Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Review

Decarbonizing the iron and steel industry: A systematic review of

sociotechnical systems, technological innovations, and policy options
Jinsoo Kim a, *, Benjamin K. Sovacool b, c, **, Morgan Bazilian d, Steve Griffiths e, Junghwan Lee a,
Minyoung Yang a, Jordy Lee d
a
Department of Earth Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Republic of Korea
b
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, United Kingdom
c
Center for Energy Technologies, Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Denmark
d
Colorado School of Mines, CO, United States
e
Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The iron and steel industry is the largest coal consumer and the most greenhouse gas intensive industry. It
Climate change consumes about 7% of global energy supply, and conservative estimates report that it is responsible for 7–9% of
Climate mitigation global greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonization of the iron and steel industry is thus vital to meet climate
iron and steel
change mitigation targets and achieve a sustainable future for the industry. This paper presents a comprehensive
Industrial decarbonization
Energy policy
and systematic review that considered more than 1.6 million pieces of literature and analyzes in depth a shortlist
Sociotechnical system of 271 studies on the iron and steel industry's decarbonization. Applying a sociotechnical lens that investigates
raw materials, iron and steel making processes, steel products making and usage, and waste and recycling, the
review identifies the climate footprint of the iron and steel industry. The review also assesses current and
emerging practices for decarbonization, identifying 86 potentially transformative technologies. The benefits of
decarbonizing the iron and steel industry are considered through energy and carbon savings, financial savings,
and other environmental and public health benefits. Barriers to decarbonization are considered across financial,
organizational, and behavioral aspects. The review also discusses various financial tools and policy instruments
that can help overcome the barriers. Lastly, research gaps are outlined.

1. Introduction India, ASEAN countries, and Africa will add to the demand trends
already exhibited by the US, Europe, and China. Iron and steel pro­
Modern life is surrounded by iron and steel. Buildings, skyscrapers, duction will therefore play an essential role in ensuring that billions of
bridges, power transmission towers, airplanes, vehicles, and ships all use people will be able to improve their quality of life in the coming decades.
significant amounts of iron and steel in their construction. As a result, In the manufacturing of these essential goods, iron and steel, ne­
iron and steel demand has increased more than threefold since 1970, cessitates huge energy inputs. As Fig. 1 indicates, the iron and steel
and accounts for 95% of all metal produced annually in the world [1]. sector used 33.57 Exajoules of energy in 2018 [3], and energy cost
Iron and steel are also an essential ingredient for energy transitions and constitutes a significant portion of steel manufacturing costs, ranging
decarbonization. Renewable energy sources such as are 71–79% steel, from 20% to 40% [4], which explains why many decarbonization op­
and solar panels, geothermal plants, and electric vehicles also depend tions are related to energy saving. Critically, the iron and steel industry
heavily on iron and steel products. is the second largest consumer of coal, next to electricity generations.
As steel is essential for modern economies and developing technol­ Coking coal is used for chemical reactions in furnaces to make steel from
ogies, steel demand is expected to grow substantially in the coming years iron ore, so up to 75% of the energy content used in steel production is
due to its direct relationship to population, GDP growth, and overall consumed in the blast furnace. The remaining 25% offers heat at the
industrialization [2]. Economic expansion of emerging economies in sinter and coking plants [5].

* Corresponding author.
** Correspondence to: B.K. Sovacool, Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, United Kingdom.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Kim), [email protected] (B.K. Sovacool).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102565
Received 27 November 2021; Received in revised form 25 January 2022; Accepted 25 February 2022
Available online 8 March 2022
2214-6296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 1. Energy demand and intensity of the global iron and steel industry (2000–2018).
Source: [3].

Thus, it is perhaps inevitable that the iron and steel industry is highly relatively young, around 12 years old on average [6], so replacing them
responsible for global greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions and thus with more efficient equipment is not economical.
contributions to climate change. The iron and steel sector emits 2.6 Gt The combination of iron and steel's importance in modern society
CO2e annually, which is 7% of the global emissions from the energy use and the difficult of decarbonizing steel supply chains necessitate a
and 7–9% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions—the highest among comprehensive review of decarbonization efforts within the iron and
heavy industries [6]. steel industry through a systematic review and rigorous interdisciplinary
Iron and steel are also considered as one of hardest industries to approach. It asks: Which options are available and promising for the
decarbonize due to high heat requirements, using carbon as a process decarbonization of the iron and steel industry, and thus make the in­
input, low profit margins, high capital intensity, long asset life, and dustry more climatically sustainable? What are the key factors of the
trade challenges. There are no easy ways to create large amounts of heat industry's energy consumption and GHG footprints? What are the ben­
energy for many iron and steel processes without also releasing CO2 efits from the decarbonization of the iron and steel industry, and what
emissions, and coal is often used both as a source of heat and as part of barriers will be faced? To answer these questions, we undertake a crit­
the production processes. Similarly, the decades-long life cycles of iron ical, in-depth review of 269 studies shortlisted from more than 1.6
and steel plants, the lack of clear financial incentives for decarbon­ million studies on the topic of iron and steel decarbonization. Based on
ization, and price volatility make it difficult to incorporate carbon the review results, we propose a new sociotechnical lens to examine the
reducing technologies. industry's decarbonization options—raw materials, iron and steel mak­
Many institutions, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) [6], ing processes, steel products manufacture, recycling, and use—, and
European Steel Association [7], Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory identify promising innovations, benefits, barriers, policy options, and
[8], Boston Consulting Group [9], and WSP and Parsons Brinckerhoff/ future agendas using this lens.
DNV GL [10], have published carbon mitigation options and technology Although there are insightful reviews for the decarbonization of the
roadmaps for the industry's decarbonization. iron and steel industry, focusing on energy saving [17], blast furnace
When outlining their 2020 technology roadmap towards more sus­ [18], and specific projects [19], for example, the systematic search and
tainable steelmaking, the IEA suggested four core technology groups; critical review process presented in Section 3 make our review more
carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), hydrogen, direct elec­ comprehensive. Moreover, the sociotechnical lens can provide an
trification, and bioenergy [6]. Hydrogen would be effective for CO2 organized perspective of the promising decarbonization options for the
mitigation in various iron and steel processes, such as BF (blast furnace), whole value chain of the industry and related society. Thus, our review
DRI (direct reduced iron), smelting reduction, and ancillary procedures can contribute to the literature by providing an informative review
[11,12]. Electrolysis [13], torrefied biomass [14], and charcoal [15] are framework and extensive decarbonization innovations.
also good options for the decarbonization of steelmaking processes. Also, our review results identify that many effective decarbonization
Because of the iron and steel industry's energy-intensive nature, options across the four sociotechnical systems can make the iron and
pursuing efficiency and energy-saving has been the top priority of the steel industry carbon-neutral and sustainable. In particular, 86 emerging
industry. Unfortunately, the iron and steel industry's potential for breakthroughs and transformative innovations (Section 5.5) and cross-
decarbonization is through process efficiency alone is limited since cutting solutions (Table 10 and Fig. 26) have great potential for the
current iron and steelmaking processes have been efficiently operated low carbon future of iron and steel production. Still, there are
(from an industry standpoint) close to their thermodynamic limits economical, organizational, and behavioral barriers (Section 7) to iron
[9,16]. Thus, it is quite natural that there is only a small room to and steel decarbonization despite being technologically feasible and
improve energy efficiency and related decarbonization. Moreover, having substantial benefits (Section 6). We conclude our review by
Chinese blast furnaces, which account for over 50% of all ironmaking showing the interventions, benefits, barriers, and policies for decar­
facilities, are heavily reliant on CO2-intensive coal electricity and are bonizing the iron and steel system in a single figure (Fig. 30).

2
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 2. Iron and steelmaking routes.

Source: [5]. Note: BF is blast furnace, DR is direct reduction, BOF is basic oxygen furnace, EAF is electric arc furnace, OHF is open hearth furnace, and DRI is direct
reduced iron.

Table 1
Crude steel production by route (major steel producing counties, 2018).
Country Production (million tonnes) % of total production

BOF EAF OHF Total BOF EAF OHF Total

China 893.3 103.2 996.5 89.6 10.4 100

India 48.7 62.7 111.4 43.7 56.3 100
Japan 75.0 24.3 99.3 75.5 24.5 100
USA 26.6 61.2 87.8 30.3 69.7 100
Russia 45.9 24.1 1.7 71.7 64.0 33.7 2.3 100
South Korea 48.7 22.7 71.4 68.2 31.8 100
Germany 27.7 11.9 39.6 70.0 30.0 100
Total 1165.9 310.1 1.7 1477.7 78.9 21.0 0.1 100

Source: Compiled by the authors from [22]. Note: BOF, EAF, and OHF are basic oxygen furnace, electric arc furnace, and open-hearth furnace, respectively.

Section 2 provides background for the iron and steel industry, while EAF [8,20]. BF/BOF accounted for about 65% of the world steel pro­
Section 3 summarizes the research design for a systematic literature duction in 2010, and the EAF route accounted for about 30% in 2010
review. Section 4 depicts energy and emission profiles, and Section 5 [8]. In Europe, 58.3% of steel was produced by the BF/BOF, whereas
examines promising decarbonization options. Section 6 describes the 41.7% were from the EAF [21]. Fig. 2 shows simplified iron and steel­
benefits in three categories, and Sections 7 and 8 discuss barriers and making routes, and Table 1 presents crude steel production by the route.
policy instruments. Section 9 presents research gaps and future agendas, Our review covers the iron and steel industry from raw materials to
and Section 10 concludes. waste/recycling of steel products. It does not examine the mining in­
dustry for iron ore, coking coal, or alloying elements required for steel
2. Definitions and attributes of the iron and steel industry production. Although the overall GHG emissions from mining industries
have little attention than the other heavy industries [23], there could be
2.1. Definitions and terms effective options to mitigate carbon emissions, such as clean haul truck
powertrain technologies, shovel operator efficiency improvements, and
Modern steelmaking procedures can be divided into four routes: blast high-pressure grinding rolls technology for iron mining. One study re­
furnace/basic oxygen furnace (BF/BOF), electric arc furnace (EAF, ported that applying these decarbonization technologies can reduce
direct reduction), smelting reduction, and direct melting of scrap in an 10% of the total cumulative GHG emissions from the Canadian iron

3
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 2
Overview of the iron and steel making processes.
Process Sub-components Description

Raw material Sintering Sintering is a combustion process with a mixture of iron ore fines, iron-bearing wastes, and coke dust. In a blast furnace (BF),
preparation the mixture is converted into coarse lumps (sinter) through incipient fusion.
Pelletizing For the iron-rich ore preparation, the iron ore must be crushed and grounded to remove impurities in the pelletizing process.
After removing impurities, the iron-rich ore is mixed with a binding agent, and heating them makes durable marble-sized
pellets. We can use these pallets in both BFs and direct reduction.
Coke Making Coke, made by the thermal distillation process of coal at high temperatures without air, has a high carbon content. Coke is a fuel
in a BF, while provides a reducing atmosphere.
Ironmaking Blast Furnace (BF) Iron ore, coke, and limestone are fed into the top of a giant shaft furnace, blast furnace. The materials constitute “alternating
layers” in the BF supported by an intense coke bed. Iron is refined in the BF by the following processes: Hot air passes through
the porous bed from the furnace's bottom to the top, and the air ignites the coke, which produces additional heat and carbon
monoxide (CO) gas. The high heat melts the materials, and the CO gas eliminates the iron ore's oxygen, making hot metal. The
hot metal, flowing to the bottom of the BF, is regularly tapped, and transported to the basic oxygen furnace, and then refined
into steel.
Direct Reduction Direct reduction is the process that removes oxygen from solid-state iron ore. Natural gas and coal are common reducing agents,
but different reducing agents, feedstocks, and furnaces could be utilized for direct reduction. Direct reduced iron (DRI) is the
end-product of this process.
Smelting Reduction As an alternative to the BF, smelting reduction iron (SRI) produces liquid iron. SRI can also reduce energy-intensive materials
such as coke and sinter. Instead, smelting reduction is aimed at using coal and iron fines. COREX, FINEX, and ITmk3 are
representative examples of SRI.
Steelmaking Basic Oxygen Furnace The transported hot liquid metal from the BF is converted into steel in the BOF. Oxygen is added to eliminate carbon from the
(BOF) hot liquid metal in the process. There are extensive metallurgical processes for BOF to improve steel quality.
Electric Arc Furnace When producing steel from DRI, pig iron, or ferrous scraps (recycling), an electric arc furnace (EAF) is mainly applied. Carbon
(EAF) electrodes in the furnace roof move up and down to provide the necessary energy in the EAF. The EAF consumes much lower
energy (electricity) than the other processes since the energy-intensive iron ore reduction is not required. The EAF can also be
utilized for various scrap types.
Casting, Rolling, and The crude, molten steel from BOFs or EAFs is transferred to the (continuous) caster and formed into semi-finished steel. In
Finishing rolling or finishing mills, this semi-finished steel is processed into final steel products, such as coil, sheets, or strips (see Fig. 3).

Source: Authors compilation and modification from [6,8,20].

mining industry for 2018–2050 [24]. Korea, and Germany. The top seven producer countries account for
Table 2 offers an overview of the four classifications of iron and steel about 79% of global production [22]. Fig. 5 illustrates existing iron and
production and their sub-components. steel making infrastructure by production route and region. This China-
The “crude steel” in Fig. 2 is the steel in its first solid form after dominated production split is a natural result of the fact that over 50% of
casting in the final furnace—BF or EAF. As shown in Fig. 3, liquid steel is the existing production equipment is in China, followed by India at
commonly continuously cast into slabs (semi-finished steel products cut around 5%. Fig. 5 also depicts the average age of iron and steelmaking
into various lengths, flat products), billets (semi-finished steel products equipment, and shows that Chinese blast furnaces, which account for
with a square cross section up to 155 mm × 155 mm), and blooms (semi- over 50% of all facilities, are relatively young at around 12 years on
finished steel products with a square cross section above 155 mm × 155 average [6]. This is because the expansion of the iron and steel industry
mm) [25]. These semi-finished products may be transported to other in China began around 20 years ago, and thus replacing the furnaces and
sites for further processing, or converted to finished steel products in equipment with new, efficient equipment would not be economically
processing plants, often in a separate facility or company. Conversion to viable.
finished products can involve various processes such as rolling, forming,
pressing, cutting and bending, with some finished products requiring 2.3. Distinguishing attributes
more steps than others (for example, successive rounds of rolling—hot
and cold—and coating). Key finished products include coil, sheets, Apart from its energy and carbon intensive nature, the iron and steel
strips, wire, bars, rods, tubes, pipes, rail and plated/coated versions of industry is distinguished from other industries by four features. It is a
each of these products [6]. consolidated industry, produces intermediate goods for other sectors,
has a high recycling rate, and needs high temperatures compared to the
2.2. Industry revenues and structure other manufacturing industries, including primary metals [30].
The iron and steel industry has economies of scale that often require
The iron and steel sector is a globally extensive, and massive socio­ consolidation and agglomeration [10,31]. This increasing returns to
technical system with a significant impact on our modern life. It directly scale attribute makes the industry consolidated. Consequently, most iron
employs more than six million people and engages a total of 40 million and steel is coming from only a few players/countries, as shown in
indirect jobs if counting supportive positions throughout the whole Fig. 5. The top 50 companies in the industry produced 58.5% of crude
supply chain [27,28] with 5.8– 7.9 multipliers for jobs [29]. The iron steel (1060.2 million tons) in 2019 [32].
and steel industry generates about $2.5 trillion in global revenue, which Typically, end-users do not consume the iron and steel products—­
is 3.0% of global Gross Domestic Product [6]. Also, steel products are crude steel, slab, billet, or bloom—directly. These steel products are
one of the most widely traded commodities in the global market. Fig. 4 supplied to automobile, shipbuilding, plant, pipeline, and building and
depicts steel production by product and demand segment, indicating construction sectors as intermediate goods. Therefore, the iron and steel
that buildings and infrastructure account for about half of steel demand industry's decarbonization has great potential to reduce indirect emis­
[6]. sions from those other industries [33,34].
As presented in Table 1, China accounts for over 53% of the world A high recycling rate is another distinguishing attribute of the iron
steel production, followed by India, Japan, the USA, Russia, South and steel industry [35–37]. According to World Steel Association [38],

4
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 3. Iron and steelmaking routes.

