Innovative Biomass utilization Iron & Steelmaking RED 902

Prof. Dr. Paulo Santos Assis 2013/2

General overview of Iron & Steelmaking

100% scrap

30% scrap+ 70% pig iron

Understanding the Sintering Process

Pelletizing

Blast Furnace
Burden Distribution
Control of heat losses/ Control of central flow Center coke charging Low alkali input High permeability Cohesive zone control

Cooling capacity Gunning & grouting Temperature monitoring

Wall conditions

Cooling efficiency - Hearth chiller - grouting Hearth Permeability - Coke center charging - High quality coke

Tap-hole Management - drilling - High performance clay - tap hole length

Wear monitoring - temperature, flux - modeling

Direct Reduction Process

New process: COREX

Steelmaking Processes

LD/BOF/BOS:LD Process EAF: Electric Arc Furnace

Overview of Energy in the World

Solid Biomass Fuels
Wood logs and pellets Charcoal Agricultural waste (Stalks & other plant debris)

Nuclear power 6% Oil 33%

Renewable 18%
Hydropower, geothermal, 1 solar, wind, 3% Biomass 11%
2 3 4 5 6

Timbering wastes (Branches, treetops & wood chips) Animal wastes (Dung) Aquatic Urban wastes (Aquatic plants Kelp & water hyacinths) Urban wastes (Paper, cardboard & other combustible materials)

Energy
Natural Gas 21% Coal 22%

Direct burning

Conversion to gaseous and liquid biofuels Liquid Biofuels Ethanol Methanol Gasohol

Non-renewable 82%
Source of Energy

Gaseous Biofuels Synthetic natural gas (Biogas) Wood gas

Source: Meenakshi, P. Elements of Environmental Science and Engineering - pg 227; 237 Ed. Prentice Hall, Delhi 312p., 2008

Why Iron and Steelmaking in the World is feasible ?

1. Iron ore source: overall (for the next 1000 years or more) 2. Electric functions with low price, i.e. in comparison with other alloys like Ni-Co [Normally the prices of Si-Steel is 1/3 of the equivalent alloy. Other hand, the price of Si-Steel is by USD 1650/ton or even more] 3. Structure can be modified by Alloys adding or even by Temperature (CCC to CFC) 4. Diffusion of Carbon at high Temperatures, till 2 %. It seems to be unique for Metals.

Why Iron and Steelmaking in the World is feasible ?

USD/kg/km
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

5. Low cost in comparison with other Materials that can be substituted 6. Low Consumption of Energy in comparison with the Al (Primary)

Steel Concrete Aluminium

Material Cu Ti Carbon Based GJ/ M Ton 50

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Primary Steel Secondary Steel Primary Aluminium Secondary Aluminium

Why Iron and Steelmaking in the World is feasible ?

7. Wastes with low risk (Normally is 2A or even 2B). Possibility for recycling 100 % [Although high volume of Waste (it could be more than 1 t/t Steel), all of them could be recycled in Steel or even Other Industry (Cement Producer)] By CST [Arcelor Mittal Tubaro, almost 100 % is recycled !

Where about the problems concerning Iron and Steel production ?

1. High Capacity
[Ladle of capacity of 400 t/Heat. Blast Furnace with 12 000 t/day. LD Converter by 420 ton/Heat] High Investment Cost 2000 USD/t Steel/Year [1stroute]
{For EAF this value could be highly reduced: USD 250 USD/t Steel/Year}. This is one advantage for producing Sponge Iron ! It depends upon on Scrap Availability !

Where about the problems concerning Iron and Steel production ?

2. Memory Effect
Just for some years ago it has been in developping Steel with the Memory Effect
[Article on USA Mai 2009 1st in the Congress]

3. Main Characteristic of Iron: Corrosiv.

Effect of O2 and H2O is Thermodynamic unsustainable

4. Change on Market (Global Market)

Past P = C + W Now C = P W
P is defined by the Market W comes from the Investor Then C CSteel plant

Where about the problems concerning Iron and Steel production ?

