《EE07-Diffusion of energy efficient technologies and CO2 emission reductions in iron and steel sector-资源文档资料整理者.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《EE07-Diffusion of energy efficient technologies and CO2 emission reductions in iron and steel sector-资源文档资料整理者.pdf（21页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、Diffusion of energy efficient technologies and CO2emission reductions in iron and steel sectorJunichiro Oda,Keigo Akimoto,Fuminori Sano,Toshimasa TomodaSystems Analysis Group,Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth(RITE),92 Kizugawadai,Kizu-cho,Soraku-gun,Kyoto 6190292,JapanReceive
2、d 15 July 2006;received in revised form 21 December 2006;accepted 6 January 2007Available online 22 February 2007AbstractsThis paper evaluates CO2emission reduction potentials and the minimum cost of technological optionsin the iron and steel sector by regions across the world.Based on an intensive
3、and in-depth survey ofcurrent steel producing facilities and energy efficient technologies,we modified a global energy systemsmodel,which we call DNE21+;technologies in the steel sector are explicitly modeled as well as those inthe energy supply sector.Two types of targets are studied;the top-down t
4、ype(550 ppmv stabilization)andthe bottom-up type(energy efficiency targets in the steel sector).Their cost-effective technologicalresponses are obtained,and the emissions reduction effects are evaluated for the bottom-up targets.2007 Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.JEL classification:P28;Q41;Q48;L6
5、1Keywords:Global warming mitigation;Iron and steel sector;Energy systems model;Energy saving;Energy efficienttechnology1.IntroductionTheKyotoProtocolcameintoeffectonFebruary16,2005,andtheinternationalofficialdiscussionon the post-Kyoto regimes began in 2005.In addition to the frameworks under the UN
6、FCCC forglobalwarmingmitigation,e.g.,theKyotoProtocolandthepost-Kyotoregimes,regionalandaction-oriented cooperation is also being explored for energy efficiency improvement and CO2emissionreductions.For example,AsiaPacificPartnershipofCleanDevelopmentandClimate(APP),whichwasestablishedbyAustralia,Ch
7、ina,India,Japan,RepublicofKorea,andtheUnitedStatesinJanuaryEnergy Economics 29(2007) author.Tel.:+81 774 75 2304;fax:+81 774 75 2317.E-mail address:jun-odarite.or.jp(J.Oda).0140-9883/$-see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2007.01.0032006,aims to address increase
8、d energy needs and associated challenges,including air pollution,energy security,and climate change,by promoting the development,deployment,and transfer ofcleaner and more efficient technologies.It has established eight publicprivate task forces includingthe iron and steel sector.Meanwhile,the China
9、EU partnership on climate change includingcooperation for clean energy developments was established in September 2005.Although varioustypes of frameworks for CO2emission reductions have been developed,technological development,transfer,and diffusion are important forany framework.TheG8 GleneaglesSum
10、mit alsoadopted anaction plan with respect to climate change that has a similar framework.The demand for steel has rapidly increased in the countries that have been in a primary stage ofrapid economic growth,e.g.,Japan in the 1960s.Currently,China has reached this stage,andIndia,along with their eco
11、nomic growth,is also expected to reach this stage in the near future.Global steel productions have maintained an upward trend for the last five years and have reacheda value of 1058 million tons of crude steel in 2004(IISI,2005).The steel sector is one of the mostenergy intensive end-use sectors and
12、 emits around 590 Mt-C accounting for 5.2%of the globalanthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004(OECD,2005).Under these circumstances,the assessments of the technological options for CO2emissionreductions not only in the energy supply sectors but also in the energy intensive end-use sectors,particularly i
13、n the steel production sector,are important to show ways for achieving the Kyototarget,for providing useful information for constructing the post-Kyoto regimes,and also foraction-oriented cooperation such as the APP and the G8 action plan.As cost-effective CO2emission reduction measures are inevitab
14、ly different across regions,the assessments should payattention to regional differences in energy systems,energy consumption growth,current status ofenergy consumption,technology in the end-use sector,etc.We had developed a global energy systems model,which we called DNE21+,in order toevaluate the c
15、ost-effective technological options of the supply side,including carbon captureand storage(CCS)taking into consideration regional differences(Akimoto et al.,2004a).Themodel disaggregates the entire world into 77 regions,and covers a time range up to 2050.Themodel minimizes the cumulative discounted
16、present value of the world energy systems costsand seeks the cost-effective trajectory of global energy systems.Although the DNE21+treatedthe energy supply systems in a bottom-up fashion,the model treated the end-use sectors in a top-down fashion using long-term price elasticities for four types of
