Impact of Scrap and Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduced Iron Ratios on Energy Demand, Emissions, and Oxygen Management in Green Steelmaking
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Mass Balance and Chemical Reactions
2.2. Energy Flows
2.3. Carbon Emissions
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Mass Flow
3.2. Energy Flow
3.3. Emissions
3.4. Variation in the DRI-to-Scrap Ratio
3.4.1. Impact on Electricity Consumption and Emissions
3.4.2. Impact on Oxygen Balance
3.5. Sensitivity Analysis
- Reducing gas-heating strategies (electric heating versus hydrogen combustion).
- 2.
- Electrolyzer performance (system efficiency).
- 3.
- DRI metallization (FeO content in H2-DRI).
- 4.
- Carbon intensity (electricity supply options).
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Nomenclature
| Abbreviations | ||
| Symbol | Definition | |
| BF-BOF | Blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace | |
| CHP | Combined heat and power plant | |
| CCPP | Combined cycle power plant | |
| EAF | Electric arc furnace | |
| DRI | Direct reduced iron/sponge iron | |
| H2-DRI | Hydrogen-based direct reduced iron | |
| H2-DRI-EAF | Electric arc furnace supplied with hydrogen-based direct reduced iron pathway | |
| SEC | Specific Electricity Consumption | |
| Parameter | ||
| Symbol | Definition | Unit |
| Average heat capacity | J/kgK | |
| Specific enthalpy of heated material | J/kg | |
| Specific enthalpy of incoming material | J/kg | |
| Specific enthalpy of outgoing material | J/kg | |
| Specific enthalpy of product | J/kg | |
| Specific enthalpy at reaction temperature | J/kg | |
| Reaction enthalpy | J | |
| Specific enthalpy at standard conditions (25 °C) | J/kg | |
| Specific enthalpy at 600 °C | J/kg | |
| Mass of DRI | kg | |
| Mass of incoming material | kg | |
| Mass of all incoming material but DRI | kg | |
| Mass of outgoing material | kg | |
| Mass of product material | kg | |
| Mass of waste material | kg | |
| Balancing heat stream | J | |
| Total heat input | J | |
| Heat loss insulation | J | |
| Heat loss from cooling of output material | J | |
| Total heat output | J | |
| Recovered heat | J | |
| Temperature | K | |
| Electricity input | J | |
| Electricity BOP | J | |
| Electricity Heating | J | |
| Electricity Reaction (Electrolysis) | J | |
| Work input | J | |
| Work output | J |
Appendix A
| Stage | Inputs | Method/Calculations | Outputs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Model definition | System boundaries; electrolyzer, DRI furnace, EAF; operating conditions; thermodynamic properties; base case (13% H2-DRI/87% scrap) | Define integrated steady-state process and assumptions | Integrated process model |
| 2. Mass balance | Water, iron ore, scrap, carbon, fluxes, electricity, oxygen | Stoichiometric balances for electrolysis, DRI reduction, EAF refining, slag formation and post-combustion | H2, O2, H2-DRI, steel, slag, CO/CO2/H2O, oxygen demand and surplus |
| 3. Energy balance | Material flows, reaction enthalpies, heat capacities, BoP, heat recovery, losses | Energy balances of electrolyzer, DRI and EAF | Heat flows, electricity demand by unit, recovered heat, losses, total SEC |
| 4. Emissions | Electricity demand and direct emissions; Portuguese grid and renewable scenarios | Direct + indirect CO2 calculations | Specific emissions by unit and total emissions |
| 5. Scenario analysis | Eight H2-DRI:scrap ratios; adjusted fluxes and carbon addition | Repeat model for each ratio | Electricity demand, emissions, slag composition, oxygen balance, oxygen self-sufficiency |
| 6. Sensitivity analysis | Heating strategy, electrolyzer efficiency, DRI metallization, electricity carbon intensity | Parameter variation | Robustness of electricity demand, emissions and oxygen threshold |
| Feed/Product | Component | Composition [wt%] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input | Iron Ore | Fe2O3 | 97.47 |
| SiO2 | 1.57 | ||
| Al2O3 | 0.44 | ||
| CaO | 0.52 | ||
| Hydrogen | H2 | 100 | |
| Oxygen (optional) | O2 | 100 | |
| Output | H2-DRI | Fe | 89.4 |
| FeO | 7.12 | ||
| SiO2 | 2.18 | ||
| Al2O3 | 0.61 | ||
| CaO | 0.73 | ||
| Off Gas | H2O | 100 |
| Feed/Product | Component | Composition [wt%] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input | H2-DRI | Fe | 89.36 |
| FeO | 7.12 | ||
| SiO2 | 2.18 | ||
| Al2O3 | 0.61 | ||
| CaO | 0.73 | ||
| Scrap | Fe | 98.50 | |
| C | 0.40 | ||
| Si | 0.30 | ||
| Mn | 0.80 | ||
| SiO2 | 0.64 | ||
| Carbon Powder | C | 100 | |
| Quicklime | CaO | 96.75 | |
| CO2 | 1.50 | ||
| MgO | 1.66 | ||
| SiO2 | 0.09 | ||
| Dolime | CaO | 66.70 | |
| MgO | 32.17 | ||
| Al2O3 | 0.34 | ||
| SiO2 | 0.77 | ||
