ENERGIRON Direct Reduction
Technology - Economical, Flexible,
Environmentally Friendly
Pablo E. Duarte
IAS 2007, Rosario, Argentina
Introduction-1
z For more than 50 years, HYL (now Tenova HYL) has developed technologies
designed to improve steelmaking competitiveness and productivity for steel
facilities.
z The HYL direct reduction (DR) technology has been improved over
generations and the current status of the technology, the HYL ZR (or Self-
reforming) Process, is characterized by a simple plant configuration, flexibility
for using different sources of reducing gases and efficient and flexible use of
iron ores.
z This process scheme has the ability to produce High Carbon DRI, with
important benefits in terms of steel production costs, productivity and higher
stability for storage and transport.
2
Introduction-2
z The recent alliance between Tenova HYL, Techint and Danieli brings a new
brand - ENERGIRON - to the forefront of the direct reduction industry.
z The objective of this work is to emphasize the characteristics of the
ENERGIRON technology to satisfy and exceed the strictest environmental
requirements while providing the best option in terms of greenhouse effect
gases emissions.
3
Process Description-1
z The ENERGIRON Process based on the ZR scheme, is a major step in
reducing the size and improving the efficiency of direct reduction plants.
Reducing gases are generated by in-situ in the reduction reactor, feeding
natural gas as make-up to the reducing gas circuit and injecting oxygen at the
inlet of the reactor.
z Since all reducing gases are generated in the reduction section, taking
advantage of the catalytic effect of the metallic iron inside the shaft furnace,
optimum reduction efficiency is attained, and thus an external reducing gas
reformer is not required.
z The basic ENERGIRON scheme permits the direct utilization of natural gas.
4
Process Description-2
z The basic scheme can also use the conventional steam-natural gas reforming
equipment, which has long characterized the process. Other reducing agents
such as hydrogen, gases from gasification of coal, petcoke and similar fossil
fuels and coke-oven gas, among others, are also potential sources of
reducing gas depending on the particular situation and availability.
z Additionally, the DR plant can be designed to produce High-carbon DRI, hot
DRI, which can be directly fed to adjacent EAF through the HYTEMP System
or to briquetting units to produced HBI or any combination of these products.
5
Process Scheme
Iron
Ore
H2 O
CO2
Reducing gases sources
¾ Natural Gas
¾ Reformed Gas
¾ Coal Gasification
¾ COG
Only for
¾ others cold DRI
O2
fuel
NG
HYTEMP® Iron
EAF
Optional DR products:
DRI
HBI
6
Process description
z The overall energy efficiency of the ZR process is optimized by the integration
of high reduction temperature (above 1050°C), “in-situ” reforming inside the
shaft furnace, as well as by a lower utilization of thermal equipment in the
plant. Therefore, the product takes most of the energy supplied to the
process, with minimum energy losses to the environment. One of the inherent
characteristics of the process scheme and of high importance for this
application is the selective elimination of both by-products generated from the
reduction process; water (H2O) and specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), which
are eliminated through top gas scrubbing and CO2 removal systems,
respectively.
z The shaft furnace operates at elevated pressure (6 bars, absolute), allowing a
high productivity of about 10 tonnes (t)/h x m² and minimizing dust losses
through top gas carry-over. This is reflected in low iron ore consumption,
which allows keeping the operating cost low.
7
Process characteristics
z A remarkable advantage of this process
scheme is the wider flexibility for DRI
carburization, which allows attaining ZR Scheme-Typical Consumption Figures
carbon levels up to 5.5%, due to the Item Unit
improved carburizing potential of the Plant capacity t/a 200,000 - 2,000,000
gases inside the reactor, which allow for Metallization ≥ 94%
the production primarily of iron carbide. Carbon
2% - 5%
(controlled)
z For the production of high quality DRI, Specific
Inputs
Consumption
i.e. 94% metallization, 3.5% carbon and
Iron ore t/t 1.35 - 1.40
discharged at 700°C, the thermal energy
Natural gas Gcal/t 2.3
consumption is only 2.30 Gcal/t DRI as
Electricity kWh/t 60-80
natural gas and just 60 to 80 kWh/ton
DRI as electricity, with a remarkable low Oxygen Nm3/t 35
iron ore consumption of 1.35 to 1.40 t/t Water m3 1.2
m-h/t 0.11 - 0.17
DRI, mainly due to high operating Labor
pressure. This makes the ENERGIRON Maintenance US$ 3 - 3.3
plant, based on the ZR scheme, the
most efficient direct reduction method in
the field.
