4.7 Article

Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary metal production: Where should the focus be?

Journal

MINERALS ENGINEERING
Volume 24, Issue 14, Pages 1563-1570

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2011.08.007

Keywords

Environmental; Extractive metallurgy; Mineral processing; Mining; Comminution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The mineral processing and metal production sector is endeavouring to identify opportunities to improve the sustainability of its operations and reduce its greenhouse gas footprint, with improved energy efficiency receiving increased attention. However, if truly sustainable outcomes are to be obtained it is essential that a life cycle approach be adopted in evaluating these opportunities. In this paper, life cycle assessment methodology is used to indicate where in the metal production life cycle this focus on energy efficiency should be and to evaluate a number of potential opportunities for reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary metal production. Results from life cycle assessments of the main primary metal production processes, together with current and predicted global metal production rates, ore grades and grind or liberation size, have been used in a broad analysis to indicate that endeavours to improve the energy efficiency of primary metal production should focus mainly on the metal extraction stage, particularly for steel and aluminium. Declining ore grades and more complex ore bodies anticipated in the future can be expected to significantly increase the energy required for comminution of the main metal ores and will present opportunities for improving the energy efficiency of primary metal production. However, these opportunities will still be appreciably less than potential energy efficiency improvements in the extraction stage for these metals. Crown Copyright (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available