The right coal reduces costs

A study done by Swerim demonstrates the importance of choosing the right coal in each situation to reduce costs and environmental impact.

Considerable gains in terms of both cost and environment can be made by using and adapting the most suitable coal, depending on the situation. For example, theoretically, charcoal is a good injection coal that is carbon-dioxide neutral. This makes it a good alternative for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, it is considerably more expensive than other fuel sources.

Lower emissions and lower costs

Swerim has conducted a systems study for SSAB in Oxelösund to analyse how costs, energy requirements and carbon dioxide emissions influence the choice of injection coal for the blast furnace. The study shows that there is great potential for realising both cost and environmental savings by adapting the coal according to the desired production rate. Johannes Larsson, who manages BF4 at Oxelösund, saw the benefits of the study.

"The result provided a basis for future testing with alternative injection fuels. We have gained an understanding of 'value in use' for the various types of coal," he says.

Choosing the right coal

Coal injection accounts for one-fifth of the reducing agent requirement, or 400-500 tonnes of coal per day in the blast furnaces studied at SSAB in Oxelösund. Owing to the great amount of coal that is used, from both an economic and environmental point of view, there are good reasons for using the most suitable coal, depending on the situation.