Improving methodological approaches to the systematic evaluation of greenhouse-gas emissions in ferrous metallurgy
Article
First Online:
Received:
- 47 Downloads
A survey is made of the main methodological approaches used to evaluate greenhouse-gas emissions in ferrous metallurgy. The concept of the carbon content of products is formulated as a comprehensive index of the aggregate greenhouse-gas emissions associated with each conversion in the manufacture of a given type of product and its processing and use beyond the metallurgical plant. A method is proposed for calculating the carbon content of products. Use of the proposed approach makes it possible to solve a range of problems encountered in monitoring and predicting emissions and performing environmental-economic analyses of the efficiency of metallurgical plants and the industry as a whole.
Keywords
greenhouse gases ferrous metallurgy carbon content environmental-economic analysisReferences
- 1.The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, www.carbonunitsregistry.ru/docs/UNFCCC%20rus.htm.
- 2.Yu. A. Izrael, A. I. Nakhutin, M. L. Gitarskii, et al., National Policy of the Russian Federation on Cadastral Survey of the Anthropogenic Emission and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases Not Regulated by the Montreal Protocol During the Period 1990–2009. Part 1, IGKE Rosgidromet and RAN, Moscow (2011).Google Scholar
- 3.The Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, www.carbonunitsregistry.ru/docs/Kyoto%20Protocol%20rus.htm.
- 4.Declaration of the President of the Russian Federation from October 28, 2009, No. 843, On Measures to Implement Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
- 5.GOST R ISO 14064-1–2007, Greenhouse Gases. Part 1. Requirements and Directions for Quantitative Determination and Monitoring of Emissions and the Elimination of Greenhouse Gases at the Organizational Level, Standartinform, Moscow (2010).Google Scholar
- 6.Carbon Disclosure Project 2010. Russia 50, Carbon Disclosure Project (2011).Google Scholar
- 7.A Global Sector Approach to CO 2 Emissions Reduction for the Steel Industry: A Position Paper Issued by the World Steel Association, World Steel Association (2007).Google Scholar
- 8.Commission Decision of 24 December 2009 Determining, Pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a List of Sectors and Subsectors Which Are Deemed to be Exposed to a Significant Risk of Carbon Leakage.Google Scholar
- 9.Issues Behind Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage. Focus on Heavy Industry: IEA Information Paper, International Energy Agency (2008).Google Scholar
- 10.Stenographic Record of the 25th Meeting of the Commission on Modernization and Technological Growth of the Russian Economy, from 06.27.2011, www.i-russia.ru/sessions/reports/752.html.
- 11.Steel’s Contribution to a Low Carbon Future: Worldsteel Climate Change Position Paper, World Steel Association (2010).Google Scholar
- 12.Kh. S. Iggleston, L. Bundia, K. Miva, et al. (eds.), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006), IGES, Japan (2007).Google Scholar
- 13.Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, International Meteorological Association, Switzerland (2003).Google Scholar
- 14.D. T. Houghton, L. G. Meirafilho, B. Lim, et al. (eds.), Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006), Vol. 2: Workbook for Inventorying Greenhouse Gases, IPCC, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Energy Agency (IEA), Great Britain (1997).Google Scholar
- 15.The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (revised edition), World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute, USA (2004).Google Scholar
- 16.H. M. Eichinger, K. Muhlheims, H. B. Lungren, et al., “Assessment of and possibilities for reductions in CO2 emissions in the blast-furnace – converter production cycle,” Chern. Metally, No. 10, 66–73 (2001).Google Scholar
- 17.D. Ameling and G. Endemann, “Efficient use of resources – a good argument for steel,” ibid., No. 1, 73–81 (2008).Google Scholar
- 18.Yu. S. Yusfin, L. I. Leontiev, and P. I. Chernousov, Industry and the Environment [in Russian], Akademkniga, Moscow (2002).Google Scholar
- 19.P. I. Chernousov, Recycling. Technologies for Processing and Utilizing Technogenic Materials and Waste Products in Ferrous Metallurgy: Monograph [in Russian], ID MISiS, Moscow (2011).Google Scholar
- 20.V. G. Lisienko, Improving and Increasing the Efficiency of Energy Technologies and Production Processes (integrated environmental-energy analysis: theory and practice) [in Russian], Teplotekhnik, Moscow (2008).Google Scholar
- 21.V. G. Lisienko, A. V. Lapteva, and Yu. N. Chesnokov, “Comparative ecological and greenhouse analysis of alternative coke-free processes for making pig iron and steel,” Metallurg, No. 7, 40–45 (2011).Google Scholar
- 22.L. N. Shevelev, “Evaluating greenhouse-gas emissions at factories in the metallurgical industry,” Metallurg, No. 7, pp. 9–15 (2007).Google Scholar
- 23.L. N. Shevelev, “Methodological principles for inventorying greenhouse gases in Russian ferrous metallurgy,” Metallurg, No. 3, 29–37 (2007).Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2012