Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Minor parameter adjustments to process-based dri-eaf steel route #1885

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Minor parameter adjustments to process-based dri-eaf steel route #1885

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8a350bf
corrected energy demand parameters for DRI-EAF process-based steel
clarabachorz Nov 13, 2024
972a128
Added casting and rolling electricity and heat demand to EAF
clarabachorz Nov 15, 2024
75e174f
Corrected false POSTED value for H2 demand
clarabachorz Dec 18, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 9 additions & 4 deletions modules/37_industry/subsectors/datainput.gms
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -604,18 +604,23 @@ $ifthen.cm_subsec_model_steel "%cm_subsec_model_steel%" == "processes"
!! carbon capture mass is given in tCO2 and converted to tC after that

!! reduction: 504 m^3; heat 242 m^3; conversion: x / 11.126 m^3/kg * 0.0333 MWh/kg
p37_specFeDemTarget("feh2s","idr","h2") = 2.23 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Rechberger et al 2020, Section 4.2 (per tDRI)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you please also update the comment in the line above, i.e. how you changed the calculation?

Where did you find the differing value?

p37_specFeDemTarget("feh2s","idr","h2") = 2.09 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Rechberger et al 2020, Section 4.2 (per tDRI)
p37_specFeDemTarget("feels","idr","h2") = 0.08 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Hölling et al 2017, Just before Table 1 (per tHBI)

p37_specFeDemTarget("fegas","idr","ng") = 2.69 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Hölling et al 2017, Page 7 (9.7 GJ) (per tHBI)
p37_specFeDemTarget("feels","idr","ng") = 0.08 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Hölling et al 2017, Page 7 (9.7 GJ) (per tHBI)

!! To do: Does not include casting and rolling;
!! From Vogl et al 2018 (Section 3.1), primary DRI requires 0.75 MWh/t, and secondary DRI 0.67 MWh/t.
!! Casting and rolling requires an additional 0.01 and 0.105 MWh/t of electricity demand, respectively (IEA GHG 2013).
!! Casting and rolling also requires heat, which we assume to come from ng: 0.006 and 0.468 MWh/t, respectively (IEA GHG 2013)
!! Birat2010, p. 11: 0.97 MWh total, only 0.44 MWh of which is electrical
!! EU JRC BAT says 0.404–0.748 (only EAF, elec) / Otto et al. say 0.92
!! --> have declining curve?
p37_specFeDemTarget("feels","eaf","pri") = 0.67 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Copy from secondary (Agora Energiewende, 2022 give similar values, between w and w/o reheating)
p37_specFeDemTarget("feels","eaf","sec") = 0.67 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Vogl et al 2018, Section 3.1
p37_specFeDemTarget("feels","eaf","pri") = 0.87 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Vogl et al 2018, Section 3.1 and IEAGHG 2013, Vol 1 Section D Table D-13 and D-15
p37_specFeDemTarget("feels","eaf","sec") = 0.79 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / Vogl et al 2018, Section 3.1 and IEAGHG 2013, Vol 1 Section D Table D-13 and D-15

p37_specFeDemTarget("fegas","eaf","pri") = 0.47 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / IEA GHG 2013, Vol 1 Section D Table D-13 and D-15
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This creates un-capturable NG-emissions for all DRI (also H2) in this form. Okay for the paper, but maybe let's put C&R into a separate process before we merge it to develop?
I may have said something else in the past, but it seems like a bad idea now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good. Should we leave this PR open until we add C&R ?

p37_specFeDemTarget("fegas","eaf","sec") = 0.47 / (sm_TWa_2_MWh/sm_giga_2_non); !! Source: POSTED / IEA GHG 2013, Vol 1 Section D Table D-13 and D-15

!! Otto et al. Fig 3: 10.303 GJ coke (from 13.24 GJ coal, see Menendez2015 Fig 3) + 4.67 GJ coal dust -> 18 GJ
!! Birat2010, p.11 says best performers have 17 GJ, out of which 16 GJ coal
Expand Down
Loading