8
Typical Energy consumption for Hot DRI produtcion
Flue gases
Evaporation 0.05
0.30 DRI
Sensible Heat
0.12
Total NG NG to Process DRI Energy
2.30 1.70
DR Process
1.83
Fuel NG DRI characteristics at
shaft furnace discharge:
Fuel NG to others
to Gas Heater 0.12 Metallization: 94%
0.48 Carbon: 3.5%
Temperature: 700°C
It is important to note the efficient use of energy while producing a
high-energy content DRI with 3.5% C and 700°C
9
ENERGIRON Process: Summary of main features
z Product flexibility: High-C, Cold and/or Hot DRI, HBI
z Higher product quality
z High-Carbon content DRI
z Direct use of hot DRI in the EAF
z Flexibility to process a wide range of iron ores
z HYL R & D and steelmaking support
z Minimum reducing gas requirements
z Higher metallic yield
z Lower production cost
z Use of alternative reducing gases
z Low environmental impact
10
Flexibility to process iron ores
Unlike other DR processes, the ENERGIRON process has a high flexibility to
process a wide range of iron ores.
• The process has no practical limitations regarding the chemical composition of
the iron ores.
• The ENERGIRON process can process high sulphur iron ores for which case,
the sulphur is eliminated along with the CO2 in the CO2 absorption system,
which is part of the reduction circuit.
• Mixtures of pellets and lump ores can be processed in ratios ranging from
100% pellets to 100% lump ores, depending on the ore characteristics. Plants
in Brazil (Usiba) and In India (Vikram Ispat) are operating with 100% lump ore.
• The iron ore to the ENERGIRON plant is screened to just 3.2 mm, reducing
significantly the ore consumption per ton of DRI produced.
• Additionally, the low gas velocity inside the shaft, due to the high operation
pressure, diminishes fines carry over reducing ore losses from the plant.
11
High-Carbon DRI: Benefits
Benefits of high-carbon hot DRI in meltshop operations has been
demonstrated in Ternium-Hylsa’s meltshop while feeding up to 100% of hot
DRI with about 94% metallization and 4% carbon.
In general, carbon in the DRI in EAF provides:
9Chemical energy contribution; the dissociation of cementite is an exothermic
reaction (Fe3C → 3Fe + C + ΔE -0.7 kWh/kg C), which improves the thermal
efficiency in the EAF thus decreasing electric power requirements.
9Efficient use of carbon; as compared to other sources of carbon injection,
while minimizing external carbon (graphite) additions, cementite in DRI is
characterized by a higher recovery yield in the EAF.
9Easy foamy slag generation; as high carbon DRI enters in contact with free or
combined oxygen.
9The same system controls the feeding rate of metallic charge and carbon
additions.
12
Impact of Carbon content and Temperature in DRI on EAF performance
z Impact of DRI carbon in the EAF is
presented in this figure. Graphite injection
is about 12 kg/tLS for DRI with 2.2% Effect of DRI Temperature and Carbon
carbon and 0.5 kg/tLS for DRI with 4.0% on Electricity Consumption
carbon. For these operating conditions, 650
the change from 2.2% to 4% carbon in
cold DRI represents a decrease of 11-kg
600
graphite and 58-kWh/tLS. This power
saving is a result of the replacement of
graphite by cementite related to yield and 550
heat reaction.
z On the other hand, hot DRI feed provides 500
additional sensible heat to the EAF,
reducing power consumption and tap-to-
450
tap time, which is additionally reflected in
productivity increase. The overall effect
of: 400 100% DRI; 2.2 %C, 25 Nm3/tls
9 high-efficiency ZR scheme with 100% DRI; 4.0 %C, 42 Nm3/tls
minimum thermal and electricity 350
consumption figures, and 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
9 use of hot and/or cold High-Carbon DRI Temperature (ºC)
DRI in EAF,
have an important impact on the overall
energy demand for steel production,
decreasing overall plant emissions and
particularly CO2 release to atmosphere.
13
DR Plant Emissions
For a DR plant, main gas and solids emissions are related to:
• Iron ore particulates from material handling.
• Iron ore and DRI particulates as sludge from process water system.
• Gaseous effluents from thermal equipment and degassing stacks of water systems.
Emissions from gaseous and aqueous effluents from a DR plant can be categorized
in two main groups:
a) Pollutants, such as: NOx, SOx, VOC, particulates, etc., which limits are defined by the
environmental regulations of local Governments.
b) Global Warming-Greenhouse emissions (GHG), which refer to gaseous compounds
from natural and anthropogenic sources that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation,
enhancing the greenhouse effect. GHG comprises: CO2, CH4, N2O and HFCs, PFCs,
SF6.
Compliance with the pollutants indicated in a) is mandatory to obtain governmental
permits for the installation of the DR facility.
