April 2022

Steel Climate Impact
An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Foreword by the author
This report is an update to our previous report titled “How Clean is the U.S. Steel Industry? AnInternational Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities”. In the previous report the energy
and CO2 intensities were calculated using 2016 data. In this report, the intensities arecalculated using 2019 data. The energy and CO2 intensities presented in this report might bedifferent from the previous report not only because a different base year is use, but also
because different sources of primary data as well as refined analysis and assumptions areused in this new update. These changes are explained in detail in chapter 4 as well as themethodology section. It should be noted that the purpose of this update was not trend
analysis but to refine the data and method used in our previous analysis based on the latest
information available.

Acknowledgments
This report was made possible with the support from the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation.
The authors would like to thank Justin Stofferahn and Charlie Martin of BlueGreen AllianceFoundation, Cecilia Springer of Boston University, Jibran Zuberi and Hongyou Lu of Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Brett Smith and Mark Thimons of the American Iron and SteelInstitute, Caitlin Swalec of Global Energy Monitor, and Alexandre Bizeul, JunGyu Park, Thomas
Elghozi, and Nicholas Howarth of International Energy Agency for their valuable input to thisstudy and/or their insightful comments on the earlier version of this document.

Disclaimer
Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC has provided the information in this publication for
informational purposes only. Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracyof information collected and presented, Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC do not makeany express or implied warranty concerning such information. Any estimates contained in
the publication reflect Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC’s current analyses andexpectations based on available data and information. Any reference to a specificcommercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise, does not constitute or imply an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC.
This document may be freely quoted or reprinted, but acknowledgment is requested.

Recommended citation: Hasanbeigi, A. 2022. Steel Climate Impact - An International
Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities. Global Efficiency Intelligence. Florida, UnitedStates.
https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 1

Executive Summary
The iron and steel industry accounts for around 7% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and 11% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Global steel production has more thandoubled between 2000 and 2020. China accounted for 53% of global steel production in 2020.
Under the current policy and technology regime, the energy use and GHG emissions of thesteel industry is likely to continue increasing because the increased demand for steel,particularly in developing countries, is outpacing the incremental decreases in the energy andCO2 emissions intensity of steel production happening.
International benchmarking of energy intensity and CO2 emissions intensity can provide acomparison point against which a company or industry’s performance can be measured to thatof the same type of company or industry in other countries. Benchmarking can also be used
for assessing the energy and emissions improvement potential that could be achieved by the
implementation of energy efficiency or CO2 reduction measures. Also, on a national level,
policy makers can use benchmarking to prioritize energy saving and decarbonization options
and to design policies to reduce energy and GHG emissions.

In this study we conducted a benchmarking analysis forenergy and CO2 emissions intensities of the steel industry
among the largest steel-producing countries. Because of thedifference in the composition of the steel industry acrosscountries and the variation in the share of electric arc furnace(EAF) steel production, a single intensity value for theoverall steel industry is not a good indicator of efficiencyof the steel industry in a country. Therefore, in addition to
calculating CO2 intensities for the entire steel industry, we
also calculated separately the CO2 intensities associatedwith the EAF and blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF)
production routes in each country.

The iron and steel
industry worldwide
accounts for arounda 11% of global CO2
emissions.

Our results show that when looking at the entire steel industry, Italy, U.S., and Turkey have thelowest and Ukraine, India, and China have the highest CO2 emissions intensities among thecountries/region studied. Among several reasons, this is primarily because of a significantly
higher share of EAF steel production in total steel production in Italy, U.S., and Turkey. Figures
ES1 shows the CO2 emissions intensities for the steel production for the 16 countries/region
studied.
Some key factors that could explain why the steel industry’s energy and CO2 emissions
intensity values differ among the countries are: the share of EAF steel in total steel production,
the fuel mix in the iron and steel industry, the electricity grid CO2 emissions factor, the type of
feedstocks for BF-BOF and EAF, the level of penetration of energy-efficient technologies, thesteel product mix in each country, the age of steel manufacturing facilities in each country,
the capacity utilization, environmental regulations, cost of energy and raw materials, and theboundary definition for the steel industry. These are discussed later in the report.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 2

