Ironmaking Process Alternative Screening Study, Volume 1

Iron in the United States is largely produced from iron ore mined in the United States or imported from Canada or South America. The iron ore is typically smelted in Blast Furnaces that use primarily iron ore, iron concentrate pellets metallurgical coke, limestone and lime as the raw materials. Under current operating scenarios, the iron produced from these Blast Furnaces is relatively inexpensive as compared to current alternative iron sources, e.g. direct iron reduction, imported pig iron, etc. The primary problem the Blast Furnace Ironmaking approach is that many of these Blast furnaces are relatively small, as compared to the newer, larger Blast Furnaces; thus are relatively costly and inefficient to operate. An additional problem is also that supplies of high-grade metallurgical grade coke are becoming increasingly in short supply and costs are also increasing. In part this is due to the short supply and costs of high-grade metallurgical coals, but also this is due to the increasing necessity for environmental controls for coke production. After year 2003 new regulations for coke product environmental requirement will likely be promulgated. It is likely that this also will either increase the cost of high-quality coke production or will reduce the available domestic U.S. supply. Therefore, iron production in the United States utilizing the current, predominant Blast Furnace process will be more costly and would likely be curtailed due to a coke shortage. Therefore, there is a significant need to develop or extend the economic viability of Alternate Ironmaking Processes to at least partially replace current and declining blast furnace iron sources and to provide incentives for new capacity expansion. The primary conclusions of this comparative Study of Alternative Ironmaking Process scenarios are: (1) The processes with the best combined economics (CAPEX and OPEX impacts in the I.R.R. calculation) can be grouped into those Fine Ore based processes with no scrap charge and those producing Hot Metal for charge to the EAF. (2) A pronounced sensitivity to Steel Scrap Cost was felt less by the Hot Metal Processes and the Fine Ore Processes that typically do not utilize much purchased scrap. (3) In terms of evolving processes, the Tecnored Process (and in particular, the lower-operating cost process with integral co-generation of electrical power) was in the most favorable groupings at all scrap cost sensitivities. (4) It should be noted also that the Conventional Blast Furnace process utilizing Non-Recovery coke (from a continuous coking process with integral co-generation of electrical power) and the lower-capital cost Mini Blast Furnace also showed favorable Relative Economics for the low and median Scrap Cost sensitivities. (5) The lower-cost, more efficient MauMee Rotary Hearth Process that uses a Briquetted Iron Unit Feed (instead of a dried or indurated iron ore pellet) also was in the most favorable process groupings. Those processes with lower-cost raw materials (i.e. fine ore and/or nonmetallurgical coal as the reductant) had favorable combined economics. In addition, the hot metal processes (in part due to the sensible heat impacts in the EAF and due to their inherently lower costs) also had favorable combined economics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.