15. - 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU

SUSTAINABILITY AND ECO-EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF BIOMASS

USE IN STEELMAKING

Dorota BURCHART-KOROL

CENTRAL MINING INSTITUTE, Plac Gwarkow 1, 40-166, Katowice, Poland, dburchart@gig.eu

Abstract

The conventional route for steel production produces high emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Biomass

as alternative fuel can be applied in steelmaking to reduce GHGs emission. Biomass use in steel industry

was discussed in this paper. Evaluation of three dimension of sustainability assessment of biomass use was

presented. The social, environmental and economic dimension of biomass use in steelmaking was shown

with life cycle approach. This paper adapted LCSA (life cycle sustainability assessment) methodologies to

undertake an analysis of the sustainability dimensions of steelmaking technology. Additionally eco-efficiency

analysis of biomass use in steelmaking was discussed.

Keywords: sustainability, LCSA, eco-efficiency, life cycle approach, biomass, iron and steel industry

1. INTRODUCTION

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global CO2 emissions have to be

significantly reduced by 2050. The iron and steel industry accounts for approximately 6.7% of total global

CO2emissions. The greenhouse gas of most relevance to the world steel industry is CO2, as it makes up

approximately 93% of all steel industry GHGs emissions [1]. Replacement of fossil carbon by biomass is

one of the effective approaches to reduce the GHGs emission intensity of the iron and steel making process.

According to World Steel Association [1] CO2 emissions was 1.8 t CO2/Mg crude steel based on route-

specific CO2 intensities for three steel production routes: basic oxygen furnace, electric arc furnace and open

hearth furnace; and weighted based on the production share of each route. Blast furnace process is the

major GHGs emitting process in integrated steel mills. Recently research were concerned with environmental

assessment of ironmaking [2,3], decreasing CO2 and dust emission [4-6], reverse system [7] and harmful

elements assessment in iron production [8]. Primary research of biomass materials (sunflower briquettes,

almond nut shells, hazelnut shells, rape straw, rape seed and charcoal) use in ironmaking were shown in

the papers [9,10]. The aim of this study was analyzed of sustainability and eco-efficiency of biomass use as

alternative fuel in iron and steel industry.

2. METHODS

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) enlarges the scope of life cycle assessment (LCA) by integrating

additional social and economic aspects into the decision making process with the aim to have more

sustainable products or technologies [11-13]. LCSA integrates the three components i.e. conventional LCA,

social LCA (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC), only a few attempts of such an integrated assessment have

been made so far [11]. All three components include a goal and scope definition, an LCI phase and an

interpretation phase [14]. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has not yet been described for LCC. LCSA is

defined as a sustainability impact assessment technique that aims to assess the environmental, social and

economic aspects of products and their potential positive and negative impacts along their life cycle

encompassing extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use, re-use,

maintenance, recycling and final disposal.

The eco-efficiency concept was first defined in 1989 by The World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD) as being achieved by the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that

15. - 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU

satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource

intensity throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity [15]. According to

ISO 14045:2012 [16] eco-efficiency is an aspect of sustainability relating the environmental performance

(measurable results related to environmental aspects) of a product system (collection of unit processes with

elementary and product flows, performing one or more defined functions, and which models the life cycle of

a product) to its product system value. Eco-efficiency indicator is measured relating environmental

performance of a product system to its product system value. An eco-efficiency is a relative concept and a

system is only more-or-less eco-efficient in relation to another system. Environmental assessment in eco-

efficiency evaluation shall be based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) according to ISO 14040:2006 [14].

Development of eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness in steel industry in Poland was presented in [17].