Total CO2 Intensity (t CO2/t crude steel)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

in
e

ia

Uk
ra

In
d

in
a
Ch

pa
n
Vi
et
na
m

Ja

CN
al

co
ar

-C
h
zil
Br
a

EU
-2
7
Fr
an
ce
Ge
rm
an
y
Ru
ss
So
ia
ut
Br
h
az
Ko
ilre
Ch
a
ar
co
al
C+

da
na

Ca

ex
ico

M

rk
ey

Tu

U.
S.

Ita

ly

0.0

Figure ES1. The CO2 intensity of the steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019
Note: Brazil-Charcoal CN refers to when charcoal is considered carbon neutral. Brazil-Charcoal
C+ refers to when charcoal is not considered carbon neutral because of questions and concerns
regarding the sustainability of biomass used in the steel industry in Brazil. See methodology inAppendix for more information.

In view of the projected continuing increase in absolute steel production and the need fordeep decarbonization of the steel industry to meet the Paris Agreement targets, future
reductions in absolute energy use and CO2 emissions will require innovation beyond
technologies that are widely used today. New developments will likely include different
processes, fuels, and materials as well as technologies that can economically capture, use,and store the industry’s CO2 emissions. This report sheds light on the relative performance of
today’s steel industries around the world, highlighting where these future developments canand should take place.
It should be noted that top ten steel producing countries account for 86% and top fivecountries (China, India, Japan, U.S., and Russia) account for 74% of global steel production.
Therefore, substantial actions are needed by these few countries in near, medium, and longterm in order to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. In recent years, some countries
and several major steel companies have announced their carbon-neutrality targets. While thisis a positive step, these steel companies will need to take concrete actions in the near termand start deploying deep decarbonization and low carbon steel production technologies by2030 in order to avoid stranded carbon-intensive assets and to meet Paris Agreement targets.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 3

Table of Contents

Executive summary

2

1.

Introduction									

5

2.

Global steel production and trade						

8

3.

The global steel industry’s CO2 emissions				

10

4.

Benchmarking energy and CO2 emissions intensities of the steel industry

124.1. Benchmarking the Total Steel Industry’s Energy and CO2 Emissions Intensities 13
4.2. Benchmarking BF-BOF Steel Production’s CO2 Emissions Intensities		
16
4.3. Benchmarking EAF Steel Production’s CO2 Emissions Intensities		
18
4.4. Key Factors Influencing Energy and CO2 Emissions Intensity of theSteel Industry									 195.

Conclusions									

23References										 24Appendices										 26Appendix 1.
Methodology							 26Appendix 2.
List of acronyms						
30Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 4

1

Introduction

Iron and steel manufacturing is one of the most energy-intensive industries worldwide. In
addition, the use of coal as the primary fuel for iron and steel production globally means thatiron and steel production has among the highest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of any industry.
The iron and steel industry accounts for around a quarter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from the global manufacturing sector (IEA 2019).
The world’s steel demand is projected to increase from 1,880 Mt in 2020 to up to 2,500 Mt
in 2050, (IEA 2020a). India will lead the production growth and Africa and the Middle East
are the other two regions with the highest projected growth rate in steel production over thisperiod (IEA 2019). This significant increase in steel consumption and production will drive asignificant increase in the industry’s absolute energy use and CO2 emissions in the absence of
substantial effort in decarbonizing the iron and steel industry.
Figure 1 shows a simplified flow diagram of steel production using blast furnace - basic oxygen
furnace (BF-BOF), direct reduced iron - electric arc furnace (DRI-EAF), and scrap-EAF
production routes.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 5

Figure 1. Steelmaking production routes (Worldsteel 2019)

