Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272334583
CITATIONS
READS
38
279
1 author:
Dorota Burchart-Korol
Central Mining Institute (GIG)
43 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 June 2012
Received in revised form
22 April 2013
Accepted 23 April 2013
Available online 10 May 2013
The goal of this study is to perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) of steel production through the integrated steel production and electric arc furnace routes in Poland. The study denes the major sources of
environmental impacts and proposes pollution prevention methods for the most pollutive steelmaking
processes. The LCA methodology based on the ISO 14044 standard is used with SimaPro 7.3.3 software
and the Ecoinvent database. The life cycle inventory shows data averaged from the existing steel plants in
Poland, and the impact assessment results indicate that the production of pig iron in blast furnaces has
the highest impact on greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption in the national integrated
steel production route, while the iron ore sintering process, which is the largest contributor to dust and
gas emissions in the national iron and steel industry, uses the most minerals and depletes the most
metal. Electricity consumption has the highest impact on greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel
consumption in the national electric arc furnace route. Therefore, this article presents the results of an
LCA of alternative fuel consumption in a national iron ore sinter plant. The study concludes that pollution
prevention methods related to raw material substitutions in iron-making processes should be used to
reduce environmental impacts in the iron and steel industry. The results of this study can be used as the
rst step in performing a full cradle-to-grave steel LCA that includes all phases of the steel life cycle.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Integrated steel plant
Electric arc furnace
LCA
Greenhouse gas emissions
Poland
1. Introduction
1.1. Life cycle assessment in the steel industry
The iron and steel industry is highly energy-intensive and the
production of steel is associated with signicant greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. In Poland, crude steel is produced at a rate of 8.8
million tons per year, an increase of 9.8% from that of 2010. Fig. 1
presents data on the production of the Polish steel industrys
main products in 2007e2011 (PPS, 2012). In 2011, CO2 emissions
made up the largest share (98.5%) of the national steel industrys
total gas emissions. The emission of the other gases, including NO2,
SO2, and CO, represented approximately 1.5% of the total, while the
average dust emission factor was 0.52 kg/t crude steel (average for
EAF and BOF operations) (PPS, 2012).
The World Steel Association provides the most consistent and
accurate information for LCAs of the steel industry. It collects life
cycle inventory data on the steel life cycle, including raw material
extraction, manufacturing, use phase and end-of-life processes. The
researchers focusing on the world steel industry have stressed the
236
25
8.0
20
7.6
7.5
6.9
15
Mt
6.2
10.6
9.7
10
8.0
7.1
5
5.8
4.9
3.0
3.6
8.8
4.0
0
2007
2008
pig iron
2009
crude steel
2010
2011
Fig. 1. Pig iron, crude steel and hot rolled product production from 2007 to 2011 (PPS,
2012).
source substitution, material substitution and GHG emission capture and storage. Raw material substitution has been presented by
Gielen et al. (2002) and Rynikiewicz (2008). Caneghem et al. (2010)
have demonstrated the evolution of the ArcelorMittal Gent production sites environmental impact and highlighted eco-efciency
improvement in the steel industry. Yellishetty et al. (2011) have
presented the importance of abiotic resource depletion in the steel
industry, showing that a more comprehensive understanding of the
current production trends in iron ore and steel, which also require
several vital metals such as copper, manganese, and nickel, can
provide useful insights into assessing potential future shortages
due to the depletion of abiotic mineral resources. Burchart-Korol
(2011a) has already stressed the importance and signicance of
LCA techniques to the iron and steel industry. The rst LCA of a
Polish integrated steel plant was conducted in G1wny Instytut
Grnictwa (Central Mining Institute) in 2010 (Burchart-Korol,
2010), and the results of that research have shown that the iron
ore sintering process is a dominant emission source in national
steel plants. LCA and eco-efciency analysis for the iron ore sintering process in Poland have also been carried out using laboratory
tests and industry data (Burchart-Korol, 2011c, 2012). A life cycle
inventory (LCI) (as of 2005) for the BOF and blast furnace at ArcelorMittal Poland (AMP) S.A. in Krakw has also recently been
published (Bieda, 2012a; 2012b). Life cycle assessments of the iron
and steel industry have been widely developed around the world,
and researchers have used many different tools for the environmental assessment of steel production. Spengler et al. (1998) have
used a multi-criteria decision (MCDA) support system for the
environmental evaluation of the steel industry, while Zhang et al.
