, where ULCOS program has invested huge
amount of money. The ULCOS program has been facing a series of
challenges like achieving sufficient efficiency for real-world
applications, cost effectiveness and mainly how to transform
6. Comparison between ULCOS and other CO2 breakthrough
programs
There are a number of sustainable irons and steelmaking pro-
grams have been developed around the world under CO2 break-
through program. The international Iron & Steel Association are
working together to exchange knowledge and information for
sustainable green iron and steel manufacturing. Extensive resear-
ches and investment are taking place in [74]:
The EU (ultra-low CO2 steelmaking, or ULCOS I and ULCOS II)
The US ( American Iron and Steel Institute)
Canada (Canadian Steel Producers Association)
Australia (BlueScope Steel/One Steel CSIRO coordination)
South America (ArcelorMittal Brazil)
Japan (Japanese Iron and Steel Federation)
Korea (POSCO)
China (Baosteel) and Taiwan (China Steel) and
COURSE 50 is a national CO2 breakthrough program in Japan
led by the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF) [66]. It aims to
decrease CO2 emissions by around 30% through suppression of CO2
emissions from blast furnaces besides capture-separation and
 Fig. 15. various dimensions of application and performance of the variant techniques, PSA, VPSA and VSA.
Table 3
Composition of the different input gases in a TGR-
BF.
Input Gas Units
CO 45% vol(dry)
CO2
37% vol(dry) N2
10% vol(dry) H2
8% vol(dry)
recovery-of CO2 from blast furnace gas (BFG) by launching a new
amine scrubbing technology. The ready-to-use technology con-
cepts would be available by 2030 and the final goal of indus-
trializing and transferring the developed technologies by 2050
[75,76]. Moreover, POSCO (Pohang Iron and Steel Company)
has also been developing an ammonia-based scrubbing CCS
technol- ogy for the adaption to the FINEX and to the COREX
processes [77].
The United State of America started AISI (American Iron and
Steel Institute) CO2 breakthrough program organized by some top
universities in USA to promote carbon reduction in steel industry.
It includes the use of several kind of clean energy and develop-
ment of CO2 capture and separation technology. For example, high
temperature electrolysis was examined at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), hydrogen reduction of iron ore
in the laboratory, preparatory to transposing to a flash furnace
reactor at Utah University, mineral sequestration at Columbia
University and CO2 collection from EAF fumes using lime at
Missouri Rolla Uni- versity [78,79]. According to the AISI CO2
Breakthrough Program, there are two innovative technologies
have been identified to cut CO2 emissions [80]: (1) Molten
Oxide Electrolysis (MOE) – Reduction of iron ore through
electrolysis. (2) Hydrogen Flash Smelting – Reduction of iron ore
in a suspension, with hydrogen as a reducing agent.
However, Canadian program, run by Canadian Steel Producers
Association (CSPA) and Arcelor Brazil separately have been
developing biomass-based steel production [81]. There are also
on-going program in
Australia (such as Bluescope þ OneSteel consortium) and Tai-
wan (China Steel) which either ambitious in terms of mitigation
level or still at a conceptual level in academic work carried out in
universities. Timeline of these programs are not published except
ULCOS and COURSE-50. Besides, what is happening in China about
CO2 breakthrough program is not described clearly and India has
decided to participate with the program, but not yet physically
contributed [13]. (Table 7)
All of these programs are similar to ULCOS program but they
are less advanced in terms of developing breakthrough technolo-
gies and their progresses are not yet widely reported. A brief
comparison among worldwide major CO2 breakthrough programs
is given in Table 8.