| Bauxite | Al2O3 | 100 | |
| Oxygen | O2 | 100 | |
| Output | Steel | Fe | 99.75 |
| C | 0.25 | ||
| Slag | CaSiO3 | 28.36 | |
| CaO | 10.05 | ||
| CaAl2O4 | 16.83 | ||
| FeO | 28.76 | ||
| MnO | 9.32 | ||
| MgO | 6.68 | ||
| Fluegas | CO2 | 70.20 | |
| CO | 29.80 |
References
- Hasanbeigi, A. Steel Climate Impact 2022—An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities. 2022. Available online: https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com (accessed on 21 January 2026).
- Fan, Z.; Friedmann, S.J. Low-carbon production of iron and steel: Technology options, economic assessment, and policy. Joule 2021, 5, 829–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gielen, D. CO2 removal in the iron and steel industry. Energy Convers. Manag. 2003, 44, 1027–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, S.; Deng, L.; Gençer, E. Environmental and economic evaluation of decarbonization strategies for the Indian steel industry. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 293, 117511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vattenfall. HYBRIT: SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall to Start up the World’s First Pilot Plant for Fossil-Free Steel. Available online: https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2020/hybrit-ssab-lkab-and-vattenfall-to-start-up-the-worlds-first-pilot-plant-for-fossil-free-steel (accessed on 21 October 2025).
- Stegra. Our Boden Plant. Available online: https://stegra.com/the-boden-plant (accessed on 21 October 2025).
- Björkman, B.; Samuelsson, C. Recycling of Steel. In Handbook of Recycling: State-of-the-Art for Practitioners, Analysts, and Scientists; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.R.; Zhao, Y.Q.; Babich, A.; Senk, D.; Fan, X.Y. Hydrogen direct reduction (H-DR) in steel industry—An overview of challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diez, J.R.; Tomé-Torquemada, S.; Vicente, A.; Reyes, J.; Pathways, G.A.O.D. Strategies, and Use Cases to Achieve Net-Zero CO2 Emissions in the Steelmaking Industry. Energies 2023, 16, 7360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haikarainen, C.; Shao, L.; Pettersson, F.; Saxén, H. Mathematical optimization modeling for scenario analysis of integrated steelworks transitioning towards hydrogen-based reduction. Energy 2024, 305, 132366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellersdorfer, P.; Wang, C.; Saydam, S.; Canbulat, I.; MacGill, I.; Daiyan, R. Unlocking new export opportunities: An open-source framework for assessing green iron and steel supply chains. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 92, 1366–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silveira Cachola, C.; Peyerl, D. Mapping green hydrogen clusters in Brazil: A data-driven approach for industrial decarbonization. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2026, 206, 153202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devlin, A.; Kossen, J.; Goldie-Jones, H.; Yang, A. Global green hydrogen-based steel opportunities surrounding high quality renewable energy and iron ore deposits. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, J.; Zhang, Q.; Tian, S.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Tian, J. The role of hydrogen in iron and steel production: Development trends, decarbonization potentials, and economic impacts. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 92, 1409–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhaskar, A.; Assadi, M.; Somehsaraei, H.N. Decarbonization of the iron and steel industry with direct reduction of iron ore with green hydrogen. Energies 2020, 13, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krüger, A.; Andersson, J.; Grönkvist, S.; Cornell, A. Integration of water electrolysis for fossil-free steel production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 29966–29977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogl, V.; Åhman, M.; Nilsson, L.J. Assessment of hydrogen direct reduction for fossil-free steelmaking. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 736–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alikulov, K.; Aminov, Z.; Anh, L.H.; Xuan, T.D.; Kim, W. Comparative Technical and Economic Analyses of Hydrogen-Based Steel and Power Sectors. Energies 2024, 17, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Material Economics. Industrial Transformation 2050 Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions from EU Heavy Industry. 2019. Available online: https://europeanclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Industrial-Transformation-2050.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2026).