Iron ore is chemically reduced to produce steel by one of these three process routes: BF-BOF,
smelting reduction, or direct reduction. Steel is also produced by direct melting of scrap in an
EAF. BF-BOF and EAF production routes are the most common today. In 2020, the BF-BOF
production route accounted for approximately 72% of the crude steel manufactured
worldwide, and EAF production accounted for approximately 28% (Worldsteel 2021). Iron andsteel can be produced at separate facilities or in an integrated steel mill, where the iron ore is
reduced into pig iron/hot metal or DRI and then processed into steel at the same site.
There are emerging technologies that aim to reduce energy use and emissions from the steel
industry such as the ones described in IEA (2020a) and Hasanbeigi et al. (2013). For example,hydrogen DRI-based EAF steelmaking where hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using
renewable electricity is one of the key deep decarbonization technologies that is being
piloted (SAAB 2021) and is being seriously considered by both industry as policymakers.
For this study, we have conducted benchmarking of the energy intensity and CO2 emissions
intensity of the iron and steel industry in 16 major steel producing countries/region.
The countries studied are among the top 20 steel producing countries in the world andrepresent 87 percent of world’s steel production in 2019. The study methodology compares
energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the entire steel industry for each country. In addition,
we assessed BF-BOF and EAF steel production separately to provide more in-depth insightand account for the differences in steel industry structure in terms of types of steelmaking
technologies used. To provide a more accurate comparison, we also added the embodied
energy in imported and exported pig iron and DRI when calculating energy and CO2 emissions
intensity for each country. We estimated the embodied energy in pig iron and DRI that istraded and subtracted that amount from total energy use of the steel industry for exporting
countries and added that amount to total energy use of the steel industry in importing
countries. Since the energy and CO2 emissions intensities are calculated for production of
one tonne of crude steel, this approach will ensure that the intensities are not overestimatedfor countries exporting pig iron and DRI and not underestimated for countries importing theseintermediary products. See Appendix 1 for more details about the study methodology.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 6

The study boundaries include coke making, pelletizing, sintering, iron making, steel making,steel casting, hot rolling, cold rolling, and processing such as galvanizing or coating. The
embodied energy and CO2 emissions associated with scrap used in the iron and steel industry
and the CO2 emissions associated with mining have been excluded. While results arepresented on a “crude steel” basis, the energy and CO2 emissions intensities shown in thisreport also include the energy use and associated CO2 for the steel rolling and finishingprocesses, the result of which is sometimes referred to as “semi-finished steel”. The
documentation of IEA (2021) which was the main energy consumption data source used inthis study shows that these steel rolling and finishing processes are included in the scope of
its steel industry energy use data reported. In addition, we confirmed with IEA that sintering is
included in the scope of steel industry energy use data they have reported.
Countries that produce a higher share of hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and coated products (vs. longproducts), like the U.S., may show higher energy and CO2 emissions intensities than countries
with a lower share using this approach than they would in a study focused only on crude steel
production and would not include steel rolling and finishing processes.
This report is an update to our previous report titled “How Clean is the U.S. Steel Industry? AnInternational Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities”. In the previous report the energy
and CO2 intensities were calculated using 2016 data. In addition to calculating energy and CO2
intensities for the entire steel industry, we also calculated separately the intensities
associated with the EAF and BF-BOF production routes in each country. In this current report,
the intensities are calculated using 2019 data. The energy and CO2 intensities presented inthis report are different from the previous report not only because a different base year is use,
but also because different sources of primary data as well as refined analysis and assumptions
are used in this new update. These changes are explained in detail in chapter 4 as well as themethodology section (see Appendix 1). It should be noted that the purpose of this update was
not trend analysis but to refine the data and method used in our previous analysis based on
the latest information available. As such, the results of the previous analysis are not directlycomparable to the results presented herein.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 7