7. Future research
After analyzing feasibility of different breakthrough technolo-
gies options, the implementation of CCS technology in coal-based
integrated steel plant would be an effective way for sustainable
green iron and steel manufacturing. It is, therefore, recommended
that future research involving the environmental performance and
potentials of CCS technology deployment to all stacks in a steel-
works. For example, advanced Blast Furnace with oxygen injection
and carbon capture and storage (CCS), Smelting Reduction Process
with CCS and advanced Direct Reduction process with CCS might
be the possible best way of steelmaking. Further research and
development programmes should be conducted in order to assess
the CO2 breakthrough technologies of steel production. It should
be considered from the perspective of environmental impact
analysis and life cycle assessment, which allows the eco-efficiency
analysis. In addition, techno-economic analysis of the ULCOS
technologies is recommended as future studies.
Finally, it is likely that no single option, or technology will be
the best or only solution, but a combination of breakthrough
technologies should be developed and deployed to address the
increasing energy use and CO2 emissions of the iron and steel
industry. More importantly, shifting away from traditional pro-
cesses will require extensive research and development to add-
ress the issues and barriers confronting CO2 breakthrough tech-
nologies, both government and private support and funding
for development and deployment of alternative low-carbon
technologies.
8. Concluding remarks
The paper highlights the current status, future trends and sig-
nificance of incorporation of CO2 breakthrough iron and steel-
making technologies to reduce the GHGs emissions. Reduction of
CO2 emissions and dust pollution is a very important aspect in the
iron and steel industry. New solutions are constantly being sear-
ched for to reduce CO2 emissions under worldwide CO2 break-
through program. As a part of worldwide ‘CO2 breakthrough
 Table 4
Comparison of the mature CO2 capture technologies for the steel industry.

Units PSA VPSA VPSA þ compression and cryo- Amines þ compression PSA þ cryogenic Ref.
genic flash distillation compression

Recycled gas (process gas) [64,65]

CO yield % 88,0 904 973 999 100
CO % vol 71,4 682 689 678 695
CO2 % vol 27 30 30 29 27
N2 % vol 135 157 156 151 154
H2 % vol 124 130 126 121 124
H2 O % vol 0 0 0 21 0
CO2 rich gas captured [66]
CO %vol (dry) 121 107 33 0 0
CO2 %vol (dry) 797 872 963 100 100
N2 %vol (dry) 56 16 3 0 0
H2 %vol (dry) 25 6 1 0 0
Suitable for transport and storage? No No Yes Yes Yes
Energy requirements for CCS [67]
process
Capture process KWh/ 100 105 160 55 195
tCO2
Compression for storage (110 bar) KWh/ – – 132 115 115
tCO2
Electricity consumption(CP þ CS) KWh/ 100 105 292 170 310
tCO2
LP steam consumption GJ/t CO2 0 0 0 32 0
Total energy consumption GJ/t CO2 0.36 0.38 1.05 3.81 1.12

Table 5 Table 6
Environmental and economic performance of TGR-BF compared with current EU Brief keys of ULCOS program updates [48].
average technology for pig-iron production [70–72].
ULCOS TGR-BF HIsarna ULCORED ULCOWIN
Current EU TGR-BF HIsarna ULCORED
average BF configuration Characteristics Revamped BF Green field Revamped Green field
DRI or green
Production capacity 0.5–5.0 0.5–5.0 0.5–1.0 0.5–1.0 field Natural
(Mt HM/yr.) gas
Environmental 100% 80% 95–85% Fuel Coal and sustain- Coal and sus- Natural gas Electricity
aspects ( 7 17 GJ/ able biomass tainable
Energy tonne HM) biomass
consumption Phase 1.5 t/h pilot tests 8 t/h pilot 1 t/h pilot Laboratory
CO2 emission (tonne/ demonstration plant startup plant to be
*
tonne HM ) under way 2010 erected in
-with CCS: 1650 790 ( 52%) 330 760 (?) 2013
( 80%) ( 54%
-without CCS: 1650 Not relevant 1320 )
( 20%) 1590–1420 Table 7
( 5%)
Economic aspects
Comparison among the projections for steel production in 2050.