Source: [26].

Fig. 4. Global steel production by product and demand segment in 2019.

Source: [6].

the recovery rates of steel are estimated at around 90% for automotive industries.
and machinery, 85% for construction, and 50% for electrical and do­
mestic appliances, globally. In the U.S., for example, 33.1% of steel 3. Research design and conceptual approach for a
wastes (70.9% of steel cans) were recycled, which is third after paper sociotechnical review
and paperboard (68.2%) and other nonferrous metals (67.3%, including
lead) in municipal wastes [39]. This high recycling rate can yield various 3.1. Critical and systematic review approach
benefits in terms of economy and environment, and we will visit this
issue in Chapter 6. Similar to our previous review for the decarbonization of food and
Lastly, the industry needs very high temperatures, unlike those in­ beverages [42] and F-gases [43], we characterize this review as critical
dustries that use low-grade heat, such as machinery or electrical and systematic. A critical review aims to demonstrate that a “research
manufacturing. From Raw Material Preparation to Casting, Rolling, and team has extensively scoured the literature and critically evaluated its
Finishing, all processes require very high temperatures. For example, a quality.” [44]. We've made this review systematic, following the
low-temperature in sintering means “lower than 1,300 ◦ C,” [40] and guidelines from [45,46]. A critical review includes evaluation of pieces
BOF and EAF are generally operated around 1500– 1600 ◦ C [41]. This of evidence quality and research gaps derived from the literature. It
attribute makes the iron and steel industry energy- and carbon- offers [42]:
intensive, resulting in it being the most carbon-emitting among

5
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 5. Geographic distribution and the average age of iron and steel making equipment by production routes (top panel) and regions (bottom panel).
Source: [6].

• a chance to “take stock” and evaluate what is of value within a given • a focused exploration, which avoids excessively wide-ranging discussion
field, or across varying bodies of evidence, in relation to a particular topic and inconclusive results;
or research question; • the avoidance of the selective and opportunistic selection of evidence;
• both a “launch pad” for conceptual novelty, as well as an empirical • replicability through the documenting of study inclusion;
“testing” ground to judge the strength of evidence. • the ability to discriminate between sound and unsound studies, thus
assessing methodological quality; and
Unfortunately, a critical review is not necessarily systematic. That is • increased transparency, which reduces subjectivity and bias in the
why we try to make our review systematic as well as critical. A sys­ reporting of results.
tematic approach can minimize any unintentional bias, such as self-
citations or reviewing only for friendly groups, while promoting a re­ For these reasons, the systematic review has also been widely applied
view's diversity. It also offers [43]: in energy, environmental, and climate change fields [47,48]. As intro­
duced in the following subsections, we developed a searching protocol,

Fig. 6. Summary of critical and systematic review search terms and parameters.
Source: Authors.

6
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 3
Summary of critical and systematic review search results and final documents.
Database Main topical area of database Initial search Deemed relevant after Deemed relevant Number of Total
results screening titles, after scanning full duplications
keywords and abstracts study

ScienceDirect General science, energy studies, geography, business 139,812 344 128 – 128
studies
JSTOR Social science 21,204 22 12 0 12
Project Muse Social science 20,129 7 3 0 3
Hein Online Law and legal studies 28,766 30 9 0 9
PubMed Medicine and life sciences 1000 29 12 5 7
SpringerLink General science, business and area studies 106,534 62 38 1 37
Taylor & Francis General science 27,726 24 14 0 14
Online
Wiley Blackwell General science, area studies 33,448 26 15 0 15
(Wiley Online
Library)
Sage Journals General science, area studies 5079 8 2 0 2
National Academies General science 383,167 6 3 0 3
Publications (nap.
edu)
Targeted internet White papers, reports, grey literature (e.g., International 48,588 41 28 0 28
searches Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency,
World Bank, UN agencies, and the online OECD library)
Google scholar General science 837,257 148 34 21 13
Total 1,652,708 745 296 27 271

Source: Authors.

analytical parameters, and an analytical frame of sociotechnical systems specific topics of decarbonization), and Originality (results after elimi­
to keep our review systematic and critical. nating duplicates). We cite many of these studies throughout the review.

3.2. Searching protocol and analytical parameters 3.3. Analytical frame of sociotechnical systems

As Fig. 6 summarizes, we utilized three explicit classes of search The analytical frame of sociotechnical systems is applied for those
terms for the critical and systematic review. This resulted in 240 distinct 271 final studies to help guide and structure the review results [49,50].
search combinations for twelve separate databases or repositories pro­ Although a sociotechnical system for the iron and steel industry
duce 2880 search strings in total. This systematic search protocol can would be less complicated than the other sectors for consumer goods,
capture state-of-the-art research in terms of academic and policy. such as food and beverages [42] and glass [citation, if possible], it in­
Table 3 displays our results. Since the “iron and steel” with “in­ cludes not only iron and steelmaking processes, including material
dustry” and “carbon” is a widespread word in academic or policy arti­ preparation, but also raw materials such as iron ore and coal, waste and
cles, the generic search result is counted in more than 1.6 million recycling, and even the ways of steel use and regulations, including ef­
potentially relevant documents. However, after applying three screening ficiency and safety (see Fig. 7). To be clear, Fig. 7 visualizes elements of
protocols, which are identical to our previous review [42,43], that the system in a non-hierarchal way. That is, we do not argue that each
enormous number fell into a shortlist of 271 studies. The three screening dimension of the system is on the same level, but they are all a part of the
protocols are Recency (published after 2000), Relevance (address the system in some way.

Fig. 7. Framing iron and steel as a sociotechnical system.

Source: Authors.

7
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 4 energy source in iron and steel making processes.

Final energy use in iron and steel making in 2015. The primary sources of CO2 emissions in the iron and steel making
Source Energy use (EJ/year) Share (%) processes are raw materials, including cokes, and fuel combustion.
Ovens, boilers, stoves, furnaces, and other miscellaneous equipment in
Coking coal and coke 24.1 70.0
Other coal 6.1 17.6 the processes from the sintering to the final steel product manufacturing
Blast furnace gas and coke oven gas − 3.3 − 9.6 in Table 2 can be CO2 emissions sources. Fig. 8 depicts the profile of CO2
Natural gas 2.3 6.7 emissions in a typical BF/BOF integrated steel plant. Among 1.8 t CO2
Oil 0.4 1.2 emissions per ton of rolled coil in a typical integrated steel plant, 1.7 t
Biomass 0.1 0.4
Electricity 4.0 11.8
CO2 is associated with coal use, and the remaining 0.1 t CO2 is respon­
Heat 0.6 1.9 sible for lime use [8].
Total 34.4 100.0 Three reasons make the DRI carbon content critical when used in an
Source: [52,53]. Note: Negative energy use represents recovered energy in the
electric arc furnace: 1) the presence of carbon is necessary to complete
iron and steel making processes. the metallization of the iron in the EAF, 2) carbon represents an addi­
tional source of energy in the EAF because burning the carbon by
injecting oxygen reduces the electricity consumption, consequently
Although not all studies in our sample fall under this rubric of a
enabling a faster melting of the charged materials, 3) carbon enables the
sociotechnical system, we utilize it throughout the study to organize
formation of a foamy slag in the EAF [15].
results and return to it in the conclusion.

4. The energy and climate impacts of iron and steel industry 4.2. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions

In 2020, the IEA projected global steel demand will increase by more The most of carbon footprints in the iron and steel industry are
than a third by 2050, particularly as emerging economies continue to energy-related emissions. The IEA predicted the iron and steel industry
grow, industrialize, and require more energy [6]. The COVID-19 would account for about 25–30% of direct industrial carbon emissions
pandemic gives a demand shock in the iron and steel industry, result­ by 2050, even in the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario in which the
ing in 5% decrease in global crude steel output in 2020 [6] (see Section GHG emissions of the iron and steel sector are reduced by 54% by 2050.
9.3 for more discussions). However, the steel industry is also projected As presented in the right side of Fig. 9, Asia Pacific is the key region
to return to a robust growth path in IEA [6]'s baseline projections after because of this dramatic reduction of carbon emissions [6].
overcoming the demand slump in the near term. Thus, without adequate Our review finds many articles assessing country-specific GHG
measures and innovations to reduce GHG emissions from the industry, emissions in the iron and steel sectors. For example, one study revealed
the emissions are projected to 2.7 Gt CO2 per year by 2050, which is 7% direct and indirect GHG emissions in the Chinese iron and steel industry
higher than today [6]. using the Material Flow Analysis. The work showed that China emitted
77.2% of GHG emissions directly in 2011, and most of them were coal-
4.1. Energy and carbon intensive processes in the iron and steel sector fired emissions (Fig. 10).
Other studies examined the CO2 emissions projections of the iron and
When investigating the industry's climate impacts, describing the steel sector for the UK perspective [56,57], Japan's pathways towards
energy-intensive processes in the industry is the first and efficient way 2030 [58], China with carbon audit evaluation [59], Thailand by 2050
for a review. The iron and steel industry emits GHGs from raw materials [60], Europe considering future scenarios on energy efficiency [61],
and processes, combustion sources, and indirect emissions, such as Taiwan [62], or even for global projections [63,64]. Recent estimation
electricity consumption in EAFs [51]. Table 4 shows the share of each of GHG emissions from Chinese stainless steel production shows 1.44–

Fig. 8. CO2 emissions from a typical steel mill.

Source: [54].

8
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 9. The contribution of the iron and steel sector to direct industrial CO2 emissions by scenario.
Source: [6]. Note: STEPS is the IEA Stated Policies Scenario and SDS is the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario.

Fig. 10. The ratio of GHG emissions from iron and steelmaking systems of China in 2011.
Source: [55].

Fig. 11. Sociotechnical options for decarbonizing the iron and steel industry.
Source: Authors.

9
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 12. Recycling of waste materials for a metallurgical plant.

Source: [66].

1.76 kg CO2 per kg stainless steel in terms of life cycle emissions [65]. As making process and therefore has excellent potential for CO2 reduction.
shown in these studies, the energy- and carbon-intensive nature of the Many steel producers are trying to develop this option. We can identify
iron and steel industry has aroused continuous interest to appraise the following initiatives [52]:
decarbonizing technologies and resulting GHG emissions.
• The hydrogen subproject of the ULCOS (Ultra-Low CO2 steelmaking)
5. Current and emerging technologies and practices for program, run mostly from France (Université de Lorraine) [67,68]
decarbonization • Hybrit project, SSAB, Sweden [69]
• SuSteel, VoestAlpine, Austria [70]
Five distinct classes of technological practices and innovations for • Salcos-Macor, Salzgitter, Germany [52]
the decarbonization of the iron and steel industry are described in this • ArcelorMittal Midrex plant, Germany [21]
section. Fig. 11 depicts an overview for the four classes—raw materials • Flash iron making, the United States [71]
for the iron and steel making, iron and steel making processes, steel
products making and usage, waste and recycling of iron and steel—and Decarbonization potential using hydrogen in the iron and steel in­
the fifth class, 86 emerging breakthrough and potentially transformative dustry is substantial. A simulation result indicates that the hydrogen-
technologies, is described in Section 5.5. based direct reduction process can reduce up to 91% of direct CO2
emissions relative to using natural gas [21]. Moreover, hydrogen-based
5.1. Options for raw materials technologies are a representative cross-cutting option for decarbon­
ization [72] (see Section 9.2). It is, however, noticeable that the
The iron and steel sector uses carbon intensive raw materials for steel hydrogen production routes have a diverse nature, such as green, blue,
production. It is the largest consumer of coal, and DRI needs hydrogen, and grey, and their carbon intensities are also widely ranged. Thus, the
typically via natural gas, as a reducing agent. Thus, substantial amounts decarbonization of the iron and steel industry via hydrogen must be
of carbon from the raw materials can be mitigated by using low-carbon supported by the hydrogen produced from a low-carbon route (see
hydrogen solid recovered fuels, or bioenergy sources, as the reducing Section 5.5 and Fig. 18).
agent. Sintering is the second largest energy-consuming process in the iron
Manufacturers can use solid recovered fuels (SRF) in steel production and steel industry [73]. Thus, it is quite natural that there have been
instead of reducing agents such as coke, coal, or natural gas. Using SRF continuous efforts to decarbonize sintering, and energy saving by process
may not be effective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it could optimization is one of those efforts. Process optimization by integrating a
reduce landfill waste disposal, which is one of the major sources of hybrid just-in-time learning soft sensor [73] and thermodynamic opti­
methane emissions. Also, SRF has good properties for iron and steel mization [74] could be applied for saving energy during the sintering
making as it contains high carbon and hydrogen contents, which are process.
necessary for strengthening steel. The steel plants in Austria, Germany,
and Japan have used SRF as reducing agents [66], and Fig. 12 presents 5.2. Options for iron and steel making
the flows of recycled wastes usage in a metallurgical plant.
Hydrogen could also be used directly as a reducing agent in the steel The iron and steel making processes are the major carbon emissions

10
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 13. A carbon flow chart for BF/BOF steel processing.

Source: [79].

source in the iron and steel industry. According to China's example of in chemical products, for example. This decomposed carbon flow iden­
2004, the iron making process is the most energy-consuming process tified that enhancing power generation efficiency using the combined
among all steel industry processes, accounting for 70% of the total en­ cycle could eliminate 134.43 kg CO2 [79].
ergy use of the iron and steel sector [75]. Because of the complexity and Other studies also presented energy efficiency options, impacts, and
different steelmaking routes, there are many options for decarbonizing case studies, such as energy efficient technologies dissemination for the
iron and steel making processes. They include energy efficiency, adop­ German steel industry [80], energy efficiency potential in India [81],
tion of renewable sources or fuel switching, waste heat recovery tech­ and an EU27 case study considering different payback periods of effi­
nologies, process integration and optimization, carbon capture and ciency investment [82].
storage, and hydrogen use. The adoption of renewable sources or fuel switching from fossil fuels in
Energy efficiency is vital for the sustainable future of the iron and steel the iron and steel making processes can reduce substantial greenhouse
industry. As mentioned in the Introduction, energy cost takes 20– 40% gas emissions. Adopting biomass in the processes is the first option for
of steel manufacturing costs [4], and, naturally, there is a strong the iron and steel industry [83,84]. Biomass could replace fossil-based
incentive to save energy consumption in the process. Many countries reducing agents and has the potential to decrease CO2 emissions up to
have tried to improve the energy and resource efficiency of iron and 50% in the integrated steelmaking process [14]. Biochar can be used in
steel production. The U.K. steel sector has recorded a steady improve­ the sintering process, and charcoal is a promising substitute in blast
ment in resource efficiency but suffered a decline in the economic output furnaces [84]. Besides biomass, the other renewable sources can also
per energy consumption [76]. One study reveals that the Swiss metals mitigate carbon emissions since the industry uses electricity and heat for
sector, which is responsible for about 14% of the industry's total final steel making [85–87].
energy demand, has the maximum energy efficiency potential at 19% Due to the energy intensive nature of steelmaking processes, the
with the current best available techniques. The economic potential, integration of lower-emission energy sources in high-producing
however, decreases in the range of 11%–15%, and the corresponding geographic regions can also significantly lower global steel emissions.
CO2 abatement potential is 6% [77]. Another study [78] suggested that Coal currently accounts for 60% of China's electricity generation, which
the whole iron and steel-making process energy utilization efficiency raises embodied steel emissions relative to regions that have integrated
was 47.6%, which means 52.3% of total purchased energy was lost in the lower-emission electricity sources and renewables [85–87]. Similarly,
process. A case study for China [79] gives us an excellent picture of the almost one-fifth of all steel is expected to come from India by 2050
overall carbon flow in the iron and steel process (Fig. 13). According to (compared to around 5% today), who's electricity gird is also heavily
this case study, producing one ton of crude steel emits 1418.78 kg of dependent on coal [88]. Renewable-based electricity and heat supply
carbon dioxide. The study decomposed this direct CO2 emission by combining low-carbon hydrogen and CCUS could be a powerful option
process—422.75 kg from fuel gas dissipation, 28.00 kg in slag, 62.94 kg for decarbonization [86,89], especially as these nations continue to

11
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 14. Roadmap of efficient use of energy in iron and steel industry (top panel (a): main concepts, bottom panel (b): general summarization).
Source: [17].