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSION

3.1. Sustainability aspects assessment of biomass use in steel industry

Sustainability dimensions of biomass use as alternative fuel for steelmaking was listed in Table 1 and

aspects of fossil fuels was listed in Table 2. Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) of alternative fuels was

shown in [18]. Social aspects indicators were analyzed included land-use, employment, workplace health

and safety. The scale effects of a shift to biomass technologies on land-use were significant. Biomass

(charcoal produced from Radiata pine plantation forestry) alternatives represented a 3.84% increase in land

use compared to metallurgical coal. Production of pine plantation forestry in Australia would be required to

increase by 67% to accommodate the full substitution of coal (an additional 1.35 million hectares under

plantation forestry). Biomass alternatives were significant generators of direct employment at that regional

level (2.9x10

-3 per Mg of steel for Pine biomass as compared to 2.66

x10

-4 for metallurgical coal). There was

also a potential for employment created from processing by-products such as bio-oil from eucalypts and in

particular biomass residues. However, sourcing energy from biomass was identified as having concomitantly

higher rates of workplace injuries (6.28x10

-5 per Mg of steel for pine compared to 3.23

x10

-6 per Mg of steel for

coal). The supply of land of this magnitude presents a stern challenge given land-use conflicts associated

with plantation forestry expansion. However, local level conflicts have manifest from the community health

and amenity impacts, and subsidence effects associated with metallurgical coal mining despite the relatively

less significant scale of land (5x10

-3 hectares per Mg of steel) used [18].

Wood pellets were examined to support ironmaking from a life cycle analysis perspective [19]. Comparison

of GHGs emissions in different ironmaking pathways (conventional ironmaking, charcoal bio-ironmaking and

wood pellet bio-ironmaking) was presented. The functional unit of this analysis is defined as one Mg of hot

metal produced. The total emission of the systems was expressed in g CO2eq/Mg HM based on IPCC

method. The pathway charcoal bio-ironmaking process included in the analysis consist of the growth and

collection of raw biomass material for pellet production, pelletization of raw biomass, pyrolysis/carbonization

of wood pellets and the associated transportation of materials Results of the analysis showed that GHG

emission in the carbon life cycle of bio-ironmaking via this pathway was 261.8 kg CO2eq/ MgHM (Mg of hot

metal) compared to 1552 kgCO2eq/MgHM in the conventional blast furnace process. The high reduction,

83%, arises from the GHG neutral characteristic of renewable biomass materials. This would result in a

reduction of GHG emission associated with Canadian hot metal production from 12 Mt/yr to 2 Mt/yr. The low

charcoal yield in wood pyrolysis imposes the most significant technical challenge on bio-ironmaking. The

charcoal bio-ironmaking pathway involved the collection of forestry residues as raw materials and their

conversion into charcoal prior to long-range transportation. The use of side products or residues from

forestry operation as raw materials leads to emissions associated with their growth and harvesting. The

transportation of high-carbon density charcoal also lowers emission related to long-range transportation of

materials. As a result, the total emission of the charcoal bio-ironmaking process is 62.8 kg CO2eq/ MgHM. In

the pathway wood pellet bio-ironmaking, raw materials are purposely grown for pellet production. Therefore,

emissions associated with the growth of raw biomass materials and harvesting should be included, which

15. - 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU

significantly increases emissions associated with the collection and transportation of raw materials compared

to the charcoal bio-ironmaking process. The carbon density of wood pellet was relatively low compared to

charcoal [19].

According to [22-24] wood chips is suitable biomass for ironmaking. Forest chip is cheap fuel and has

increasing potential in the market. Depending on the fossil fuel substitution rate in blast furnace, needed

wood amount could reach 3 million cubic meters [22,24]. The most studied bio-based reducing agent is

charcoal. Depending on the raw material, charcoal production cost could be in the range of 370–530 €/Mg

with charcoal production capacity of 30 000 Mg. Currently the prices of fossil reducing agents were lower

than the ones produced from biomass. However the future carbon restrained world might make them more

competitive. Task relating to evaluation of life cycle impacts of using biomass in ironmaking is still in progress

[22-24]. Charcoal can be used as a alternative fuel for coke charge to smaller blast furnace (BF) due to its

insufficient strength. Charcoal Powder Injection (CPI) was used in mini-BFs in Brazil at injection rates from

100 – 190 kg/ MgHM [24,25].