2

Global Steel Production and Trade

World steel production has more than doubled between 2000 and 2020 (Figure 2). In 2020,
China accounted for 53% of global steel production while its share was only 15% in 2000. The
2008 drop in world steel production was because of the global economic recession. The 2014
drop was mainly caused by a slowdown in the Chinese economy and chronic overcapacity,which resulted in shutting down illegal induction furnaces and old steel plants in China. In
2020, the global crude steel production decreased by about 1% because of the global COVID
19 pandemic.
China

Rest of the World

2,000

Crude steel production (Mt)

1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Figure 2. Crude steel production in China and rest of the world, 2000-2020 (Worldsteel 2020, 2021)

Figure 3 shows the top 10 steel producing countries in the world. In 2020, these top 10
producing countries accounted for 86% of world steel production (Worldsteel 2021).
Rest of the World
Ukraine
Iran
BrazilGermany
TurkeyS. Korea
Russia
U.S.
Japan
India
China
0

200

400
600
800
Steel Production in 2020 (Mt)

1000

1200

Figure 3. Top 10 steel producing countries in 2020 (Worldsteel 2021)

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 8

The top 20 exporting countries account for over 90% of total world steel exports. According
to Worldsteel (2021), Russia, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine and China are top five net exporters(export minus import) and U.S., Thailand, EU, Philippines, and Vietnam are top five net
importers (import minus export) of steel in 2020. The significant global trade of such acarbon-intensive commodity has substantial implications for the embodied carbon in tradedsteel as shown in our recent study (Hasanbeigi et al. 2018). This embodied carbon in tradedsteel often is not accounted for in national and international carbon accounting and climate
policies.
Table 1. Top 20 net exporters and importers of steel in 2020 (Worldsteel 2021)(1) Excluding intra-regional trade(2) Data for individual European Union (28) countries include intra-European trade

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 9

3

Global Steel Industry’s CO2 Emissions

The Global steel industry emitted around 3.6 gigaton of CO2 (Gt CO2) emissions in 2019
(Figure 4). We used IEA (2021) energy use data to estimate total steel industry CO2 emissions
and the weighted average CO2 intensities of BF-BOF and EAF steelmaking from countries/
region included in this study to estimate total global emissions for each steel production route.
These 16 major steel-producing countries/region included in this study account for 87% of total
world steel production, 92% of BF-BOF and 75% of EAF steel production. Therefore, we havea high coverage of global steel production in our study.
4,000
3,500

CO2 emissions (Mt CO2)

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-

BF-BOF

EAF

Total

Figure 4. Global steel industry CO2 emissions in 2019 by process type (source: this study)

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 10

Global BF-BOF steel production emitted around 3.1 Gt CO2 and global EAF steel production
emitted around 0.5 Gt CO2 in 2019. The high CO2 intensities of EAFs in China and India
because of their use of large share of pig iron or coal-based direct reduced iron (DRI) as
feedstock instead of steel scrap in EAFs causes an increase in global EAF’s CO2 emissions.
We also estimate the total CO2 emissions from the steel industry in each of the countries
studied, based on our estimated CO2 intensities for BF-BOF and EAF by country and theamount of production in each country. Table 2 shows the results of this analysis, with China
standing out as responsible for 54% of global steel industry’s CO2 emissions.
Based on total steel industry emissions presented above and the global GHG emissions of
52 Gt CO2-e in 2019 (includes non- CO2 GHG emissions as well) reported in UNEP (2020) the
global steel industry accounts for around 7% of total global GHG emissions.
Based on the total steel industry emissions presented above and the global CO2 emissions of
33 Gt CO2 in 2019 reported in IEA (2020c) the global steel industry accounts for around 11% of
total global CO2 emissions.
It is worth highlighting that only the annual GHG emissions of China and the U.S. are higher
than the annual CO2 emissions of the global steel industry.
Table 2. Total CO2 emissions from steel production in the countries studied and rest of theworld in 2019 (in Mt CO2)Countries
China
Rest of the World
India
Japan
South Korea
RussiaU.S.
Germany
Brazil
UkraineVietnamTurkeyFranceMexicoItaly
CanadaTotal CO2 emissions fromsteel industry (Mt CO2)