On the other hand, for those countries under the Kyoto Protocol, there is a
commitment to decrease the GHG emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level by the
period 2008-2012.
14
ENERGIRON DR Plant: Emissions
z An ENERGIRON plant complies with the strictest environmental regulations worldwide
without the need of specific process requirements and/or additional equipment for
treatment of heavy hydrocarbons in natural gas, sulfur in iron ore and/or de-NOx
systems.
z As example for emissions figures, an ENERGIRON plant for hot DRI charging to
adjacent EAF is normally designed for about 95% hot DRI production for direct charging
to the EAF, pneumatically transported by the HYTEMP system, and about 5% of cold
DRI, which is produced whenever the EAF is not receiving hot DRI.
z From the data shown in next slide, the following can be observed:
¾ The amount of solids wastes is small because of the low gas velocities inside the shaft
furnace due to the high operation pressure, which is reflected in low amount of carry-over
particles in the gases.
¾ A ncritical pollutant, NOx emission in flue gases, is a result of high flame temperatures at
the fuel combustion system. For the ENERGIRON plant, the NOx is below environmental
limits due to the overall energy integration of the ZR DR plant, which is possible without
the need of huge air preheating for energy recovery.
15
Typical Emissions figures of an ENERGIRON DR plant
Emissions factors of gaseous streams from DR Plant Unit: kg/ton of DRI):
Source
Gaseous
pollutant Process gas heater Incinerator of CO2 effluent Package boiler
CO 0.0299 0.0010 0.0032
NOx 0.0985 0.0081 0.0107
SOx 0.0027 0.1036 0.0000
TSP 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Gaseous Blow down stack (QCW) Blow down degasifier (PCW)
pollutant
CO 0.0118 0.0017
Source
Gaseous
pollutant Uncontrolled Emissions With controlled emissions
Iron ore/pellet Coating area Iron ore/pellet Coating area
TSP 2.75 0.00159 0.0027 0.00001
Emissions factors of aqueous streams from DR Plant (Unit: kg/ton of DRI):
Aqueous Source
pollutant Settling Ponds CO2 Scrubbing
Solids fines 19.5 0.1
16
ENERGIRON Emissions compliance: Example
As example of specific compliance with strict environmental regulations,
actual data are indicated in Table below. It can be noted that no particular
methods and/or additional equipment is necessary to fulfill the local
regulations.
Specific Environmental requirements as compared with emissions of the
ENERGIRON DR plant
Gaseous Minnesota Achieved value in
Specific Method
Pollutants Environmental regulation ENERGIRON plant
Particulate 0.014 grains/dscf 0.01 grains/dscf None
SO2 15 lb/hr, 24-hour average. 14.1 lb/hr None
96 ppmv @ 3% O2 85 ppmv (maximum) Just use of low NOx
NOx
152 lb/hr, 24-hour average 75 lb/hr burners.
CO 32 lb/hr, 24-hour average. 16.6 lb/hr None
VOC 2 lb/hr, 24-hour average 0 None
17
GHG from the DR plant
For the GHG, as per the Kyoto Protocol, the rules enters into force if the
parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) ratify or approve, accept or accede to the Protocol including
parties accounting for at least 55% of the 1990 CO2 emissions. There are
two ways to achieving the GHG emissions levels:
1. National reduction measures in the various sectors of energy,
industrial, transport, agriculture, etc, or
2. Through mechanism consisting of: i) Emissions Trading, ii) Joint
Implementation (JI) and/or iii) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
It is not the purpose of this paper to go into details of such mechanisms but
the objective is to emphasize the importance of reducing the GHG
emissions basically because of compliance with the targets of the Kyoto
Protocol, if applicable; because there are mechanisms which may be
reflected in economical benefits and as responsibility of the industry to
reduce the impact of the GHG effect for the future generations
18
CO2 Emissions from the DR Plant
z For the analysis of CO2 emissions, the first scenario is to compare the
ENERGIRON ZR based scheme for high-carbon DRI to conventional DRI for
steel production.
z For calculation of CO2 emissions, the following was considered:
• Typical consumption figures for iron ore, natural gas, electricity, oxygen and
miscellaneous for the ZR plant producing DRI with 94% metallization, 3.7%
carbon and for a DR plant producing DRI with 94% metallization and 1.5%C
(hot DRI) and 2%C (cold DRI).
• Location in a country with 0,74 kg CO2/kWh for electricity (and oxygen)
required for pellets production, DR plant consumption and EAF operations.
