Potential and Environmental Benefits of Biochar Utilization for Coal/Coke Substitution in the Steel Industry
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Overview of Biochar Utilizations as a Coal/Coke Substitute in the Steelmaking Industry
- BF/BOF route: biochar can be used in coke making and iron ore sintering.
- Scrap/EAF route: biochar can be used to produce biocoke, which can serve as a replacement for coke and coal in the scrap/EAF route.
- DRI/EAF route: considers using CCAs obtained using torrefied biomass in the DRI/EAF route. In the DRI/EAF route, it is feasible to utilize biocoke as a carbon source up to 100% of the time, even while adding a significant quantity of torrefied biomass (up to 50%) into the coal blend. [7]. In the EAF process, carbon, in the form of coke or anthracite, can be used for charge, injection, or as a recarburizer [9].
- SR/BOF route: this process uses non-coking coal as a fuel source, with specific requirements for fixed carbon and volatile matter content. It includes the COREX process, which is a method used to produce hot metal from lumpy-iron carriers, primarily pellets, sinter, and lump ore. The most suitable conventional carbon source for the COREX process is non-coking coal (fixed carbon content 55–70 wt.%, ash content < 12 wt.%) [7].
3.1.1. Biochar Substitution in Blast Furnace Technology
3.1.2. Biochar Substitution in Coke Making Processes
3.1.3. Biochar Substitution in Iron Ore Sintering Processes
3.1.4. Biochar Substitution in the Electric Arc Furnace
3.2. Characterization of Biochar under Different Carbon Sources and Production Processes
3.3. Biochar CO2 Reduction Contribution in the Steelmaking Industry
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sajdak, M.; Muzyka, R.; Gałko, G.; Ksepko, E.; Zajemska, M.; Sobek, S.; Tercki, D. Actual trends in the usability of biochar as a high-value product of biomass obtained through pyrolysis. Energies 2023, 16, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousa, E.; Wang, C.; Riesbeck, J.; Larsson, M. Biomass applications in iron and steel industry: An overview of challenges and opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 1247–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safarian, S. To what extent could biochar replace coal and coke in steel industries? Fuel 2023, 339, 127401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeffery, S.; Verheijen, F.G.; van der Velde, M.; Bastos, A.C. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 144, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Biochar for environmental management: An introduction. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Kieush, L.; Rieger, J.; Schenk, J.; Brondi, C.; Rovelli, D.; Echterhof, T.; Cirilli, F.; Thaler, C.; Jaeger, N.; Snaet, D. A comprehensive review of secondary carbon bio-carriers for application in metallurgical processes: Utilization of torrefied biomass in steel production. Metals 2022, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piazzi, S.; Zhang, X.; Patuzzi, F.; Baratieri, M. Techno-economic assessment of turning gasification-based waste char into energy: A case study in South-Tyrol. Waste I 2020, 105, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kota, K.B.; Shenbagaraj, S.; Sharma, P.K.; Sharma, A.K.; Ghodke, P.K.; Chen, W.H. Biomass Torrefaction: An Overview of Process and Technology Assessment Based on Global Readiness Level. Fuel 2022, 324, 124663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Echterhof, T. Review on the Use of Alternative Carbon Sources in EAF Steelmaking. Metals 2021, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suopajärvi, H.; Umeki, K.; Mousa, E.; Hedayati, A.; Romar, H.; Kemppainen, A.; Fabritius, T. Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking–status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies. Appl. Energy 2018, 213, 384–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, H.; Wang, G.; Wang, C.; Ning, X.; Zhang, J.; Mao, X.; Zhang, N.; Wang, C. Comprehensive study on the feasibility of pyrolysis biomass char applied to blast furnace injection and tuyere simulation combustion. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 20166–20180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babich, A.; Senk, D.; Gudenau, H.W. Ironmaking; Mainz GmbH Aachen: Aachen, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Yustanti, E.; Wardhono, E.Y.; Mursito, A.T.; Alhamidi, A. Types and composition of biomass in biocoke synthesis with the coal blending method. Energies 2021, 14, 6570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amado-Fierro, Á.; Centeno, T.A.; Diez, M.A. Exploring Hydrochars from Lignocellulosic Wastes as Secondary Carbon Fuels for Sustainable Steel Production. Materials 2023, 16, 6563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McMahon, C.; Cameron, I.; Zughbi, H.; Biasutti, M.; Halstead, A.; Smart, S. Byproduct use optimization in a combined sinter plant and blast furnace model. Chem. Eng. Process.