Share from total
emissions (%)

1,967
634
239
187
117
108
84
56
55
49
34
34
20
19
18
15

54.1%
17.4%
6.6%
5.1%
3.2%
3.0%
2.3%
1.5%
1.5%
1.3%
0.9%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 11

4Benchmarking Energy and CO2 Emissions
Intensities of the Steel Industry

International benchmarking of energy intensity and CO2 emissions intensity can provide acomparison point against which a company or industry’s performance can be measured to thatof the same type of company or industry in other countries. Benchmarking can also be used
for assessing the energy and emissions improvement potential that could be achieved by the
implementation of energy efficiency or CO2 reduction measures. Also, on a national level,
policy makers can use benchmarking to prioritize energy saving and decarbonization options
and to design policies to reduce energy and GHG emissions.
For this study, we have conducted benchmarking of the energy intensity and CO2 emissions
intensity of the iron and steel industry in 16 major steel producing countries/region(14 countries plus EU-27). We used 2019 as the base year for our analysis. A few countries
that were included in the previous report are missing in this new study (e.g. Poland and Spain)
mainly because of lack of reliable quality data. Instead, we included a few other top steel
producing countries as well as the EU-27 region in this new study.
For the benchmarking study, we compared the energy and CO2 emissions intensity of theentire steel industry in these 16 countries/region. In addition, to provide more in-depth insightand take into account the differences in steel industry structure in terms of type of processused, we conducted CO2 emissions intensity benchmarking for BF-BOF and EAF steel
production, separately. To have a more accurate and fair comparison, we also took into
account the embodied energy in net imported pig iron, DRI, and coke when calculatingenergy and CO2 emissions intensity for each country. The energy and CO2 emissions
intensities shown in this report also include the energy use and associated CO2 for the steel
rolling and finishing processes.
See Appendix 1 for a description of the methodology. The subsections below show the resultsof these benchmarking analysis.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 12

There are some differences between the energy and CO2 emissions intensity resultspresented in this reported compared to those of our previous report, “How Clean is the U.S.
Steel Industry? An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities”. Some of the
primary reasons for these differences are:
•

•
•
•

The use of different sources of data for energy use in the steel industry in selected
countries. Unlike the previous study, in this study, we mainly relied on energy use
reported by International Energy Agency (IEA 2021). This helps to have a more similarboundary for energy use reported for the steel industry for different countries. The
boundary will define which sources of energy and what processes are included in
the reported data. Therefore, using the same source of data will help to have a fairer
comparison. In a few cases where IEA data was missing or resulted in unreasonably
low or high intensity values we used energy use reported by countries and publishedin their energy balances.
A refined method to better account for energy use in coke making and embodied
energy in net import coke.
A refined method of calculating energy intensity by process route and better allocationof overall energy intensity and calibration of historical data
The use of a different source for electricity grid emissions factor. We used the same
source in this study for grid emissions factor of all countries, while in the previous
report we obtained grid emissions factor from various sources. The emissions factors
used in this analysis for some countries (e.g. China) are substantially different fromthe previous analysis contributing to differences in calculated CO2 emissions intensity
between this study and previous report.