(2009) have applied an eMergy analysis to the sustainability of
Chinese steel production. Giannetti (et al., 2013) have applied
eMergy to reverse logistics network evaluation in steel recycling,
while Huang et al. (2010) have used the Tornado Chart Tool to
calculate the variation in CO2 emissions caused by the change of
each LCI input variable for integrated steelworks in China. The results have indicated that the CO2 emissions factors with the
greatest inuence on the steelworks include blast furnace gas
(BFG), the liquid steel unit consumption of continuous casting, the
continuous casting slab unit consumption of hot rolling and the hot
metal ratio of steelmaking (Huang et al., 2010).
1.2. Pollution prevention methods
The Best Available Techniques for iron and steel production
(BAT, 2012) describe techniques considered to have potential for
achieving a high level of environmental protection. BAT covers
process-integrated techniques and end-of-pipe measures and also
describes techniques for reducing the consumption of raw
8
Sinter
Sinter
Plant
1
Pig
Iron
Blast
Furnace
1
Quick
Lime
7 8
2 3 4
Quick
Lime
5 6
Rolled
Steel
1
2
3
4
Raw materials
Fuels
Additives
Electricity
2 3 4
6
Hot Rolling
Plant
1
Crude
Steel
Lime Plant
1
Table 2
Materials ow of steel production in Poland e national electric arc furnaces (EAF).
7 8
Basic Oxygen
Furnace Plant
1
Cast
Steel
2 3 4
Continuous
Casting Plant
1
237
5
6
8
Raw materials,
additives and fuels
Intermediate
products
(by-products)
Products and
co-products
Wastes
Iron scrap
Quicklime, milled
Refractory
Electricity
Natural gas
Iron scrap
EAF slag
Wastewater
Refractory waste
Dust
metallurgy processes, is crude steel. There are also two other outputs next to this main output: co-products such as EAF slag and
certain by-products. The EAF route system boundary included the
following processes: handling inputs and preparation of the
furnace, charging, melting and decarburization. A materials ow
containing mainly inputs and intermediate products in the national
electric arc furnaces are presented in Table 2.
The selected functional unit (FU) of this study was one ton of
cast steel produced in the national steel plants. Co-product allocation in parallel to mass allocation was used.
2.2. Data inventory
A data inventory was obtained from existing steel plants in
Poland (as of 2010/2011) and used to assess the inventory for ecoinnovation and pollution prevention in the Polish steel industry.
Table 1
Materials ow of steel production in Poland e national integrated steel plant.
Plants
Wastes
Iron ores
Dolomite
Limestone
Lubricant oil
Coke breeze
Anthracite
Coke oven gas
Electricity
Iron ores
Pellets
Tap water
Coke
Anthracite
Natural gas
Coke oven gas
Electricity
Limestone
Coke oven gas
Natural gas
Electricity
Iron scrap
Dolomite
Tap water
Coke oven gas
Natural gas
Electricity
Wastewater
Pig iron
BF slag
Wastewater
Refractory
Waste
BF gas
Dust
Quicklime
Wastewater
Pig iron
Quicklime
BF gas
Circulating cooling water
BOF gas
Iron scrap
Dust
Sludges
Crude steel
Circulating cooling water
Scale
Crude steel
BOF slag
Wastewater
Cast steel
Refractory waste
Rolled steel
Wastewater
Blast furnace
Tap water
Refractory
Lubricant oil
Natural gas
Electricity
Tap water
Lubricating oil
Natural gas
Coke oven gas
Electricity
Cast steel
BF gas
Circulating cooling water
Scale
238
Table 3
Life cycle inventory of national steel production e national integrated steel plant.
