Profiles
No 12/1 February 2012
CO2 abatement in the iron and steel industry
The iron and steel industry is the largest industrial
source of CO2 emissions due to the energy intensity of
steel production, its reliance on carbon-based fuels and
reductants, and the large volume of steel produced – over
1414 Mt in 2010. With the growing concern over climate
change, steel makers are faced with the challenge of
finding ways of lowering CO2 emissions without seriously
undermining process efficiency or considerably adding to
costs.
The carbon intensity of iron and steel production varies
considerably between the production routes, ranging from
around 0.4 tCO2/t crude steel for scrap/electric arc furnaces
(EAFs), 1.7–1.8 tCO2/t crude steel for the integrated blast
furnace (BF) basic oxygen furnace (BOF) to 2.5 tCO2/t
crude steel for coal-based direct reduced iron (DRI)
processes. All steel plants would lower their indirect CO2
emissions (that is, emissions from the consumption of
electricity produced off-site) if they could switch to
electricity generated from hydroelectric or nuclear power
plants, or from renewable energy. If this were possible, it
could result in near-zero CO2 emissions for a scrap/EAF
mini-mill. In the future, indirect CO2 emissions from the
iron and steel industry will gradually decrease as
electricity decarbonises.
The integrated BF-BOF route is the most widely used
process, accounting for about 70% of the world crude steel
production in 2010. The figure shows the principal CO2
sources for a typical integrated steel mill producing hot
rolled coil. The largest source of CO2 is the on-site power
plant. The BF followed by the sinter/pellet and coking
plants are the largest emitters of CO2 on the iron making
side.
There are a number of technologies and measures
available to abate direct and process CO2 emissions from
the different iron and steel making processes that involve:
● minimising energy consumption and improving the
energy efficiency of the process;
● changing to a fuel and/or reducing agent with a lower
CO2 emission factor;
● capturing the CO2 and storing it underground.
Minimising energy consumption and improving energy
efficiency by employing best available technologies
(BATs) and techniques have led to significant CO2
IEA Clean Coal Centre is a collaborative project of member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
to provide information about and analysis of coal technology, supply and use. IEA Clean Coal Centre has contracting
parties and sponsors from: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Germany
India, Italy, Japan, Republic of South Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Spain,
Thailand, the UK and the USA.
reductions over the past 30 years or so. For integrated steel
mills BATs include coke dry quenching, top pressure
recovery turbines and top gas recycling. As well as offering
some of the least-cost options to reduce CO2 emissions,
energy efficiency measures may also increase productivity
and improve the quality of the product. However, not all of
the BATs are necessarily suitable for all installations or can
be easily retrofitted. Retrofitting technologies that require a
major rebuild or refurbishment will be expensive. Each
plant will have its own unique solution for abating CO2.
Energy recovery from the various gaseous streams is
practised in all the iron-making processes. This includes
recovering the calorific value in the various gas streams
(such as offgases from the BF, coke ovens, BOF, direct
reduction reactors, and smelting reactors) before they are
emitted to the atmosphere. The gases can be utilised as a
fuel, to produce steam for internal use or to generate
electricity. Any excess power can be sold to the grid,
generating income for the steel maker. One way to obtain
the necessary capital and technology to introduce this
measure in steelworks in the emerging economies is
through the clean development mechanism (CDM) set out
in the Kyoto Protocol. This allows the transfer of CO2
emission certificates to the foreign investor. Unfortunately,
combusting the offgases produces CO2. In the future,
carbon capture and storage may need to be retrofitted to
on-site power plants, as well as the stacks in the
steelworks.
Recovering the thermal and sensible heat from the
various gaseous steams, and the solid and liquid products
can help abate CO2 emissions. In integrated steelworks this
includes installing technologies such as coke dry
quenching, which can recover around 80% of the coke's
sensible heat which can be used to generate about
160 kWh/t coke.
Energy efficiency measures alone will not be enough to
offset the growth in CO2 emissions resulting from
increasing steel production. Switching to a fuel and/or
reducing agent with a lower carbon content, can lower CO2
emissions. The extent to which coal can be replaced is
dependent on the iron making process. In general, direct
reduction processes can utilise up to 100% wood charcoal
either within the reactor (rotary kilns, rotary hearths) or by
 72 kWh coal = 1710 kgCO2 total CO2 emission:
138 kg scrap limestone = 105 kgCO2 1815 kg/t rolled coil

288 kg 709 kg
5-10% CO2 20% CO2
1255 kg CO2-e
BF gas in BF gas
CO2 CO2

coal 12 kg 329 kg
limestone 133 kg 25% CO2 CO2
blast
furnace stoves
sinter strand hot blast power
pellet plant plant
coal
coke 187 kg
57 kg
30% CO2 84 kg CO2
10% CO2

CO2
285 kg
25% CO2

CO2 hot strip

mill

lime kiln
flares, etc
coke 63 kg
oven gas
coke
plant converter gas
steel
plant
carbon-bearing materials
limestone coal
109 kg 382 kg CO2 emissions expressed as volume (kg/t
rolled coil) and concentration in flue gas (vol%)

CO2 emissions from a typical steel mill

gasifying biomass instead of coal and injecting the
resultant syngas into the shaft furnace. HIsmelt could also
potentially be run on 100% wood charcoal instead of coal.
The amount that can be achieved by this measure is limited
in the Corex® smelting process, due to the low strength
and low abrasion resistance of charcoal, and in integrated
steelworks. Wood charcoal does not have the physical
strength to support the iron ore burden in large BFs, but
can replace all of the coke in small ones. Charcoal can also
be fed into EAFs. But the sustainable production of
charcoal from planted trees needs large amounts of land.
Producing 500 Mt of hot metal requires over 40,000
hectares (400 km2). There is also the competition with land
for food production and with other industrial users, such as
the power generating industry, that will lead to increased
biomass costs. These factors limit the role of biomass in
CO2 abatement.
Further substantial CO2 reduction will only be achieved
by equipping plants with carbon capture and storage
(CCS). Applying CCS to all the stacks in a steelworks is
possible, provided there is space. It would not upset the
upstream and downstream processes, but would be
expensive. CO2 capture is a proven technology at the
Saldanha plant in South Africa (Corex® process) and is
widely applied in some natural gas-based DRI processes.
Thus storing the captured CO2, instead of flaring, would
immediately lower CO2 emissions. Costs would only be for
CO2 compression and storage. Top gas recycling with CO2
removal, and operating with an oxygen blast (oxyfuel, a
technology that still needs to be demonstrated at an
industrial scale) could also substantially reduce CO2
emissions from BFs. If all technical, financial and cost
barriers are overcome, then CCS could be more widely
deployed in the steel industry.

Each issue of Profiles is based on a detailed study undertaken by IEA Clean

Coal Centre, the full report of which is available separately. This particular
issue of Profiles is based on the report:
Gemini House
CO2 abatement in the iron and steel industry 10-18 Putney Hill
Anne Carpenter London SW15 6AA
CCC/193, ISBN 978-92-9029-513-6, United Kingdom
119 pp, January 2012, £255*/£85†/£42.50‡
Tel: +44 (0)20 8780 2111
* non-member countries Fax: +44 (0)20 8780 1746
† member countries e-mail: mail@iea-coal.org
‡ educational establishments within member countries
> Internet: www.iea-coal.org