4.1. Benchmarking the Total Steel Industry’s Energy and CO2
Emissions Intensities
Figure 5 shows the total final energy intensity of the entire steel industry in these 16 countries/
region in 2019. Italy, Turkey, Mexico, and the U.S. have the lowest energy intensity among thecountries studied. This is primarily because of a significantly high share of EAF steel
production in total steel production in these countries (Figure 6). EAF is a secondary steel
production process that primarily uses steel scrap and therefore uses less energy to produce
a ton of steel compared to BF-BOF. In other words, a higher share of EAF production helps
reduce the overall energy intensity of the steel industry in a country. It should be noted that
EAF can also use DRI or even pig iron which are energy-intensive feedstock to EAF. In somecountries like India a high amount of DRI is used in EAF and in China a large amount of pig
iron that is produced by blast furnaces is used in EAF, both resulting in significantly higher
energy and emissions intensity for the steel produced by EAF in those countries. However,other factors also impact the energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry, as is
discussed in the rest of this report.
On the other hand, Ukraine, India, China, and Brazil have the highest energy intensity among
the countries studied. Ukraine, China, and Brazil also have the lowest share of EAF steel
production (Figure 6). While India’s steel industry has a high share of EAF steel production(56 percent), its energy intensity is relatively high. This is mainly because unlike many othercountries, a substantial amount of DRI is used as the feedstock to EAFs in India (around 50%
of total EAF feedstock). Unlike recycled steel scrap, DRI is produced from iron ore using thedirect reduction process (Figure 1), which is an energy- and carbon-intensive process. In
addition, India is one of the few countries in the world that uses coal-based DRI technology
instead of natural gas-based DRI used in most countries around the world. This contributes tohigher energy intensity and emissions for DRI-EAF steel produced in India.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 13

Total Final Enrergy Intensity (GJ/t crude steel)

30

25

20

15

10

5

in
e

in
a

Uk
ra

Ch

ia
In
d

n

zil
Br
a

pa
Ja

ce

sia
Ru
s

an
Fr

y

re
a
Vi
et
na
m

Ko

an
rm

So

ut
h

da
na

Ge

Ca

EU
-2
7

U.
S.

ex
ico

ey

M

rk
Tu

Ita

ly

0

Figure 5. Total final energy intensity of the steel industry in the studied countries/region in 2019

Ukraine
China
BrazilJapan
World
VietnamGermany
FranceSouth Korea
RussiaCanadaEU-27
India
TurkeyUSA
Mexico
Italy
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Share of EAF from total steel production in 2019

Figure 6. The share of EAF from total steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019

The ranking of the CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry among the countries studied(Figure 7) is slightly different from the energy intensity ranking. Italy, U.S. and Turkey have thelowest and Ukraine, India, and China have the highest CO2 emissions intensity. The U.S. ranks
better for its CO2 emissions intensity. This is partly because of high share of natural gas usedin the U.S, steel industry (54% of total fuel used in steel industry in the U.S.). Natural gas has asignificantly lower emissions factor per unit of energy compared to coal and coke, which are
the primary type of energy used in the steel industry in many countries. The U.S. also has alower CO2 grid emissions factor than Turkey and Mexico. Other factors affecting the CO2
emissions intensity of the steel industry are discussed at the end of this chapter.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 14

Total CO2 Intensity (t CO2/t crude steel)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

in
e

ia

ra
Uk

In
d

in
a
Ch

pa
n
Vi
et
na
m

Ja

CN
al

co
ar

-C
h
zil
Br
a

EU
-2
7
Fr
an
ce
Ge
rm
an
y
Ru
ss
So
ia
ut
Br
h
az
Ko
ilre
Ch
a
ar
co
al
C+

da
na

Ca

ex
ico

ey

M

rk

Tu

U.
S.

Ita

ly

0.0

Figure 7. Total CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry in the studied countries/region in 2019

Note: Brazil-Charcoal CN refers to when charcoal is considered carbon neutral. Brazil-Charcoal C+ refers to whencharcoal is not considered carbon neutral because of questions and concerns regarding the sustainability ofbiomass used in the steel industry in Brazil. See methodology in Appendix for more information.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 15