Inputs and outputs
Inputs
Materials
Iron ores
Limestone
Dolomite
Quicklime
Iron ore sinter
Pellets
Pig iron
Iron scrap
Crude steel
Cast steel
Lubricating oil
Refractory
Tap water
Circulating
cooling water
Sludges
Dust
Scale
Energy inputs
Electricity
Anthracite
Coke breeze
Coke
Coke oven gas
BF gas
BOF gas
Natural gas
Outputs
Products
Iron ore sinter
Pig iron
Quicklime
Crude steel
Cast steel
Rolled steel
Co-products
BF slag
BOF slag
Emissions
CO2
SO2
NO2
CO
Heavy metals
Pb
Cr
Cd
Cu
Zn
Ni
Fe
Dust
HF
HCl
H2S
HCN
Waste
Wastewater
Refractory waste
Recycled materials
BF gas
BOF gas
Sludges
Dust
Iron scrap
Scale
Unit
Iron ore
sinter plant
Blast
furnace
Lime
production
plant
Basic oxygen
furnace
Continuous
casting plant
Hot
rolling
External
ux
Internal ux e
intermediate
products
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
m3/FU
m3/FU
1202.68
180.16
34.25
20.61
e
e
e
e
e
e
3.50
e
e
0.43
36.76
e
e
e
1307.71
250.00
e
e
e
e
2.19
e
0.35
23.08
e
123.13
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0.03
e
e
e
e
e
5.34
62.46
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
358.30
33.85
e
13.27
1.40
1239.44
303.29
39.59
e
e
250.00
e
209.32
e
e
42.03
63.33
104.76
e
e
e
83.07
1307.71
947.16
295.54
e
e
e
63.19
90.60
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1042.66
e
2.46
0.14
0.54
9.78
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
21.55
49.72
13.09
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
21.55
49.72
13.09
kWh/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
m3/FU
m3/FU
m3/FU
m3/FU
79.20
10.56
59.83
e
4.81
7.25
0.36
e
25.52
10.68
e
428.27
72.76
596.06
e
0.39
2.52
e
e
e
0.54
1.20
e
5.53
27.80
e
e
e
3.85
8.45
e
0.41
10.62
e
e
e
e
e
e
0.10
40.49
e
e
e
38.76
28.65
e
2.71
186.15
21.24
59.83
428.27
120.72
e
9.14
e
e
e
e
e
641.61
0.36
e
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
1307.71
e
e
e
e
e
e
947.16
e
e
e
e
e
e
83.07
e
e
e
e
e
e
1042.66
e
e
e
e
e
e
1000.00
e
e
e
e
e
e
358.30
e
e
e
e
641.70
358.30
1307.71
947.16
83.07
1042.66
358.30
e
kg/FU
kg/FU
e
e
303.22
e
e
e
e
141.11
e
e
e
e
303.22
141.11
e
e
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
377064
1014
773
25849
136.53
6.11
0.04
0.12
0.67
1.08
0.06
128.45
458.55
0.52
4.99
e
e
808452
10
18
963
62.61
0.05
0.02
e
0.49
0.90
0.07
61.08
87.91
e
e
0.11
0.88
50566
e
6
5
0.55
0.03
e
0.00
0.03
0.08
e
0.39
16.03
e
e
e
e
29500
6
4
4797
75.77
0.97
0.13
0.05
3.22
7.82
0.29
63.29
188.97
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
106791
4
21
19
0.05
e
e
e
0.00
0.00
e
0.05
0.09
e
e
e
e
1372375
1034
821
31633
275.51
7.16
0.19
0.17
4.41
9.88
0.42
253.26
751.55
0.52
4.99
0.11
0.88
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
m3/FU
kg/FU
0.39
e
0.20
0.57
0.39
e
1.12
5.77
0.75
1.92
1.42
e
4.27
8.26
e
e
m3/FU
m3/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
e
e
1.79
32.79
e
e
641.61
e
0.90
13.08
10.87
e
e
e
e
2.20
e
e
e
0.36
18.86
1.65
19.19
e
e
e
e
e
25.75
2.34
e
e
e
e
30.42
10.76
e
e
e
e
e
641.61
0.36
21.55
49.72
86.23
13.10
947.16
86.22
1042.66
358.30
e
e
e
34.69
Table 4
Life cycle inventory of national steel production e national electric arc furnaces.