Table 1 Compare of sustainability aspects of biomass use for steelmaking

Biomass Category Indicator Amount Reference

Charcoal (pine biomass)

Land use Biomass production 1.97 x 10

-1 hectares/Mg of steel

[18] Employment

Direct Biomass 2.6 x 10-3

per Mg of steel

Indirect Biomass 2.8 x 10-3

per Mg of steel

Direct Charcoal 2.95 x 10-4

per Mg of steel

Indirect Charcoal 2.95 x 10-4

per Mg of steel

Health and safety

Lost time injuries (biomass)

6.28 x 10-5

per Mg of steel

Charcoal bio-ironmaking

IPCC Carbon footprint 62,8 kg CO2 eq/Mg HM [19]

Wood pellet (bioironmaking)

IPCC Carbon footprint 261,8 kg CO2 eq/Mg HM

Biomass Cost

Production cost Biomass cost (Australia)

386 US$/Mg 260 US$

[20]

Production cost Biomass cost (Brazil)

254.60 US$/Mg 91.6 US$

[21]

Wood logs

IPCC Carbon footprint 0.0036 kg CO2 eq/MJ

[27]

Land use Land occupation 0.099 m2a/MJ

Human health Human toxicity 0.040 kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ

Wood chips

IPCC Carbon footprint 0.0051 kg CO2 eq/MJ

Land use Land occupation 0.069 m2a/MJ

Human health Human toxicity 0.035 kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ

Source: own analyses

Table 2 Compare of aspects of fossil fuels use for steelmaking

Fossil fuels Category Indicator Amount Reference

Metallurgical coal

Land use Coal production 5 x 10-3 hectares/Mg of

steel

[18] Employment

Direct Coal 1.34 x 10-4

per Mg of steel

Indirect Coal 2.7 x 10-4

per Mg of steel

Direct Coke 1.3 x 10-4

per Mg of steel

Indirect Coke 1.3 x 10-4

per Mg of steel

Health and safety

Lost time injuries (coal)

3.23 x 10-6

per Mg of steel

Coke Ironmaking

IPCC Carbon footprint 1552 kg CO2 eq/Mg HM [19]

Hard coal coke

IPCC Carbon footprint 0.123 kg CO2 eq/MJ

[27] Land use Land occupation 0.007 m2a/MJ

Human health Human toxicity 0.041 kg 1.4-DB eq/MJ

Source: own analyses

15. - 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU

The HIsmelt iron-making process could potentially be run on 100% wood charcoal instead of coal in

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 [26].

In this paper the percentage share of emissions of GHGs in the different stages of ironmaking pathways with

coke, charcoal and wood pellets (Table 3) was carried out.

Table 3 Share of GHGs emission of alternative ironmaking pathways, %

Stages Coke

Conventional ironmaking Charcoal

Bio-ironmaking Wood Pellet

Bio-ironmaking

First stages 0.90

Coal mining

32.32 Residues

collection and transport – 80 km

55.08 Harvesting and

transport-115 km

Transportation 1.68

(rail: 46km, barge: 434 km) 65.29

(truck: 1200 km)

14.94 (rail:180 km,

vessel:890 km)

Production 8.57

Cokemaking 2.39

Charcoal making

29.98 Peller production

and pyrolysis

Ironmaking 88.85 0 0

Source: Own analyses based on [19]

It was found that in the case of coke using the highest impacts of GHGs emissions occurs during ironmaking

- in a blast furnace (88.85%). In the case of charcoal using, the highest impact of GHGs is generated in

transportation of charcoal (65.29%). In the case of wood pellet using, the highest GHGs emission is at the

stage - harvesting and transport (55.08%).

3.2. Eco-efficiency of biomass use in steelmaking

Eco-efficiency considers two aspects of sustainable development economic and environmental assessment.