17、secondary energy carriers:solidfuel,liquid fuel,gaseous fuel,and electricity.Due to the above ways of modeling,the DNE21+was not able to evaluate the technological options of energy saving and CO2emissionreductions in the end-use sectors.However,the previous study with the DNE21+indicated thatthe en
18、ergy savings in the end-use sectors play an important role particularly in the near future,while improvements and reconstructions of energy supply systems including the CCS areinevitable for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric CO2concentration.Thus,it is of greatimportance to evaluate mitigat
19、ion opportunities in the end-use sectors,and should be done so inconsistence with the energy supply sectors because these sectors are interlinked and notindependent of each other.Somestudiesontheevaluationsoftechnologiesintheend-usesectorsareavailable(e.g.,Kainumaet al.,2003;Gielen and Moriguchi,200
20、2;Hidalgo et al.,2005).These evaluations are restricted insome points as described below.The AIM/Enduse model analyzes a number of energy efficienttechnologies of end-use sectors for some Asian countries.However,the model treats endogenouslyonlytheend-usesectors(Kainumaetal.,2003).GielenandMoriguchi
21、(2002)evaluatedCO2emissionreduction potentials in the Japanese iron and steel industry up to 2040 with a linear programmingmodel.Hidalgo et al.(2005)evaluated the technological options in the iron and steel industry with a869J.Oda et al./Energy Economics 29(2007)868888global model ISIM(the Iron and
22、Steel Industry Model).However,these studies do not evaluate theemission reductions in consistence with the energy supply sectors.In this paper we address the following issues:(1)the cost-effective technology mix by regionfor(A)the reference case(no-climate change policy),(B)the case of atmospheric C
23、O2concentration stabilization at 550 ppmv,and(C)the case of energy efficiency target in the steelsector.(2)the CO2emission reduction potentials for the cases(B)and(C).For the above purpose,wefirstconductedasurveyoftheenergyefficiency,costs,andinstallationvintages ofthefacilitiesin the steel sector b
24、y region,and we assumed global and regional future steel production scenariosbased on their historical trend data,etc.Based on the survey and assumed data,the DNE21+wasmodified so that the technological optionsin the steel sector as well asin the energysupplysectorscan be treated endogenously.The ev
25、aluation time span is only up to 2030 because the perspectiveoftechnological changes overlonger periodsbecomesless certain evenintheironandsteel sector.The analysis using the modified DNE21+has some advantages compared to other analysesdescribedabove.(1)Thisanalysisresultsareconsistentacrossglobalre
26、gionsandbetweentheenergysupplysectorsandend-usesectors.(2)Thetrajectoryoftechnologicalchangesshallbeapracticalonebecause the vintages and lifetimes of the facilities are taken into account and the technologicalreplacement is allowed only at the expense of depreciated cost of the facility to be repla
27、ced.The disadvantages are:(1)this study does not treat changes in industrial structure and industryrelocation endogenously,because the regional scenarios of steel productions are providedexogenously.(2)This study neglects short-term fluctuations of fuel prices because of the mid-term analysis up to
28、2030.(3)This study does not treat such drastic options as the carbon capturefrom BOF steelmaking process,because we do not expect their introduction of a significantamount before 2030 although their substantial use may be expected in the longer time span.2.Energy efficiency and technological options
29、 in iron and steel sectorBasically two major process routes have been used for crude steel production in the last threedecades.One route is to reduce iron ore to pig iron with coke in blast furnaces,and then convert itinto crude steel in basic oxygen furnaces(BOF steelmaking process).The other route
30、 is to smeltscrap iron in an electric arc furnace(EAF steelmaking process).The first route needs the heat ofiron ore reduction at least,i.e.,theoretically 7.37 GJ/ton of pig iron,and actual energyconsumption in the processes from coke making to hot rolling can vary between 20 and 50 GJ/tonof BOF ste
31、el including electric power consumption(e.g.,Worrell et al.,1997).The second routeactually consumes 400 to 750 kWh/ton of EAF steel(e.g.,Worrell et al.,1999).In addition to theabove two major routes,a direct reduction ironmaking route is also commercially available.Many technological options exist f
32、or net energy saving and/or net CO2emissions reduction:exhaust heat recovery,process gas recovery,and non-fossil fuel use.The energy saving effectsof the technological options are not uniquely determined but dependent on the processparameters,facility capacity,etc.Take top-pressure recovery turbine(
33、TRT),which is an energysaving technology originally developed in the former Soviet Union,for instance.TRT generateselectricity using pressurized gases from the blast furnace.The theoretical electric output of theTRT L(kW)is estimated by the following equation(Kawasaki Steel Corporation/NEDO,2000).L