19
CO2 Emissions
1st Analysis: High-C production from ZR scheme vs. typical DRI production
CO2 Emissions / tonne of Liquid Steel
Scenario DR-EAF: ZR High Carbon DRI vs. conventional DRI
Location: Power generation: 0,74 kg CO2/kWh
typical Cold DRI ZR Cold High-C DRI typical Hot DRI ZR Hot High-C DRI
Scheme
94% Mtz.; 2% C 94% Mtz.; 3.7% C 94% Mtz.; 1.5% C 94% Mtz.; 3.7% C
Item/unit kg CO2/t LS kg CO2/t LS kg CO2/t LS kg CO2/t LS
Iron ore (production) 132 129 132 129
CO2 in flue gases + removal system 447 455 455 461
Electricity & O2 to DR plant 90 80 98 86
Subtotal DR Plant 669 664 684 676
Power & O2 requirements 443 415 339 305
Carbon addition 35 3 59 3
Subtotal EAF 478 419 399 308
Total DR-EAF route 1147 1082 1082 984
As % -6% -10%
The ENERGIRON ZR-based scheme reduces overall CO2 emissions in 6% to 10% for
cold and hot DRI, respectively, for liquid steel production.
20
High-C from ZR scheme vs. typical DRI
Production cost analysis
Comparative Cost Analysis
Scenario DR-EAF: ZR High Carbon DRI vs. conventional DRI
typical Cold DRI ZR Cold High-C DRI typical Hot DRI ZR Hot High-C DRI
Scheme
94% Mtz.; 2% C 94% Mtz.; 3.7% C 94% Mtz.; 1.5% C 94% Mtz.; 3.7% C
Production cost estimate/t LS 106.9% 103.6% 103.6% 100%
Additional Operating cost for 1.2 m tpy Base: 225 $/t LS
million $US/y 19.3 9.9 10.1 0
Comparative EAF Productivity 75.8% 80.4% 91.6% 100%
Costs for:
Besides environmental benefits, the overall steel
Pellets 100 $/t
production is also reduced by processing high- Natural gas 9.92 $/Gcal
Carbon DRI in the EAF, as indicated in the Electricity 0.045 $/kWh
comparative cost analysis . Oxygen 0.06 $/Nm3
Based on the benefits when using the high-C DRI, as C addition to EAF 0.14 $/kg
compared to other DRI qualities/schemes, for a steel
facility of 1,2 million tpy, savings can be as high as 10
million $/year.
21
CO2 Emissions
2nd Analysis: DR-EAF route (ZR scheme) vs. BF-BOF route
Coking Coal
0,48 t/t HM Units: GJ/t HM CO2 in
0,457 t/t HRC flue gases
0,92 GJ ( tar) 1,780 t/t HM
0,30 t coke
=0,270 t/t HRC 1,695 t/t
PCI HRC
0,17 t/t HM
2,32 GJ
0,162 t/t HRC
2,16 GJ
3,05 GJ 2,02 GJ
Burden
1,589 t/tHM Export Power
(0,59 t – sinter 364 kWh/t HM
0,83 GJ 347 kWh/t HRC
1,0 t –pellet)
1, 513 t/tHRC 594 kWh/t HM
1,00 t HM
- Internal
consumption:
230 kWh/tHM
Scrap
0,22 t scrap
0,18 t/tHM 0,16 GJ
0,171 t/tHRC
1,109 t LS
Fluxes
0,10 t/tHM
0,09 t/tHRC 1,05 t HRC
The selected integrated steel work comprises a coke oven plant/sinter plant and blast
furnace for generation of HM and a BOF steel plant with ladle furnace and thin slab
caster or compact strip plant (CSP) for the production of hot rolled coals (HRC) .
22
CO2 Emissions
2nd Analysis: DR-EAF route (ZR scheme) vs. BF-BOF route
Units: GJ/t HRC CO2 in
70% pellets flue gases
Natural gas 30% Lump ore 0,22 t/t HRC
12,67 t/t HRC
H2O CO2
Power Selective
CO2
Iron ore 80 kWh/t DRI removal
1,38 t/DRI Nat. gas
0,27 t/t HRC
1,65 t/tHRC O2
11,62 GJ
1,20 t DRI
Import Power O2
94% Mtz; 3.6% C; 600°C
(incl. Oxygen)
650 kWh/t HRC
Power
390 kWh/t 0,0 t scrap
LS
1,03 t LS
Nat. gas Power
110 kWh/t HRC
1,05 GJ
1,00 t HRC
The ENERGIRON ZR-based DR plant was selected for high-C DRI production as
100% feed to the EAF .