- Khan, M.A.; Powell, M.; Tampier, M.; Thorn, E.; Layzell, D. Hydrogen and the Decarbonization of Steel Production in Canada: Reaching Economies of Scale. 2023. Available online: https://transitionaccelerator.ca/reports/hydrogen-and-the-decarbonization-of-steel- (accessed on 21 January 2026).
- Megasa. Megasa: Liderando o Aço Sustentável, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2023. 2023. Available online: https://www.megasa.com/webfiles/data/WebData/Media/SOSTENIBILIDAD/Documentos/MEMORIA%20DE%20SOSTENIBILIDAD/2023%20MEMORIA%20DE%20SOSTENIBILIDAD_11266509_PT.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2025).
- Eckl, F.; Moita, A.; Sousa, T.; Neto, R.C. Hydrogen-Based Steelmaking: An Energy, Exergy and Environmental Assessment. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2026, 3195, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Y.; Chi, Z.; Yuan, S.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Jiang, T.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W. Development and Application of Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduction Iron Process. Processes 2024, 12, 1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gyllenram, R.; Arzpeyma, N.; Wei, W.; Jönsson, P.G. Driving investments in ore beneficiation and scrap upgrading to meet an increased demand from the direct reduction-EAF route. Miner. Econ. 2022, 35, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teeters, J. Finding the Recipe for Hydrogen Heating. Available online: https://www.midrex.com/commentary/finding-the-recipe-for-hydrogen-heating/ (accessed on 15 October 2025).
- Duarte, P.; Becerra, J.; Carlos, L.; Martinis, A. ENERGIRON Direct Reduction Technology—Economical, Flexible, Environmentally Friendly. 2021. Available online: https://tenova.com/sites/default/files/2021-09/2007-ENERGIRON-Direct-Reduction-Technology-Economical-Flexible-Environmentally-Friendly.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2025).
- Rosner, F.; Papadias, D.; Brooks, K.; Yoro, K.; Ahluwalia, R.; Autrey, T.; Breunig, H. Green steel: Design and cost analysis of hydrogen-based direct iron reduction. Energy Environ. Sci. 2023, 16, 4121–4134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakeri, A.; Coley, K.S.; Tafaghodi, L. Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduction of Iron Oxides: A Review on the Influence of Impurities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornby, S.; Brooks, G. Impact of Hydrogen DRI on EAF Steelmaking. Available online: https://www.midrex.com/tech-article/impact-of-hydrogen-dri-on-eaf-steelmaking/ (accessed on 29 August 2025).
- Echterhof, T. Review on the use of alternative carbon sources in EAF steelmaking. Metals 2021, 11, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sotoodeh, K. Material selection and corrosion. In Subsea Valves and Actuators for the Oil and Gas Industry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 421–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agnihotri, A.; Singh, P.K.; Singh, D.; Gupta, M. Foamy slag practice to enhance the energy efficiency of electric arc furnace: An industrial scale validation. In Materials Today: Proceedings; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1537–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ledari, M.B.; Khajehpour, H.; Akbarnavasi, H.; Edalati, S. Greening steel industry by hydrogen: Lessons learned for the developing world. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 36623–36649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barker, K.J.; Blumenschein, C.D.; Bowmen, B.; Chan, A.H. The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, 11th ed.; Association for Iron & Steel Technology (AIST): Warrendale, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Arzpeyma, N.; Ersson, M.; Jönsson, P.G. Mathematical modeling of postcombustion in an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF). Metals 2019, 9, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manocha, S.; Ponchon, F. Management of lime in steel. Metals 2018, 8, 686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking and Slag Formation, Composition, and Distribution. In Health Risk Considerations for the Use of Unencapsulated Steel Slag; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; Chapter 2; pp. 1–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirschen, M. Visualization of slag data for efficient monitoring and improvement of steelmaking slag operation in electric arc furnaces, with a focus on MgO saturation. Metals 2021, 11, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yildirim, I.Z.; Chemical, M.P. Chemical, mineralogical, and morphological properties of steel slag. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2011, 2011, 463638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallwork, G.; Voelker, B. MIDREX® Combination Plant-Designed for Changing Market Conditions. Midrex. Available online: https://www.midrex.com/tech-article/midrex-combination-plant-designed-for-changing-market-conditions/ (accessed on 12 September 2025).