Inputs and
outputs
Inputs
Materials
Iron scrap
Quicklime
Refractory
Electrode
Alloys
Electricity
Natural gas
Outputs
Products
Crude steel
Co-products
EAF slag
Emissions
CO2
SO2
NO2
CO
Heavy metals
Pb
Cr
Cd
Cu
Zn
Ni
Dust
HF
Waste
Wastewater
Refractory waste
Recycled materials
Iron scrap
Dust
Sludge
Unit
External
ux
Internal ux e
intermediate
products
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
kWh/FU
m3/FU
1201.21
44.70
59.44
2.21
2.23
416.89
4.71
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
kg/FU
1042.66
kg/FU
192.14
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
269007
7
1
2717
e
e
e
e
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
g/FU
0.53
0.09
0.09
0.13
10.97
0.04
67
0.04
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
m3/FU
kg/FU
0.54
7.43
kg/FU
kg/FU
kg/FU
e
3.50
8.86
239
Table 5
Lower heating values (LHV) of fuels used in national steel plants.
Fuel
Unit
Quantity
Anthracite
Coke breeze
Coke
Coke oven gas
BF gas
BOF gas
Natural gas
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/m3
MJ/m3
MJ/m3
MJ/m3
30.46
29.57
30.52
16.8
3.55
7.70
36.00
Table 6
Results of the life cycle impact assessment of Polish steel production.
LCIA
method
Damage/impact
category
Result (according to
mass allocation)
Unit
IPCC
Carbon footprint
CED
Energy demand
e
e
IPCC
Carbon footprint
8.19
e
e
CED
Energy demand
kg CO2
kg CO2
kg CO2
kg CO2
MJ/FU
MJ/FU
MJ/FU
MJ/FU
kg CO2
kg CO2
kg CO2
MJ/FU
MJ/FU
MJ/FU
Result
eq/FU
eq/FU
eq/FU
eq/FU
eq/FU
eq/FU
eq/FU
2459
1703
516
240
35413
24520
7433
3460
913
766
147
8066
1291
6775
240
(biomass, water and wind, solar, geothermal), which are given for
the energy resources as characterization factors (Frischknecht and
Jungbluth, 2007). The iron and steel industry also negatively affects human health and resource consumption, so the ReCiPe
Midpoint H method was chosen to model these categories. The
primary objective of the ReCiPe method (Goedkoop et al., 2009) is
to transform the long list of life cycle inventory results present in a
study into a limited number of indicator scores, which express the
relative severity of an environmental impact category (ReciPe,
2012). In ReCiPe, the indicators are determined at two levels with
eighteen midpoint indicators and three endpoint indicators. This
method is considered a follow-up to the CML 2002 and EI 99
ska and Czaplicka-Kolarz, 2012). The basic strucmethods (Sliwi
n
ture of the impact assessment methods in SimaPro is comprised of
characterization, damage assessment, normalization and weighting, the last three of which are optional according to the ISO
standards.
In this study, the LCIA (life cycle impact assessment) phase includes only mandatory elements such as classication and characterization, while optional elements such as normalization,
grouping and weighting are excluded.
3. Results and discussion
The results of the environmental impact assessment of steel
production in Poland are presented in Table 6. Detailed results on
the GHG emissions analysis are presented in Table 7. Based on the
LCA carried out using the IPCC method, it was concluded that the
carbon footprint of steel production in the national integrated steel
plant was 2459 kg CO2 eq/FU. The direct GHG emissions were
related to the emissions from combustion sources, while the indirect emissions (1086 kg CO2 eq/FU) were related mainly to coke and
coke oven gas consumption in the blast furnace and electricity
demand.
The following results were obtained according to the mass
allocation: 1703 kg CO2 eq/FU for steel production, 516 kg CO2 eq/
FU for BF slag and 240 kg CO2 eq/FU for BOF slag.
Using the CED method, it follows that the total energy demand
was 35413 MJ/FU (24520 MJ/FU for steel production, 7433 MJ/FU for
BF slag and 3460 MJ/FU for BOF slag). Detailed results for the total
energy demand analysis were calculated using the CED method
(expressed in MJ/FU) and are shown in Table 8. The largest energy
demand in the national integrated steel production system
occurred during the blast furnace system production. Coke
comprised 52% of the energy demand and coke oven gas comprised
Table 7
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Polish steel production (IPCC method).
