Alternative Routes To Stainless Steel ? A Life Cycle Approach

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of stainless steel production, including that of the nickel, ferronickel, ferrochromium and iron feedstocks was carried out using inventory data derived from the literature. The environmental impact categories considered in the study were Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification Potential (AP) and total (or full cycle) energy consumption. The effects of different sources of electricity (black coal, natural gas and hydroelectricity) were also examined in the study. The results of the LCA showed that when ferronickel is used as the nickel source, the total energy consumption for stainless steel production is approximately 50% higher than when nickel metal is used as the nickel source (75 MJ/kg cf. 49 MJ/kg). This result comes about largely because the Fe units in ferronickel have a much higher energy intensity than do the Fe units in pig iron, and the greater the use of the former at the expense of the latter, the greater is the total energy consumption. The results also showed that the production of ferronickel made by far the largest contribution (59%) to the total energy consumption for stainless steel production when this feedstock is used as the nickel source, but when nickel metal is used as the nickel source the contributions of the various stages are more evenly distributed. It was also observed that the electricity consumption of the electric furnaces used in the production of ferronickel, ferrochromium and stainless steel contributed approximately 50% to the total energy consumed in stainless steel production. Given the relatively low efficiencies associated with electrical power generation, significant reductions in the total energy of stainless steel production could be anticipated if more direct use of thermal energy was made in the ferronickel, ferrochromium and/or stainless steel smelting stages, for example by utilising bath smelting processes.