- Nduagu, E.I.; Yadav, D.; Bhardwaj, N.; Elango, S.; Biswas, T.; Banerjee, R.; Rajagopalan, S. Comparative life cycle assessment of natural gas and coal-based directly reduced iron (DRI) production: A case study for India. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 347, 131196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badgett, A.; Brauch, J.; Thatte, A.; Rubin, R.; Skangos, C.; Wang, X.; Ahluwalia, R.; Pivovar, B.; Ruth, M. Updated Manufactured Cost Analysis for Proton Exchange Membrane Water Electrolyzers. 2023. Available online: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/87625.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2026).
- US Department of Energy. Bandwidth Study on Energy Use and Potential Energy Saving Opportunities in U.S. Iron and Steel Manufacturing. 2015. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f26/iron_and_steel_bandwidth_report_0.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2025).
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST Chemistry WebBook—NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Available online: https://webbook.nist.gov/ (accessed on 22 February 2026).
- Liu, B.N.; Li, Q.; Zou, Z.S.; Yu, A.B. Discussion on chemical energy utilisation of reducing gas in reduction shaft furnace. Ironmak. Steelmak. 2014, 41, 568–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Renewable Energy Agency IRENA. Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction Scaling Up Electrolysers. 2020. Available online: www.irena.org/publications (accessed on 22 February 2026).
- The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Energy Efficient Technology Packages for Electric Arc Furnace. 2017. Available online: www.in.undp.org (accessed on 4 February 2026).
- Peters, K.; Malfa, E.; Matino, I.; Colla, V. Improve the EAF Scrap Route for a Sustainable Value Chain in the EU Circular Economy Scenario—Roadmap. 2021. Available online: www.estep.eu (accessed on 3 February 2026).
- Associação de Energias Renováveis (APREN). Production Electricity Generation by Energy Sources in Mainland Portugal in 2025. Available online: https://www.apren.pt/en/knowledge/statistical-data/ (accessed on 22 May 2026).
- Elsheikh, H.; Eveloy, V. Renewable hydrogen based direct iron ore reduction and steel making with grid assistance. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 297, 117544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Walsh, S.D.C.; Weng, Z.; Haynes, M.W.; Summerfield, D.; Feitz, A. Green steel: Synergies between the Australian iron ore industry and the production of green hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 32277–32293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlömer, S.; Bruckner, T.; Fulton, L.; Hertwich, E.; McKinnon, A.; Perczyk, D.; Roy, J.; Schaeffer, R.; Sims, R.; Smith, P.; et al. Annex III: Technology-Specific Cost and Performance Parameters. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2026).
- Eshkaftaki, A.T.; Baniasadi, E.; Parvanian, A.M.; Amiri, A. In-house green hydrogen production for steelmaking decarbonization using steel slag as thermal energy storage material: A life cycle assessment. Energy 2024, 313, 133966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, S.; Chen, H.; Ding, Y.; Li, J.; Zhong, Z. Industrial Waste Heat Utilization Potential in China: Measurement and Impacts on Carbon Peaking and Carbon Neutrality Pathways. Energies 2026, 19, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckl, F.; Moita, A.; Castro, R.; Neto, R.C. Valorization of the by-product oxygen from green hydrogen production: A review. Appl. Energy 2025, 378, 124817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckl, F.; Moita, A.; Neto, R.C. Cost optimization of electrolytic oxygen distribution: A mathematical framework with a green steel and hospital case study in Portugal. Renew. Energy Focus 2025, 55, 100736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasseriyan, P.; Jafari, S.; Khajehpour, H.; Edalati, S. Toward a green steel production powered by a hybrid renewable energy system: Techno-economic and environmental assessment. Energy Convers. Manag. 2025, 332, 119716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Electricity Maps. The World’s Most Comprehensive Electricity Data Platform. 2026. Available online: https://www.electricitymaps.com/ (accessed on 17 April 2026).