Impact category
BOF steel
Unit
kg CO2 eq/FU
EAF steel
kg CO2 eq/FU
Greenhouse gases
include:
Direct GHG emissions
Indirect GHG
emissions from:
Coke
Coke oven gas
Electricity
Anthracite
Coke breeze
Natural gas
Refractory
Iron scrap
Quicklime
Other
2459
100.0
913
100.0
1372
1086
55.8
44.2
269
644
29.6
70.4
246
236
209
61
33
19
e
e
e
282
10.1
9.6
8.5
2.5
1.4
0.9
e
e
e
11.2
e
e
469
e
e
e
71
50
44
10
e
e
51.4
e
e
e
7.7
5.5
4.8
1.0
Table 8
Energy demand of the Polish steel production system (CED method).
Impact category
BOF steel
Unit
MJ/FU
EAF steel
MJ/FU
Total
Coke
Coke oven gas
Lubricating oil
Electricity
Coke breeze
Anthracite
Refractory
Iron scrap
Quicklime
Other
35413
18372
4421
3353
2465
2486
581
e
e
e
3735
100.0
51.9
12.5
9.5
7.0
7.0
1.6
e
e
e
10.5
8066
e
e
e
5521
e
e
1209
882
260
194
100.0
e
e
e
68.5
e
e
15.0
10.9
3.2
2.4
241
Table 9
Results of the environmental impact assessment of steel production based on the Recipe midpoint (H).
Impact category
Unit
BOF steel
BF slag
BOF slag
EAF slag
Climate change
Terrestrial acidication
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Human toxicity
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionizing radiation
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
kg CO2 eq
kg SO2 eq
kg P eq
kg N eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg NMVOC
kg PM10 eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg U235 eq
m2a
m2a
m2
m3
kg Fe eq
kg oil eq
1703
4.81
0.81
0.30
643
4.89
4.61
0.17
12.77
13.32
82.83
45.55
12.21
0.20
87.44
850
529
516
1.46
0.25
0.09
195
1.48
1.40
0.05
3.87
4.04
25.11
13.81
3.70
0.06
26.51
258
160
240
0.68
0.11
0.04
91
0.69
0.65
0.02
1.80
1.88
11.69
6.43
1.72
0.03
12.34
120
75
766
2.48
0.46
0.14
347
1.39
0.78
0.06
6.96
7.10
24.13
13.57
4.13
0.06
1.88
13
143
147
0.48
0.09
0.03
65
0.27
0.15
0.01
1.34
1.36
4.64
2.61
0.79
0.01
0.36
2
28
Table 10
Comparative analysis of steel productions energy requirements and carbon footprint.
Reference
BOF steel
EAF steel
Energy requirement,
MJ/kg steel
GHG emissions,
Mg CO2 eq/Mg steel
Energy requirement,
MJ/kg steel
GHG emissions,
Mg CO2 eq/Mg steel
29.20
25.50
25.00
22.00
35.41
2.12
1.97
2.15
2.30
2.46
14.40
11.20
9.4
e
8.07
1.18
0.59
0.56
e
0.91
Table 11
Comparative analysis of the environmental indicators for three iron ore sinter plant scenarios.
LCIA method
Damage/impact category
Unit
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
IPCC
CED
Carbon footprint
Total energy demand
Nonrenewable, fossil
Nonrenewable, nuclear
Renewable, biomass
Renewable, wind, solar, geothermal
Renewable, water
Terrestrial acidication
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Human toxicity
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionizing radiation
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
kg CO2 eq
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
kg SO2 eq
kg P eq
kg N eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg NMVOC
kg PM10 eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg 1.4-DB eq
kg U235 eq
m2a
m2a
m2
m3
kg Fe eq
kg oil eq
568
3761
3527
171
26
3
34
2.69
0.16
0.09
202
1.87
2.99
0.03
2.55
2.68
16.90
6.77
2.21
0.03
2.12
706
80
559
3518
3294
163
25
3
33
2.62
0.16
0.08
196
1.90
2.96
0.03
2.42
2.55
16.11
6.28
2.05
0.03
2.06
706
75
543
3926
3098
166
625
3
34
2.51
0.15
0.08
191
1.89
2.94
0.03
2.32
2.46
16.44
44.36
2.27
0.03
2.06
706
70
242
Table 12
Comparative analysis of the environmental indicators of alternative solid fuels.
