钢铁博客:钢铁在其中扮演着什么角色?

钢铁在其中扮演着什么角色?

钢铁在其中扮演着什么角色?

Andrew Purvis
世界钢铁协会安全、职业健康和环境部部长
2018年12月11日

很显然,钢铁将在实现《巴黎协定》所设想的减排目标方面发挥关键作用。无论是可再生能源、大众运输、智慧城市还是电气化领域,脱碳都需消耗大量的钢铁。

然而,一个现实问题是,每年16亿吨的钢铁产量也导致二氧化碳的大量排放—估计占全球总排放量的7%到9%。因此,虽然我们是解决方案中的重要一环,但我们也无形中加剧了这一问题,需要在全球减缓气候变化方面竭力发挥自己的作用。

我们的行业经常被形容为“脱碳困难型行业”,原因也不难理解。

碳是将铁矿石转化为金属铁的过程中固有的一部分,而我们的资产使用寿命长,属资本密集型。即使竭尽全力,我们也无法用风车驱动高炉,或立即改用温室气体排放较少的电弧炉生产—因为根本没有足够的废钢来满足钢铁需求。

那么,我们该做些什么?

我们需要做的第一件事是确保我们使用传统技术生产钢铁时,尽量降低温室气体排放量并提高能源利用效率。世界钢铁协会已责成该协会推动先进实践的交流,以确保将最佳实践推广开来。

下一步将是开发和部署突破性技术。世界钢铁协会各成员正在开展各种研发项目,目的是彻底改变我们生产钢铁的方式。

例如,塔塔钢铁(Tata Steel)正在测试HIsarna技术,该技术特别适合与CCS共用;SSAB正在研究将用作替代性还还剂;安赛乐米塔尔(ArcelorMittal)正在测试其“Steelanol”CCUS计划,系更广泛的脱碳战略的组成部分。

虽然这些项目在方法上有所不同,但它们确实有一些共同点。成功的大规模部署需要大量获取廉价的清洁氢和无碳电力,若确保CCS发挥作用,还需配置廉价的CO2传输和储存基础设施。

最后,新技术的开发和实施需要钢铁工业的大量投资,也需要与国家和区域政府建立真正的伙伴关系,以分担风险和成本。

COP24 side-event - Japan Pavilion: Domestic Climate Policy and International Competitiveness, including panelists from Keidanren represented by Hirojuki Tezuka (JFE), the University of Tokyo, RFF, KAPSARC, RITE.

您在卡托维茨吗?世界钢铁协会真诚期盼与您交流,请通过worldsteel_andy的twitter号随时联系我们,并在文章下面分享您的意见和建议。

  • 1

    We all agree that decarbonization is necessary in the world of steel, but this is not achieved only by programming the future waiting for new technologies to fall as a mature fruit. Almost everything is based on creating an absurd but substantial business to buy and sell CO2 and talk and wait. Just talk and wait. And what is done in the meantime? To mitigate the adverse effects of coal combustion I propose a solution, until achieving the appropriate technology, which will also contribute to improving environmental conditions. The proposal is to impose a "pragmatic environmental canon" forcing all steelmakers to PLANT and MAINTAIN ONE tree for every 10,000? tons of steel produced. There are currently steel manufacturers that carry out this action symbolically. Over time it would be nice to say... let's go to the forest of… (name of the steelmaker). Bucolic? I do not think so. Easy and effective. In this context, only an Entity of the prestige of the World Steel Association and each of the Countries Steel Associations may promote this initiative. If it were not so, unfortunately, we can say that the very few trees that remain do not let us see the forest. Do not you believe so? ONE tree for every…how many tons?

    avatartello abia2018-12-11 18:09:35Reply

  • 2

    Hi Tello - Thanks for your comment – you are right that forests are able to sequester CO2 into biomass, this is the reason that the use of sustainably managed biomass in thermal power stations instead of coal is considered as renewable energy. Some of our members use biomass and char in their steelmaking processes, and others are considering wider use as part of their carbon management strategies. One of the challenges is the relatively slow rate that trees absorb carbon dioxide - a typical single tree can take up to 40 years to absorb one tonne. Without having done the maths my feeling is that if we were to try to offset all of our industry’s emissions we would be looking at creating unfeasibly vast forests at a time when land use pressures associated with bio-resources are under considerable scrutiny. My personal view is that a portfolio of breakthrough technologies will emerge – these will include the likes of CCS, Hydrogen reduction, the use of sustainably harvested biomass where it makes sense. It is also conceivable that forest offsets could play a role. Andy

    avatarAndy Purvis2018-12-12 12:12:42Reply

  • 3

    The only solution is to generate enough energy without use of carbon viz renewables, nuclear, etc. If energy is available at affordable price, the technology can be based on hydrogen/electrolysis, etc. If 'Fusion' succeeds, it will be a great breakthrough.

    avatarB P Sarkar2018-12-12 15:12:31Reply

  • 4

    For longer that I have been watching energy fusion has generally been "20 years away"! It never seems get any nearer, despite massive investments. I agree though - if it can be made to work it is a game changer. Hydrogen will be one part of the puzzle, and you are right renewables/nuclear combined with electrolysis is one way to make it, and is the situation SSAB and voestalpine are both basing their low carbon breakthrough pilots on. In fact it emerged as the most dominant source of Hydrogen in Shell's influential "Sky" scenario which delivers global carbon neutrality by 2070. The other way to make hydrogen is from natural gas, this is largely what happens, and it is much cheaper than electrolysis. The problem is it isn't zero carbon - you do need CCS to be available to store the resulting CO2. We can potentially continue to use carbon as a reductant in some places if CCS becomes available at scale. CCS has been a troubled technology though, and its deployment (according to IEA) continues to lag where it should be. All things considered it is all rather uncertain, which is why I feel a balanced portfolio of breakthrough technology development and deployment will probably serve us best long term. Thanks for your comment. Andy

    avatarAndy Purvis2018-12-12 15:56:49Reply