The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) energy guide, Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry, discusses energy efficiency practices and technologies that can be implemented in iron and steel manufacturing plants. This guide provides current real world examples of iron and steel plants saving energy and reducing cost and carbon dioxide emissions.
Flue Gas Monitoring and Control
By monitoring the furnace exhaust gas flow rate and composition, the use of chemical energy in the furnace can be enhanced. With the aid of optical sensors, post-combustion of off-gases can be investigated in detail and the findings can be used to optimize off-gas post-combustion operations. Benefits of this practice include reduced electricity consumption, shorter power-on times, increased productivity, a decrease in production costs, a reduction of electrode consumption, reduced natural gas, oxygen and carbon consumption, and a reduction of refractory wear. For example, significant improvements in the off-gas chemical energy recovery have been realised by continuously adjusting the oxygen injection for post-combustion based on real time readings of CO and CO2 concentrations in flue gases (Worrell, et al., 2010. p. 90).
Development Status | Products |
---|---|
Commercial
|
steel
|
Flue Gas Monitoring and ControlCosts & Benefits
Parent Process: Electric Arc Furnace | |
---|---|
Energy Savings Potential |
Electricity savings of 0.05GJ/t-steel are estimated by using this technology (US EPA, 2010. p. 11) . Chemical energy recovery rate from exhaust gases can be increased by 50% by adjusting oxygen injection levels for post-combustion based on real time CO and CO2 readings in flue gases, instead of using preset values (Worrell, et al., 2010. p. 90). A specific post combustion control system installed in two plants in Mexico and the US lead to reductions of 2% and 4% in electricity consumption, 8% and 16% in natural gas consumption, 5% and 16% in oxygen use, 18% and 18% in carbon charged and injected (Worrell, et al., 2010. p. 90). |
CO2 Emission Reduction Potential |
Emissions reduction potential of the technology is estimated to be 8.8 kgCO2/t-steel (US EPA, 2010. p. 11). |
Costs |
Retrofit capital cost are estimated at $3.1/t-steel (US EPA, 2010. p. 11). The monitoring system installed in Mexico and the US resulted in yield improvements between 1% and 2%, decreased electrode consumption between 3.5% and 16%, increased productivityby 8%. |