account for larger percentages of steel production [90]. amount of water. POSCO, the steel company in the Republic of Korea,
Waste heat recovery technologies also have great potential for the developed an energy-efficient technology to recover slag heat in 2012. It
decarbonization of the iron and steel industry. Coke oven gas (COG) or recorded a 50% recovery rate at a temperature of 460 ◦ C in a field test of
coke gas is a byproduct of the coke-making process in the iron and steel a prototype [98].
industry. COG is a complicated mixture of CO, CO2, H2, CH4, and N2, and Process integration and optimization is another good option to decar­
volatile coal produces COG in the coking process. COG also contains bonize the iron and steel industry. Various optimization techniques have
around 30 wt% tar [91]. COG, including tar, has very high energy been applied for the iron and steel sector, such as an integrated steel
content that could meet approximately 4.1% of the global demand for plant system [99], energy intensity optimization [100], and material-
power generation [92]. Therefore, the hot COG utilization (recovery) energy nexus flow combination [101]. One study [17] illustrated the
can contribute considerable energy savings. concept of mass-thermal network optimization and summarized their
Various COG utilization approaches, such as power generation [93], classifications, which gives us valuable insights into the decarbonization
H2 production [94], and methanol [95] or CH4 production [96], have options (Fig. 14). As shown in this figure, process optimization can
been developed. The integrated COG-based DRI plant is another prom­ reduce energy demand as well as recover energy use. Thus, the optimal
ising and efficient option. In this process, the hot DRI reacts with sulfur integration of various process optimization techniques has excellent
(in-situ desulfurization) before the fuel is injected into the reformer. potential as a promising decarbonization option for the iron and steel
Purified COG can also be converted into a reformed gas that can produce industry, and that's why a practical roadmap is necessary.
DRI [91]. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) or Carbon capture, utilization, and
Molten slag is another promising source for waste heat recovery. It is storage (CCUS) technology is one of the key options to mitigate carbon
exhausted with a very high temperature around 1450–1550 ◦ C [97]. For emissions and hence could be helpful for the iron and steel industry
the heat recovery from molten slag, traditional technologies, such as [91]. For example, there are vigorous efforts to develop effective sor­
water quenching, is not appropriate because it consumes a considerable bents for CCS from materials and by-products of the iron and steel

12
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 5
Life cycle GHG emissions for lightweighting scenario. (unit: kg CO2-eq.).
Options Production Use End of life Total

Low Mid High Low High Low High

Baseline vehicle 1670 3590 4100 38,248 57,753 147 40,065 62,000
6% lightweight HSS 1620 3630 4200 35,547 54,178 138 37,305 58,516
19% lightweight HSS 1563 3700 4820 29,500 44,544 100 31,171 49,472

Source: [113]. Note: HSS represents high-strength steel.

making process, such as a mixture of magnetite (Fe3O4) and iron (Fe) CCS can be applied for most processes in the sector: sintering, pellet­
[102] and direct gas-solid carbonation of steel slag [103]. Also, CCUS izing, coking, iron and steel making, and casting and rolling [104].
includes “off-gas hydrogen enrichment and/or CO2 removal for use or An increase in CO2 costs in the market, i.e., the EU Emission Trading
storage,” “converting off-gases to fuels,” “converting off-gases to Scheme, can make CO2 capture options economically feasible in the iron
chemicals” for blast furnaces (BF), and “natural gas-based with CO2 and steel industry. Note that iron and steel manufacturing is an extensive
capture” for direct reduced iron (DRI). Because of its versatile nature, production process with high CO2 concentrations and recoverable heat

Fig. 15. Steel scrap recycling and the expansion of secondary steel.
Source: [116].

13
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 6
86 commercially available, emerging, and experimental innovations for the iron and steel industry.
Level of Commercially available but not yet widely Emerging soon with working prototypes (as of 2020) Experimental and likely only after 2025
sociotechnical utilized (as of 2020)
system

Raw materials 1. Solid recovered fuels for use as reducing 1. Primary Energy Melter 1. Low-carbon hydrogen-based direct
agents reduction
2. Heat recovery from sinter cooler 2. Charcoal in the sintering process
3. Single-chamber-system coking reactors 3. Torrefied biomass
Iron and steel 4. Use of recuperative burners 2. Advanced control of heating walls in coke ovens 4. Plasma blast furnace
making 5. Replacing existing equipment with 3. Hot oxygen injection 5. Off-gas hydrogen enrichment (BF)
more efficient ovens, burners, kilns, 4. Tecnored 6. CO2 removal for use or storage (BF)
and furnaces 5. Cyclone converter furnace 7. Electrolytic H2 blending (BF)
6. Process modification of kilns 6. Continuous horizontal sidewall scrap charging 8. Natural gas-based DRI with high levels of
7. Optimization of furnace 7. Converting off-gases to fuels (BF) low or zero-carbon electrolytic H2
8. Waste heat recovery 8. Converting off-gases to chemicals (BF) blending
9. Use of ceramic ladles instead of cast 9. Natural gas-based DRI with CO2 capture
iron pipes 10. DRI based solely on low or zero-carbon
10. Efficient ladle preheating electrolytic H2
11. Radiation recuperators for ladle 11. Paired straight hearth furnace
furnace 12. Molten oxide electrolysis
12. Coal moisture control 13. Suspension hydrogen reduction of iron
13. Coke dry quenching oxide concentrate
14. Injection of pulverized coal 14. Ironmaking using biomass and waste
15. Top-pressure recovery turbines oxides
16. Recovery of BF/BOF gas 15. New scrap-based steelmaking process
17. Charging carbon composite 16. In-situ real-time measurement of melt
agglomerates constituents
17. Continuous steelmaking for EAF
Steel products 18. Near net shape casting (thin slab) 9. Energy monitoring and management system in casting 18. Smelting reduction with CCUS
making and usage 19. Bottom stirring/stirring gas injection 10. Preventative maintenance in steel mills or EAF plants 19. low or zero-carbon H2 for high-
20. Use of foamy slag practices 11. Variable speed drives for flue gas control, pumps, fans temperature heat (ancillary processes)
21. Use of oxy fuel burners in integrated steel mills 20. Next-generation system for scale-free
22. DC arc furnace 12. Cogeneration for the use of untapped coke oven gas, steel reheating
23. Scrap preheating and continuous blast furnace gas, and basic oxygen furnace-gas in 21. Thermochemical recuperation for steel
charging integrated steel mills reheating furnaces
24. Flue gas monitoring and control 13. Additive manufacturing 22. Oxygen-rich furnace System
25. Eccentric bottom tapping 23. Integrating steel production with mineral
26. Improved process control sequestration
27. Ultra-high-power transformer
28. Twin shell furnace
29. Hot charging
30. Recuperative or regenerative burner
31. Use of ceramic low thermal mass
insulators for reheating furnace
32. Controlling oxygen level and variable
speed drive on combustion air fans
33. Efficient drives in rolling mill and
machining
34. Waste heat recovery (cooling water,
annealing, and compressor)
35. Reduced steam use for pickling
36. Automated monitoring and targeting
systems
37. Thermal insulation for plating bath
38. Automated bath cover
39. Compressed air network modification
40. Reducing air extraction across heating
solution
41. Efficient compressors
42. Optimizing the process solution
temperature
43. Use of high-strength steel
Waste and recycling 44. Rotary hearth furnace dust recycling 14. Recycling basic oxygen furnace slag 24. Geological sequestration of carbon
system 15. Recycling of stainless steel dust dioxide using slags
45. Injection of plastic waste 16. Regeneration of hydrochloric acid pickling liquor
17. Recycling of waste oxides in steelmaking furnace

Note: The detailed description of each innovation is presented in Table A1: in the Appendix.
Source: Authors compilation and modification from [8,18,21,66,77,113,124–139].

[105,106]. Higher carbon price thus makes the CCS applications in the practices have already reached close to their maximum thermodynamic
iron and steel industry economically feasible. limits [9,16] and emerging decarbonization options are primarily
Despite the challenges to meet economic feasibility, it is evident that focusing on incrementally lowering emission, carbon capture is one of
CCS will be (and must be) an effective and cross-cutting option for the the few technologies to offer scalable reductions that rival steel's eco­
decarbonization of the iron and steel sector. As many steelmaking nomic importance and need for decarbonization. Several studies discuss

14
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

its technical concept [106,107], application design [108,109], and po­ primarily based on the electricity grid of the country that is responsible
tential [110,111] as a promising decarbonization option. for recycling the steel [90], the steel process route, and is heavily
dependent on the availability of scrap steel. Because of this dependency,
5.3. Options for steel products and usage and steel's use in products with long lifetimes, the use of recycled steel
has not been able to match growing steel demand, although many of the
Steel products making, from crude steel to the finished products such IEA's ambitious climate scenarios show large increases in the creation of
as coil, sheets, strips, wire, bars, or pipes, also require substantial energy scrap-base steel [6] and a decline in blast-furnace primary steel
inputs. Similar approaches—process control and optimization, efficient production.
burners and furnaces, heat recovery technologies, and carbon capture
and storage—could also be applied for decarbonization. However, the 5.5. Emerging breakthroughs and transformative innovations
practical application of those approaches differs from that in iron and
steel making since they are “distinct” processes (see Table 6, for The last category of decarbonizing options for the iron and steel in­
example). dustry is breakthrough and emerging innovations. Our systematic review
The World Steel Association launched a global initiative to exchange revealed possibly transformative options for the near future, as sum­
knowledge from regional activities, entitled “CO2 Breakthrough Pro­ marized in Table 6. Likewise the former review on the decarbonization
grams,” in 2003 [112]. The research and investment covered in these options for the other industries [42,43], we classified the 86 innovations
programs are taking place in [91]: for the iron and steel industry across the sociotechnical system into three
groups—commercially available but not yet widely diffused (as of
• The EU (ultra-low CO2 steelmaking, or ULCOS I and ULCOS II) 2020); emerging soon with working prototypes; and those at the
• The US (American Iron and Steel Institute) experimental and likely only after 2025. Interestingly, more innovations
• Canada (Canadian Steel Producers Association) are commercially available (45) than are both emerging (17) or in
• South America (ArcelorMittal Brazil) experimental stages (24).
• Japan (Japanese Iron and Steel Federation) The decarbonization innovations, including the emerging ones
• South Korea (POSCO) above, could also be categorized using a decision tree (Fig. 16) or by the
• China (Baosteel) and Taiwan (China Steel) and popularity in the reviewed literature (Fig. 17). If we consider decar­
• Australia (BlueScope Steel/One Steel CSIRO coordination) bonization of the iron and steel industry using just existing materials and
fuels, then recycling more and enhancing resource/material efficiency
Considering the local constraints and cultures, the decarbonizing would be the sole options [140]. Considering new materials and fuels as
innovations, economic feasibility, technical feasibility at various sca­ well, however, expands the decarbonization options and existing pro­
les—from lab scales to commercial implementations—were discussed in cesses can be kept or changed with more efficient equipment or entirely
the CO2 Breakthrough Programs [112]. new techniques, such as hydrogen-based direct reduction.
One good option to mitigate CO2 emissions is the weight lightening of Fig. 17 depicts the frequency of decarbonization options among the
vehicles with high-strength steel products. Lightweight vehicles will reviewed literature in this study. The frequency and level of academic
consume less energy than heavier cars per vehicle-mile traveled. Table 5 interest could be an indicator of promising innovations, although it does
reveals that the life cycle GHG emissions of vehicles made with 19% not necessarily represent the true potential of each technology. We
high-strength steel (HSS) are 20.2– 22.2% lower than a for a baseline organized the frequency by the iron and steel industry's value chain and
vehicle [113]. assigned colors for the type of each innovation.
Similarly, according to the World Steel Association, advanced and One early stage but promising and powerful decarbonization option
ultra-high-strength steel can reduce steel applications' weight by up to is low-carbon Hydrogen. Hydrogen from renewable or other low-carbon
40%. It also reduces the number of raw materials and energy used to sources could be used as a reducing agent in the steel making process
produce steel products. HISTAR® by ArcelorMittal, for example, weighs and has the potential to mitigate more than 3 Gton of CO2 annually at a
32% less than a standard grade steel beam of the same length and cost of less than USD$ 60/ton CO2 mitigated [141]. HYBRIT, one of the
thickness, saving around 30% on material [114]. companies developing hydrogen-based DRI has further shown that each
ton of hydrogen used in a DRI process that replaces a blast furnace saves
5.4. Options for waste and recycling 24–32 kg of CO2 [142].
A simulation result indicates that the hydrogen-based direct reduc­
Reducing wastes in the steel making processes and recycling steel tion process can reduce up to 91% of direct CO2 emissions than the
products can substantially reduce energy use in the iron and steel sector reduction using natural gas [21]. Incorporating a biomass-based poly­
[115]. The World Steel Association reveals that the steel industry has generation system in the iron and steel making process could also be a
globally recycled over 22 billion tons of steel since 1900, resulting in the good option for the iron and steel industry's sustainable future. One
iron ore (28 billion tons) and coal (14 billion tons) consumption study suggested a 34.15% reduction of carbon emissions and a 1.81%
reduction globally [114]. Another study showed that global secondary enhancement of the annualized capital cost in the best scenario [137].
steel using steel scrap may expand to 38% of total steel production by Considering its impact, potential [72,143], and developers, such as
2050 (Fig. 15) [116]. Since steel production from scrap uses much lower SSAB [144], POSCO [19,145], ArcelorMittal [146], Voestalpine [147],
energy than the primary steel from iron ore [117,118], the expansion of Salzgitter Flachstahl [52], hydrogen-based DRI would become the long-
secondary steel can be an impactful decarbonization option. term winner for low/zero carbon steel.
Iron recovery from metallurgical slags is also noteworthy and E- The ULCOS (Ultra-Low Carbon Dioxide Steelmaking) project also
wastes, such as refrigerators, computers, and TV, also provide secondary presents hydrogen as a breakthrough technology for the iron and steel
ferrous resources for recycling [119]. Comminution (for size reduction sector [67]. It suggests replacing coal with hydrogen and electricity in
and surface area increase) and separation [120], carbothermic smelting hydrogen reduction. A pure hydrogen-based steel making process is also
reduction [121], carbothermic reduction, flotation, or leaching [122], possible. Many studies have developed practical models with pure H2 as
and aluminothermic smelting reduction [123] technologies have been a reducing agent in the direct reduction process [11,148–150].
applied for the iron recovery from slags. Hydrogen could also be combined with CCS technologies [151] and CCU
Recycling steel for use as a raw input, or for the creation of recycled technologies [152] to reduce carbon emissions in steel making processes
steel through EAF production routes can also lower the emissions in­ (Fig. 18).
tensity of steel by 62–90%. The amount of emissions reduced is The cost reduction of renewable electricity could be a game-changer

15
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 16. Decision tree of decarbonization choices for the iron and steel industry.
Source: Authors modification based on the framework in [130].

Fig. 17. Promising decarbonization innovations by

value chain.
Note: Crosscutting options, such as hydrogen and
CCUS, are incorporated in processes or equipment.
For example, hydrogen and CCUS can be applied in
both direct-reduced Iron and Electric Arc Furnace.
Orange color denotes the options related to heat, blue
indicates the one for process/equipment, and green is
for material/fuels.
Source: Authors.

for low-carbon hydrogen production. One study suggested that Australia 6. The benefits of decarbonizing iron and steel industry
could supply hydrogen for East Asia, especially Japan and Korea, at USD
3.23 per kg by 2025. This study also revealed that the 2025 export po­ Decarbonizing the iron and steel industry gives clear benefits that we
tential of 25– 345 PJ could grow to 621– 3180 PJ in 2040, with the categorize into three areas: energy and carbon savings, cost savings, and
production cost range of USD 1.70– 4.95 per kg H2 [52]. Electrolysis other environmental co-benefits.
efficiency is currently at around 77%, and approximately 85% is the
thermodynamic limit [153]. Electricity cost is thus the driver of
renewable hydrogen production cost. 6.1. Energy and carbon savings
Molten oxide electrolysis (MOE) is another potentially game
changing technology as it completely changes the steel manufacturing Although steelmaking processes operate close to their thermody­
process [19]. Unlike traditional steel production, MOE produces no namic limits using current technologies [9], our review reveals
carbon emissions and can be zero-carbon if powered by a zero-carbon compelling decarbonization innovations (see Table 6). Those in­
electricity sources (Fig. 19). novations can yield financial benefits from energy and carbon savings
across multiple levels of the sociotechnical system.
Regarding emissions reductions, one study reveals that energy saving
technologies, such as coal moisture control and high temperature air

16
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 18. Green hydrogen production and its applications in steel production.
Source: [152].