CAPEX
-Greenfield 100% 105% 75% 200%-no Source of estimates Annual production (Mt/yr) Comments
CCS
-Brownfield – 25% 65% ULCOS-LEPII 2450/2550 POLES estimates
OPEX 100% 120% 90% 80–90%
RITE 2200 Markal model
(Incl. energy, excl. -no CCS Tokyo university 1800 MFA model
depreciation costs)
IEA Blue Maps (low/high) 2350/2700

Notes: The proportions should be interpreted as relative scores, as the performance

of the reference average blast furnace is set at 100%. The other data are
absolute and utilization (CCU) technologies with waste heat recovery from
figures.
n
HM¼ hot metal (or pig-iron).
flue gas and molten steelmaking slag could be critical in the near-
term to support longer-term objectives for deployment of CCS in
program’ the European ULCOS program has been running steel industry from the year 2035 onwards. The utilization of CO2
according to a plan: it has moved from phase 1 to phase 2 during include: CO2 to fuels, enhanced commodity production, enhanced
its second phase and produced a substantial amount of knowledge
hydrocarbon production, CO2 mineralisation and chemicals pro-
and of scientific and technological results. For the Top Gas Recy-
duction will produce a lot of profits, while CCS is an only waste
cling Blast Furnace, HIsarna and ULCORED, the aim of a 50%
mitigation technology. With CCU the CO2 is converted to value
mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be accom-
added products. However, hydrogen and biomass-based steel-
plished if each of these technologies is combined with CCS
making also offer very attractive perspectives, while raising lots of
technologies.
major challenges. They will also require much research and
Although CCS is considered a promising solution for emission
development before they can be proven and implemented
reduction, it contributes to reducing the overall efficiency of a steel
commercially.
plant due to the high energy consumption for solvent
Finally, it is clear that CO2 breakthrough technology has not
regeneration during capture processes. Therefore, combination of
fairly reached the level of being technology for the deployment in
CO2 capture
Table 8
A brief comparisons among CO2 breakthrough programs [48,65,67].

Programs Involving Aim & target Best result

AISI – technology roadmap
programme1 (US)
POSCO CO2 Breakthrough
Framework (Korea)
COURSE50 (Japan)
ULCOS - Ultra-Low Carbon
dioxide Steelmaking-1&2
(EU)
Bluescopesteel (Australia)
AISI and the US
Department of Energy's (Doe), Office of
Industrial Technology
POSCO, RIST, POSLAB,
POSTECH
Japanese Iron and Steel Federation (JISF),
Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry
All major EU steel companies, energy and
engineering partners, research institutes
and universities, European Commission
Australian steel companies, Post Kembla
Steelworks
Program designed to (1) increase energy efficiency, (1) Suspension Hydrogen Reduc-
(2) increase competitiveness of North American steel tion of Iron Oxide Concentrate;
industry, (3) improves the environment (2) Molten Oxide Electrolysis
Under framework contains six projects: (1) Pre-reduc- (1) CO2 absorption using ammonia
tion & heat recovery of hot sinter, (2) CO2 absorption solution,
using ammonia solution, (3) Bio-slag utilization for the (2) Carbon lean FINEX process
restoration of marine environments, (4) Hydrogen
production using COG and wastes, (5) Iron ore reduc-
tion using hydrogen-enriched syngas, and (6) Carbon-
lean FINEX process.
