response to climate change (incl. case of carbon capture)

Response to Climate Change& CCS in Blast Furnace

Shibojyoti DuttaHead(Climate Change & Strategic Planning), TATA Steel, Jamshedpur

National seminar on “Environmental Principles, Policies and Climate Change”, 16 Dec 2010

Indian Institute of Metals, Kolkata Chapter

Content

• Tata Steel’s Response to Climate Change

• Carbon Capture in Blast Furnace

• Expectations

16/12/2009 IIM Kolkata Seminar 2

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Tata Steel


Background – I&S India

• Steel is the most recycled material – but in India recycling rate is inferior

• Primary Steel Making (extraction of Iron from Ore) is Carbon Intensive due to dependence of fossil fuel, which is used as reducing agents

• Raw material quality in India is not of prime grade– High Ash in Coal

– High gangue in Ore

Thus fuel requirement and slag rates are higher

• Source of power & energy used for steel making are also mostly fossil fuels

• Until economical source of energy & power is delinked from Carbon, Energy Conservation remains the mainstay for GHG abatement

• Global I&S Sector contributes ~2.5-3 BTCO2PA i.e. 6.5% of global GHG emissions (I&S contribution up from 1.4 BTCO2PA in 1995)

• Indian I&S sector contributes ~0.3-0.4% of global emissions ~0.1-0.2 BTCO2PA

• India contributes to 5% of global GHG emissions though per capita emission @ 1.1-1.5 tCO2e is way below global average – comparable with global steel emissions

16/12/2009 4IIM Kolkata Seminar

Background – Tata Steel

• CO2 emission intensity reduced by 36% over past 12 years through installation of energy efficient equipment & processes, improving by-product fuel usage & waste heat recovery.

• Ongoing schemes are expected to reduce 1.2 MTPA emissions from BAU

– Coke Dry Quenching with 5 Coke Oven Batteries

– Energy efficient Pelletization for Agglomeration of Ore to be used in Iron Making

– Replacement of 4 Old Blast Furnaces with New Efficient Blast Furnace

– Top Gas Recovery Turbine in New Blast Furnace

– Heat Pipe Waste Heat Recovery System in New Blast Furnace

– Electric Blower with LCI Drive for blowing New Blast Furnace

– Casthouse Granulation facility with New Blast Furnace

– Variable Speed Drives for I.D.Fans of BOF Vessels of LD3

– LDG Recovery and Utilization and

– Thin Slab Caster and Rolling

• Pursuing to improve process efficiency and other in-house initiatives


Background – Tata Steel

• Pursuing development of products that shall help steel consumers to reduce footprint

• Possible initiatives based on commercially available technologies and best practices used for assessing future level of JSR

– 10 major projects are being implemented with total potential of 1.2 MTCO2PA

– 7 more potential measures are being assessed with potential of another 1.9 MTCO2PA

– Once roadmap to 2020 is rolled out, further work for post 2020 will be launched

• Best Practice database developed by RD&T, Tata Steel Group

• Tata Steel Group is participating in a major international R&D project - ULCOS (ambitious objective of reducing carbon intensity by 50% by 2050)


Sustainable solutions

Automotive

•High strength steels/advanced high strength steels

•Low friction engineering steels for gearboxes/engines

Construction

•Light-framed steel housing

•Carbon neutral housing, sustainable construction, adaptation applications

Power

•Onshore/offshore wind turbines

•Photovoltaic coatings, which have the potential, based on the surface area of coated steel cladding currently sold


CCS CASE – B.F.GAS

Pursuing


Appreciation of CCS – BFG Case


World Coal Institute 2007/08 on CCS

• Enables CO2 capture & storage thereby avoid release to atmosphere

• Cost-effective for large, stationary sources e.g. power plants & steelworks

IPCC

• Power plants with CCS could reduce CO2 emissions by 80-90% net

• Majority of CCS technologies either

– economically feasible under specific conditions or

– part of a mature market now

Cost of Power with or without CCS

US$/MWh Conventional Combined Cycle IGCC

Normal-Without CCS 43-52 31-50 41-61

With CCS 63-99 43-77 55-91

Abatement Cost 30-71 38-91 14-53

With CCS & EOR 49-81 37-70 40-75

Abatement Cost 9-44 19-68 (-7)-31

Source: Special Report of WG-III of IPCC 2005



Power Plant-CCS Blast Furnace Gas-CCS Remarks

Gas description Boiler Waste Gas Byproduct from BF Both have dust and is cleaned; S not a problem in BFG case

- CV Nil 800-930 Kcal/Nm3 Boost BFG CV-950-1200 Kcal/Nm3

- CO2 Conc. 10-15% 17-22% High in BFG – better

- Scale 4 MTCO2PA from a 500 MW plant

2 MTCO2PA from BF of 3 MTPA capacity

- Other constituents

O2 = 4-8%N2 = 78-79%CO = traces

CO = 23-30%H2 = 2-5%O2 < 1%; N2 = balance

C in CO form to escape for BFG case (not Good)Both are saturated with moisture

- Temperature 140-180°C 40-50°C BFG case less energy & space intensive (good) – Wet BFG GCP