-Process Intensif. 2023, 183, 109216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores, B.D.; Flores, I.V.; Guerrero, A.; Orellana, D.R.; Pohlmann, J.G.; Diez, M.A.; Borrego, A.G.; Osório, E.; Vilela, A.C.F. Effect of Charcoal Blending with a Vitrinite Rich Coking Coal on Coke Reactivity. Fuel Process. Technol. 2017, 155, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niesler, M.; Stecko, J.; Stelmach, S.; Kwiecińska-mydlak, A. Biochars in iron ores sintering process: Effect on sinter quality and emission. Energies 2021, 14, 3749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, R.; Zhang, L.; Cang, D.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Xu, C.C. Current status and potential of biomass utilization in ferrous metallurgical industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 511–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanna, R.; Li, K.; Wang, Z.; Sun, M.; Zhang, J.; Mukherjee, P.S. Biochars in iron and steel industries. In Char and Carbon Materials Derived from Biomass; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 429–446. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, L.; Peng, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, G.; Jiang, T. Use of Biochar for Sustainable Ferrous Metallurgy. JOM 2019, 71, 3931–3940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Yang, Y.; Ou, Y.; Zhong, Q.; Tang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Yi, L.; Li, Q.; Huang, Z.; Jiang, T. Synergistic recycling of biochar from sawdust pyrolysis and waste coke breeze to produce metallurgical quality biocoke with syngas as a by-product. Fuel 2023, 354, 129365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Yang, Y.; Ou, Y.; Dong, Y.; Zhong, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Q.; Huang, Z.; Jiang, T. Enhancement of coal tar pitch carbonization with biochar: A metallurgical formed biocoke product produced by waste coke breeze and bamboo powder. Fuel 2024, 358, 130238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, A.; Gautam, S.; Kundu, K.; Ram, L.C. Bio-coke: A sustainable solution to Indian metallurgical coal crisis. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2023, 171, 105977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousa, E.A.; Babich, A.; Senk, D. Iron ore sintering process with biomass utilization. In Proceedings of the METEC and 2nd European Steel Technology and Application Days Conference (METEC & 2nd ESTAD), Düsseldorf, Germany, 15–19 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gan, M.; Fan, X.; Ji, Z.; Jiang, T.; Chen, X.; Yu, Z.; Li, G.; Yin, L. Application of biomass fuel in iron ore sintering: Influencing mechanism and emission reduction. Ironmak. Steelmak. 2015, 42, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Meng, H.; Zhou, H. Effect of biochar substitution on iron ore sintering characteristics based on optimization of fuel distribution through the bed. Fuel Process. Technol. 2023, 247, 107817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehfeldt, M.; Worrell, E.; Eichhammer, W.; Fleiter, T. A Review of the Emission Reduction Potential of Fuel Switch towards Biomass and Electricity in European Basic Materials Industry until 2030. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 120, 109672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, R.; Brabie, L.; Pettersson, M.; Amovic, M.; Ljunggren, R. An Empirical Comparative study of renewable biochar and fossil carbon as carburizer in steelmaking. ISIJ Int. 2022, 62, 2522–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgate, T.; Haque, N.; Somerville, M.; Jahanshahi, S. Biomass as a Source of Renewable Carbon for Iron and Steelmaking. ISIJ Int. 2012, 52, 1472–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.A.; Ng, K.W.; Giroux, L.; Duchesne, M. Carbonaceous Material Properties and Their Interactions with Slag During Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking. Met. Mater. Trans. B 2019, 50, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meier, T.; Hay, T.; Echterhof, T.; Pfeifer, H.; Rekersdrees, T.; Schlinge, L.; Elsabagh, S.; Schliephake, H. Process Modeling and Simulation of Biochar Usage in an Electric Arc Furnace as a Substitute for Fossil Coal. Steel Res. Int. 2017, 88, 1600458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fidalgo, B.; Berrueco, C.; Millan, M. Chars from agricultural wastes as greener fuels for electric arc furnaces. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2015, 113, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demus, T.; Reichel, T.; Schulten, M.; Echterhof, T.; Pfeifer, H. Increasing the sustainability of steel production in the electric arc furnace by substituting fossil coal with biochar agglomerates. Ironmak. Steelmak. 2016, 43, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cirilli, F.; Baracchini, G.; Bianco, L. EAF long term industrial trials of utilization of char from biomass as fossil coal substitute. La Metall. Ital. 2017, 109, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
