IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v105y2015ipap113-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life cycle assessment of ferronickel production in Greece

Author

Listed:
  • Bartzas, Georgios
  • Komnitsas, Kostas

Abstract

Ferronickel (FeNi) is predominantly produced from nickeliferous laterite ores which are converted into a product with a nickel content of around 20%. With increasing emphasis being put on energy efficiency and global climate change, it is important for the nickel industry to further explore energy saving issues and to evaluate a number of potential opportunities for reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary FeNi production. The present study adopted a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to assess energy consumption and greenhouse gas footprints of the main processing stages of a typical Greek nickel laterite ore for the production of ferronickel. In this context, a detailed life cycle directory was created based on facility-specific data and used for a holistic cradle-to-gate LCA analysis (including mining and the main ore processing routes). The following energy and environmental indicators were assessed: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP) and primary energy demand (PED). Using current FeNi production as a baseline scenario (BL), two alternative scenarios, namely (i) the green energy (GE) scenario that involves 50% substitution of fossil fuels mix (lignite and coal) with biochar and 50% substitution of lignite with renewable resources for electricity production, and (ii) the waste utilization (WU) scenario that includes 65% utilization of slag in the construction sector, to improve energy and waste utilization, minimize the adverse environmental impacts and therefore achieve more sustainable FeNi production were investigated. Results showed that the best alternative scenario for energy savings and reduction of associated GHG emissions during FeNi production was the GE scenario. With this scenario energy savings and GHG emissions were about 17% and 35% lower compared to BL scenario, respectively. Lower reduction in energy consumption (7%) and GHG emissions (13%) compared to the BL scenario was attained when the WU scenario was considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Bartzas, Georgios & Komnitsas, Kostas, 2015. "Life cycle assessment of ferronickel production in Greece," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 113-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:105:y:2015:i:pa:p:113-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344915301154
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastián, F. & Royo, J. & Gómez, M., 2011. "Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 2029-2037.
    2. Eckelman, Matthew J., 2010. "Facility-level energy and greenhouse gas life-cycle assessment of the global nickel industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 256-266.
    3. van Berkel, Rene, 2007. "Eco-efficiency in primary metals production: Context, perspectives and methods," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 511-540.
    4. Paramonova, Svetlana & Thollander, Patrik & Ottosson, Mikael, 2015. "Quantifying the extended energy efficiency gap-evidence from Swedish electricity-intensive industries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 472-483.
    5. Weisser, Daniel, 2007. "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1543-1559.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hu, Xueyue & Wang, Chunying & Elshkaki, Ayman, 2024. "Material-energy Nexus: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.
    3. Wang, Jianliang & Liu, Mingming & McLellan, Benjamin C. & Tang, Xu & Feng, Lianyong, 2017. "Environmental impacts of shale gas development in China: A hybrid life cycle analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 38-45.
    4. Davide Rovelli & Carlo Brondi & Michele Andreotti & Elisabetta Abbate & Maurizio Zanforlin & Andrea Ballarino, 2022. "A Modular Tool to Support Data Management for LCA in Industry: Methodology, Application and Potentialities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    5. Guohua, Yuan & Elshkaki, Ayman & Xiao, Xi, 2021. "Dynamic analysis of future nickel demand, supply, and associated materials, energy, water, and carbon emissions in China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    2. Muench, Stefan & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2013. "A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 257-273.
    3. Varun, & Prakash, Ravi & Bhat, I.K., 2012. "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions estimation for small hydropower schemes in India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 498-508.
    4. Royo, Javier & Sebastián, Fernando & García-Galindo, Daniel & Gómez, Maider & Díaz, Maryori, 2012. "Large-scale analysis of GHG (greenhouse gas) reduction by means of biomass co-firing at country-scale: Application to the Spanish case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 255-267.
    5. Yang, Qing & Han, Fei & Chen, Yingquan & Yang, Haiping & Chen, Hanping, 2016. "Greenhouse gas emissions of a biomass-based pyrolysis plant in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1580-1590.
    6. Yi, Ji Hyun & Ko, Woong & Park, Jong-Keun & Park, Hyeongon, 2018. "Impact of carbon emission constraint on design of small scale multi-energy system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 792-808.
    7. Shafie, S.M. & Mahlia, T.M.I. & Masjuki, H.H., 2013. "Life cycle assessment of rice straw co-firing with coal power generation in Malaysia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 284-294.
    8. Apriani Soepardi & Pratikto Pratikto & Purnomo Budi Santoso & Ishardita Pambudi Tama & Patrik Thollander, 2018. "Linking of Barriers to Energy Efficiency Improvement in Indonesia’s Steel Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Zhang, Ruirui & Wang, Guiling & Shen, Xiaoxu & Wang, Jinfeng & Tan, Xianfeng & Feng, Shoutao & Hong, Jinglan, 2020. "Is geothermal heating environmentally superior than coal fired heating in China?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. Maung, Thein A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2013. "Economic factors influencing potential use of cellulosic crop residues for electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-91.
    11. Guohua Feng & Chuan Wang & Apostolos Serletis, 2018. "Shadow prices of $$\hbox {CO}_{2}$$ CO 2 emissions at US electric utilities: a random-coefficient, random-directional-vector directional output distance function approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 231-258, February.
    12. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Hirzel, Simon, 2017. "Adoption of Energy Efficiency Measures for Non-residential Buildings: Technological and Organizational Heterogeneity in the Trade, Commerce and Services Sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 240-254.
    13. Ozdemir, Ali Can & Buluş, Kurtuluş & Zor, Kasım, 2022. "Medium- to long-term nickel price forecasting using LSTM and GRU networks," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    15. Kumar, Indraneel & Tyner, Wallace E. & Sinha, Kumares C., 2016. "Input–output life cycle environmental assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from utility scale wind energy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 294-301.
    16. Kim, Dongin & Han, Jeehoon, 2020. "Comprehensive analysis of two catalytic processes to produce formic acid from carbon dioxide," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    17. Loeffler, Dan & Anderson, Nathaniel, 2014. "Emissions tradeoffs associated with cofiring forest biomass with coal: A case study in Colorado, USA," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 67-77.
    18. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.
    19. Marimuthu, C. & Kirubakaran, V., 2013. "Carbon pay back period for solar and wind energy project installed in India: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 80-90.
    20. Anders Skonhoft & Bjart Holtsmark, 2014. "The Norwegian support and subsidy of electric cars. Should it be adopted by other countries?," Working Paper Series 15814, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:105:y:2015:i:pa:p:113-122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.