Abstract
To promote sustainability, it has become increasingly vital to properly account material and energy flows in industrial production processes. Therefore, a generic process-level input–output (IO) model was developed to provide an integrated energy (material) accounting and analysis approach for industrial production processes. By extending the existing process-level IO models, the production, usage, export and loss of by-products were explicitly considered in the proposed IO model. Moreover, the by-products allocation procedures were incorporated into the proposed IO model to reflect individual contributions of products to energy consumption. Finally, the proposed model enabled calculating embodied energy of main products and total energy consumption under hierarchical accounting scope. Plant managers, energy management consultants, governmental officials and academic researchers could use this input–output model to account material and energy flows, thus calculating energy consumption indicators of a production process with their specific system boundary requirements. The accounting results could be further used for energy labeling, identifying bottlenecks of production activities, evaluating industrial symbiosis effects, improving materials and energy utilization efficiency, etc. The model could also be used as a planning tool to determine the effect that a particular change of technology and supply chains may have on the industrial production processes. The proposed model was tested and applied in a real integrated steel mill, which also provided the reference results for related researches. At last, some concepts, computational issues and limitations of the proposed model were discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A.K. Bakthavatsalam, Energy Eng. 107 (2010) No. 4, 69–79.
N. Ozalp, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008) 5020–5034.
T. Gao, L. Shen, M. Shen, L. Liu, F. Chen, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 553–565.
J. Laurijssen, A. Faaij, E. Worrell, Energy Efficiency 6 (2013) 49–63.
E. Alkaya, G.N. Demirer, J. Clean. Prod. 65 (2014) 595–603.
Z. Utlu, O. Kincay, Energy 57 (2013) 565–573.
H.H. Kellogg, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 6 (1975) 77–81.
M. Barati, Energy 35 (2010) 3731–3737.
H.L. Xu, G.Y. Pan, Y.J. Shao, Energy Metall. Ind. 36 (2017) No. 2, 3–7.
ISO 14404-1, Calculation method of carbon dioxide emission intensity from iron and steel production-Part 1: Steel plant with blast furnace, 2013.
ISO 14404-2, Calculation method of carbon dioxide emission intensity from iron and steel production-Part 2: Steel plant with electric arc furnace (EAF), 2013.
R.E. Miller, P.D. Blair, Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009.
D. Cortés-Borda, G. Guillén-Gosálbez, L. Jiménez, Energy 91 (2015) 91–101.
H. Liu, K.R. Polenske, J.J.M. Guilhoto, Energy 71 (2014) 414–420.
B. Su, B.W. Ang, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 377–384.
S. Liang, C. Wang, T. Zhang, Ecolog. Econ. 69 (2010) 1805–1813.
X. Lin, K.R. Polenske, Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 9 (1998) 205–226.
Z.W. Lu, J.J. Cai, The foundation of system energy conservation, Northeastern University Press, Shenyang, 2010.
K.R. Polenske, F.C. McMichael, Energ. Policy 30 (2002) 865–883.
V. Albino, E. Dietzenbacher, S. Kühtz, Econ. Syst. Res. 15 (2003) 457–480.
V. Albino, C. Izzo, S. Kühtz, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 78 (2002) 119–131.
V. Albino, S. Kühtz, J. Environ. Inform. 1 (2003) 8–20.
V. Albino, S. Kühtz, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41 (2004) 165–176.
S. Kuhtz, C. Zhou, V. Albino, D.M. Yazan, Energy 35 (2010) 364–374.
S. Liang, X.P. Jia, T.Z. Zhang, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 13 (2011) 71–85.
J. Ranganathan, L. Corbier, P. Bhatia, S. Schmitz, P. Gage, K. Oren, The greenhouse gas protocol: a corporate accounting and reporting standard (revised edition), World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Washington, DC, 2004.
ISO 14041, Environmental management - life cycle assessment - goal and scope definition and inventory analysis, 1998.
A.M. Tillman, T. Ekvall, H. Baumann, T. Rydberg, J. Clean. Prod. 2 (1994) 21–29.
J. Jung, N. von der Assen, A. Bardow, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (2013) 828–839.
Worldsteel Association, CO2 emissions data collection (User Guide, version 6), 2012.
S.L. Liu, H.T. Wang, J. Chen, Q. He, H. Zhang, R. Jiang, X. Chen, P. Hou, Acta Sci. Circumst. 30 (2010) 2136–2144.
T. Norgate, N. Haque, J. Clean. Prod. 18 (2010) 266–274.
S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, I. Ignjatović, Waste Manage. 30 (2010) 2255–2264.
R. Jiang, H.T. Wang, H. Zhang, X. Chen, Acta Sci. Circumst. 30 (2010) 2361–2368.
C. Chen, G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, A. Jullien, A. Ventura, Resourc. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (2010) 1231–1240.