LCIA method
Damage/impact category
Unit
Coke breeze
Anthracite
Charcoal
IPCC
CED
Carbon footprint
Nonrenewable, fossil
Nonrenewable, nuclear
Renewable, biomass
Renewable, water
Terrestrial acidication
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Human toxicity
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionizing radiation
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
kg CO2 eq/MJ
MJ/MJ
MJ/MJ
MJ/MJ
MJ/MJ
kg SO2 eq/MJ
kg P eq/MJ
kg N eq/MJ
kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ
kg NMVOC/MJ
kg PM10 eq/MJ
kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ
kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ
kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ
kg U235 eq/MJ
m2a/MJ
m2a/MJ
m2/MJ
m3/MJ
kg Fe eq/MJ
kg oil eq/MJ
0.166
1.990
0.043
0.011
0.005
0.00085900
0.00006760
0.00002450
0.05850000
0.00065600
0.00026400
0.00000486
0.00107000
0.00106000
0.00424000
0.00437000
0.00145000
0.00001280
0.00027900
0.00085300
0.04520000
0.095
0.879
0.013
0.005
0.002
0.00042900
0.00002960
0.00000982
0.02640000
0.00050900
0.00011300
0.00000262
0.00045600
0.00045900
0.00128000
0.00196000
0.00067000
0.00000592
0.00007910
0.00032300
0.01990000
0.041
0.051
0.017
2.070
0.003
0.00002310
0.00000198
0.00000157
0.00259000
0.00057400
0.00003000
0.00001150
0.00003250
0.00003390
0.00165000
0.13300000
0.00132000
0.00000984
0.00003200
0.00032800
0.00113000
CO2 equivalent. The results of the analysis indicated that the use of
charcoal and anthracite could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It
was also found that the use of alternative fuels in the process could
be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet in the
case of charcoal, an increase in the share of charcoal would increase
the rate of land use and total energy demand.
4. Conclusions
Steel production, and the iron-making process in particular, is a
very energy-intensive industry. The application of environmental
life cycle assessment (LCA) allows steel producers to improve the
manufacturing process by reducing environmental impacts.
This paper discussed the environmental impact of iron and steel
technologies and was the rst study covering the life cycle assessment of all the processes at an integrated steel plant in Poland. The
life cycle assessment of steel production in a national integrated steel
plant was performed based on inventory data obtained from 2010
production results. The environmental impacts of steel production in
Poland were estimated using a cradle-to-factory gate boundary.
It was found that the most signicant environmental impact
was damage to human health, which was related to coke consumption in the blast furnace and iron ore consumption in the
sinter plant. The largest energy demand in the entire steel production system occurred in the blast furnace system production,
and the major source of environmental impacts was the consumption of fossil fuels. Direct GHG emissions were related to the
emissions of combustion sources. Signicant sources of GHG
emissions included coke, coke breeze, coke oven gas and electricity,
and the biggest source of metal and mineral depletion was iron
consumption in the sintering process.
The results obtained for the EAF steel production route in Poland
showed that electricity consumption had a major impact on the
processs total fossil fuel depletion and greenhouse gas emissions.
The results of the analysis indicated that the use of alternative
fuels could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the use of charcoal increased other impact categories such as land use and total
energy demand. Pollution prevention methods related to raw material substitution in iron-making processes should be applied to
reduce the environmental impacts of the iron and steel industry.
243
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. Ecoinvent report No. 3. Swiss centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dbendorf, Switzerland.
Giannetti, B.F., Bonilla, S.H., Almeida, C.M., 2013. An emergy-based evaluation of a
reverse logistics network for steel recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 46, 48e57.