Fig. 19. Molten oxide electrolysis.

Source: [154].

combustion, can reduce almost half of the CO2 emissions from the 6.2. Cost and financial savings
Chinese steel sector, reducing the emissions from 1469 Mt in 2015 to
710 Mt by 2050 [155]. Another case study assessed that the cost- Because of the iron and steel industry's energy-intensive (uses high-
effective energy saving potential of the German iron and steel industry temperature) nature, reduced energy inputs will result in significant
is up to 11.7% for fuel, 2.2% for electricity, and 12.2% for CO2 emissions financial savings as well as social cost savings through reduction of the
when applying a plant-specific bottom-up approach [156]. negative externalities imposed by coal and natural gas consumption
Despite the fact that decarbonization of the iron and steel industry [158]. One study, for example, estimated that efficient technologies for
would be a challenging journey, a sustainable future in terms of the integrated casting and rolling would reduce operations and maintenance
environment and economic output could be achieved through effective costs by 20–25% [136]. Another study presented 14 efficiency measures
technologies and policies. According to Hasanbeigi [7], the maximum in the industry that could save $0.11–$6.27 per tonne of steel [159]
decarbonization potential would be about 15% between 2010 and 2050, (Table 7). Thus, taking the total global steel production, 1477.7 million
considering the CO2 intensity decrease of power sectors and the increase tonnes in 2018 (Table 1), into account, 14 efficiency measures could
in scrap availability. Fig. 20 gives valuable insight into investigating save a total of $26.76 billion per year.
where the energy savings by decarbonization technologies originated.
This case study indicates that traditional production processes, such as 6.3. Other environmental co-benefits
hot rolling, blast furnaces, and coke ovens (top three in Fig. 20), have
great potentials for energy saving in China when applying fuel changes Many of the decarbonizing options reviewed in this paper can also
and low-carbon devices [157]. Well-known decarbonization options, save water usage, minimize wastes, and make other positive benefits,
such as regenerative burners and pulverized coal, identified in Section such as air quality improvements [162–164]. One study noted that the
5.5, are also effective for China's iron and steel industry. Quantifying the optimization of water usage and recovery could yield considerable water
contribution to energy savings of each innovation via scenario analysis and energy savings in the iron and steel making processes. For example,
could support development of a decarbonization policy. case studies on the optimizing the water network of steel plants in China
and Italy resulted in reduced freshwater intake in the plants by 20%

17
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 20. Energy savings contributed by each technology in China's iron and steel industry.
Source: [157]. Note: Positive values denote energy savings, and negative values represent energy increments.

[165]. Another study also reveals that decarbonization of China's iron recycling ratio is mainly for economic reasons, it gives us another
and steel industry can significantly improve the ecological environment environmental benefits that include less energy use and fewer carbon
of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, Yangtze River Delta region, Henan, emissions. The scrap-based EAF is greener than the other steel making
and other places that have frequently suffered from pollution haze processes starting from raw materials. The 4-Rs “circular economy”
[166]. concept by the World Steel Association successfully depicts the co-
As discussed already, the recycling ratio of steel is very high, close to environmental benefits of reuse and recycling (Fig. 21).
95%, making steel the most recycled material [165]. While the high Applying decarbonization options for the iron and steel industry can

18
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 7 high capital cost and long investment cycles, limited financing, risk
Fourteen efficiency measures in the iron and steel industry and productivity of not meeting required product quality or changing character, risk
benefits. of production disruption, shortage of skilled labor, shortage of
Efficiency measure Productivity benefit Cost saving demonstrated technologies, and lack of reliable and complete
(US$/tonne) information.
Electric steelmaking
The barriers to energy efficiency investments and improvements can
Oxy-fuel burners Reduces tap-to-tap times 1.00
Scrap preheater—FUCHS Reduces electrode consumption, 0.80 be categorized into seven dimensions—technology related, information
shaft furnace improves yield, saves waste related, economic, behavioral, organizational, competence related, or
handling costs awareness related [168] or using simplified three groups—market
Bottom stirring—stirring gas Improves yield, cuts need for inert 0.22
related barriers, organizational and behavioral barriers, and policy
injection gas purchases
Improved process control Reduces electrode consumption, 0.90
barriers [169]. Our review also identified three distinct barriers to
improves yield, saves maintenance decarbonizing iron and steel industry: financial and economic, organi­
costs zational and managerial, and behavioral.
DC-arc furnace Reduces electrode consumption, 0.13
reduces tap-to-tap time
Scrap Reduces electrode consumption, 0.38 7.1. Financial and economic barriers
preheater—CONSTEEL improves yield
Scrap preheater—twin shell Reduces tap-to-tap time 0.11 Although the benefits are evident, the decarbonization of the iron
Foamy slag Reduces tap-to-tap time 0.63
and steel industry needs substantial initial investment [108,170]. For
many metals companies, it is extremely difficult to justify large upfront
Integrated steelmaking capital costs for decarbonization projects that have limited deployment
Injection of natural Decreases coke use; O&M and 0.36
and proven operational data [171]. The long life-cycles of steel plants
gas—140 kg/thm material cost savings at the coke
battery (Fig. 5) and price volatility also make it difficult to integrate decar­
Pulverized coal injection— Decreases coke use; O&M and 1.43 bonization efforts into steel operations when sites and projects are being
130 kg/thm material cost savings at the coke initially built and developed [10]. Retrofitting operations is similarly
battery
difficult, as overhauling processes to accommodate new technologies
Pulverized coal Decreases coke use; O&M and 0.27
injection—225 kg/thm material cost savings at the coke
without widely accepted carbon costs or a low-carbon steel market make
battery it difficult to justify increased operational costs. Steelmakers in 2021
Adopt continuous casting Saves equipment/handling costs, 5.36 already faced challenges regarding supply chain disruptions, which
reduces material losses added $200–250 per ton to steelmaking costs [172].
Hot charging Reduces material losses, improves 0.25
Existing efforts to transition towards a sustainable iron and steel
productivity
industry in Central-East Europe, including Russia and Ukraine could
already face a financial barrier. For example, Russia has abundant and
Both electric and integrated
Thin slab casting Improves productivity, reduces 6.27
cheap fossil fuels and is the only country that uses OHF among major
material losses steel producing countries (see Section 2.2), although the share of steel
production in OHF dropped from 22% in 1992 to nearly zero today
Source: [160]. Note: kg = kilogram. THM = tons of heavy metal. “Tap-to-tap”
[173]. Thus, it is not a simple matter to simply restructure the iron and
time is the time from the beginning of charging to the end of tapping (emptying)
the furnaces [161].
steel industry with modern, more efficient equipment for Russia (we
return to this issue in Section 9.1). Thanks to the cost-saving benefits of
the iron and steel sector's decarbonizing measures, there are economical
and impactful options in the industry, such as continuous casting,
also reduce air pollutants, such as particulate matter. One study inter­
cogeneration, and recuperative burners. However, many robust decar­
estingly formulated the relationship between CO2 reductions, PM2.5
bonization measures—coke dry quenching and heat recovery annealing,
reductions, and related costs through a triangular diagram [167]
for example—are still expensive and are beyond carbon prices in current
(Fig. 22). It is noteworthy that the balance between cost, carbon emis­
ETS markets [174] (Fig. 23).
sions reduction and particulate emissions reductions varies by technol­
ogy combinations with the BF-BOF being inexpensive but very
environmentally unfriendly and the combination of EAF-CCS-fabric fil­ 7.2. Organizational and managerial barriers
ter and desulfurization being expensive but very environmentally
friendly (color is the figure). The iron and steel sector is a consolidated industry (see Section 2.3).
A fragmented industry is inclined to have organizational and managerial
7. The barriers to decarbonizing iron and steel industry barriers such as difficulties in sharing innovations and best practices
[42]. One might think that giant, multinational firms can readily
The potentially attractive benefits identified in the previous section implement innovations for decarbonization. However, the capital
may give enough incentives to invest in the decarbonization innovations intensive and oligopolistic nature of the iron and steel sector hinders the
for the iron and steel industry. Unfortunately, those benefits are often low-carbon transformation of the industry, although it is true that the
vague to decision-makers, whereas the investment cost for decarbon­ companies can invest in big research and development projects
ization is regarded as an impending salient loss. Also, we usually face an [175,176].
insidious set of barriers and challenges exist disturbing that can disturb One study categorized the steel industry in India, the world's third-
the achievement of decarbonizing investments. As the authors' of a largest producer, as “low” market concentration but “high” govern­
previous review [42] addressed, the UK Department of Energy and ment concentration from a GHG emissions perspective. In terms of
Climate Change, and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills techno-economic assessment, India's iron and steel industry has access
identified a number of general barriers to industrial decarbonization to so-called “best available technologies” for decarbonization, but they
[10]: are not economical without further support measures [177]. This is one
piece of evidence that the iron and steel sector's decarbonization is a
matter of organizational and economic feasibility and not just techno­
logical or market related.

19
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 21. Steel in the circular economy: the 4Rs.

Source: [114].

Uncertainty and risks also prevent an active investment for decar­ 8. Policy instruments to overcome the barriers
bonization. One study revealed that decision-makers in large steel pro­
ducers of Bangladesh are concerned with “high perceived risk due to Because of the consolidated nature of the iron and steel industry,
uncertainty about future energy prices, slow rate of return and others,” relatively few players and countries provide the majority of global steel
“poor information quality regarding energy efficiency opportunities,” supply. The top six steel producing countries produce approximately
“uncertainty regarding hidden costs,” and “technical risk” when they 80% of steel globally, and the top 50 companies in the industry made
decide on decarbonization or energy efficiency investments [178]. 58.5% of the crude steel in 2019 (see Table 1 and Section 2). Conse­
quently, there has been little attention to developing effective financing
and business models for decarbonization since big players have enough
7.3. Behavioral barriers capital to invest if the measures and innovations offer attractive returns.
However, there is a need for policy instruments to overcome the
Urbanization, modern city lifestyle, skyscrapers, and even wind barriers and harness the dissemination of innovative, cross-cutting op­
turbines need more steel than in the past. We cannot blame the industry tions for the industry's low-carbon future. Table 8 presents a collection
for this final class of barriers—convenient, safe, and even clean life of policy instruments from the literature to address the challenges to
generally take us in the direction of becoming more carbon intensive, decarbonizing the iron and steel industry [6,179–187].
rather than less. Moreover, steel products are durable—have a relatively UK Climate Change Committee's recent report of net zero [188]
long lifetime relative to other consumer goods. We may wait a hundred suggests more proactive policy efforts as well as other well-known
years or more to recycle or replace the steel in buildings, bridges, and measures, such as energy and resource efficiency and CCS, across a
infrastructure. Fig. 24 well describes the predominance of long service mix of different industries, including iron and steel. Carbon taxes and
life steel products around us [114]. Only some metal products for daily regulatory standards could also be an effective measure for the decar­
life, such as steel cans and iron bars, have short service life. Thus, bonization of the iron and steel industry [189,190] (Table 9), and
recycling, replacement, and secondary steel naturally have a time lag border-tariff adjustments could minimize the risks of leakage and give a
and hence are limited in their ability to serve as decarbonization op­ signal to other sectors, resulting in the price increase of carbon-intensive
tions, although they have significant overall potential.

20
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 22. Relationship between CO2 reductions, PM2.5 reductions, and related costs of the iron and steel sector.
Source: [167].

Fig. 23. Energy conservation supply curve with the discount rate 20%.
Source: [174].

21
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 24. Steel products and durability.

Source: [114].

imported goods. One UK ERC study [192] reported the steel industry in the Republic
Research & development of low-carbon technologies is an excellent of Korea as a representative example of policy-driven innovation.
answer to mitigate the climate crisis. For example, there is still potential POSCO, a state-owned company in the past (not now), has adopted in­
to cut down the energy intensity in China's ferrous metal industry, novations in the iron and steel industry based on a clear strategy, R&D
especially in the S&P (smelting and pressing of ferrous metals) subsec­ support for a university (POSTECH) and a research institute (RIST), and
tor. Compared with the international average standard, the energy in­ market creation under the Korean government's strategy [193]. Also,
tensity in the S&P industry is relatively high. Specifically, several active transfer of innovative decarbonization technologies is essential.
measures can be used to reduce the energy intensity of China's FMI, i.e., As one study [194] stated, a policy framework to support energy and
increasing R&D subsidies for energy-saving and climate-friendly tech­ industry transition could enable the environment for the transfer, such
nologies and encouraging the diffusion of advanced equipment and as hydrogen-based steel making. Simulations and assessments of the
technologies [191]. One research study also assessed decarbonization anticipated results for the decarbonization policies could also support
pathways for iron and steel through the 40 reviewed roadmaps and investment and government intervention. One study presented the
pathways (Fig. 25) [170]. Similar to our diagram for promising decar­ economic and environmental effects of China's national energy effi­
bonization options (Fig. 17), furnaces related to heating are the most ciency target [195], and another study appraised the economic benefits
mentioned topic for decarbonization R&D of the iron and steel sector. of the “STeel Environmental Assessment Program” in Japan [196].

Table 8
Policy mechanisms for the industrial decarbonization of iron and steel sector.
Instrument Description

Carbon pricing National and/or regional pricing on carbon emissions, including direct carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes to establish markets
for carbon permits that can also be traded and sold, with some free allowances given
Voluntary and mandatory energy National and subnational programs and voluntary initiatives intended to promote energy efficiency practices and processes
efficiency schemes
Regulations on GHG emissions Emission restrictions, such as relining ban of blast furnaces
Renewable energy incentives and Direct government incentives for industrial scale renewable energy applications such as heat pumps, biogas, or biomass
guarantees
Creation of low-carbon markets Government created markets to offer premium prices for low-carbon products
Border-tariff adjustments Restrictions placed on traded and imported carbon intensive goods, intended to carbon reduce leakage
Industry roadmaps The creation of industry roadmaps to guide firms with decarbonization efforts

Source: Compiled by the authors. Note: Any general renewable energy support policies (i.e. FITs) are not included.

22
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table 9
Policy evaluation criteria for the iron and steel sector.
Criteria Existing Clean Development Harmonized Incremental emissions tax or Regulatory
Mechanism (CDM) carbon tax intensity-based rewards standards

1. Short term: improve efficiency and CO2 intensity of coal + ++ + ++

DRI and BF/BOF units
2. Medium term: encourage shift from coal DRI and small − + − ++
BF to large efficient BF units
3. Long term: encourage substitution of steel with low- − + − N/A
carbon-intensive materials
4. Overall effectiveness − ++ − ++
5. Ease of implementation + ++ − +
6. Ease of monitoring and verification ++ + − +

Source: [189]. Note: +++ is very good and — means worst.

Fig. 25. Decarbonization R&D pathways for manufacturing industries.

Source: [170]. Notes: Orange color denotes the options related to heat, and green indicates alternative feedstock or fuels. Blue is the technology about chemical and
mechanical processes, and CCS/gas recycling is marked in grey.