- Cardarelli, A.; De Santis, M.; Cirilli, F.; Barbanera, M. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of biochar combustion in a simulated ironmaking electric arc furnace. Fuel 2022, 328, 125267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, R.; Zheng, X.; Zhu, Y.; Feng, S.; Long, H.; Xu, C.C. Hydrothermal biochar as a foaming agent for electric arc furnace steelmaking: Performance and mechanism. Appl. Energy 2024, 353, 122084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, C.; Wei, G.; Zhu, R.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, R.; Wu, W.; Wang, Y. Characterization and kinetics of iron oxide reduction by corn straw biochar prepared by pyrolysis using superheated steam atmosphere and hydrothermal processes. Renew. Energy 2023, 219, 119571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiGiovanni, C.; Li, D.; Ng, K.W.; Huang, X. Ranking of injection biochar for slag foaming applications in steelmaking. Metals 2023, 13, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kieush, L.; Schenk, J.; Koveria, A.; Hrubiak, A.; Hopfinger, H.; Zheng, H. Evaluation of slag foaming behavior using renewable carbon sources in electric arc furnace-based steel production. Energies 2023, 16, 4673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kieush, L.; Schenk, J. Investigation of the impact of biochar application on foaming slags with varied compositions in electric arc furnace-based steel production. Energies 2023, 16, 6325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dall’Osto, G.; Mombelli, D.; Pittalis, A.; Mapelli, C. Biochar and other carbonaceous materials used in steelmaking: Possibilities and synergies for power generation by direct carbon fuel cell. Biomass Bioenergy 2023, 177, 106930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, I. Potential of renewable agricultural wastes in the smart and sustainable steelmaking process. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kieush, L.; Schenk, J.; Koveria, A.; Rantitsch, G.; Hrubiak, A.; Hopfinger, H. Utilization of renewable carbon in electric arc furnace-based steel production: Comparative evaluation of properties of conventional and non-conventional carbon-bearing sources. Metals 2023, 13, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Shen, B.; Sajjad Ahmad, M.; Zhou, W.; Khalid, R.R.; Ibrahim, M.; Bokhari, A. A three-dimensional active biochar for sintering in steel industry and remove methylene blue by synergistic activation of H3PO4 and ZnCl2. Fuel 2023, 336, 127079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, A.; Gautam, S.; Ram, L.C. Feedstock and pyrolysis conditions affect suitability of biochar for various sustainable energy and environmental applications. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2023, 170, 105881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathieson, J.; Rogers, H.; Somerville, M.; Ridgeway Ph Jahanshahi, S. Use of biomass in the iron and steel industry-An Australian perspective. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Energy Efficiency and CO2 Reduction in the Steel Industry (EECRsteel)—METEC InSteelCon 2011, Düsseldorf, Germany, 27 June–1 July 2011; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.; Mellin, P.; Lövgren, J.; Nilsson, L.; Yang, W.; Salman, H.; Hultgren, A.; Larsson, M. Biomass as blast furnace injectant-Considering availability, pretreatment and deployment in the Swedish steel industry. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 102, 217–226. [Google Scholar]
- Meng, F.; Rong, G.; Zhao, R.; Chen, B.; Xu, X.; Qiu, H.; Cao, X.; Zhao, L. Incorporating biochar into fuels system of iron and steel industry: Carbon emission reduction potential and economic analysis. Appl. Energy 2024, 356, 122377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aisbl, W.S.A. World Steel in Figures. 2021. Available online: https://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/statistics/World-Steel-in-Figures.html (accessed on 12 December 2023).
