Utilizing the blast furnace in an efficient way can help the future of steel making production.

The blast furnace is utilized as a means to take in a feed of iron ore, coke, and fluxes (such as limestone to remove impurities) and allow a reaction between burning coke and the iron ore. As the coke burns due to inserted air, CO is formed and reacts with the iron ore (which is heated to melt). A series of reductions of the iron ore takes place due to the presence of near-pure carbon (coke) and this results in the production of iron metal. Higher quality of raw materials leads to optimal results form the blast furnace. Hence, the carbon content of the coke is important in terms of how the quality of the hot metal. About 65% of todays steel-making processes utilizes the blast furnace approach. Steel produced in the blast furnace cost $700/t, which is less expensive than the electric arc furnace. During the production of steel, the iron making process (the operation of the blast furnace) is the step with the greatest CO2 emission value. The products of the blast furnace are molten metal, slag, and flue gases that leave the furnace. The flue gas comprises of 20-28% CO, 1-5% H2, 50-55% N2, 17-25% CO2, some sulpher and cyanide compounds, and a lot of dust from impurities of coal and the iron ore1. Depending on the furnace, the production the flue gas ranges from about 1200-2000 Nm3/t pig iron. The Corex process utilizes the most recent method of producing pig iron, which is smelt reduction. This process combines the gasification of coal with the melt reduction of iron ore. This process also utilizes non-coking coal, which takes away the need for a coking plant. No coke ovens mean elimination byproducts of coal tar. No dust problems associated with blast furnaces since the export gas in the Corex process is used as fuel (electricity/other heating purposes). Corex utilizes lumpy ores as raw material instead of fine pieces, which takes away the need for a sinter plant. A briquetting machine is also used for the fine ores that are remaining to utilize them as well. To understand how these processes work, we take a look at the materials consumed and compare them to see which works better or worse. We look at a specific furnace from a plant in JSW Steel Ltd, which shows the consumption of raw materials between the Corex and Blast Furnace processes 11.

We see that the Corex processes requires much more input materials, but no sinter is needed at all. The Corex process is less strict on the quality of the raw materials than the BF without affecting the hot metal quality and production 11. An analysis of the composition of the flue gas is also given,

, which shows carbon monoxide taking the lead percentage in the Corex gas and nitrogen gas taking the lead percentage in the Blast furnace gas. Almost 98% of the gas is used for fuel in the Corex and the rest is just mixed with the BF gas, which is sent to the power plant. The following example shows the mass flow of a typical operation of the Corex process. Under these mass conditions and steady state conditions, they found that 1, 297.87 kg iron ore and 953.2 kg coal are required to produce 1 ton of hot metal 10. The data is used from a C-1000 unit at Pretoria, South Africa.

We see the typical consumption figures and typical byproduct figures, respectively, of the Corex process given by SIEMENS VAI in the following tables 12,

We also have the following thermal and electrical balance (for 1Mtpa hot metal) in the following tables respectively, also by SIEMENS VAI 12,

They also provide information on the CO2, declaring less than 1, 250 kg/tiron 12. We can compare the Corex process to the SSAB Tunnplat AB steel plants Blast furnace system. They provide the CO2 emission factor used for indirect emissions from processes outside the system boundary (kg CO2/t). They also demonstrate the CO2 emissions for various cases of changed production practices and integration of new equipment. We have the outside boundary emissions,

the schematic of the different process routes taken,

the processes taken,

and the summarized emissions,

, along with the route alternatives

we see a large difference from the max and min of the Corex route due to the usage recovery possibilities of the export gas. By replacing the BF with the Corex, we see a CO2 emission of 2580-3500 kg/t steel. The big difference is due to the use of completely different raw materials 9.

The Finex process is another smelting reduction technology based on the direct use of coal and fine ore. This process utilizes low-grade ore and low ranked coal making it more cost efficient. Finex eliminated the need for a sinter and coking plant since it uses noncoking coal. There is a direct input of non-coking coal into a melter-gasifier after briquetting as well as input of the remaining fine ores through a series of fluidized beds. Siemens Vai gives a detailed presentation on the performance of the Finex technology and proved a comparison between the Finex process, the Corex process, and the traditional Blast Furnace. The operational performance is given of a 1.5M Finex plant as of Mar. 2008 14,

Finex Plant Operational Performance Indices Target Production t/y ` 1.5 M t/d ` 4, 300 Availability % ` 95 Coal Rate kg/thm ` 750 (PCI) kg/thm ` 250 Hot Metal [S] % ` 0.03 [Si] % ` 0.5