Development of innovative technologies for solving (1) Scenario-making for global
global environmental problems including R&D projects, warming mitigation;
public relations activities and promotes industry/ (2) CO2 separation, capture and
institute cooperation. storage;
(3) CO2 fixation by plants and its
effective use
Cooperative R&D initiative to research rapid CO2 emis- (1) Top Gas Recycling Blast Fur-
sions reduction from steel production including process nace with CO2 Capture and
science, engineering, economics and foresight studies Storage (CCS);
in climate change. (2) ISARNA with CCS;
(3) Advanced Direct Reduction
with CCS;
(4) Electrolysis
Committed to improvement environmental perfor- (1) Developed energy-efficient
mance and the efficient use of natural resources, technology
reduce, reuse, recycle of waste material

steel industry as it is still a concept that needs to be fleshed out
and authenticated at a credible scale. The initially gap and barrier
is therefore to make this technology available, which requires an
enduring research and development effort through larger scale
laboratory, pilot and demonstrator. In the steel sector, CCS tech-
nology could be implemented from 2020 to 2050 since all tech-
nical, financial and cost berries would be overcome.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their heartiest gratitude to
the Ministry of Education, Malaysia for the financial support
under the project of UM.C/625//MOHE/ENG/35 High Impact
Research (HIR) Grant.
References
[1] Suopajärvi H, Pongrácz E, Fabritius T. Bioreducer use in Finnish blast furnace
ironmaking–analysis of CO2 emission reduction potential and mitigation cost.
Appl Energy 2014;124:82–93.
[2] E.E. Commission. Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas
emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. Commission
Staff working document, SEC 650, 2010.
[3] E. Roadmap 2050. Communication from the Commission to The European
Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and
The Committee of the Regions, COM(2011) 885/2. Brussels: European
Com- mission; 2011.
[4] Fischedick M, Marzinkowski J, Winzer P, Weigel M. Techno-economic eva-
luation of innovative steel production technologies. J Clean Prod
2014;84:563–
80.
[5] Pardo N., Moya J., Vatopoulos K. Prospective scenarios on energy efficiency and
CO2 emissions in the EU iron steel Ind. 2012.Publications Office.
[6] Helle H. Towards sustainable iron-and steelmaking with economic optimiza-
tion. 2014.
[7] Onarheim K, Mathisen A, Arasto A. Barriers and opportunities for application
of CCS in Nordic industry—a sectorial approach. Int J Greenh Gas Control
2015;36:93–105.
[8] Hasanbeigi A, Arens M, Price L. Alternative emerging ironmaking technologies
for energy-efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions reduction: a technical
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:645–58.
[9] Morfeldt J, Nijs W, Silveira S. The impact of climate targets on future steel
production—an analysis based on a global energy system model. J Clean Prod
2014.
[10] Patel P, Seetharaman S. A test of the steel industry’s metal. MRS Bull 2013;38
(09):680–1.
[11] Burchart-Korol D. Life cycle assessment of steel production in Poland: a case
study. J Clean Prod 2013;54:235–43.
[12] GHG I. Iron and Steel CCS Study (Techno-Economics Integrated Steel Mill). In:
IEA GHG Report 2013/04, July 2013, IEA GHG.
[13] Thompson S, Si M. Strategic analysis of energy efficiency projects: case study
of a steel mill in Manitoba. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:814–9.
[14] Flues F, Rübbelke D, Vögele S. An analysis of the economic determinants of
energy efficiency in the european iron and steel industry. J. Clean. Prod 2015.
[15] Germeshuizen LM, Blom P. A techno-economic evaluation of the use of
hydrogen in a steel production process, utilizing nuclear process heat. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(25):10671–82.
[16] Lin B, Wang X. Carbon emissions from energy intensive industry in China:
evidence from the iron & steel industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;47:746–54.
[17] Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO). 2014, U.S. Department of Energy (U.S.
DOE).
[18] Åhman M, Nikoleris A, Nilsson LJ. Decarbonising industry in Sweden–an
assessment of possibilities and policy needs. Lund University; 2012.
[19] Kasai E., Recent resource and environmental issues in the steel industry. In:
Tanaka Y, Norton M, Li Y-Y, Editors. Topical themes in energy and resources,
Japan: Springer; 2015. p. 215–227.
[20] Burchart-Korol D, Pichlak M, Kruczek M. Innovative technologies for green-
house gas emission reduction in steel production. Metalurgija 2016;55
(1):119–22.