5. New process for developping
Speed is low due to:
Normal route has high Efficiency Investiment is high Sector is not elastic like Computer Sciences (CS)
[In India, the Metallurgical Engineer are changing from Metallurgy to CS]

6. Energy is connected with CO2

For the common process x Scrap Route

7. Challenge is using Non coking coal,

Iron Ore with low Iron content and be economical, without CO2 generation

The driving forces for evolution

Reduction of cost lower grade raw materials substitution coke coal Biomass high productivity, efficiency Flexibility shorter routes fine ores, coals Quality of steel residuals C, N ; UBC Sustainability / Environmental aspects recycling treatment of by products emissions : dust, Sox, Nox, dioxines, VOC, CO2

 Ironmaking Efficiency; reduction of number of Blast furnaces low cost: raw materials, energy preserve life time of coke plants and Blast furnaces environmental aspects at sinter plant BOF increased use of scraps : hot metal ratio 800kg/t Secondary metallurgy Biomass dramatic improvement of vacuum technology ultra low C, H, N, O, P, S steels ; C< 15ppm ; N < 20ppm large and highly integrated steel mills Biomass process driven by the products very high cold formability weight reduction

Evolution of BF - BOF route

 The continuous improvement life time :

Evolution of the blast furnace technology

realistic objective : 20 years (KSC, CST, ) ; 12000 t/m3 coke consumption: 230 - 250 kg/tf coal ; 270 - 250 kg/tf coke (incl. small coke) productivity : Biomass 70t/m/d Biomass hot metal quality : sigma Si 0.1% ; S << 0.020%; S residuals < 0.05

The rupture towards New frontiers

keeping the counter current in the shaft injection of partly reduced ores through the tuyeres Biomass fulfillment of the local and global heat requirements hot metal = counter current metal + injection metal

 Iron sources scrap quality: scrap purification for controlling tramp elements shredding and sorting of E40 scrap : %Cu 0.45 down to 0.10 beneficial effect of DRI or hot metal on the process Large room for EAF process improvement Biomass productivity use of fossile energy to improve melting time ; slag foaming post combustion development of air tight technology quality of steel : low C and N achievable; N: 40 ppm ; C: 0.04% mini mills, increasing use of secondary metallurgy Biomass access to flat products (automotive, packaging ) good fit with thin slab casting

EAF route

Science

Technology

Technology

Charcoal Production

Technological Overview
Solid Biomass Fuels
Wood logs and pellets Charcoal Agricultural waste (Stalks & other plant debris) Timbering wastes (Branches, treetops & wood chips)

thermal

Animal wastes (Dung) Aquatic Urban wastes (Aquatic plants Kelp & water hyacinths) Urban wastes (Paper, cardboard & other combustible materials)

chemical biochemical

Direct burning

Conversion to gaseous and liquid biofuels

Liquid Biofuels Gaseous Biofuels Synthetic natural gas (Biogas) Wood gas Ethanol Methanol Gasohol

Biomass
Definition
Biomass is biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms. It most often refers to plants or plant-derived materials which are specifically called lignocellulosic biomass.

Use of biomass
As a renewable energy source, biomass can either be used directly via combustion to produce heat, or indirectly after converting it to various forms of biofuel

Conversion
Conversion of biomass to biofuel can be achieved by different methods which are broadly classified into:

1 thermal 2 chemical 3 biochemical methods

BioFuel and BioDiesel

Biofuels

Corn can be harvested to produce ethanol. Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted directly into liquid fuels - biofuels - for our transportation needs (cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, and trains). The two most common types of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel.

Sugarcane Bagasse
Sugar cane Plant
-Sucrose: 30 % - Leaves & Stem Tips: 35 % - Bagasse: 35 % Sucrose accounts for little more than 30% of the chemical energy stored in the mature plant; 35% is in the leaves and stem tips, which are left in the fields during harvest, and 35% are in the fibrous material (bagasse) left over from pressing.

Process production of Sugar and Ethanol

The production process of sugar and ethanol in Brazil takes full advantage of the energy stored in sugarcane. Part of the bagasse is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery.

This allows ethanol plants to be energetically selfsufficient and even sell surplus electricity to utilities; current production is 600 MW for self-use and 100 MW for sale.

Cost & Investment

This secondary activity is expected to boom now that utilities have been induced to pay "fair price "(about US$10/GJ or US$0.036/kWh) for 10 year contracts. This is approximately half of what the World Bank considers the reference price for investing in similar projects.

The energy is especially valuable to utilities because it is produced mainly in the dry season when hydroelectric dams are running low. Estimates of potential power generation from bagasse range from 1,000 to 9,000 MW, depending on technology.

