We are in the process of upgrading DSpace and are restricting logins.
Quantification of energy consumption and production drivers in steel manufacturing plants
Van Niekerk, Sybrand Gerhardus Johannes
MetadataShow full item record
The South African government has introduced regulations with the aim to monitor and reduce carbon emissions. Energy efficiency tax incentives and future compulsory Department of Energy reporting are reviewed in this study. These regulations require accurate and verifiable data of energy consumption and production drivers to determine energy savings. Steel production plants are large, integrated and complex energy consumers; errors in quantification can therefore be considerable. Research has shown that current quantification techniques use inaccurate data due to disorganised, decentralised and unverifiable data sources and collecting procedures. The need therefore exists to improve the quality of the steel plants’ energy reporting and quantification of energy consumption. In this study, background is provided on a steel plant’s production process and main components. The different energy carriers consumed are identified and their measurement process described. The study conducts a literature review of current energy quantification techniques in steel manufacturing companies. The requirements for Measurement and Verification specified in global and local standards are reviewed. A methodology is also developed to quantify energy consumption and production drivers on a steel plant. The methodology is presented as a set of steps that can be followed. The steps consists of identifying, quantifying and normalising the energy carriers and production drivers on a plant. The methodology also includes verification and validation steps from literature. The methodology compiled in the study is validated on steel production organisations with facilities based in South Africa. The results are compared with previous quantification results published. Differences in the estimation of energy carriers is observed as 9%, 10%, 1% and 2% for the four case studies respectively. The main reason for the differences is that previous quantification methods use untraceable assumptions.
- Engineering