34、1860d gd Qd CpdT1d1P2P1?k1k()1870J.Oda et al./Energy Economics 29(2007)868888whereistheefficiencyofthegasturbineandgenerator;Q(Nm3/h),thegasflowattheinletoftheturbine;Cp(kcal/kgK),the specific heat of the gas;T1(K),the temperature at the inlet of theturbine;P1and P2(kg/cm2),the gas pressures at the
35、inlet and outlet of the turbine,respectively;and k,the adiabatic exponent of the gas(=1.36).The electricity generation per ton of pig iron oftheTRTisnon-linearlyrelatedtothepressure of theblast furnaceasrepresented inEq.(1),andthepressuredependsonthevolumeoftheblastfurnaceandthemodeofhigh-pressureop
36、erationoftheblastfurnace.AtypicalmodernTRTofthedrytypegenerates55kWh/tonofpigironinthecaseofthehigh-pressureoperationoftheblastfurnace(JapanConsultingInstitute/NEDO,2001),whereasa TRT of the wet type generates less power,e.g.,30 kWh/ton of pig iron(Worrell et al.,1999).Coke dry quenching(CDQ)recover
37、s the sensible heat of red-hot coke using inactive gas in adry process.A typical modern CDQ generates 150 kWh/ton of coke and brings several co-benefits such as minimizing water consumption and enhancing coke quality.The coke qualityimprovement enhances the productivity and reduces the coke ratio of
38、 the blast furnace(JapanConsulting Institute/NEDO,2001;Nippon Steel Corporation/NEDO,2002).The coke ratio have been declining with the diffusion of pulverized coal injection(PCI).PCIimproves the net energy efficiency.However,the effect depends on the energy efficiency of cokeoven and characteristics
39、 of resources(e.g.,Worrell et al.,1999).An oxygen enrichment,over-pressure and temperature raise of the blast can also reduce the coke ratio(Danils,2002).Coldiron sources,i.e.,scrap and direct reduced iron(DRI),can be practically used up to 35%in basicoxygen furnaces(BOFs).The recovery of by-product
40、 gases,i.e.,coke oven gas(COG),blast furnace gas(BFG),andoxygen furnace gas(LDG),and their sensible heat recovery are also the key factors for the netenergy efficiency improvements of the BOF steelmaking process.The LDG is generated in abatch process,and therefore,high-level control systems are part
41、icularly required for the recoveryand effective utilization of LDG and its sensible heat(Japan Consulting Institute/NEDO,2001).In addition to currently available technologies described by Worrell et al.(1999)and JapanConsultingInstitute/NEDO(2001),wesurveyed future technologies;anext-generationcoke
42、oventechnology such as SCOPE21(Super Coke Oven for Productivity and Environmentalenhancement toward the 21st century)has been developed and is now being demonstrated inJapan.ThepurposeofSCOPE21isnotonlyenergysavingorcostreductionbutalsoincreasingtheinput ratio of noncaking coal from 20%to 50%(NEDO a
43、nd Center for Coal Utilization,Japan,2004).From the long-term point of view,many technological options are proposed for expandingthe potentials of CO2emission reductions,e.g.,Corex,Finex,Cyclone Converter Furnace,DIOS,AISI,HISmelt,Fastmet,Fastmelt,Circofer,Circored,and CCS in the steel sector(Danils
44、,2002;Rynikiewicz,2005).3.The model3.1.Framework of the global energy systems model DNE21+The DNE21+model divides the world into 77 regions;the countries of interest are treated asindependent regions,and countries with large areas such as the US,Canada,Australia,China,India,Brazil,and Russia are fur
45、ther disaggregated into 38 regions to consider the transportationcosts of energy and CO2in more detail.In order to evaluate the technological options includingend-use sectors,the time span of the model analysis is limited only until 2030 in this study,andthe time interval is 5 years.The total global
46、 cost of energy systems is minimized over the timeperiod from 2000 to 2030.871J.Oda et al./Energy Economics 29(2007)8688883.2.Energy supply,CCS,and end-use sectors other than steel sectorsEight types of primary energy sources are explicitly modeled:natural gas,oil,coal,biomass,hydro and geothermal,p
47、hotovoltaics,wind,and nuclear.The prices of fossil fuel in this study areassumed based on an average wellhead price in the past ten years(19962005)and AEOprojections(DOE/EIA,2006).As technological options,various types of energy-conversion technologies are explicitlymodeled in addition to electricit
48、y generation.The lifetimes of nuclear power and other facilitiesare assumed to be 40 and 30 years,respectively.These include oil refinery,natural gasliquefaction,coal gasification,water electrolysis,methanol synthesis,etc.The vintage of energy-conversion plants is taken into account.Five types of CC
49、S technologies are also considered:1)injection into oil wells for EOR operation,2)storage in depleted natural gas wells,3)injectioninto coal beds for ECBM operation,4)storage in aquifers,and 5)storage in oceans.Each type offossil fueled power technology has three assumed levels of energy efficiencie
50、s and threecorresponding levels of facilities costs and the technological progresses are assumed exogenouslyfor these power generation technologies and CCS technology.The end-use sector excluding the steel sector are disaggregated into four types of secondaryenergy carriers:1)solid fuel,2)liquid fue