In order to eco-efficiency assess of biomass use in steelmaking it should be taken into account

environmental and economic impact assessment indicators. The higher cost and environmental impacts

cause the lower eco-efficiency indicator. In this paper environmental assessment (ecological fingerprint) of

chosen conventional and alternative fuels for ironmaking was carried out. The system boundary was from

cradle to gate of fossil fuels and alternative fuels production. The results could be useful to the steel

producers and interested to compare the relative environmental impacts by different prospective fuels. The

results of environmental LCA were expressed in different units. Therefore in order to comparative analysis of

LCA, results were presented in relative values (Fig. 1). LCA analysis allowed obtaining the following

conclusions: the highest carbon footprint and fossil fuels depletion had coke, however wood logs have the

highest agricultural land occupation and wood chips had the highest energy demand of renewable, biomass.

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1Non renewable, fossil

Carbon footprint

Human toxicityRenewable, biomass

Agricultural land occupation

Hard coal Anthracite Coke Wood logs Wood chips

15. - 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU

Fig.1 Ecological Fingerprint of chosen fuels for steelmaking Source: Own analyses based on calculations in SimaPro 7.3.3

In the assessment of the biomass use should be taken into account not only the production system but also

biomass preparation and transportation impacts associated with land use, greenhouse gases emission and

other impact categories. For evaluation of the use of biomass, costs are derived primarily from the costs of

transporting biomass. Supply cost is the significant determinants of eco-efficiency of biomass use in

steelmaking. The price of the charcoal is critical factor for industry. In recent years, biomass became an

attractive alternative source of energy to traditional fossil fuels such as coal and coke and potential of

biomass use in steelmaking increase. It was demonstrated that biomass use in steelmaking is method to

decrease of GHGs of steelmaking. Lower GHGs emissions and lower cost production of biomass compare to

conventional fuel (coke) means that biomass has a higher eco-efficiency than conventional fuels. However to

holistic eco-efficiency assessment should be taken into account the whole life cycle of biomass and

conventional fuel as well as other categories related to biomass chain (land use, transportation, cost supply

etc.).

4. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper biomass use in steelmaking was proposed as one of possibilities of replacement of fossil fuels

to significantly reduce GHGs emissions from iron and steelmaking. Biomass can be used as alternative fuels

in ironmaking – sinter plant and blast furnace. However biomass use should be evaluated accurately taking

into account all aspects of sustainable development.

Sustainability assessment of biomass use including environmental, economic and social aspects. In order to

select the optimal alternative fuel for iron and steelmaking, should be evaluate three dimensions of

sustainability (environmental, economic and social aspect), the properties and availability of biomass use.

Supply cost and selection of environmental impact categories of biomass are the significant determinants of

eco-efficiency analysis. Further research of eco-efficiency assessment of biomass use in steelmaking is

essential.

Further reducing the ecological footprint of steelmaking, promoting life-cycle perspective and further

improving steel end-of-life are needed to make sustainable steel.

LITERATURE

[1.] Worldsteel LCA Methodology report, 2011. http://www.worldsteel.org (10.03.2013)

[2.] BURCHART-KOROL D.: Evaluation of environmental impacts in iron-making based on life cycle

assessment. 20th Anniversary International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials (METAL), Tanger

Ltd Brno 2012, 1246-1251

[3.] BURCHART-KOROL D.: Fossil fuels consumption evaluation in blast furnace technology based on different life

cycle impact assessment methods. 21 International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials (METAL), Tanger

Ltd Brno 2013 (in print)

[4.] ROUBÍČEK, V., PUSTĚJOVSKÁ, P., BILÍK, J., JANÍK, I. Decreasing CO2

Emissions in Metallurgy. Metalurgija, 2007, 46 (1), pp. 53-59, ISSN0543-5846.

[5.] PUSTĚJOVSKÁ, P., BROŽOVÁ, S. JURSOVÁ, S. Environmental benefits of

coke consumption decrease. METAL 2010:19th International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials. 2010

Brno, Czech Republic, Tanger, Ltd., pp.79-83. ISBN 978-80-87294-17-8.