B. Yu, X. Li, L. Shi, Y. Qian, J. Clean. Prod. 103 (2015) 801–810.
H. Zhang, H. Wang, X. Zhu, Y.J. Qiu, K. Li, R. Chen, Q. Liao, Appl. Energy 112 (2013) 956–966.
R. Heijungs, J.B. Guinee, Waste Manage. 27 (2007) 997–1005.
G. Finnveden, Resourc. Conserv. Recycl. 26 (1999) 173–187.
E. Dietzenbacher, Ecolog. Econ. 55 (2005) 11–23.
A. Takayama, Mathematical economics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1985.
R. Hoekstra, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh, Ecolog. Econ. 59 (2006) 375–393.
G. Liu, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 31 (2014) 611–621.
H. Li, Y.M. Wei, Energy 83 (2015) 438–446.
A.L. de Carvalho, C.H. Antunes, F. Freire, C. Henriques, Energy 82 (2015) 769–785.
X. Jia, Z. Li, F. Wang, D.C.Y. Foo, R.R. Tan, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 17 (2015) 2255–2265.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Science-Technology Plan Foundation of Hunan Province, China (2012GK2025) and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central South University under Grant Number 2013zzts039. The authors also wish to thank the Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. for providing and verifying the production data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix: Embodied energy data of scope 1–3 used in case example
Appendix: Embodied energy data of scope 1–3 used in case example
Item | Unit | Embodied energy | Reference | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
Iron ores | MJ/t | 153 | [32] | The energy equivalent of iron ores varies with ore grades, mining technology etc. However, this value is still a good approximation if no other data are available, since the Australian iron ores are the major source for sintering in this integrated steel works |
Limestone | MJ/t | 67.9 | Chinese life cycle Database (CLCD) [31] | Chinese LCI data |
Burnt dolomite | GJ/t | 4.5 | Worldsteel [30] | Applicable if no other reliable data available |
Burnt lime | GJ/t | 4.5 | Worldsteel | Ibid. |
Pellets | GJ/t | 2.1 | Worldsteel | Ibid. |
Pig iron | GJ/t | 20.9 | Worldsteel | Ibid. |
Steel scrap | MJ/t | 8.4 | CLCD | Chinese LCI data |
Electricity (coal) | GJ/MWh | 9.41 | National statistical report and standards | As suggested by national standard, the embodied energy of electricity is calculated based on coal consumption of electricity supply, i.e., 0.321 tce/MWh in the year 2013a |
Washed coal | GJ/t | 27.59 | National statistical report and standards | Calculated based on China Statistical Yearbook (Using a conversion factor of 1.047 GJ/GJ) |
Anthracite | GJ/t | 21.9 | National statistical report and standards | Ibid. |
Coke | GJ/t | 34.1 | Worldsteel | Applicable if no other reliable data available |
Oxygen | GJ/(103 m3 s.t.p.) | 3.25 | Site value | Data are sourced from supplier |
Argon | GJ/(103 m3 s.t.p.) | 15.82 | Site value | Ibid. |
Nitrogen | GJ/(103 m3 s.t.p.) | 1.79 | Site value | Ibid. |
COG | GJ/(103 m3 s.t.p.) | 17.06 | Site value | Avoiding heat production through fossil fuels |
BFG | GJ/(103 m3 s.t.p.) | 3.70 | Site value | Ibid. |
BOF gas | GJ/(103 m3 s.t.p.) | 6.25 | Site value | Ibid. |
BF slag | GJ/t | 1.88b | Avoiding 0.9 tonne cement clinkers per tonne of BF slag | |
BOF slag | MJ/t | 11.59 | Ref. [33] | Avoiding production of aggregate. Here, we use energy consumption data of aggregate production in Serbia, since the local data are not found |
Benzol | GJ/t | 41.88 | Site value | Avoiding Benzol production |
Coal tar | GJ/t | 37.69 | Site value | Avoiding coal tar production |
Ammonium sulfate | GJ/t | 24.38 | CLCD | Avoiding ammonium sulfate production |
CDQ steam | GJ/GJ | 1 | Avoiding steam generation. Here we assume avoiding 1 GJ steam production with the same heat quality per GJ CDQ steam | |
Sinter steam | GJ/GJ | 1 | Ibid. | |
BOF 1 steam | GJ/GJ | 1 | Ibid. | |
BOF 2 steam | GJ/GJ | 1 | Ibid. | |
BOF 3 steam | GJ/GJ | 1 | Ibid. | |
Power plant steam | GJ/GJ | 1 | Ibid. | |
TRT electricity | GJ/MWh | 9.41 | National statistical report and standards | Avoiding electricity production |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, Xj., Liao, Sm., Rao, Zh. et al. An input–output model for energy accounting and analysis of industrial production processes: a case study of an integrated steel plant. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 25, 524–538 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42243-018-0064-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42243-018-0064-9