Actual (as of Mar.2008) ` 1.45 M ` 4, 250 ` 94 ` 732 ` 150 ` 0.03 ` 0.65

a) With a target of 1.5Mt/y an actual production of 1.45Mt/y is achieved; with a target of 4300t/d an actual production of 4250t/d is achieved b) With a target of 750kg/thm, an actual production of 732kg/thm is achieved; with a target of 250kg/thm, an actual production of 150kg/thm is achieved using the PCI (pulverized coal injection) method c) The target of 0.03% S in the hot metal was achieved; with a target of 0.5% Si in hot metal, 0.65% was achieved

This chart compares the quality of metal of the Finex 1.5M to the Pohang BF4 revealing the following results 14, a) A daily production of 8,851kg vs 4,250kg b) The hot metal is around the same temperature, the C percentage is the same, the Si percentage is 0.12% higher for the Finex process, and the S percentage is 0.007% higher for the Finex process c) The basicity of the slag is 0.01 less for the Finex process, the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) content in the slag of the Finex process is 2.41% greater than the BF4, and the slag volume if 8kg/thm less for the FINEX process

The Finex process leads to lower coal consumption due to off gas recycling with CO2 (less than 700kg/thm of coal consumption) 14. The CO2 removal equipment from the off-gas is brought out at 0.7-1.0 bar.g splitting 2 ways, one way to the power plant and another through a series of filters leading back to the fluidized bed reactors. Here is a schematic 14,

The following results have been made available as well, a) The off-gas composition is 36% CO, 33% CO2, 15% H2, and 11% N2 (this is the amount that will be recycled from the process) b) The product has comprises of 53% CO, 3%CO2, 25% H2, and 18%N2 (this will go back in to the reactors and as we see, the CO composition is high as required for the reducing gas c) The tail gas comprises of 17% CO, 66% CO2, 4%H2, and 3%N2 The total energy gain due to the removal of CO2 and the off gas utilization give the following results 14, a) After the product gas reenters the reactors we have 1190 Mcal/thm and 710Mcal/thm used for reduction, which leaves a 480 Mcal/thm recovery b) There is a 170 Mcal/thm consumption of electricity for compressing the gas c) Leaving a Final Gain by CO2 removal of 310 Mcal/thm

Using the BF (greenfield 3.0MT) and the FINEX (greenfield 1.5MT) an Energy Balance starting with 720kg/t 14, a) The combined cycle power plant energy consumption for the BF is 180Mwh and 297Mwh for FINEX b) 92Mwh is recycled back in the Finex process compared to 48Mwh for the BF

c) Coke Dry Quenching and the Top pressure recovery turbine gives off 17MWh in the BF and the TRT and heat recovery steam generator gives off 15MWh in Finex d) The 15Mwh and 17MWh join with 110MWh and 94MWh to give 113Mwh and 125 MWh , respectively, of electrical power e) The air separation unit recycles 95MWh and 38MWh for Finex and the BF respectively We have the following life cycle assessment of dust, SOx, and NOx emissions by the Corex, Finex, and BF 13,

We observe that the Corex and Finex technologies reduce emissions that the blast furnace otherwise does not by a significant amount. The Corex and Finex technologies seem to be in par with each other and the traditional blast furnace route seems to be at a loss. A further life cycle assessment shows the following danger potentials at certain impact categories 13, Acidification Potential - Corex route shows the most danger for this area of danger and the BF and Finex route show little to no danger Abiotic resource depletion - The Blast Furnace route shows the most danger followed by finex and then corex; all show a significant depletion potential Global Warming potential - All show a significant amount of gw potential with the BF route taking the lead Photochemical Ozone creation - The finex route shows no sign of this, but the BF route and Corex route show a significant potential of this danger Eutrophication potential - Only the BF and Finex route show a little potential for this danger, but not really that significant

Based on a 1998 Eco Tech plant of the International Iron and Steel Institute, we have the following energy intensity values of the processes from the material preparation to the end of the blast furnace processes. This data is based on the assumption that 1.389 t needed to produce 1 t hot rolled steel 8. We see that most of the energy is consumed in fueling the furnace.

Based on the Corex plant at POSCOs Pohang site in Korea, we have the following energy intensity values from the material preparation to the iron making 8. We observe that most of the energy is consumed fueling the furnace and is higher than the blast furnace at the Eco Tech plant.