[6.] BURCHART-KOROL D., KOROL J., FRANCIK P.: Application of the New Mixing and Granulation Technology of

Raw Materials for Iron Ore Sintering Process, Metalurgija, 2012, 51, 187-190

[7.] GRACZYK M., BURCHART-KOROL D., WITKOWSKI K.: Reverse Logistics Processes in Steel Supply Chains,

21 International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials (METAL), Tanger Ltd Brno 2013 (in print)

15. - 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Czech Republic, EU

[8.] BESTA P., SAMOLEJOVÁ A., JANOVSKÁ K., LENORT R., HAVERLAND J. The effect of harmful elements in

production of iron in relation to input and output material balance, Metalurgija, 2012, 51, 325-328

[9.] OOI T. C., THOMPSON D., ANDERSON D. R., FISHER R., FRAY T., ZANDI M., The Effect of Charcoal

Combustion on Iron-ore Sintering Performance and Emission of Persistent Organic Pollutants, Combus. Flame

2011, 158, 979-987

[10.] ZANDI M., MARTINEZ-PACHECO M., FRAY T. Biomass for Iron Ore Sintering, Miner. Eng. 2010, 23, 1139–

1145

[11.] KLOEPFFER W., Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13(2), 89–95

[12.] HEIJUNGS R., HUPPES G., GUINÉE J.B. Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products,

materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad

Stabil, 2010, 95, 422–428

[13.] UNEP/SETAC LCIn Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment - making informed choices on products.

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

(SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative, Paris 2011

[14.] EN ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework

[15.] http://www.wbcsd.org (11.02.2013)

[16.] EN ISO 14045:2012 Environmental management - Eco-efficiency assessment of product systems - Principles,

requirements and guidelines

[17.] BURCHART-KOROL D.: Development of eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness in steel industry in Poland,

SteelTech (in print)

[18.] WELDEGIORGIS, F.S., FRANKS, D.M. The Social Dimensions of Charcoal Use in Steelmaking. Analysing

Technology Alternatives. Prepared for CSIRO Minerals Down Under Flagship, Minerals Futures Cluster

Collaboration, by the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University

of Queensland. Brisbane 2012.

[19.] NG K. W., GIROUX L., MACPHEE T., TODOSCHUK T. Wood Pellets for Ironmaking From a Life Cycle

Analysis Perspective, AISTech Conference Proceedings, 2-Vol. Book Set, 2012, 331-339

[20.] NORGATE T., LANGBERG D., Environmental and Economic Aspects of Charcoal use in Steelmaking. ISIJ

International, 2009, 49, 587-595.

[21.] NOLDIN J.R., Energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the Brazil steel industry. METEC InsteelCon 2011, 1 st

International Conference on Energy Efficiency and CO2 Reduction in the Steel Industry, Düsseldorf, Germany.

2011

[22.] SUOPAJARVI, H., FABRITIUS, T. Evaluation of the possibility to utilize biomass in Finnish blast furnace

ironmaking. Scanmet IV, Lulea, Sweden 2012

[23.] SUOPAJÄRVI H., FABRITIUS T; Effects of Biomass Use in Integrated Steel Plant ― Gate-to-gate Life Cycle

Inventory Method, ISIJ international, 2012, 5, 779-787

[24.] SUOPAJARVI, H., FABRITIUS, T. Techno-economic Evaluation of Charcoal Production for Blast Furnace

Ironmaking. Energy 2013 (in print).

[25.] ASSIS P. S., CAMPOS DE ASSIS C. F., MENDES H. L., Effect of charcoal physical parameters on the blast

furnace powder injection, AISTech Proceedings, 2009, Volume 1, St Louis, 345-353.

[26.] BABICH A., SENK D., FERNANDEZ M., Charcoal behaviour by its injection into the modern blast furnace, ISIJ

International, 2010, 50, 81-88.

[27.] Ecoinvent database calculated in Simapro 7.3.3