9. Gaps and future research agendas and steel industry in Section 5 are narrowly focused on a single process
such as sintering or blast furnaces. Also, because of the industry's
The last finding of our systematic review considers gaps in current concentrated nature—the top seven countries account for about 79% of
research. Three distinct areas—cross-cutting solutions, interconnection global production—most of the research is only for limited players and
to other systems, and the long-term impacts of COVID-19—are devel­ countries [22] (see Table 1). Consequently, just a few studies attempted
oped to discuss gaps and future research agendas. to identify cross-cutting measures that generally seemed across different
subsectors or countries. Table 10 presents those cross-cutting options
9.1. Identification and pursuit of cross-cutting solutions and examples specified.
A relatively short list of seven options in Table 10 and the visualized
The decarbonizing practices and innovations collected for the iron relationship between those options and the sociotechnical system

Table 10
Crosscutting options for the decarbonization of the iron and steel system.
Crosscutting option Relevant for Example(s) Identified by

Energy efficiency Raw material preparation, iron and Efficient ovens, burners, kilns, furnaces, and compressors, efficient ladle [56,78,136]
steelmaking, steel products making, use of preheating, top-pressure recovery turbines, efficient drives in rolling mill and
steel products machining
Fuel switching Raw material preparation, iron and Substituting coal and oil with renewables or natural gas [66,197,198]
steelmaking, steel products making
Process control and Iron and steelmaking, steel products making Process modification of kilns, optimization of furnace, flue gas monitoring and [17,73,74,99]
optimization control, improved process control, optimizing the process solution temperature,
preventative maintenance
Heat recovery Raw material preparation, iron and Waste heat recovery from cooling water, annealing, and compressors [91,199,200]
steelmaking, steel products making
Recycling and resource All processes and systems of the iron and Solid recovered fuels for a reducing agent, injection of pulverized coal, rotary [114,201,202]
efficiency steel sector hearth furnace dust recycling system, hot oxygen injection, recycling basic
oxygen furnace slag, recycling of stainless steel dust, new scrap-based
steelmaking process
Hydrogen Raw material preparation, iron and Low-carbon hydrogen-based direct reduction, off-gas hydrogen enrichment, [52,72,203,204]
steelmaking, steel products making electrolytic hydrogen blending, natural gas-based with high levels of
electrolytic hydrogen blending, hydrogen for high-temperature heat (ancillary
processes)
Carbon capture, Raw material preparation, iron and CO2 removal for use or storage (BF) [91,102,104,111,128]
utilization, and steelmaking, steel products making Natural gas-based with CO2 capture (DRI)
storage Smelting reduction with CCUS

Source: Compiled by the authors.

23
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 26. Visualizing crosscutting options for the decarbonization of the iron and steel system.
Source: Authors.

(Fig. 26) indicate a clear insight—we already have practical and widely
applicable options to achieve the decarbonization of the iron and steel
industry. Policymakers, stakeholders, and investors can make a vivid
vision for decarbonization based on these cross-cutting solutions as well
as commercially applied options now. Table 10 is not exhaustive but
rather a starting point for a better understanding of options moving
forward. We thus believe “more work on cross-cutting options” should to
be pursued.
In particular, CCUS plays an essential role as a crosscutting option for
iron and steel systems' decarbonization [86,205]. Ramírez-Santos et al.
[126] give us great insight into the progress of gas separation technol­
ogies in the iron and steel industry. The largest CO2 emission source in
an integrated steel plant would be a power plant. The power plant can
receive all kinds of available residuary gases. However, the study also
indicated that the original source of most of the CO2 emissions is BF,
around 69% of the overall CO2 emission [126].

9.2. Interconnection to other systems and industries

The global iron and steel system does not exist alone. Like many
other industries, it is coupled to other sociotechnical systems [42].
Fig. 27 depicts the interconnections between the iron and steel industry
and the other noticeable sociotechnical systems. The energy system
including fossil fuels and renewables, transport, military and aerospace,
buildings, mining, civil infrastructure, machinery, electronics, and even
Fig. 27. Compelling interconnections of iron and steel to other sociotechnical
waste (scraps) needs iron and steel products. systems.
These interconnections can create compelling dependencies, but also Source: Authors.
result in synergies that are rarely examined in research. Material Flow
Analysis (MFA) [206] and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [207] ap­ [6–10] highlight the importance of EAF and iron/steel scrap. Therefore,
proaches could be helpful to elaborate the synergies. For example, one the interconnections between the iron and steel industry and the other
study assessed the feasibility of material and technical efficiency noticeable sociotechnical systems can highlight the future viability of an
improvement in the life cycle of steel products [118] by combining MFA EAF based system, the availability of scrap steel, and steel's general
and LCA. Applying the hybrid approach suggested in [118], the impact ability to meet shifting sociotechnical needs.
of synergies could be assessed, such as an HSS regulation in infrastruc­ In terms of sectoral carbon emissions, one study reveals that the
ture. We note, however, that significant data collection and modeling embodied carbon emission of the steel bar and other steel products are
would be necessary for the analysis. the largest component of total embodied carbon emissions for the resi­
The importance of exploring these synergies is also evident in the dential buildings in China with an estimated at 25– 31% share [208].
growing role that electric arc furnaces and recycled scrap play in steel Another study claimed that the construction sector was the largest
production and decarbonization efforts. Many of the institutions that embodied energy consumption sector with a figure of 842.6 million tons
have published carbon mitigation options and technology roadmaps

24
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 28. Compelling total green energy spending by country and sub-archetype (Unit: billion US$).
Source: [210], Global Recovery Observatory. Notes: For each sub-archetype, the largest contributors are listed by name, with smaller spenders categorized as “other.”
AU: Australia, CA: Canada, CN: China, DE: Germany, DK: Denmark, ES: Spain, FI: Finland, FR: France, KR: South Korea, PL: Poland, NO: Norway, UK:
United Kingdom.

of CO2e, accounting for 52.7% of total embodied emissions in China allocated to hydrogen infrastructure with Germany and France leading
[209]. the way. A further USD$3.5B has been invested in CCS infrastructure
with Norway and the UK each contributing more than USD$1 billion.
9.3. Research into the long-term impacts of COVID-19 Stimulus spending on R&D for industrial sustainability is also an
opportunity. As shown in Fig. 29, USD$29 billion has been committed to
A novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged in early 2020 with sig­ “green” R&D as part of stimulus packages, with USD$5.5 billion focused
nificant demand and even production impacts on the iron and steel in­ on industry [210]. As shown in Fig. 29, South Korean leads this in­
dustry as well as the overall energy sector. vestment, which is consistent with the country's focus on “Innovation in
A multitude of factors contribute to uncertainty in the global outlook the Green Industry” as part of its Green New Deal COVID-19 stimulus
for the steel industry, affecting forecasters' ability to anticipate prices, efforts [211]. One would expect the iron and steel industry to benefit
future levels of demand, employment and many other aspects. Many of from this stimulus given that South Korea is a major global steel pro­
these factors are persistent, such as uncertainty about the future rate of ducer and, as noted previously in this paper, serves as an example of a
growth in the global economy, or the levels of consumer demand in a country that has undertaken policy-driven innovation in the iron and
given downstream market. But the current levels of uncertainty for the steel industry.
short-term outlook for the sector, like all other sectors of the economy, The need for target COVID-19 stimulus in the iron and steel industry
may well be unprecedented, largely relating to the unknown future has been highlighted by the IEA with particular focus on direct electri­
impacts of the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic. fication of primary steelmaking [212]. We've discussed in this paper the
The outbreak triggered a series of confinement procedures, and breakthrough potential of molten oxide electrolysis to eliminate the
several downstream industries (construction, automotive etc.) have seen need for direct use of fossil fuels in steel production and perhaps COVID-
reductions in output. However, China's crude steel output has remained 19 will lead to the necessary support for the technology to reach broad
robust, with a 2.2% year-on-year increase to 503 Mt per year (in the first deployment.
half of 2020). Stagnating and declining demand levels in its domestic
and export markets indicate a significant accumulation of inventory 10. Conclusion
during this period of strong production growth.
In production centers elsewhere the virus has had a much more Our modern life is built on iron and steel products. We are working
profound impact on production levels. In the first half of 2020 steel and living in buildings and skyscrapers, and we need airplanes, vehicles,
production in Europe declined by 13% relative to the same period in and bridges to move. Even in the sustainable, low-carbon future, there
2019, by 17% in North America and 24% in India [6]. still are buildings, transport, infrastructures, and devices using iron and
The longer-term impacts of the virus outbreak are even more un­ steel. This essential iron and steel industry is the most carbon-emitting
certain. The way that other countries besides China respond to the sector among heavy industries and has been efficiently operated close
outbreak, in terms of the duration and extent of confinement policies, to its thermodynamic limits. Thus, to break the limit, innovative
and the level to which demand in various economies is restor­ decarbonization efforts are necessary. This is why we have done a crit­
ed—including the extent to which stimulus packages are aimed at ical and systematic review of the sociotechnical systems of iron and
infrastructure and other steel-intensive sectors—are the key deter­ steel. Fig. 30 summarizes our review showing interventions, benefits,
mining factors that will affect the steel industry's outlook in the coming barriers, and policies for decarbonizing the iron and steel system.
years [6]. Fig. 30 also reveals practical low-carbon interventions (shown in
Although stimulus packages have been generally disappointing green). These range from material substitution in raw materials to reuse
regarding allocation of funds to sustainability-related investments, of steel products are part of the broader circular economy. These
several European countries have earmarked investment for hydrogen available technologies and approaches can coexist with no less than 86
and CCS, both of which are cornerstone technologies for iron and steel current and breakthrough technologies and cross-cutting solutions such
decarbonization [210]. As shown in Fig. 28, USD$18.5 billion has been as hydrogen-based steel production and CCUS technologies (see Section

25
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Fig. 29. Total green R&D spending by country and sub-archetype (Unit: billion US$).
Source: [210], Global Recovery Observatory. Notes: For each sub-archetype, the largest contributors are listed by name, with smaller spenders categorized as “other.”
AU: Australia, DE: Germany, DK: Denmark, ES: Spain, FR: France, KR: South Korea.

Fig. 30. Interventions, benefits, barriers, and policies for decarbonizing the iron and steel sociotechnical system.
Source: Authors.

9.1). Declaration of competing interest

Although there are barriers (shown in grey) at many levels to
decarbonizing the iron and steel industry—financial, organizational and The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
managerial, and behavioral—the benefits (shown in red) of the decar­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
bonization are also considerable. Direct benefits from carbon reduction, the work reported in this paper.
energy savings, and financial savings, as well as environmental co-
benefits, will shorten the payback period of decarbonization in­ Acknowledgments
vestments. Also, indirect benefits from the interconnected industries
(Fig. 27) and policy instruments, financing solutions, and business The authors thank the anonymous peer reviewers for very helpful
models (shown in orange) can help tackle the barriers. comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. They would also like to
When the policymakers, business, and research community begin to acknowledge support from the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and
address the decarbonizing options, barriers, and solutions more actively, Innovation Centre (IDRIC) in the United Kingdom, funded by the UKRI
and perhaps with the COVID-19 pandemic as an added catalyst, immi­ and EPSRC via Grant Number EP/V027050/1. Also, one of the authors
nent problems by greenhouse gas emissions from the iron and steel of this paper (Sovacool) is the Editor-in-Chief for Energy Research &
system can be resolved and turned into another opportunity. Social Science. He was not involved in managing the peer review or
editorial process for this article.

26
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Appendix A
Table A1
Description of emerging and potentially transformative innovations for the iron and steel industry.

Innovation Description

Solid recovered fuels for use as reducing agents Recovered wastes, such as plastics or granulated rubber, could be used as reducing agents
(producing CO and H2) in blast furnaces.
Heat recovery from sinter cooler There are two potential reusable waste heat in sinter plants—exhaust gas from sintering
machines and the cooling air heat.
Single-chamber-system coking reactors Single-chamber-system (SCS) coking reactors are huge coke ovens with widths of 450–850
mm. The SCS reactors have independent process-controlled modules that allow thinner
heating walls to improve heat transfer and design flexibility.
Use of recuperative burners A recuperator, a gas-to-gas heat exchanger in the recuperative burner of a furnace, can
reduce fuel consumption about 10–20% than the furnaces without the recuperative burner.
Process modification of kilns Process modifications of kilns, such as green balls heated and cooled in a grate-kiln, can cut
energy use and CO2 emissions.
Optimization of furnace Furnace optimizations using computational fluid dynamics, simulation (virtual furnace),
and X-ray diffraction analytical techniques can improve energy efficiency and productivity.
Waste heat recovery We can recover waste heat in blast furnaces, such as molten slag heat, in three forms—hot air
or steam recovery, conversion to chemical energy, and thermoelectric power generation.
Use of ceramic ladles instead of cast iron pipes In the iron and steel making processes, ladles are often uncovered because lids are heavy and
too hot to manage. Thus, closing the lid by using ceramic ladles can save significant energy.
Efficient ladle preheating Heat losses in the ladle preheating can be reduced by temperature controls, installing hoods,
efficient ladle management, or oxyfuel burners.
Radiation recuperators for ladle furnace Installing recuperators for the ladle can improve fuel efficiency.
Coal moisture control Moisture control of feed coal in the coke making process improves coke quality and
productivity.
Coke dry quenching Coke dry quenching (CDQ) reduces dust emissions, enhances coke quality, and recovers
sensible heat from the high-temperature coke.
Injection of pulverized coal Coke making process can be skipped by injecting pulverized coal. Fine coal granules are
injected into the blast furnaces to supply carbon sources. Skipping energy-intensive coke
making process means substantial energy saving and CO2 emission reduction.
Top-pressure recovery turbines If the top gas pressure of blast furnaces is high enough to generate electricity, then applying
top-pressure recovery turbines will be an economically feasible option.
Recovery of BF/BOF gas Carbon monoxide and hydrogen in the blast furnace gas are potential energy sources and can
be used as a fuel through enrichment with natural gas or coke oven gas.
Charging carbon composite agglomerates Applying the carbon composite agglomerates, the mixtures of fine iron ore and
carbonaceous materials, in blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces can improve reduction
rates and save fuels.
Near net shape casting (thin slab) Near-net-shape casting is the integrated process of casting and hot rolling. This integration
reduces reheating the steel before rolling and thus saves energy.
Bottom stirring/stirring gas injection Injecting an inert gas to increase stirring in the bottom of the electric arc furnaces can make
the heat transfer efficient and save electricity consumption.
Use of foamy slag practices Heat losses in electric arc furnaces can be reduced by covering the arc and melt surface of
furnaces with foamy slag.
Use of oxyfuel burners Oxy-fuel burners in electric arc furnaces can increase heat transfer (reduces heat losses),
help to remove impurities, such as phosphorus and silicon, and reduce electrode
consumption.
DC arc furnace Direct current (DC) based electric arc furnace has high productivity, uses less electricity,
consumes less electrode, and needs lower maintenance costs than conventional furnaces.
Scrap preheating and continuous charging Efficient scrap preheating and continuous charging, such as Consteel, can improve the heat
recovery rate and reduce handling costs and time.
Flue gas monitoring and control Flue gas (oxygen and carbon monoxide) monitoring and control enable the optimization of
fuel and air mixture, and this can improve the energy efficiency of the process.
Eccentric bottom tapping Eccentric bottom tapping in electric arc furnaces enables slag-free tapping and reduces tap-
to-tap time and electrode consumption.
Improved process control Improved process control of electric arc furnaces includes process optimization via (real-
time) monitoring and controlling systems with sensors. Optimized steel bath temperature
and carbon levels can reduce electricity consumption in the process.
Ultra-high-power transformer Applying ultra-high power (UHP) transformer for the furnace operation can reduce energy
losses and increase productivity.
Twin shell furnace The twin shell furnace is based on shaft technology. A double (two identical) shaft
arrangement can improve the efficiency of preheating.
Hot charging Charging slabs at a high temperature (hot charging) in the reheating furnaces of the rolling
mill can reduce energy use and material losses and improve steel quality and productivity.
Recuperative or regenerative burner Recuperative or regenerative burners can be utilized not only for iron and steel making
processes but also in steel product manufacturing.
Use of ceramic low thermal mass insulators for reheating furnace Compared to conventional insulation materials, ceramic low thermal mass insulation
materials can reduce heat losses in reheating furnaces.
Controlling oxygen level and variable speed drive on combustion air fans The optimal oxygen (air) level in a combustion process is essential to improve energy
efficiency. We can find the optimal level by applying variable speed drives of air fans in the
reheating furnace.
Efficient drives in rolling mill and machining Replacing the air conditioning drives in a rolling mill and machining with high-efficiency
motors can save electricity consumption.
Waste heat recovery (cooling water, annealing, and compressor) We can recover the waste heat from cooling water, annealing, and compressors of the steel
product manufacturing processes, such as hot strip mills.
Reduced steam use for pickling Installing lids and floating balls on the top of the bath in the acid pickling line can prevent
heat losses via evaporation.
(continued on next page)

27
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table A1 (continued )
Innovation Description