[21] Birat, J.-P., Borlee, J., Korthas, B., Stel, J. van der, Meijer, K., Günther, C., Halin, M.
Bürgler, T., Lavelaine, H., Treadgold, Ch., et al. ULCOS program: a progress
report in the Spring of 2008, SCANMET III. In: Proceedings of the 3rd inter-
national conference on process development in iron and steelmaking. Luleå,
Sweden; 2008.
[22] Birat, J.-P. The sustainability of Steel: iron as a backbone of urban and societal
metabolism. In: Proceedings of the international steel technologies sympo-
sium. 2008. Taiwan.
[23] Quader MA, et al. A comprehensive review on energy efficient CO2 break-
through technologies for sustainable green iron and steel manufacturing.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:594–614.
[24] Association WS. World steel in figures 2011. World Steel Assoc 2011;2.
[25] Fallot A, et al. Biomass sustainability, availability and productivity. Revue de
métallurgie 2009;106(10):410–8.
[26] Birat, J.-P. CCS and the steel industry. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on CCS regulation for the EU and China 2009.
[27] Birat J., Maizière-lès-Metz. Steel sectoral report—Contribution to the UNIDO
roadmap on CCS1-fifth draft Global Technology Roadmap for CCS in
Ind. United Nations Ind. Dev. Organization, Vienna, Austria; 2010.
[28] Birat, J.-P. Addressing the climate change challenge: ULCOS breakthrough
program In: Proceeding of the 157th ISIJ meeting on international organized
 sessions, environmental and energy technology/high temperature processes.
Tokyo, Japan CAMP-ISIJ; 2009.
[29] Birat J-P, J-P.L. , The "CO2 tool": emissions and energy consumption of existing
and breakthrough routes in a future studies framework. La revue de Métal-
lurgie – CIT 2009:337–49.
[30] Commission, E. ULCOS-Perspectives. [cited 2014 11 September]; Available
from:
〈http://www.ulcos.org/en/about_ulcos/perspectives.php〉.
[31] ULCOS. Structure and financing. [cited 2014 21 September]; Available from:
〈http://www.ulcos.org/en/about_ulcos/structure_refinancing.php〉.
[32] Birat, J., et al. ULCOS PROGRAM: AN UPDATE IN 2012. In: Proceedings of 4th
international conference on process development in iron and steelmaking
(SCANMET IV). Luleå, Sweden. 2012.
[33] Porzio GF, et al. Reducing the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of
energy intensive industries through decision support systems–an example of
application to the steel industry. Appl Energy 2013;112:818–33.
[34] Birat J., Hanrot F., Maizières-lès-Metz, F. ULCOS: The European steel industry’s
effort to find breakthrough technologies to cut its CO2 emissions significantly.
In: Proceedings of the EU/Asia workshop on clean production and nano-
technologies. Seoul, South Korea; 2006.
[35] Siitonen S, Tuomaala M, Ahtila P. Variables affecting energy efficiency and CO2
emissions in the steel industry. Energy Policy 2010;38(5):2477–85.
[36] Afanga K., Mirgaux Olivier, Patisson Fabrice. Assessment of top gas recycling
blast furnace: a technology to reduce CO2 emissions in the steelmaking
industry. In: Proceedings of the carbon management technology conference.
2012.
[37] Hattink, M., et al. Developments of the ULCOS Low CO2 Blast Furnace Process
at the LKAB Experimental BF in Luleå.
[38] Danloy G, et al. ULCOS-pilot testing of the low-CO2 blast furnace process at
the experimental BF in Luleå. Revue de Métallurgie 2009;106(01):1–8.
[39] Top Gas Recycling. 2014 [cited 2014 15/08]; Available from:
〈http://ulcos.org/
en/research/bl ast_furnace.php〉.
[40] Wyns, T. The low carbon future of the european steel sector, CENTER FOR
CLEAN AIR POLICY EUROPE European Parliament 2012.