- Różański, P.; Borecki, M.; Niesler, M.; Stecko, J.; Szulc, W.; Zdonek, B. Decarbonisation Pathways of The Steel Industry. J. Met. Mater. 2022, 74, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Sovacool, B.K.; Bazilian, M.; Griffiths, S.; Lee, J.; Yang, M.; Lee, J. Decarbonizing the iron and steel industry: A systematic review of sociotechnical systems, technological innovations, and policy options. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 89, 2214–6296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, K.; Jeffrey, C.; Keogh, J.; Tiwari, M.S.; Artioli, N.; Manyar, H.G. Techno-Economic Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis of Glycerol Valorization to Biofuel Additives via Esterification. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62, 9201–9210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Steel Process | Biochar Source | Substitution to Fossil Carbon Source | CO2 Reduction Contribution | Production Efficiency | Reference Scale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BF applications | Biomass Ash wood | Biochar can replace up to 25% of coke in blast furnaces. | - | Can replace up to 20% of the energy from coke. | [1] R |
Rice husks | An 85:15 wt.%. blend of coconut-shell charcoal and coking coal yields biocoke suitable for steelmaking, meeting blast-furnace criteria for CSR and CRI. | 20% biomass substitution in steelmaking blast furnaces reduces CO2 emissions by 300 kg/tHM (15% decrease in total GHG emissions). | - | [13] R | |
Coconut shells | |||||
Wood residues | Ranging from 50% to 100%. | Biochar resulting in a reduction of on-site emissions by 25–28% when fully substituted. | - | [45] | |
Rice residues | |||||
Ironmaking BF | Torrefied biomass | Torrefied biomass could replace PCI coal by 23%. | Modeling complete replacement with biochar, reduction of on-site emissions by 28%. | - | [47] |
PCI potential for net emissions reduction: 0.4–0.6 t-CO2/t crude steel (19–25%) | [46] R | ||||
Torrefied biomass | emission reduction: 0.40 Mt CO2/y for torrefied wood. | [10] R | |||
BF-BOF route (overall) | Wood-based biochar; straw-based biochar | Settings: coking 6%, sintering 50%, pelletizing 50%, BF 75/50%. | 68.57–70.75% reduction of CO2 emissions. An estimate based on MFA study using literature data. | MFA study | [48] M |
BF-BOF route (overall) | Agricultural wastes | - | Can reduce CO2 emissions by 20–80%. | - | [42] R |
Coke making | Hardwood | 2% | CRI, CSR, and fluidity index deterioration. | [20] R | |
Sintering | Charcoal | 40% | |||
nutshell, sawdust, and other biomasses | 60% | Flame front speed increase. | |||
Iron Sintering | Sawmill residues, wood, lignocellulosic biomass, sewage sludge, coal, biomass blends | Sintering: a replacement for up to 100% of coke breeze in the sinter mix. | The use of different processes leads CO2 emission reductions ranging from 6.7% to 57%. | - | [10] R |
Coke making | Coke making: a potential replacement for coal in producing coke. | ||||
Coke making | Addition ratio of biomass to coking coal blends should not exceed 5 wt% to maintain coke strength. | Biomass substitution in the sintering process can decrease the yield, tumbler strength, and utilization factor of sintering ore. | [18] R | ||
Coke making | Chestnut and/or pine sawdust char | 1–10 wt% | Increasing reactivity, CRI increases and CSR decreases by augmenting the percentage of biochar replacement. | [19] R | |
Coke making | - | Biochar addition in coke making enhances coke quality. | [1] | ||
Coke making and BF | A mix of powder material from residual coke breeze and biochar from bamboo | 4% can be replaced by briquettes of tar+ residual breeze+ biochar (biochar to coke breeze 2:8). | - | The main reason for the use of biochar is to give better pressure resistance and density to briquettes. | [22] P |