Automated monitoring and targeting systems In a cold strip (rolling) mill, an automated monitoring and targeting system can reduce
energy demand and effluents.
Thermal insulation for plating bath, Automated bath cover Automated bath cover and thermal insulation of plating bath can reduce energy losses in
strip mills.
Compressed air network modification Modifying (optimizing) a compressed air network and motor systems in steel product
manufacturing can reduce waste heats and energy use.
Optimizing the process solution temperature A heat treatment process and thermal optimization in steel product manufacturing, such as
continuous casting, can reduce energy consumption for the process.
Use of high-strength steel High-strength steel (HSS) consumes less raw materials compared to standard steel products
at similar specifications. Also, light product weight, especially for vehicles, needs fewer fuels
to move the same distance. Thus, in terms of lifecycle, the HSS significantly less emits
greenhouse gases.
Rotary hearth furnace dust recycling system Recycling steelmaking dust, including iron and zinc dust, can save raw materials inputs.
Injection of plastic waste Plastic wastes can replace coke for the reduction reaction in blast furnaces. Although plastics
cannot replace all coke functions, such as moving the gases and liquids, we can save
substantial energy through the replacement at a certain level.
Primary Energy Melter Primary Energy Melter (PEM) enables the melting of low-quality scrap and charges it
together with hot metals. PEM can thus reduce energy and material consumption.
Advanced control of heating walls in coke ovens Advanced control of heating walls, such as individual control and diagnostic system, can
improve energy efficiency in coke ovens.
Hot oxygen injection Injecting high-temperature oxygen directly in the blast furnace blowpipe and tuyere can
offer better coal dispersion at high oxygen concentrations. Thus, the injection of pulverized
coal accompanies hot oxygen injection for optimal performance.
Tecnored The Tecnored, a Brazillian process, uses agglomerated pellets or briquettes for iron making.
With the flexibility of using various types of solid fuels, the Tecnored process can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Cyclone converter furnace The cyclone converter furnace is made of a cyclone for the pre-reduction of the iron ore.
Combining this pre-reduction unit with the final reduction process can reduce heat losses.
Continuous horizontal sidewall scrap charging Continuous horizontal sidewall scrap chargers can mitigate the problems in conventional
scarp preheaters, such as frequent maintenance, space constraint, and the need for a post-
combustion burner.
Energy monitoring and management system in casting Energy monitoring and management system in the casting process can make the process
more energy-efficient through energy assessment and optimization.
Preventative maintenance in steel mills or EAF plants Preventative maintenance in steel mills or EAF plants through sensors and data analysis can
improve the productivity of the mills and reduce overall energy consumption per unit
production.
Variable speed drives for flue gas control, pumps, fans in integrated steel mills Variable speed drives mentioned above can be applied for not only reheating furnaces but
also pumps and (ventilation and combustion) fans in integrated steel mills.
Cogeneration for the use of untapped coke oven gas, blast furnace gas, and basic Cogeneration (or combined heat and power) for the gases in integrated steel mills is an
oxygen furnace-gas in integrated steel mills energy-efficient way to use heat and electricity.
Additive manufacturing A digitalized production process, additive manufacturing, can minimize material losses and
facilitate lighter-weight parts design in steel product manufacturing.
Recycling basic oxygen furnace slag The recycling of slags can reduce the landfill disposal of byproducts from blast furnaces and
basic oxygen furnaces. However, it still faces many technical and economic challenges.
Recycling of stainless steel dust The stainless steel dust in electric arc furnaces can also be recycled by re-injection into the
furnaces and improve the energy efficiency of the steelmaking.
Regeneration of hydrochloric acid pickling liquor The pickling process generates considerable spent pickle liquor, and regenerating it can
reduce wastes and energy use because the acid spent pickle liquor should be disposed of after
chemical neutralization.
Recycling of waste oxides in steelmaking furnace Recycling waste oxides in steelmaking furnaces and mills, such as blast furnaces, electric arc
furnaces, and rolling mills, can save raw materials and energy.
Low-carbon hydrogen-based direct reduction Hydrogen-based steelmaking routes offer great potential for decarbonization. However,
note that they strongly depend on the carbon footprint of hydrogen production.
Charcoal in the sintering process Charcoal is an attractive alternative to coke breeze in the sintering process.
Torrefied biomass Torrefied biomass, biochar, can be used as an auxiliary reductant.
Plasma blast furnace Plasma technology can be used for heat support for cupola and blast furnaces.
CO2 removal for use or storage, Natural gas-based DRI with CO2 capture CCS and CCUS technologies can be applied to iron and steel making processes. Please see the
references in the main body of the text.
Electrolytic H2 blending (BF), Natural gas-based DRI with high levels of low or zero- Also, low or zero-carbon hydrogen produced by electrolysis (green hydrogen) can be applied
carbon electrolytic H2 blending, DRI based solely on low or zero-carbon electrolytic to iron and steel making processes.
H2
Paired straight hearth furnace Paired straight hearth (PSH) furnace is more productive than conventional furnaces. The
PSH furnaces are charged with “eight” cold-bonded self-reducing pellets, whereas the
traditional rotary hearth furnaces use only two or three.
Molten oxide electrolysis Molten oxide electrolysis (MOE) could be a game-changer of the steelmaking process. Unlike
traditional steel production, MOE produces no carbon emissions if powered by zero-carbon
electricity sources.
Suspension hydrogen reduction of iron oxide concentrate Flash smelting uses hydrogen as a reductant. Iron ore concentrates react with reductants,
such as hydrogen, natural gas, or synthetic gas.
Ironmaking using biomass and waste oxides Replacing fossil fuels, especially coal, in the ironmaking processes with biomass and waste
oxides can curtail energy use and CO2 emissions.
New scrap-based steelmaking process A new, efficient scrap-based steelmaking process, such as a counter-current reactor, can
reduce primary energy use in the scrap heating and melting steps.
In-situ real-time measurement of melt constituents Off-line molten material analysis to check the composition of melt constituents is time-
consuming and expensive. In-situ real-time measurement thus saves time and energy.
Continuous steelmaking for EAF
(continued on next page)

28
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

Table A1 (continued )
Innovation Description

The continuous steelmaking, continuous process from crude steel to the casting mold in EAF,
can improve energy efficiency and productivity.
Smelting reduction with CCUS Carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies can be applied in a smelting reduction
process (i.e., HIsarna process, ULCOS).
Low or zero-carbon H2 for high-temperature heat The coal-based high temperature for the iron reduction can be replaced with green hydrogen
(ancillary processes).
Next-generation system for scale-free steel reheating Scale formation hinders gas flow and heat transfer and compromises steel quality. During
the steel reheating process, 1–2% of steel forms scale on the steel surface and furnaces. Thus,
scale-free steel reheating can reduce the energy and costs of the process.
Thermochemical recuperation for steel reheating furnaces Thermochemical recuperators (air heat exchangers) can improve the steel reheating
efficiency by recovering sensible heat in the flue gases.
Oxygen-rich furnace system A low NOx burner with oxygen enrichment can reduce CO2 emissions in the furnaces.
Integrating steel production with mineral sequestration CO2 sequestration in the form of solid carbonate can be integrated into the steelmaking
process. The iron oxides from peridotite ores can chemically bind CO2.
Source: Authors. The relevant references are provided in the main body of the
text.

References [24] A. Kumar Katta, M. Davis, A. Kumar, Assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation
options for the iron, gold, and potash mining sectors, J. Clean. Prod. 245 (2020),
118718, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118718.
[1] USGS, Iron and Steel Statistics and Information. Reston, VA, 2021.
[25] World Steel Association, The language of steel. World Steel Assoc. https://www.
[2] T. Vass, P. Levi, A. Gouy, H. Mandová, Iron and Steel. Paris, 2021.
worldsteel.org/about-steel/steel-glossary.html, 2021. (Accessed 17 July 2021).
[3] IEA, Iron and Steel. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/i
[26] World Steel Association, Overview of the steelmaking process. World Steel Assoc,
ron-and-steel, 2020. (Accessed 24 January 2020).
in: https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:177c8e5c-e02a-4e08-9dc6-cce7372
[4] A. Hasanbeigi, L.K. Price, A.T. McKane, The State-of-the-Art Clean Technologies
b41c2/Overview%2520of%2520the%2520Steelmaking%2520Process_poster.
(SOACT) for Steelmaking Handbook, 2010.
pdf, 2013. (Accessed 17 July 2021).
[5] Worldsteel Association, Fact Sheet: Energy use in the steel industry. Worldsteel
[27] Worldsteel Association, World Steel in Figures 2019. Brussels, 2019.
Assoc. https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:f07b864c-908e-4229-9f92-669f
[28] Worldsteel Association, Global Steel Market Overview, Glob. Forum Steel Excess
1c3abf4c/fact_energy_2019.pdf, 2019. (Accessed 3 January 2020).
Capacit., Tokyo, 2019.
[6] IEA, Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap. Paris, 2020.
[29] D. Godden, The Impact of the European Steel Industry on the EU Economy.
[7] (EUROFER) The European Steel Association, Low Carbon Roadmap: Pathways to
Oxford, 2019.
a CO2-Neutral European Steel Industry 18, 2019.
[30] A. von Gleich, R.U. Ayres, S. Gössling-Reisemann, Sustainable Metals
[8] A. Hasanbeigi, L. Price, M. Arens, Emerging Energy-efficiency and Carbon
Management: Securing Our Future-steps Towards a Closed Loop Economy 19,
Dioxide Emissions-Reduction Technologies for the Iron and Steel Industry.
Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
Berkeley, CA, 2013.
[31] P. Crompton, J.-B. Lesourd, Economies of scale in global iron-making, Resour.
[9] M. Wörtler, F. Schuler, N. Voigt, T. Schmidt, P. Dalhmann, H. Bodo Lüngen, et al.,
Policy 33 (2008) 74–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2007.10.005.
Steel’s Contribution to a Low-carbon Europe in 2050, 2013.
[32] Worldsteel Association, 2020 World Steel in Figures. Brussels, 2020.
[10] WSP, Parsons Brinckerhoff, DNV GL, Industrial Decarbonisation and Energy
[33] A.C.H. Skelton, J.M. Allwood, The incentives for supply chain collaboration to
Efficiency Roadmaps to 2050: Iron and Steel. Montréal, 2015.
improve material efficiency in the use of steel: an analysis using input output
[11] A. Ranzani da Costa, D. Wagner, F. Patisson, Modelling a new, low CO2
techniques, Ecol. Econ. 89 (2013) 33–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
emissions, hydrogen steelmaking process, J. Clean. Prod. 46 (2013) 27–35,
ecolecon.2013.01.021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.045.
[34] Y. Yoon, Y.-K. Kim, J. Kim, Embodied CO2 emission changes in manufacturing
[12] A. Sgobbi, W. Nijs, R. De Miglio, A. Chiodi, M. Gargiulo, C. Thiel, How far away is
trade: structural decomposition analysis of China, Japan, and Korea, Atmosphere
hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-term decarbonisation of the European
11 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060597.
energy system, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41 (2016) 19–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[35] J. Allwood, C. Dunant, R. Lupton, A. Gonzalez Cabrera Honorio Serrenho, Steel
j.ijhydene.2015.09.004.
Arising: Opportunities for the UK in a Transforming Global Steel Industry, 2019.
[13] K. Meijer, M. Denys, J. Lasar, J.-P. Birat, G. Still, B. Overmaat, ULCOS: ultra-low
[36] W. Haas, F. Krausmann, D. Wiedenhofer, M. Heinz, How circular is the global
CO2 steelmaking, Ironmak. Steelmak. 36 (2009) 249–251, https://doi.org/
economy?: an assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in
10.1179/174328109X439298.
the European Union and the world in 2005, J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (2015) 765–777.
[14] H. Suopajärvi, K. Umeki, E. Mousa, A. Hedayati, H. Romar, A. Kemppainen, et al.,
[37] S. Pauliuk, T. Wang, D.B. Müller, Steel all over the world: estimating in-use stocks
Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – status quo, future needs and
of iron for 200 countries, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 71 (2013) 22–30, https://doi.
comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies, Appl. Energy 213
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.11.008.
(2018) 384–407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.060.
[38] Worldsteel Association, Product Sustainability. https://www.worldsteel.org/
[15] S. Jahanshahi, J.G. Mathieson, M.A. Somerville, N. Haque, T.E. Norgate, A. Deev,
about-steel/product-sustainability.html, 2020. (Accessed 8 March 2021).
et al., Development of low-emission integrated steelmaking process, J. Sustain.
[39] EPA, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet.
Metall. 1 (2015) 94–114.
Washington D.C, 2020.
[16] C.-C. Cormos, Evaluation of reactive absorption and adsorption systems for post-
[40] E. Donskoi, A. Poliakov, J.R. Manuel, in: Lu LBT-IO (Ed.), 4 - Automated Optical
combustion CO2 capture applied to iron and steel industry, Appl. Therm. Eng.
Image Analysis of Natural and Sintered Iron Ore, Woodhead Publishing, 2015,
105 (2016) 56–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.149.
pp. 101–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-156-6.00004-6.
[17] R.Q. Wang, L. Jiang, Y.D. Wang, A.P. Roskilly, Energy saving technologies and
[41] A. Carpenter, CO2 abatement in the iron and steel industry, IEA Clean Coal Cent.
mass-thermal network optimization for decarbonized iron and steel industry: a
25 (2012).
review, J. Clean. Prod. 274 (2020), 122997, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[42] B.K. Sovacool, M. Bazilian, S. Griffiths, J. Kim, A. Foley, D. Rooney,
jclepro.2020.122997.
Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: a critical and systematic review
[18] J. Zhao, H. Zuo, Y. Wang, J. Wang, Q. Xue, Review of green and low-carbon
of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options, Renew. Sust. Energ.
ironmaking technology, Ironmak. Steelmak. 47 (2020) 296–306.
Rev. 143 (2021), 110856, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110856.
[19] X. Zhang, K. Jiao, J. Zhang, Z. Guo, A review on low carbon emissions projects of
[43] B.K. Sovacool, S. Griffiths, J. Kim, M. Bazilian, Climate change and industrial F-
steel industry in the world, J. Clean. Prod. 306 (2021), 127259, https://doi.org/
gases: a critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127259.
and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions, Renew. Sust.
[20] S. Roudier, L.D. Sancho, R. Remus, M. Aguado-Monsonet, Best Available
Energ. Rev. 141 (2021), 110759, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110759.
Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron and Steel Production: Industrial
[44] M.J. Grant, A. Booth, A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and
Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control,
associated methodologies, Health Inf. Libr. J. 26 (2009) 91–108, https://doi.org/
2013.
10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
[21] K. Rechberger, A. Spanlang, A. Sasiain Conde, H. Wolfmeir, C. Harris, Green
[45] N.R. Haddaway, P. Woodcock, B. Macura, A. Collins, Making literature reviews
hydrogen-based direct reduction for low-carbon steelmaking, Steel Res. Int. 91
more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews, Conserv.
(2020) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.202000110.
Biol. 29 (2015) 1596–1605, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12541.
[22] World Steel Association, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2020. Brussels, 2020.
[46] M. Petticrew, H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical
[23] M. Azadi, S.A. Northey, S.H. Ali, M. Edraki, Transparency on greenhouse gas
Guide, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation, Nat. Geosci. 13
(2020) 100–104, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0531-3.

