4.8 Article

Atmospheric Carbon Capture Performance of Legacy Iron and Steel Waste

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 16, Pages 9502-9511

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01265

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  3. Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC)
  4. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) [NE/P019943/1]
  5. NERC [NE/L01405X/1, NE/L014211/1]
  6. NERC [NE/P019943/2, NE/L014211/1, NE/P019943/1, NE/L01405X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Legacy iron (Fe) and steel wastes have been identified as a significant source of silicate minerals, which can undergo carbonation reactions and thus sequester carbon dioxide (CO2). In reactor experiments, i.e., at elevated temperatures, pressures, or CO2 concentrations, these wastes have high silicate to carbonate conversion rates. However, what is less understood is whether a more passive approach to carbonation can work, i.e., whether a traditional slag emplacement method (heaped and then buried) promotes or hinders CO2 sequestration. In this paper, the results of characterization of material retrieved from a first of its kind drilling program on a historical blast furnace slag heap at Consett, U.K., are reported. The mineralogy of the slag material was near uniform, consisting mainly of melilite group minerals with only minor amounts of carbonate minerals detected. Further analysis established that total carbon levels were on average only 0.4% while average exceeded 30%. It was calculated that only similar to 3% of the CO2 sequestration potential of the >30 Mt slag heap has been utilized. It is suggested that limited water and gas interaction and the mineralogy and particle size of the slag are the main factors that have hindered carbonation reactions in the slag heap.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available