[41] Guangqing Z, Hirsch A. The trial of the top gas recycling blast furnace at LKAB
s’ EBF and scale-up. La Revue de Metallurgie 2009:387–92.
[42] van der Stel J., et al. Developments of the ULCOS low CO2 blast furnace
process at the LKAB experimental BF in Luleå. In: Proceedings of the 1st
international conference on energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the steel
industry. 2011. Düsseldorf.
[43] van der Stel J., Sert D., Hirsch Ing., A., Eklund N., Sundqvist Ökvist L. TOP gas
recycle blast furnace developments for low CO2 ironmaking, 2012 [cited
2014
08 September]; Available from: www.ulcos.org.
[44] van der Stel J., et al. ULCOS Top Gas Recycling Blast Furnace Process (ULCOS
TGRBF): Final Report. 2014: Publications Office.
[45] ULCOS. HIsarna smelter technology. 2014 [cited 2014 15 August];
Available
from: 〈http://www.ulcos.org/en/research/isarna.php〉.
[46] Assefa G, et al. ORWARE: an aid to environmental technology chain assess-
ment. J Clean Prod 2005;13(3):265–74.
[47] ULCOS. ULCORED. 2014 [cited 2014 15 August]; Available from:
〈http://www.
ulcos.org/e n/ research/advanced_direct_reduction.php〉.
[48] Fu JX, et al. Carbon reduction programs and key technologies in global steel
industry. J Iron Steel Res, Int 2014;21(3):275–81.
[49] Staal, B.M. ULCOS ¼ Ultra Low CO2 Steelmaking. 2004 [cited 2014 20
July]; Available from: 〈http://www.sustainableinsteel.eu/p/532/ulcos_ ¼
_ultra_low_ co2_steel_making.html〉.
[50] Abbasi M, et al. A feasibility study for synthesis gas production by
considering carbon dioxide capturing in an industrial-scale methanol
synthesis plant. Arab J Sci Eng 2015;40(5):1255–68.
[51] YANMAZ M, KAYA D. Ultra–low carbon dioXİDE (CO2) steelmaking. Eng Sci
Technol Int J 2012;15:2.
[52] Hsu CK, et al. Reduction of energy consumption and pollution emissions for
industrial furnace using hydrogen-rich tail gas. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2014;39 (18):9675–80.
[53] Chen WH, et al. An evaluation of hydrogen production from the perspective
of using blast furnace gas and coke oven gas as feedstocks. Int J Hydrogen
Energy
2011;36(18):11727–37.
[54] Chen WH, et al. Hydrogen production from steam reforming of coke oven gas
and its utility for indirect reduction of iron oxides in blast furnace. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(16):11748–58.
[55] Yan XL, et al. Study of a nuclear energy supplied steelmaking system for
near- term application. Energy 2012;39(1):154–65.
[56] Kasahara S, Inagaki Y, Ogawa M. Flow sheet model evaluation of nuclear
hydrogen steelmaking processes with VHTR-IS (very high temperature reactor
and iodine–sulfur process). ISIJ Int 2012;52(8):1409–19.
[57] Ranzani Da Costa A, Wagner D, Patisson F. Modelling a new, low CO2 emis-
sions, hydrogen steelmaking process. J Clean Prod 2013;46:27–35.
[58] Ranzani da Costa A, et al. Modélisation d'un four à cuve de réduction directe
du minerai de fer par l'hydrogène pur. Revue de Métallurgie 2009;106
(10):434–9.
[59] Nogami H, Yagi J i, Sampaio RS. Exergy analysis of charcoal charging operation
of blast furnace. ISIJ Int 2004;44(10):1646–52.
[60] Alakangas, E. Properties of wood fuels used in Finland, Technical Research
Centre of Finland, VTT Processes. Project Report Pro2/P2030/05 (Project
C5SU00800), 2005.