Comparison of Energy
Higher estimates assume gasification of biomass, replacement of current low-pressure steam boilers and turbines by high-pressure ones, and use of harvest trash currently left behind in the fields. For comparison, Brazil's Angra I nuclear plant generates 657 MW. Presently, it is economically feasible to extract about 288 MJ of electricity from the residues of one ton of sugarcane, of which about 180 MJ are used in the plant itself. Thus a medium-size distillery processing 1 million tonnes of sugarcane per year could sell about 5 MW of surplus electricity.

Yield Increasing
At current prices, it would earn US$ 18 million from sugar and ethanol sales, and about US$ 1 million from surplus electricity sales. With advanced boiler and turbine technology, the electricity yield could be increased to 648 MJ per tonne of sugarcane, but current electricity prices do not justify the necessary investment.

Source: According to one report, the World Bank would only finance investments in bagasse power generation if the price were at least US$19/GJ or US$0.068/kWh.

Environmental Advantages Compared with Coal

- Less Ash - Less SOx& NOx

Bagasse burning is environmentally friendly compared to other fuels like oil and coal. Its ash content is only 2.5% (against 3050% of coal), and it contains very little sulfur. Since it burns at relatively low temperatures, it produces little nitrous oxides.

Other Advantages
Moreover, bagasse is being sold for use as a fuel (replacing heavy fuel oil) in various industries, including citrus juice concentrate, vegetable oil, ceramics, and tire recycling.

The state of So Paulo alone used 2 million tonnes, saving about US$ 35 million in fuel oil imports. Researchers working with cellulosic ethanol are trying to make the extraction of ethanol from sugarcane bagasse and other plants viable on an industrial scale.

Closing Remarks
We can see that all wastes generated in the Agriculture in Brazil can be converted in Energy Brazil can substitute may be more than 40 % of Energy based upon on the profit of Wastes generated in the Farms We can reduce the import of coal by using more wastes from the Agriculture in the Ironmaking & Steelmaking

Case Study
Use of sugar cane bagasse and charcoal mixture for injection into the tuyeres of Blast Furnace aiming the CO2 Emissions Reduction of the Steel Segment
Prof. Dr. Paulo Santos Assis - UFOP/Brazil Prof. Dr. Danton Heleno Gameiro - UFOP/Brazil Dipl-Ing. Janaina Solvelino Brum-UFOP/Brazil Presenter: Prof. Dr. Suleimenov Kazakhstan BHU / India

Overview

Introduction Steel production in Brazil is by 35 Million tons 1/3 is produced using Charcoal Biomass can be injected into Charcoal Blast Furnaces Advantagens considering GHG Emissions

Objectives Study the possibility of injection of Sugar Cane Bagasse mixed with Charcoal into Small Blast furnaces. Determine the combustion rate of the selected mixtures

Methodology
Sugar Cane Bagasse
Sample: 30 kg Sieving

Classification

Grinding the bagasse

Classification

Fixed carbon and volatiles materials determination.

A sample < 150 # determination of Calorific Power Value.

Methodology
Charcoal Characterization
Calsete Ironmaking
Gusa Nordeste Four samples

A sample 150g

Identification

(C1, C2 e C3) Carbon Fix (G1, G2 e G3) Grain Size Distribuition (U1, U2 e U3)- Moisture (AP) Elementary Analysis

Methodology
Mixtures preparation for the Combustion Test
% Charcoal 100 80 60 40 20 0 % Sugar Cane Bagasse 0 20 40 60 80 100

Simulation of Injection rate: 50, 80, 140 kg/ton Hot Metal

Methodology
HGTS- High Gradient Thermal Simulation

Methodology
Injection Powder Process

Esquema da queima realizada no simulador de gradiente trmico

Time schedule for combustion trial

1st Photo: 40 ms before 2nd P: In the moment 3rd P: 20ms after

Methodology
Gas Analysis ORSAT Equipment

Carbon monoxide CO Carbon Dioxide CO2 Oxygen O2

Methodology
Combustion rate determination
TC = {(%CO + %CO2)*n / [(ma*%Cf / 1200000) (%CH4*ng / 100)]}*100

where: TC = combustion rate (%); %CO, %CO2, %CH4 = Produced Gas in vol. percentage; %Cf = Fixed Carbon in the Sample; ng = Gas Mols number produced; ma = Biomass of materials injected in mg.