- pressure ±100 mmwg +400 to 1200 mmwg

Source: Tata Steel Analysis



Power Plant-CCS Blast Furnace Gas-CCS Remarks

Gas

description

Boiler Waste

Gas

Byproduct from BF Both have dust and is

cleaned; S not a problem in

BFG case

- SOx Present Negligible

- Gas hazards Asphyxiation,

corrosive

Toxic, Inflammable Explosion hazards in BFG

case

- Contaminants Yes Yes

Post CCS

performance

- GHG

Emission

GHG free power 40% C captured

(additional* coverage

needed for 100%)

* At the consumption points

(i.e.after combustion), the

CO2 concentration in waste

gases are likely to vary

between 15-24% based on

application & process control

Source: Tata Steel Analysis



Forecast of Cost of CCS-2020

• For power generation: US$40-90/tCO2 avoided

• With most cost effective technology, Capture cost ≥ US$15/tCO2 avoided min. (for

other applicable capture it would be ≥ US$5/tCO2 avoided min.)

• At the most cost effective storage site, Storage cost ≥ US$2/tCO2 avoided

CCS sub-Activities US$/tCO2 net

Capture-Power Plants 15–75 Additional cost over per unit avoided

Capture-H2 & NH3 plants 5–55 Only drying & compression

Transportation 1–8 250 km pipeline or by ship 5-40 MTPA

Geological storage 0.5–8 EOR / ECBMR not considered

Monitoring & verification 0.1–0.3 Baseline & post verifications

Source: IPCC 2007

Policy Push needed

• Legalization, share cost / public funding

• Mass acceptance

CCS for BFG cost:

US$18-35/tCO2 avoidedSource: Farla et al., 1995 and Gielen, 2003

Capture from DRI:

US$10/tCO2Source: Gielen, D.J., 2003: CO2 removal in I&S industry,

Energy Conversion and Management, 44 (7), 1027-1037.



Process No.of Sources

EmissionsMTCO2PA

Power 4,842 10,539

Cement 1,175 932

Refinery 638 798

Iron & Steel 269 646

Petrochemical 470 379

Oil & Gas NA 50

Others 90 33

Biomass 303 91Source: Special Report of WG-III of IPCC 2005

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Emissions Intensity (MTCO2PA/source)

Highest

330 sources with emissions above 10 MTCO2PA/source. In this segment,

• Power plants contributed 78%

• Iron and Steel plants 5%

• Balance areas 17%

Average from integrated I&S site emitted 3.5 MTCO2PA


IEA GHG, 2000

• Integrated steel plants - > 80% of CO2 emissions from steel production

• ~70% of the carbon input to an integrated steel mill is present in the Blast Furnace Gas (BFG)

• BFG is used as a fuel gas within steel plant

• Combustion of BFG can result in flue gases with high CO2

concentrations

Both CCS techniques are feasible:

• oxy-fuel application based post-combustion capture and

• DRI - H2 as fuel and pre-combustion capture


Tata Steel’s Pursuit of BreakthroughGroundbreaking €55m part-EU funded R&D project: 48 EU partners incl.Tata Steel, 13 countries, 80 different potential technologies; Targeted to identify & develop technologies that could enable ~50%

reduction in CO2 emissions from Ore-based steel production by 2050

Example breakthrough technology: Top gas recycling blast furnace (with carbon capture)Schematic: Ian Rodgers, Director, UK Steel, On behalf of EUROFER, OECD Steel Committee, May 2008


Phase-II (2010-15) – Large scale demo > €300 million

ULCOS & Other Technologies

2015-20 To develop first commercial scale plant

2020 onwards Deployment

ISARNA: bath smelting using less coal and possibly biomass, allied with CCS.

Advanced direct reduction: Reduced gas consumption, allied with CCS.

Electrolysis:– Most revolutionary;

– Reliant on source of low carbon electricity


EXPECTATIONS

Peer Industry, State & Union Government


Expectations & Partnership

• Pool of technology solution

• Directing research work– e.g. value added application of CO2 (reduction to C, Mine Fire abatement

etc.) – so that Capture can gain natural momentum etc.

• Technology independence– e.g. Economic solution to low temperature waste heat recovery, high

efficiency solar solutions etc.

• Organized scrap market

• Chart out long term energy roadmap

• Speed up deployment of nuclear power

• Fiscal benefits to promote GHG abatement – through taxes -accelerated depreciation, import duty

• Firming up policy - say to promote albedo etc.


THANK YOU

Disclaimer

Contents of this presentation do not necessarily reflect the current stance of Tata Steel - some of the contents may be purely the views of the presenting author