29
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

[47] S. Sorrell, Improving the evidence base for energy policy: the role of systematic China’s iron and steel industry: a case study, Appl. Therm. Eng. 86 (2015)
reviews, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 1858–1871, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 151–160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.04.026.
enpol.2006.06.008. [75] Z.C. Guo, Z.X. Fu, Current situation of energy consumption and measures taken
[48] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy for energy saving in the iron and steel industry in China, Energy 35 (2010)
social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research 4356–4360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.008.
design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 12–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [76] K. Dahlström, P. Ekins, Eco-efficiency trends in the UK steel and aluminum
erss.2018.07.007. industries: differences between resource efficiency and resource productivity,
[49] B.K. Sovacool, D.J. Hess, Ordering theories: typologies and conceptual J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (2005) 171–188, https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775247954.
frameworks for sociotechnical change, Soc. Stud. Sci. 47 (2017) 703–750. [77] N. Bhadbhade, M.J.S. Zuberi, M.K. Patel, A bottom-up analysis of energy
[50] D.J. Hess, B.K. Sovacool, Sociotechnical matters: reviewing and integrating efficiency improvement and CO2 emission reduction potentials for the swiss
science and technology studies with energy social science, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. metals sector, Energy 181 (2019) 173–186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
65 (2020), 101462. energy.2019.05.172.
[51] A. Hasanbeigi, M. Arens, L. Price, Alternative emerging ironmaking technologies [78] H. Na, T. Du, W. Sun, J. Sun, J. He, Evaluation and improvement of energy
for energy-efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions reduction: a technical review, utilization efficiency in typical iron and steel smelting route based on input-use-
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 33 (2014) 645–658, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. end model, Energy Technol. 8 (2020) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1002/
rser.2014.02.031. ente.201901230.
[52] D. Gielen, D. Saygin, E. Taibi, J.P. Birat, Renewables-based decarbonization and [79] H. Zhang, L. Dong, H. Li, T. Fujita, S. Ohnishi, Q. Tang, Analysis of low-carbon
relocation of iron and steel making: a case study, J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (2020) industrial symbiosis technology for carbon mitigation in a Chinese iron/steel
1113–1125, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12997. industrial park: A case study with carbon flow analysis, Energy Policy 61 (2013)
[53] IEA, World Energy Balances 2018 Edition. Paris, 2018. 1400–1411, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.066.
[54] J.P. Birat, D. Maizières-lès-Metz, Global technology roadmap for CCS in industry: [80] M. Arens, E. Worrell, Diffusion of energy efficient technologies in the German
steel sectorial report, in: Maizieres-Les-Metz: UNIDO and ArcelorMittal, 2010. steel industry and their impact on energy consumption, Energy 73 (2014)
[55] W. Xu, B. Wan, T. Zhu, M. Shao, CO2 emissions from China’s iron and steel 968–977, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.112.
industry, J. Clean. Prod. 139 (2016) 1504–1511, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [81] W.R. Morrow, A. Hasanbeigi, J. Sathaye, T. Xu, Assessment of energy efficiency
jclepro.2016.08.107. improvement and CO2 emission reduction potentials in India’s cement and iron &
[56] P.W. Griffin, G.P. Hammond, Industrial energy use and carbon emissions steel industries, J. Clean. Prod. 65 (2014) 131–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
reduction in the iron and steel sector: a UK perspective, Appl. Energy 249 (2019) jclepro.2013.07.022.
109–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.148. [82] J.A. Moya, N. Pardo, The potential for improvements in energy efficiency and
[57] P.W. Griffin, G.P. Hammond, Analysis of the potential for energy demand and CO2 emissions in the EU27 iron and steel industry under different payback
carbon emissions reduction in the iron and steel sector, Energy Procedia 158 periods, J. Clean. Prod. 52 (2013) 71–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2019) 3915–3922, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.852. jclepro.2013.02.028.
[58] T. Kuramochi, Assessment of midterm CO2 emissions reduction potential in the [83] S. Jahanshahi, A. Deev, N. Haque, L. Lu, J. Mathieson, T. Norgate, et al., Recent
iron and steel industry: a case of Japan, J. Clean. Prod. 132 (2016) 81–97, progress in R & D on use sustainable biomass/designer chars for steel production,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.055. in: Proceeding Innov Ironmak Technol Futur Int Collab Overcome Energy Resour
[59] Y. Zhang, L. Gu, X. Guo, Carbon audit evaluation system and its application in the Restrict Accord with Environ Tokyo, JSPS, Japan, 2014.
iron and steel enterprises in China, J. Clean. Prod. 248 (2020), 119204, https:// [84] E. Mousa, C. Wang, J. Riesbeck, M. Larsson, Biomass applications in iron and steel
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119204. industry: An overview of challenges and opportunities, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
[60] S. Juntueng, S. Towprayoon, S. Chiarakorn, Energy and carbon dioxide intensity 65 (2016) 1247–1266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.061.
of Thailand’s steel industry and greenhouse gas emission projection toward the [85] D. Gielen, D. Saygin, E. Taibi, J. Birat, Renewables-based decarbonization and
year 2050, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 87 (2014) 46–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. relocation of iron and steel making: a case study, J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (2020)
resconrec.2014.03.014. 1113–1125.
[61] N. Pardo, J.A. Moya, Prospective scenarios on energy efficiency and CO2 [86] M. Flores-Granobles, M. Saeys, Minimizing CO 2 emissions with renewable
emissions in the European Iron & Steel industry, Energy 54 (2013) 113–128, energy: a comparative study of emerging technologies in the steel industry,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.015. Energy Environ. Sci. 13 (2020) 1923–1932.
[62] C.-C. Hsu, S.-L. Lo, The potential for carbon abatement in Taiwan’s steel industry [87] S. Chalk, S.W. Snyder, Sustainable, Net-Zero Carbon Steelmaking Utilizing
and an analysis of carbon abatement trends, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 69 (2017) Nuclear and Renewable-based Integrated Energy Systems, Idaho National Lab.
1312–1323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.046. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States), 2021.
[63] B.J. van Ruijven, D.P. van Vuuren, W. Boskaljon, M.L. Neelis, D. Saygin, M. [88] IEA, India. https://www.iea.org/countries/india, 2022. (Accessed 25 February
K. Patel, Long-term model-based projections of energy use and CO2 emissions 2022).
from the global steel and cement industries, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 112 (2016) [89] M. Ren, P. Lu, X. Liu, M.S. Hossain, Y. Fang, T. Hanaoka, et al., Decarbonizing
15–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.016. China’s iron and steel industry from the supply and demand sides for carbon
[64] I. Hidalgo, L. Szabo, J. Carlos Ciscar, A. Soria, Technological prospects and CO2 neutrality, Appl. Energy 298 (2021), 117209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
emission trading analyses in the iron and steel industry: a global model, Energy apenergy.2021.117209.
30 (2005) 583–610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.05.022. [90] J. Lee, M. Bazilian, B. Sovacool, S. Greene, Responsible or reckless? A critical
[65] R. Jing, M.W. Yasir, J. Qian, Z. Zhang, Assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) review of the environmental and climate assessments of mineral supply chains,
emissions from stainless steel production in China using two evaluation Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (2020), 103009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
approaches, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 38 (2019) 47–55, https://doi.org/ ab9f8c.
10.1002/ep.13125. [91] M.A. Quader, S. Ahmed, R.A.R. Ghazilla, S. Ahmed, M. Dahari, A comprehensive
[66] W.L. Kepplinger, T. Tappeiner, Solid recovered fuels in the steel industry, Waste review on energy efficient CO2 breakthrough technologies for sustainable green
Manag. Res. 30 (2012) 450–453, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X11426174. iron and steel manufacturing, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 50 (2015) 594–614,
[67] M. Abdul Quader, S. Ahmed, S.Z. Dawal, Y. Nukman, Present needs, recent https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.026.
progress and future trends of energy-efficient ultra-low carbon dioxide (CO2) [92] L. Li, K. Morishita, T. Takarada, Light fuel gas production from nascent coal
steelmaking (ULCOS) program, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 55 (2016) 537–549, volatiles using a natural limonite ore, Fuel 86 (2007) 1570–1576, https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.101. org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.10.024.
[68] EC. Ultra-Low CO2 steelmaking n.d. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/515960 [93] L. Deng, T.A. Adams II, Optimization of coke oven gas desulfurization and
(accessed October 30, 2021). combined cycle power plant electricity generation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57
[69] M. Åhman, O. Olsson, V. Vogl, B. Nyqvist, A. Maltais, L.J. Nilsson, et al., HYBRIT (2018) 12816–12828.
in Context: Stockholm Environment Institute, 2018. [94] J. Li, W. Cheng, Comparative life cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions
[70] T. Buergler, J. Prammer, Hydrogen steelmaking: technology options and R&D and economic costs of hydrogen production from coke oven gas and coal
projects, BHM Berg-Und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte 164 (2019) 447–451, gasification, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 45 (2020) 27979–27993.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-019-00908-8. [95] R. Razzaq, C. Li, S. Zhang, Coke oven gas: Availability, properties, purification,
[71] A. Abdelghany, D.-Q. Fan, M. Elzohiery, H.Y. Sohn, Experimental investigation and utilization in China, Fuel 113 (2013) 287–299, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and computational fluid dynamics simulation of a novel flash ironmaking process fuel.2013.05.070.
based on partial combustion of natural gas in a reactor, Steel Res. Int. 90 (2019) [96] J.M. Bermúdez, A. Arenillas, R. Luque, J.A. Menéndez, An overview of novel
1900126, https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201900126. technologies to valorise coke oven gas surplus, Fuel Process. Technol. 110 (2013)
[72] S. Griffiths, B.K. Sovacool, J. Kim, M. Bazilian, J.M. Uratani, Industrial 150–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.12.007.
decarbonization via hydrogen: a critical and systematic review of developments, [97] H. Zhang, H. Wang, X. Zhu, Y.-J. Qiu, K. Li, R. Chen, et al., A review of waste heat
socio-technical systems and policy options, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 80 (2021), recovery technologies towards molten slag in steel industry, Appl. Energy 112
102208. (2013) 956–966, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.019.
[73] X. Chen, X. Chen, J. She, M. Wu, A hybrid just-in-time soft sensor for carbon [98] POSCO, Carbon Report 2013. Seoul, 2013.
efficiency of iron ore sintering process based on feature extraction of cross- [99] C. Wang, M. Larsson, C. Ryman, C.-E. Grip, J.-O. Wikström, A. Johnsson, et al.,
sectional frames at discharge end, J. Process Control 54 (2017) 14–24, https:// A model on CO2 emission reduction in integrated steelmaking by optimization
doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2017.01.006. methods, Int. J. Energy Res. 32 (2008) 1092–1106.
[74] L. Chen, B. Yang, X. Shen, Z. Xie, F. Sun, Thermodynamic optimization [100] B. Lu, G. Chen, D. Chen, W. Yu, An energy intensity optimization model for
opportunities for the recovery and utilization of residual energy and heat in production system in iron and steel industry, Appl. Therm. Eng. 100 (2016)
285–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.01.064.

30
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

[101] Q. Zhang, Z. Wei, J. Ma, Z. Qiu, T. Du, Optimization of energy use with CO2 [128] Z. Fan, S.J. Friedmann, Low-carbon production of iron and steel: technology
emission reducing in an integrated iron and steel plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 157 options, economic assessment, and policy, Joule (2021), https://doi.org/
(2019), 113635. 10.1016/j.joule.2021.02.018.
[102] S. Kumar, V. Drozd, A. Durygin, S.K. Saxena, Capturing CO2 Emissions in the Iron [129] P. Cavaliere, Clean ironmaking and steelmaking processes: efficient technologies
Industries using a magnetite-iron mixture, Energy Technol 4 (2016) 560–564, for greenhouse emissions abatement, in: Clean Ironmak. Steelmak. Process.,
https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201500451. Springer, 2019, pp. 1–37.
[103] S. Tian, J. Jiang, X. Chen, F. Yan, K. Li, Direct gas-solid carbonation kinetics of [130] C. Bataille, M. Åhman, K. Neuhoff, L.J. Nilsson, M. Fischedick, S. Lechtenböhmer,
steel slag and the contribution to insitu sequestration of flue gas CO2 in steel- et al., A review of technology and policy deep decarbonization pathway options
making plants, ChemSusChem 6 (2013) 2348–2355, https://doi.org/10.1002/ for making energy-intensive industry production consistent with the Paris
cssc.201300436. Agreement, J. Clean. Prod. 187 (2018) 960–973, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[104] L. Xi, L. Qianguo, M. Hasan, L. Ming, L. Qiang, L. Jia, et al., Assessing the jclepro.2018.03.107.
economics of CO2 capture in China’s iron/steel sector: a case study, Energy [131] M. Axelson, I. Robson, T. Wyns, G. Khandekar, Breaking through-industrial low-
Procedia 158 (2019) 3715–3722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.886. CO2 technologies on the Horizon, Inst. Eur. Stud. Vrije Univ. Brussel (2018).
[105] D. Demailly, P. Quirion, European emission trading scheme and competitiveness: [132] M. Hensmann, K. Meijer, M. Oles, Smart Carbon Usage, Process Integration and
a case study on the iron and steel industry, Energy Econ. 30 (2008) 2009–2027, Carbon Capture and Usage. EU Ind. Day, Brussels, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.01.020. [133] P. Wooders, C. Beaton, D. McDaniels, Annex B: Climate Strategies, 2011.
[106] A. Arasto, E. Tsupari, J. Kärki, E. Pisilä, L. Sorsamäki, Post-combustion capture of [134] M. Axelson, S. Oberthür, L.J. Nilsson, Emission reduction strategies in the EU steel
CO2 at an integrated steel mill – part i: technical concept analysis, Int. J. Greenh. industry: Implications for business model innovation, J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (2021)
Gas Control 16 (2013) 271–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.08.018. 390–402.
[107] A. Arasto, E. Tsupari, J. Kärki, J. Lilja, M. Sihvonen, Oxygen blast furnace with [135] D. Kushnir, T. Hansen, V. Vogl, M. Åhman, Adopting hydrogen direct reduction
CO2 capture and storage at an integrated steel mill—part i: technical concept for the Swedish steel industry: a technological innovation system (TIS) study,
analysis, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 30 (2014) 140–147, https://doi.org/ J. Clean. Prod. 242 (2020), 118185.
10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.09.004. [136] E. Worrell, P. Blinde, M. Neelis, E. Blomen, E.R. Masanet, Energy Efficiency
[108] K. Han, C.K. Ahn, M.S. Lee, Performance of an ammonia-based CO2 capture pilot Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry:
facility in iron and steel industry, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 27 (2014) 239–246, An ENERGY STAR® Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.05.014. [137] A.T. Ubando, W.H. Chen, R.R. Tan, S.R. Naqvi, Optimal integration of a biomass-
[109] E. Tsupari, J. Kärki, A. Arasto, J. Lilja, K. Kinnunen, M. Sihvonen, Oxygen blast based polygeneration system in an iron production plant for negative carbon
furnace with CO2 capture and storage at an integrated steel mill – part II: emissions, Int. J. Energy Res. 44 (2020) 9350–9366, https://doi.org/10.1002/
economic feasibility in comparison with conventional blast furnace highlighting er.4902.
sensitivities, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 32 (2015) 189–196, https://doi.org/ [138] K. Takeda, T. Anyashiki, T. Sato, N. Oyama, S. Watakabe, M. Sato, Recent
10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.007. developments and mid- and long-term CO2 mitigation projects in ironmaking,
[110] D.-A. Chisalita, L. Petrescu, P. Cobden, H.A.J.Eric van Dijk, A.-M. Cormos, C.- Steel Res. Int. 82 (2011) 512–520, https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201100034.
C. Cormos, Assessing the environmental impact of an integrated steel mill with [139] L. Holappa, P. Taskinen, Process innovations and sustainability in Finnish
post-combustion CO2 capture and storage using the LCA methodology, J. Clean metallurgical industries, Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. Sect. C Miner. Process Extr.
Prod. 211 (2019) 1015–1025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.256. Metall. 126 (2017) 70–80, https://doi.org/10.1080/03719553.2016.1259197.
[111] R. Riccardi, F. Bonenti, E. Allevi, C. Avanzi, A. Gnudi, The steel industry: a [140] W. Sun, Q. Wang, Y. Zhou, J. Wu, Material and energy flows of the iron and steel
mathematical model under environmental regulations, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 242 industry: status quo, challenges and perspectives, Appl. Energy 268 (2020),
(2015) 1017–1027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.057. 114946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114946.
[112] Worldsteel Association, Fact Sheet: CO2 Breakthrough Programs. Brussels, 2009. [141] SNAM, IGU, BloombergNEF, Global Gas Report 2020. London, 2020.
[113] H.J. Kim, C. McMillan, G.A. Keoleian, S.J. Skerlos, Greenhouse gas emissions [142] T.K. Blank, P. Molloy, Hydrogen’s Decarbonization Impact for Industry. Basalt,
payback for lightweighted vehicles using aluminum and high-strength steel, CO, 2020.
J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (2010) 929–946, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530- [143] W. Hall, R. Millner, J. Rothberger, A. Singh, C.K. Shah, Green Steel through
9290.2010.00283.x. Hydrogen Direct Reduction: A Study on the Role of Hydrogen in the Indian Iron
[114] Worldsteel Association, Steel - The Permanent Material in the Circular Economy. and Steel Sector. New Delhi, 2021.
Brussels, 2016. [144] E. Karakaya, C. Nuur, L. Assbring, Potential transitions in the iron and steel
[115] C. Bataille, Low and Zero Emissions in the Steel and Cement Industries: Barriers, industry in Sweden: towards a hydrogen-based future? J. Clean. Prod. 195 (2018)
Technologies and Policies, 2020. 651–663.
[116] J. Oda, K. Akimoto, T. Tomoda, Long-term global availability of steel scrap, [145] J.K. Pandit, A. Qader, S. Lim, Cross-technology Scheme Options to Reduce
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 81 (2013) 81–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Steel Industry, 2021. Available SSRN 3821438.
resconrec.2013.10.002. [146] ArcelorMittal, Climate Action in Europe - Our carbon emissions reduction
[117] S. Pauliuk, R.L. Milford, D.B. Müller, J.M. Allwood, The steel scrap age, Environ. roadmap: 30% by 2030 and carbon neutral by 2050. https://corporate-media.ar
Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 3448–3454. celormittal.com/media/b4wh4cd0/climate-action-in-europe.pdf, 2021.
[118] P. Wang, M. Ryberg, Y. Yang, K. Feng, S. Kara, M. Hauschild, et al., Efficiency (Accessed 30 October 2021).
stagnation in global steel production urges joint supply-and demand-side [147] M. Draxler, J. Schenk, T. Bürgler, A. Sormann, in: The Steel Industry in the
mitigation efforts, Nat. Commun. 12 (2021) 1–11. European Union on the Crossroad to Carbon Lean Production—Status, Initiatives
[119] S. Biswal, F. Pahlevani, V. Sahajwalla, Wastes as resources in steelmaking and Challenges 165, BHM Berg-Und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, 2020,
industry — current trends, Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 26 (2020), 100377, pp. 221–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.100377. [148] A. Arasto, Techno-economic evaluation of significant CO2 emission reductions in
[120] Y. Lan, Q. Liu, F. Meng, D. Niu, H. Zhao, Optimization of magnetic separation the iron and steel industry with CCS, in: VTT Technical Research Centre of
process for iron recovery from steel slag, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 24 (2017) 165–170, Finland, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1006-706X(17)30023-7. [149] A.A. Barde, J.F. Klausner, R. Mei, Solid state reaction kinetics of iron oxide
[121] S. Zhou, Y. Wei, B. Li, H. Wang, Cleaner recycling of iron from waste copper slag reduction using hydrogen as a reducing agent, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41 (2016)
by using walnut shell char as green reductant, J. Clean. Prod. 217 (2019) 10103–10119.
423–431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.184. [150] D. Spreitzer, J. Schenk, Reduction of iron oxides with hydrogen—a review, Steel
[122] K. Li, S. Ping, H. Wang, W. Ni, Recovery of iron from copper slag by deep Res. Int. 90 (2019) 1900108.
reduction and magnetic beneficiation, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 20 (2013) [151] Q. Chen, Y. Gu, Z. Tang, W. Wei, Y. Sun, Assessment of low-carbon iron and steel
1035–1041. production with CO2 recycling and utilization technologies: a case study in China,
[123] J.H. Heo, Y. Chung, J.H. Park, Recovery of iron and removal of hazardous Appl. Energy 220 (2018) 192–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elements from waste copper slag via a novel aluminothermic smelting reduction apenergy.2018.03.043.
(ASR) process, J. Clean. Prod. 137 (2016) 777–787, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [152] K. De Ras, R. Van de Vijver, V.V. Galvita, G.B. Marin, K.M. Van Geem, Carbon
jclepro.2016.07.154. capture and utilization in the steel industry: challenges and opportunities for
[124] C.Charles Xu, Cang D. Qiang, A brief overview of low CO2 emission technologies chemical engineering, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 26 (2019) 81–87, https://doi.org/
for iron and steel making, J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 17 (2010) 1–7, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.coche.2019.09.001.
10.1016/S1006-706X(10)60064-7. [153] M. Thema, F. Bauer, M. Sterner, Power-to-gas: electrolysis and methanation status
[125] K. He, L. Wang, A review of energy use and energy-efficient technologies for the review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 112 (2019) 775–787, https://doi.org/10.1016/
iron and steel industry, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 70 (2017) 1022–1039, https:// j.rser.2019.06.030.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.007. [154] Molten Oxide Electrolysis, in: https://www.bostonmetal.com/moe-technolo
[126] Á.A. Ramírez-Santos, C. Castel, E. Favre, A review of gas separation technologies gy/#moe-process, 2021. (Accessed 6 January 2021).
within emission reduction programs in the iron and steel sector: Current [155] W. Chen, X. Yin, D. Ma, A bottom-up analysis of China’s iron and steel industrial
application and development perspectives, Sep. Purif. Technol. 194 (2018) energy consumption and CO2 emissions, Appl. Energy 136 (2014) 1174–1183,
425–442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.002.
[127] N. Karali, W.Y. Park, M. McNeil, Modeling technological change and its impact on [156] J.C. Brunke, M. Blesl, A plant-specific bottom-up approach for assessing the cost-
energy savings in the U.S. iron and steel sector, Appl. Energy 202 (2017) effective energy conservation potential and its ability to compensate rising
447–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.173. energy-related costs in the German iron and steel industry, Energy Policy 67
(2014) 431–446, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.024.