23
CO2 Emissions
2nd Analysis: DR-EAF route (ZR scheme) vs. BF-BOF route
z Main observations are related to the fact that the while the integrated steel plant is a net exporter
of electricity, the DR-EAF mill is importer. By using the ZR scheme, more than half of the gaseous
CO2 is selectively removed; this is a strong potential for alternate disposal of this CO2, reducing
significantly the GHG emissions.
z Electricity generation has an impact on CO2 emissions, depending on the location of the steel
plant. Electricity generation is a composite of sourcing from natural gas, coal, hydraulic, eolic,
nuclear, biomass, and depending on the particular location, the CO2 emission is a reflection of the
overall combination. There are countries like Venezuela where the power generation is based on
0,3 kg CO2/kWh and others like India, where it is of 0,9 kg CO2/kWh.
z On the other hand, a steel plant based on DR-EAF using basically natural gas for DRI production
is unlikely to be located in countries characterized by coal as main energy source, as an integrated
steel plant is unlikely to be located in countries with significant natural gas resources. However,
there are countries which actually are using both energy sources for steel production.
z Based on the above, the comparative analysis for CO2 emissions is made for the following
scenarios:
9 A DR-EAF steel plant for electricity of 0,3 kg CO2/kWh vs. a BF-BOF steel facility for
electricity of 0,9 kg CO2/kWh.
9 Both, DR-EAF and BF-BOF steel plants located in a country of 0,74 kg CO2/kWh for power
generation.
24
CO2 Emissions
2nd Analysis: DR-EAF route (ZR scheme) vs. BF-BOF route
Comparative Analysis: CO2 Emissions / tonne of HRC
DR-EAF route (location: Venezuela) vs. BF-
Scenario 1:
BOF route (location: India)
CO2 Emissions: DR-EAF vs. Electricity source
Power gen. 0,3 kg Power gen. 0,9 kg
CO2/kWh CO2/kWh
BF-BOF comparative analysis DR ZR Plant-EAF BF-BOF
Route
kg CO2/t HRC kg CO2/t HRC
(Power: 0,3 & 0.9 kg CO2/kWh) Iron ore (production) + fluxes 72 129
CO2 in flue gases + removal system 490 1695
Subtotal 562 1824
Power requirements 196 -312
Total 758 1511
If disposal of selective CO2 removal
488 1511
(ZR scheme)
Comparative Analysis: CO2 Emissions / tonne of HRC
DR-EAF route vs. BF-BOF route (location:
Scenario 2:
Argentina)
Power gen. 0,74 kg Power gen. 0,74 kg
Electricity source
CO2/kWh CO2/kWh CO2 Emissions: DR-EAF vs.
DR ZR Plant-EAF BF-BOF
Route
kg CO2/t HRC kg CO2/t HRC BF-BOF comparative analysis
Iron ore (production) + fluxes 111 119 (Power: 0,74 kg CO2/kWh)
CO2 in flue gases + removal system 490 1695
Subtotal 601 1814
Power requirements 479 -257
Total 1080 1557
If disposal of selective CO2 removal
810 1557
(ZR scheme)
25
CO2 Emissions
2nd Analysis: DR-EAF route (ZR scheme) vs. BF-BOF route
As observed from the above comparative analysis, the following can be
summarized:
9 By logic principle, the conversion of CH4 → CO + 2H2 for reduction of ores,
drastically reduces CO2 emissions as compared to coal, for which case, all
reductants are coming from C.
9 Even though the credit from power export in the BF-BOF route, electricity
sourcing has a significant impact on CO2 emissions as noted in above tables,
where two completely different scenarios are compared.
9 On a location where both routes are viable, there is a decrease of about 40%
less CO2 emissions through the DR-EAF route.
In any case, due to the implicit characteristic of the ENERGIRON ZR-
based scheme, by the selective elimination of CO2 to optimize reuse of
reducing gases, there is an important potential for further CO2
emissions reduction of additional 30%.
26
Summary
z ENERGIRON DR Technology based on ZR
configuration is the most efficient scheme in terms of
overall energy consumption, from pellets consumption
to liquid steel production.
z The scheme complies with the strictest environmental
regulations without the need of particular methods
and/or additional equipment to fulfill the worldwide
regulations.
z This scheme presents unique advantages for using
any natural gas composition and high sulphur iron ores
for which case, the sulphur is eliminated along with the
CO2 in the CO2 absorption system, which is part of the
reduction circuit.
z The ENERGIRON ZR-based scheme reduces overall
CO2 emissions in 6% to 10% as compared to other
DR schemes and in about 40% less CO2 emissions
through the DR-EAF route for a particular location.
z Due to the selective elimination of CO2, this scheme is
already prepared for further disposal of CO2, potentially
reducing its emission in further 30%.
27