[61] Suopajärvi H, Pongrácz E, Fabritius T. The potential of using biomass-based
reducing agents in the blast furnace: A review of thermochemical conversion
technologies and assessments related to sustainability. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;25:511–28.
[62] Srivastava U, Kawatra SK, Eisele TC. Production of pig iron by utilizing biomass
as a reducing agent. Int J Miner Process 2013;119:51–7.
[63] ULCOS. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). [cited 2014 15 October];
Available from:
〈http://www.ulcos.org/en/research/carbone_capture_storage.php〉.
[64] Hooey L, et al. Techno-economic study of an integrated steelworks equipped
with oxygen blast furnace and CO2 Capture. Energy Proced 2013;37:7139–51.
[65] Rootzén J, Johnsson F. Exploring the limits for CO2 emission abatement in the
EU power and industry sectors—awaiting a breakthrough. Energy Policy
2013;59:443–58.
[66] Saima WH, Mogi Y, Haraoka T. Development of PSA system for the recovery of
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from blast furnace gas in steel works.
Energy Proced 2013;37:7152–9.
[67] Romano MC, et al. Application of advanced technologies for CO2 capture from
industrial sources. Energy Proced 2013;37:7176–85.
[68] Goff F, Lackner K. Carbon dioxide sequestering using ultramafic rocks. Environ
Geosci 1998;5(3):89–101.
[69] Rawlins CH, et al. Sequestration of CO2 from steelmaking offgas by carbonate
formation with slag. Assoc Iron Steel Technol AIST 2006.
[70] Croezen, H. and Korteland, M. Technological developments in Europe: a long-
term view of CO2 efficient manufacturing in the European region: Report.
2010: CE Delft.
[71] Meijer, K., ULCOS, Ultra Low CO2 Steelmaking. Presentation given at 25 Sep-
tember 2008.
[72] Link, J., IRMA – Flowsheet model-examples of application ijmuiden: corus
research development & technology, In: Proceedings of the 4th ULCOS semi-
nar. 2008.
[73] Birat J., Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage technology in the iron and
steel industry. Developments and innovation in carbon dioxide (CO2) Capture
and Storage Technology, 2010. 1: p. 492–521.
[74] Association W. Sustainable steel: at the core of a green economy. Belgium:
Brussels; 2012.
[75] Naito M., Matsuzaki S., Yonezawa K., Saito K. Possibility of hydrogen reduction
in iron-making process (COURSE 50 program in Japan). In: Proceedings of the
157th ISIJ meeting, international organized sessions, environmental and
energy technology/high temperature processes. 2009. Tokyo, Japan CAMP-ISIJ.
[76] Tonomura S. Outline of Course 50. Energy Proced 2013;37:7160–7.
[77] Birat J. and Maizière-lès-Metz D. Steel sectoral report. Contribution to the
UNIDO roadmap on CCS1-fifth draft JP. Birat, Arcelor Mittal Global R and D,
Maizières-lès-Metz, France, 2010.
[78] Kim H, et al. The influence of electrolyte basicity on the performance of an
iridium anode for the electrolysis of molten iron oxide. J Electrochem Soc
2011;158:E101–
5.
[79] Pinegar HK, Moats MS, Sohn HY. Process simulation and economic feasibility
analysis for a hydrogen‐based novel suspension ironmaking technology. Steel
Res Int 2011;82(8):951–63.
[80] Institute, A.I.a.S. Steel Industry Developing Technical Solutions to Climate
Change by Reducing Steel Making Emissions and Energy Intensity 2015 [cited
2015 8/05/2015]; Available from: 〈https://www.steel.org/Recycle-Steel_org/
Web%20Root/Sustainability/Energy%20Reduction/CO2%20Breakthrough.aspx〉.
[81] Birat J. Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas emissions in the Steel sector, with a
focus on biomass issues III Conférencia regional sobre mudanças globais: Am.
do Sul, Saõ Paulo; 2007. p. 4–8.