Gielen, D.J., Moriguchi, Y., Yagita, H., 2002. CO2 emission reduction for Japanese
petrochemicals. J. Clean. Prod. 10, 589e604.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
2009. ReCiPe 2008-A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level, rst
ed.. In: Report I: Characterisation, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment (VROM). The Netherlands. http://www.lcia-recipe.net (accessed
July 2012).
Hu, C., Chen, L., Zhang, C., Qi, Y., Yin, R., 2006. Emission mitigation of CO2 in steel
industry: current status and future scenarios. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 13, 38e42.
Huang, Z., Ding, X., Sun, H., Liu, S., 2010. Identication of main inuencing factors of
life cycle CO2 emissions from the integrated steelworks using sensitivity analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (10e11), 1052e1058.
Iosif, A.M., Hanrot, F., Ablitzer, D., 2008. Process integrated modelling for steelmaking
e life cycle inventory analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 429e438.
Iosif, A.M., Hanrot, F., Birat, J.P., Ablitzer, D., 2010. Physicochemical modelling of the
classical steelmaking route for life cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. LCA 15, 304e310.
IPCC, 2007. IPCC Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm (accessed 25.05.12.).
Lee, S.Y., 2013. Existing and anticipated technology strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Koreas petrochemical and steel industries. J. Clean.
Prod. 40, 83e92.
Nonhebel, S., 2005. Renewable energy and food supply: will there be enough land?
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 9, 191e201.
Norgate, T.E., 2004. Metal Recycling: an Assessment Using Life Cycle Energy Consumption as a Sustainability Indicator. CSIRO Minerals.
Norgate, T.E., Haque, N., Somerville, M., Jahanshahi, S., 2011. The Greenhouse Gas
Footprint of Charcoal Production and of Some Applications in Steelmaking.
http://www.conference.alcas.asn.au/2011/norgateetalv2.pdf.
Norgate, T.E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W.J., 2007. Assessing the environmental impact
of metal production processes. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (8e9), 838e848.
Ooi, T.C., Thompson, D., Anderson, D.R., Fisher, R., Fray, T., Zandi, M., 2011. The effect
of charcoal combustion on iron-ore sintering performance and emission of
persistent organic pollutants. Combust. Flame 158, 979e987.
PPS, 2012. Polish Steel Industry. Polish Steel Association. http://www.hiph.org/
(accessed 01.06.12.).
Rynikiewicz, C., 2008. The climate change challenge and transitions for radical
changes in the European steel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 781e789.
Sakamoto, Y., Tonooka, Y., Yanagisawa, Y., 1999. Estimation of energy consumption
for each process in the Japanese steel industry: a process analysis. Energ.
Convers. Manage. 40, 1129e1140.
Sekine, Y., Fukuda, K., Kato, K., Adachi, Y., Matsuno, Y., 2009. CO2 reduction potentials by utilizing waste plastics in steel works. Int. J. LCA 14, 122e136.
SimaPro Analyst Version 7.3 LCA Software and Database, PR Consultants, The
Netherlands. Available at: www.pre.nl (accessed 25.05.12.).
Spengler, T., Geldermann, J., Htihre, S., Sieverdingbeck, A., Rentz, 0, 1998. Development of a multiple criteria based decision support system for environmental
assessment of recycling measures in the iron and steel making industry.
J. Clean. Prod. 6, 37e52.
ska, A., Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., 2012. Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts
Sliwin
of coal-power by using coal-mine methane. Int. J. Energ. Res.. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/er.2908.
The ReCiPe Methodology. http://www.lcia-recipe.net/ (accessed 25.05.12.).
Yellishetty, M., Mudd, G.M., Ranjith, P.G., 2011. The steel industry, abiotic resource
depletion and life cycle assessment: a real or perceived issue? J. Clean. Prod. 19,
78e90.
Zhang, X., Jiang, W., Deng, S., Peng, K., 2009. Emergy evaluation of the sustainability
of Chinese steel production during 1998e2004. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1030e1038.
Zhang, B., Wang, Z., Yin, J., Su, L., 2012. CO2 emission reduction within Chinese iron
and steel industry: practices, determinants and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 33,
167e178.