Coke making and BF | Biochars of coconut shell, groundnut shell, sawdust, sugarcane bagasse | 20–30% | CO2 reduction is the second target of the study. | Biocoke was optimized using blending ratios of inferior grade coal and biochars (pyrolysis at 550 °C), with starch and molasses binders via carbonization. | [23] L |
Coke making and BF | A mix of powder material from residual coke breeze and biochar from sawdust | Biocoke made from coke breeze and sawdust biochar (biochar to coke breeze 2:8). | - | The selected mix can satisfy characterization according to the Chinese standard for high-quality secondary metallurgical coke. Improved internal structure and performance by filling internal cracks and pores with a suitable amount of sawdust biochar powder. | [21] L |
Injection in BF via PCI | Eucalyptus, apple bagasse, out-of-use wood, treated via hydrothermal process (to produce hydrochar) | 10 and 20% | - | Hydrochars with higher lignin content showed higher reactivity; more appropriate to be used for gasification applications. | [14] L |
Waste wood material from the building industry; hardwood | 30% | - | In model results, higher As and Pb concentrations were observed in the flue dust, without exceeding the limits. | [15] M | |
Iron ore sintering | Residual biomass of pelletized sawmill, sawdust (SDP), woodchips (WdC), sunflower husks (SH) | Biochar substitution should be below 30 wt% for residual biomass, except for sunflower husk biochar which should be below 10 wt%. | 5–15% | 28% SDP biochar increased production efficiency by 6%. 12% WdC biochar increased production efficiency by 2.5%. SH led to decrease in production efficiency by 9%. | [17] P |
Coke breeze | With 100% coke breeze, | 5–15% | Replacement of 25% coke breeze with biochar increased the production quality. | [2] R | |
Biomass charcoal | 25% biochar, 50% biochar, 75% biochar, and 100% biochar. | ||||
Iron ore sintering | Cotton waste denim | - | - | Biochar has significant advantages in morphology (reasonable pore structure distribution and small particles). | [44] L |
Iron ore sintering | Two commercial biochars from an industrial supplier | The proportion of biochar replacement can increase from 40% to 50% by dividing the fuel addition. | - | The proposed method of divided fuel addition using coke and biochar can optimize the distribution of the fuel in iron ore sintering | [26] P |
BF/BOF (overall) | Sawdust, lignin, corn straw, walnut shell, wood-based biochar | In large blast furnaces, the maximum substitution percentage of biochar is around 20%. | In blast furnaces, can reduce CO2 emissions by 19% to 25%. | [3] R | |
Iron ore sintering | In sintering, net CO2 emissions estimated to decrease by around 5% to 15%. | ||||
BF/BOF | Torrefied biomass, raw biomass | Raw biomass and torrefied biomass replace coke by 20 wt.% and 50 wt.%. | Torrefied biomass in BF reduces CO2-equivalent emissions by 14.7%. | - | [6] R |
In BF, pulverized biomass char injection and charcoal lumps loaded at the top of the furnace achieve 14–15% CO2-equivalent reductions, respectively. |
Steel Process | Biochar Source | Substitution to Fossil Carbon Sources | CO2 Reduction Contribution | Production Efficiency | Reference Scale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAF route (overall) | Wood-based biochar; straw-based biochar | 100% | 41.06–42.67% reduction of CO2 emissions | MFA study | [48] M |
EAF route (overall) | Woody biomass | 33% biochar BC2 substitution | - | No deviation from normal conditions. | [28] F |