Results
Preliminary results characterization of sugarcane bagasse powder

Parameter

Grain Size [% < 200#] 80

Density [kg/m3] 195

Fixed Carbon [%] 16,46

Volatile [%] 78,28

PCI [kcal/kg] 2.095

Value

Results
Representation of chemical analysis and particle size of charcoal
Sample Proximate Analysis; Dry Basis Cf [%] TU [%] MV [%] CZ [%] C [%] Elemental Analysis H [%] N [%] O [%] Avarage of grain size [mm]

C1
C2 C3 U1 U2

54,8
59.6 65.3 59.6 59.6

1,4
1,4 1,4 1,1 2,9

24,2
24,6 24,1 24,6 24,6

21,0
15.8 10.6 15.8 15.8

0,070
0,072 0,068 0,070 0,072

U3
G1 G2 G3 AP

59.6
60,1 59,8 60,9 60,1

4,8
1,5 1,5 1,5 1,6

24,6
24,4 24,3 24,4 24,2

15.8
15,5 15,9 14,7 15,7 66,67 2,54 0,81 29,98

0,070
0,070 0,119 0,162 0,073

Results
Parameters results of porosity and bulk density of charcoal
Sample Specific Surface Total volume of pores 102cm3/g 0,5804 0,6945 0,1143 1,086 1,102 Micropore volume * (m <2m) x10-3cm3/g Area of micropore * m2/g Average pore diameter Size of pores Density

m2/g Unity C1 1,861 1,729 1,367 2,171 2,442

g/cm3

0,7991 0,7995 0,7453 1,0119 1,057

2,262 2,264 2,110 2,885 2,993

120,48 160,07 330,44 200,00 180,05

2918,6 1342,8 1795,4 1466,8 2278,1

1,512 1,504 1,597 1,539 1,555

C2
G1

G3
AP

Results
Results of combustion rates as a function of charcoal percentage in the mixture and the injection rate of mixtures (kg / t HM)

Charcoal + Sugar Cane Bagasse Charcoal Bagasse (%) (%) 50 kg/tHM 80 kg/tHM 0 100 86 85,1 20 80 87,2 87.5 40 60 90.2 88.6 60 40 93.3 92.7 80 20 95.1 94.8 100 0 94.8 93.2

140 kg/tgHM 78.0 81.3 83.5 88.7 88.7 87

Results
Effect of bagasse in the mixture on the combustion rate.
50 kg/tgusa
100

80 kg/tgusa

140 kg/tgusa

Taxa de combusto [%]

95

90

85

80

75 0 20 40 60 80 100

Bagao na mistura (carvo vegetal + bagao) [% peso]

Results
Effect of injection rate of charcoal on the combustion rate for two extreme situations: 100%charcoal and 100% bagasse.
Carvo Vegetal 100%
100

Bagao de cana-de-acar 100%

Taxa de Combusto [%]

95

90

85

80

75 40 60 80 100 120 140

Taxa de Injeo [% ]

CONCLUSIONS
There is an increase of combustion rate when mixed sugarcane bagasse with charcoal;

There is an increase in combustion rate when you put up 20% of sugarcane bagasse in the mixture;
An increase in injection rate implies a reduction in the rate of combustion for the two fuels; Increases from 50 to 80 kg / t hot metal practically do not change the combustion rate, however when it goes up to 140 kg / tgusa, there is a reduction in the combustion rate

CONCLUSIONS
From the point of view of the combustion in front of the

tuyeres is technically feasible the injection of a mixture with charcoal and sugarcane bagasse; From the environmental point of view it is possible through the use of this mixture reduce the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere, ie, the hot metal production of may be more sustainable comparing with only charcoal use in the Blast Furnace; The development and application of new technology are in line with the concept of Socio Economic Environmental Sustainability.

Acknowledgments
To UFOP- Escola de Minas

To CNPq and FAPEMIG To Gorceix Foundation To Prof. Suleimenov that gave us time to prepare and to present this Technical Contribution

.To Prof. Gupta that invited us for this Contribution

All of you for kindly attention !

Thank you!
Paulo Santos Assis assis@em.ufop.br

Photo of Escola de Minas, at night in Ouro Preto

55

Thank [English] Vielen Dank [Deutsch] [] [] [ ] [] Obrigado [Portugus]

Prof. Dr. Paulo Santos Assis assis@em.ufop.br