4.7 Article

A novel evaluation method for energy efficiency of process industry d A case study of typical iron and steel manufacturing process

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 233, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121081

Keywords

Process industry; Energy efficiency assessment; Iron and steel manufacturing process; Required energy; Recovered energy; Influencing factors

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2019YFC1905204, 2017YFB0304000]
  2. Key R&D Plan of Liaoning Province [2020JH2/10300103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposed an energy efficiency assessment method based on required energy, and analyzed the energy efficiency of typical iron and steel manufacturing process. It identified key factors and solutions for improving energy efficiency in ISMP.
Energy efficiency is an extremely important indicator for exploring energy conservation and consumption reduction. The traditional energy efficiency assessment methods for process industry lack an indepth thinking on energy utilization of the whole system. Based on the proposed required energy, this paper established an energy efficiency assessment method for process industry. By establishing material and energy flow networks, energy efficiency of typical iron and steel manufacturing process (ISMP) is analyzed and its influencing factors are discussed. The results found that the required energy of coking, sintering, pelletizing, blast furnace iron-making, basic oxygen furnace steel-making and steel rolling are 2626.2 MJ/t-coke, 1122.9 MJ/t-sinter, 992.3 MJ/t-pellet, 9781.5 MJ/t-hot metal, 393.95 MJ/tmolten steel and 445.3 MJ/t-steel products, respectively. The energy efficiency of typical ISMP is 66.9%. The energy efficiency of the ISMP can be effectively improved by adjusting the steel ratio, recovering waste heat and residual energy, and developing interface technologies. (c) 2021 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