31
J. Kim et al. Energy Research & Social Science 89 (2022) 102565

[157] R. An, B. Yu, R. Li, Y.-M. Wei, Potential of energy savings and CO2 emission [182] M. Arens, Policy support for and R&D activities on digitising the European steel
reduction in China’s iron and steel industry, Appl. Energy 226 (2018) 862–880, industry, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 143 (2019) 244–250, https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.044. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.020.
[158] B.K. Sovacool, J. Kim, M. Yang, The hidden costs of energy and mobility: a global [183] K. Neuhoff, W. Acworth, A. Ancygier, F. Branger, I. Christmas, M. Haussner, et al.,
meta-analysis and research synthesis of electricity and transport externalities, Experience with low-carbon opportunities for steel sector, Clim. Strat. London
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72 (2021), 101885, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2014).
erss.2020.101885. [184] V. Vogl, M. Åhman, L.J. Nilsson, The making of green steel in the EU: a policy
[159] E. Worrell, J.A. Laitner, M. Ruth, H. Finman, Productivity benefits of industrial evaluation for the early commercialization phase, Clim. Policy 21 (2021) 78–92,
energy efficiency measures, Energy 28 (2003) 1081–1098, https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1803040.
10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00091-4. [185] C. Peñasco, L.D. Anadón, E. Verdolini, Systematic review of the outcomes and
[160] E. Worrell, J.A. Laitner, M. Ruth, H. Finman, Productivity benefits of industrial trade-offs of ten types of decarbonization policy instruments, Nat. Clim. Chang.
energy efficiency measures, Energy 28 (2003) 1081–1098, https://doi.org/ 11 (2021) 257–265.
10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00091-4. [186] V. Vogl, O. Olsson, B. Nykvist, Phasing out the blast furnace to meet global
[161] M. Kirschen, V. Risonarta, H. Pfeifer, Energy efficiency and the influence of gas climate targets, Joule 5 (2021) 2646–2662.
burners to the energy related carbon dioxide emissions of electric arc furnaces in [187] L.J. Nilsson, F. Bauer, M. Åhman, Andersson FNG, C. Bataille, S. de la Rue du Can,
steel industry, Energy 34 (2009) 1065–1072, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. An industrial policy framework for transforming energy and emissions intensive
energy.2009.04.015. industries towards zero emissions, Clim. Policy 21 (2021) 1053–1065.
[162] S. Zhang, E. Worrell, W. Crijns-Graus, F. Wagner, J. Cofala, Co-benefits of energy [188] CCC, Net Zero Technical Report. London, 2019.
efficiency improvement and air pollution abatement in the Chinese iron and steel [189] U. Sreenivasamurthy, Domestic climate policy for the Indian steel sector, Clim.
industry, Energy 78 (2014) 333–345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Policy 9 (2009) 517–528, https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2009.0640.
energy.2014.10.018. [190] M. Ruth, A. Amato, B. Davidsdottir, Impacts of market-based climate change
[163] D. Ma, W. Chen, X. Yin, L. Wang, Quantifying the co-benefits of decarbonisation policy on the U.S. iron and steel industry, Energy Sour. 22 (2000) 269–280,
in China’s steel sector: an integrated assessment approach, Appl. Energy 162 https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310050014054.
(2016) 1225–1237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.005. [191] J.-B. Huang, Y.-M. Luo, C. Feng, An overview of carbon dioxide emissions from
[164] C. Wang, X. Zheng, W. Cai, X. Gao, P. Berrill, Unexpected water impacts of China’s ferrous metal industry: 1991–2030, Resour. Policy 62 (2019) 541–549,
energy-saving measures in the iron and steel sector: tradeoffs or synergies? Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.10.010.
Energy 205 (2017) 1119–1127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [192] A. Kazaglis, A. Tam, J. Eis, J. Watson, N. Hughes, R. Gross, et al., Accelerating
apenergy.2017.08.125. Innovation Towards Net Zero Emissions, 2019.
[165] A.N. Conejo, J.-P. Birat, A. Dutta, A review of the current environmental [193] K. Lee, J. Ki, Rise of latecomers and catch-up cycles in the world steel industry,
challenges of the steel industry and its value chain, J. Environ. Manag. 259 Res. Policy 46 (2017) 365–375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.010.
(2020), 109782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109782. [194] A. Öhman, E. Karakaya, F. Urban, Enabling the transition to a fossil-free steel
[166] Z. Du, B. Lin, Analysis of carbon emissions reduction of China’s metallurgical sector: the conditions for technology transfer for hydrogen-based steelmaking in
industry, J. Clean. Prod. 176 (2018) 1177–1184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Europe, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 84 (2022), 102384.
jclepro.2017.11.178. [195] Y. Wang, H. Li, Q. Song, Y. Qi, The consequence of energy policies in China: a case
[167] H. Yang, J. Liu, K. Jiang, J. Meng, D. Guan, Y. Xu, et al., Multi-objective analysis study of the iron and steel sector, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117 (2017) 66–73,
of the co-mitigation of CO2 and PM2.5 pollution by China’s iron and steel https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.007.
industry, J. Clean. Prod. 185 (2018) 331–341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [196] D. Gielen, Y. Moriguchi, Modelling CO2 policies for the Japanese iron and steel
jclepro.2018.02.092. industry, Environ. Model Softw. 17 (2002) 481–495, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[168] E. Cagno, A. Trianni, G. Spallina, F. Marchesani, Drivers for energy efficiency and S1364-8152(02)00012-9.
their effect on barriers: empirical evidence from Italian manufacturing [197] S. Luh, S. Budinis, S. Giarola, T.J. Schmidt, A. Hawkes, Long-term development of
enterprises, Energy Effic. 10 (2017) 855–869. the industrial sector–case study about electrification, fuel switching, and CCS in
[169] J.I. Chowdhury, Y. Hu, I. Haltas, N. Balta-Ozkan, L. Varga, Reducing industrial the USA, Comput. Chem. Eng. 133 (2020), 106602.
energy demand in the UK: a review of energy efficiency technologies and energy [198] D. Moya, S. Budinis, S. Giarola, A. Hawkes, Agent-based scenarios comparison for
saving potential in selected sectors, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 94 (2018) assessing fuel-switching investment in long-term energy transitions of the India’s
1153–1178. industry sector, Appl. Energy 274 (2020), 115295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[170] T. Gerres, J.P. Chaves Ávila, P.L. Llamas, T.G. San Román, A review of cross- apenergy.2020.115295.
sector decarbonisation potentials in the European energy intensive industry, [199] L. Ren, S. Zhou, T. Peng, X. Ou, A review of CO2 emissions reduction technologies
J. Clean. Prod. 210 (2019) 585–601, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and low-carbon development in the iron and steel industry focusing on China,
jclepro.2018.11.036. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 143 (2021), 110846, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[171] Samantha Gross, The Challenge of Decarbonizing Heavy Industry. Washington, D. rser.2021.110846.
C, 2021. [200] G.P. Thiel, A.K. Stark, To decarbonize industry, we must decarbonize heat, Joule
[172] IHS Markit, Steel Price Forecast and Market Outlook. https://ihsmarkit.com/solut 5 (3) (2021) 531–550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.007.
ions/steel-forecast.html, 2022. (Accessed 25 February 2022). [201] S. Pauliuk, N. Heeren, Material efficiency and its contribution to climate change
[173] V. Shatokha, Post-Soviet issues and sustainability of iron and steel industry in mitigation in Germany: a deep decarbonization scenario analysis until 2060,
Eastern Europe, Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. Sect. C Miner. Process Extr. Metall. 126 J. Ind. Ecol. 25 (2021) 479–493.
(2017) 62–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/03719553.2016.1251750. [202] P.W. Griffin, G.P. Hammond, The prospects for ‘green steel’making in a net-zero
[174] Y. Li, L. Zhu, Cost of energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction in China’s iron economy: a UK perspective, Glob. Trans. 3 (2021) 72–86.
and steel sector, Appl. Energy 130 (2014) 603–616, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [203] W. Liu, H. Zuo, J. Wang, Q. Xue, B. Ren, F. Yang, The production and application
apenergy.2014.04.014. of hydrogen in steel industry, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 46 (2021) 10548–10569,
[175] J.H. Wesseling, S. Lechtenböhmer, M. Åhman, L.J. Nilsson, E. Worrell, L. Coenen, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.12.123.
The transition of energy intensive processing industries towards deep [204] A. Bhaskar, M. Assadi, Somehsaraei H. Nikpey, Decarbonization of the iron and
decarbonization: Characteristics and implications for future research, Renew. steel industry with direct reduction of iron ore with green hydrogen, Energies 13
Sust. Energ. Rev. 79 (2017) 1303–1313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2020) 758.
rser.2017.05.156. [205] W. Hall, T. Spencer, S. Kumar, Towards a Low Carbon Steel Sector: Overview of
[176] T. Skoczkowski, E. Verdolini, S. Bielecki, M. Kochański, K. Korczak, A. Węglarz, the Changing Market, Technology and Policy Context for Indian Steel. New Delhi,
Technology innovation system analysis of decarbonisation options in the EU steel 2020.
industry, Energy 212 (2020), 118688, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [206] N.A. Ryan, S.A. Miller, S.J. Skerlos, D.R. Cooper, Reducing CO2 emissions from
energy.2020.118688. US steel consumption by 70% by 2050, Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (2020)
[177] J.W. Busby, S. Shidore, When decarbonization meets development: the sectoral 14598–14608.
feasibility of greenhouse gas mitigation in India, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 23 (2017) [207] I. Karlsson, J. Rootzén, A. Toktarova, M. Odenberger, F. Johnsson, L. Göransson,
60–73. Roadmap for decarbonization of the building and construction industry—a supply
[178] A.S.M.M. Hasan, M.T. Hoq, P. Thollander, Energy management practices in chain analysis including primary production of steel and cement, Energies 13
Bangladesh’s iron and steel industries, Energy Strateg. Rev. 22 (2018) 230–236, (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.09.002. [208] X. Su, X. Zhang, A detailed analysis of the embodied energy and carbon emissions
[179] E. Worrell, L. Price, An integrated benchmarking and energy savings tool for the of steel-construction residential buildings in China, Energy Build. 119 (2016)
iron and steel industry, Int. J. Green Energy 3 (2006) 117–126, https://doi.org/ 323–330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.070.
10.1080/01971520500543962. [209] Y. Tian, Q. Zhu, Y. Geng, An analysis of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions
[180] T. Mikunda, T. Kober, H. de Coninck, M. Bazilian, H. Rösler, B. van der Zwaan, in the Chinese iron and steel industry, Energy Policy 56 (2013) 352–361, https://
Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry, Clim. Policy 14 (2014) doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.068.
665–676, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.905441. [210] B.J. O’Callaghan, E. Murdock, Are We Building Back Better?: Evidence from 2020
[181] M. Åhman, O. Olsson, V. Vogl, B. Nyqvist, A. Maltais, L.J. Nilsson, et al., and Pathways for Inclusive Green Recovery Spending. Geneva, 2021.
Hydrogen steelmaking for a low-carbon economy, Stockholm Environ. Inst. [211] J.-H. Lee, J. Woo, Green new deal policy of South Korea: policy innovation for a
Stockholm (2018). sustainability transition, Sustain 12 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/
su122310191.
[212] IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2020. Paris, 2020.

32