- Carmona, L.G.; Whiting, K.; Carrasco, A.; Sousa, T. The evolution of resource efficiency in the United Kingdom’s steel sector: An exergy approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 196, 891–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]










| Technology | Share in Portuguese Grid [%] | Emission Factor [kgCO2e/MWh] |
|---|---|---|
| Natural Gas (CHP) | 2.6 | 490 |
| Natural Gas (CCPP) | 10.7 | 490 |
| Biomass | 5.3 | 230 |
| Wind | 26.2 | 11 |
| Hydro (direct) | 36.9 | 4 |
| Hydro (pumped storage) | 7.4 | 58 |
| Solar | 10.9 | 48 |
| Grid-Based | Green | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct [kgCO2e/tSteel] | Indirect [kgCO2e/tSteel] | Direct [kgCO2e/tSteel] | Indirect [kgCO2e/tSteel] | |
| Electrolyzer | 0 | 34.37 | 0 | 11.11 |
| DRI | 0 | 5.85 | 0 | 1.89 |
| EAF | 76.20 | 28.76 | 76.20 | 9.30 |
| Total | 145.19 | 98.51 | ||
| 0:100 | 10:90 | 13:87 | 20:80 | 40:60 | 60:40 | 80:20 | 100:0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quicklime | 11 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 22 | 26 | 31 |
| Dolime | 25 | 24 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 18 | 15 |
| Bauxite | 12 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
| Carbon | 17 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 20.5 | 22.0 | 23.5 | 25.0 |
| Slag Comp. | Min–Max | Mean | 0:100 | 10:90 | 13:87 | 20:80 | 40:60 | 60:40 | 80:20 | 100:0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO [wt%] | 2.3–60 | 31 | 27.4 | 28.6 | 29.7 | 31.0 | 33.0 | 35.1 | 37.2 | 39.4 |
| Al2O3 [wt%] | 2–22.6 | 6.8 | 12.1 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 10.7 | 10.5 | 10.4 |
| MgO [wt%] | 3.0–15 | 7.6 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 5.3 | 4.4 |
| SiO2 [wt%] | 5.0–32 | 15.9 | 13.5 | 14.5 | 14.7 | 15.3 | 16.5 | 17.4 | 18.5 | 19.5 |
| FeO [wt%] | 1–50.9 | 27.8 | 28.0 | 28.4 | 28.8 | 28.3 | 27.7 | 26.8 | 26.5 | 26.3 |
| MnO [wt%] | 0.4–15.6 | 4.4 | 10.7 | 9.7 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 6.2 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 |
| Basicity [-] | 1.9–2.4 | - | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Weight [kg/tSteel] | 100–150 | - | 99.8 | 99.3 | 100.3 | 100.9 | 105.3 | 111.8 | 116.5 | 121.4 |
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. |
© 2026 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.
Share and Cite
Eckl, F.; Moita, A.; Sousa, T.; Neto, R.C. Impact of Scrap and Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduced Iron Ratios on Energy Demand, Emissions, and Oxygen Management in Green Steelmaking. Energies 2026, 19, 3620. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19153620
Eckl F, Moita A, Sousa T, Neto RC. Impact of Scrap and Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduced Iron Ratios on Energy Demand, Emissions, and Oxygen Management in Green Steelmaking. Energies. 2026; 19(15):3620. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19153620
Chicago/Turabian StyleEckl, Florentin, Ana Moita, Tânia Sousa, and Rui Costa Neto. 2026. "Impact of Scrap and Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduced Iron Ratios on Energy Demand, Emissions, and Oxygen Management in Green Steelmaking" Energies 19, no. 15: 3620. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19153620
APA StyleEckl, F., Moita, A., Sousa, T., & Neto, R. C. (2026). Impact of Scrap and Hydrogen-Based Direct Reduced Iron Ratios on Energy Demand, Emissions, and Oxygen Management in Green Steelmaking. Energies, 19(15), 3620. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19153620