BC1: logging residues wood chips BC2: sawdust wood pellets | |||||
Foaming | Pine sawdust hydrothermally treated | - | - | Biochar showed a foaming time of 353 s vs. fossil-derived foaming agent (219 s), under optimized conditions. | [36] L |
Foaming | Corn stalk biochar treated via (1) pyrolysis in Nitrogen, (2) superheated steam, and (3) hydrothermal corn stalk biochar (Hydrochar) | Feasibility study | - | Hydrochars and superheated steam-treated char can replace coke as foaming agent (hydrochar suitable for injection, superheated steam char suitable to be directly injected in the slag). | [37] L |
Foaming | Biochar from woody biomass (slow pyrolysis at 900 °C), biochar from woody biomass (fast pyrolysis at 400 °C) | - | Interactions between biochar and slag poor in comparison with other carbonaceous materials. Smooth biochar surface reduced slag foaming. | [30] L | |
Foaming | 100% biochar 1:1 biochar and coke, additioned with FeO | Foaming time 3–4 s, high reactivity foaming time about 6–9 s. | [40] L | ||
Foaming | 50% biochar, 50% coke | Foaming process improved. | [39] L | ||
Injection, carburization | Biochar from torrefaction, slow pyrolysis, and hydrothermal carbonization; cottonwood pyrolized char | 100% | No significant negative differences. Combustion reactions were fast and strongly exothermic. Torrefied char: slag foaming promoter cottonwood-derived char: iron carburization. | [35] M | |
Injection, charge | Pumpkin seeds | Potential for replacement of charge carbon. | [32] L | ||
Grape seeds | Potential to replace injection and charge carbon. | ||||
Charge | Commercial biochar | 100% | No deterioration of steel quality. | [34] P | |
Melting | Biochar from hydrothermal carbonization | Shorten melting time, no negative influence on the final steel product. | [33] P | ||
Melting | Palm kernel shells | Chemical energy of the higher volatile content is earlier available during the heat-increased reaction rate of palm kernel shells. | [31] M | ||
Melting | Loose biochar bio-briquettes | Biobriquettes showed sufficient slag foaming to increase energy efficiency/protect lining; biochar showed critical characteristics towards a suitable use for slag foaming. | [38] L | ||
Power (electricity) generation | Pelletized biochar from torrefaction of wood chips Pelletized hydrochar from hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge | Feasibility study of a low-temperature molten hydroxide direct carbon fuel cell as additional energy source. | Biochar (powder) showed better performance than hydrochar. | [41] L |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Al Hosni, S.; Domini, M.; Vahidzadeh, R.; Bertanza, G. Potential and Environmental Benefits of Biochar Utilization for Coal/Coke Substitution in the Steel Industry. Energies 2024, 17, 2759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112759
Al Hosni S, Domini M, Vahidzadeh R, Bertanza G. Potential and Environmental Benefits of Biochar Utilization for Coal/Coke Substitution in the Steel Industry. Energies. 2024; 17(11):2759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112759
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl Hosni, Suad, Marta Domini, Reza Vahidzadeh, and Giorgio Bertanza. 2024. "Potential and Environmental Benefits of Biochar Utilization for Coal/Coke Substitution in the Steel Industry" Energies 17, no. 11: 2759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112759
APA StyleAl Hosni, S., Domini, M., Vahidzadeh, R., & Bertanza, G. (2024). Potential and Environmental Benefits of Biochar Utilization for Coal/Coke Substitution in the Steel Industry. Energies, 17(11), 2759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112759