4.7 Article

Comparing different syngas for blast furnace ironmaking by using the extended operating line methodology

期刊

FUEL
卷 333, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126533

关键词

Syngas; Ironmaking; Blast furnace; Operating diagram; Extended operating line

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper evaluates the injection of different types of syngas in air-blown blast furnaces, oxygen blast furnaces, and advanced oxygen blast furnaces. An Aspen Plus model based on the extended operating line methodology is used for simulation. Seven key performance indicators are defined for the study. The results show that the lowest net CO2 emissions are achieved in oxygen blast furnace with injection of syngas from reverse water-gas shift reaction.
This paper assesses the injection of different syngas in air-blown blast furnaces, oxygen blast furnaces, and advanced oxygen blast furnaces. The selected types of syngas come from biomass gasification, plastic gasifica-tion, CO2 electrolysis, and reverse water-gas shift reaction. An Aspen Plus model, based on the new extended operating line methodology, was used for the simulation. This methodology is a generalization of the conven-tional Rist diagram, to extend its application to cases in which the injected gases have large contents of CO2 and H2O, and also to cases in which injections take place at the middle or upper zone of the blast furnace. The base cases were elaborated and validated with data from literature, with a discrepancy below 3.5%. A total of 7 key performance indicators were defined for the study (mass flow of syngas, coke replacement ratio, gas utilization, percentage of direct reduction, blast furnace gas temperature, flame temperature, and net CO2 emissions). In practice, the amount of syngas that can be injected is limited to 92 - 264 kgsyngas/tHM because of the drop in the flame temperature. The lowest net CO2 emissions are achieved in oxygen blast furnace with injection of syngas from reverse water-gas shift reaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据