4.2. Benchmarking BF-BOF Steel Production’s CO2 Emissions
Intensities
Because BF-BOF and EAF steel production routes are quite different and thus their CO2
emissions intensity are also significantly different from each other, it is crucial to dive deeper
and benchmark the steel production in each country for each production route. That gives amore fair and accurate view of the efficiency of the steel production in each country.
Figure 8 shows the CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production in the studied countries in 2019.
It worth highlighting that even though China has the 3rd highest CO2 intensity for its entire steel
industry (Figure 7), its ranking improved for the CO2 intensity for the BF-BOF steel production
route. Although the very low share of EAF steel production in China results in a high total CO2
intensity for its entire steel industry, more than 80% of the BF-BOF steel production capacity in
China was built after the year 2000, with average age of plants around 13 years (IEA 2020b).
Many of these new plants are using more efficient production technology. In addition, in thepast ten years, China has been aggressively shutting down old and inefficient steel plants.

BF-BOF CO2 Intensity (t CO2/t crude steel)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

ia
In
d

Ja
pa
n
Vi
et
na
m
Uk
ra
in
e

re
a
Ko

C+
al

ut
h

co
ar

-C
h
zil

So

ly

in
a
Ch

Ita

sia

Ru
s

rk
ey

ce

Tu

an

Fr

U.
S.

y
EU
-2
7
M
ex
ico

an

da

rm

na

Ge

Ca

Br
a

Br
a

zil

-C
h

ar

co

al

CN

0.0

Figure 8. The CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019

Note: Brazil-Charcoal CN refers to when charcoal is considered carbon neutral. Brazil-Charcoal C+ refers to whencharcoal is not considered carbon neutral because of questions and concerns regarding the sustainability ofbiomass used in steel industry in Brazil. See methodology in Appendix for more information.

India has the highest CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production mainly because of many old
and inefficient BF-BOF plants still operating in India. It should be noted, however, that some of
the newly built steel plants in India are among the world’s most efficient.
Key factors influencing energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry are explained
in section 4.4. It should be noted that no single factor could be used to explain the variations
in energy and CO2 intensity among countries. In addition to energy intensity of BF-BOF plants,
one key factor affecting CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production is the mix of fuel used in
BF-BOF plants in each country. Figure 9 shows the weighted average CO2 emissions factorsof fuels in the steel industry in the studied countries in 2019. As can be seen U.S., Mexico
and Canada have among the lowest and India, Vietnam, and China have among the highest

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 16

weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry. If charcoal is consideredcarbon neutral, the Brazil have the cleanest fuel mix and if charcoal is not considered carbon
neutral, then Brazil have the highest carbon-intensive fuel mix for the steel industry.
Brazil-Charcoal CN
U.S.
MexicoCanadaRussiaItaly
TurkeyEU-27
Germany
UkraineFranceJapan
South Korea
China
VietnamIndia
Brazil-Charcoal C+
0

20

40
60
80
Weighted Average CO2 emissions factor of fuels used insteel industry in 2019 (kg CO2/GJ)

100

120

Figure 9. Weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry in the studied countries/
region in 2019
Note: Brazil-Charcoal CN refers to when charcoal is considered carbon neutral. Brazil-Charcoal C+ refers to whencharcoal is not considered carbon neutral because of questions and concerns regarding the sustainability ofbiomass used in steel industry in Brazil. See methodology in Appendix for more information.

Another important factor that influences CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production is electricity
grid CO2 emissions factor. Around 20% of the energy used in BF-BOF steel production(including rolling and finishing) is electricity. Therefore, if the emissions factor of the electricity
used in the primary steelmaking is lower, it will help to reduce the CO2 intensity of BF-BOF
steel production. It should be noted that some of this electricity is produced onsite using off
gases from coke oven, BF, and BOF and some is purchased from the grid. We have accounted for the onsite power generation in our analysis and only applied the grid emissions factor
to the portion of electricity purchased from the grid. As can be seen in Figure 10, France andBrazil have the lowest electricity grid CO2 emissions factors thanks to large nuclear (in France)and hydro (in Brazil) power generation. India, China, and Vietnam have the highest electricity
grid CO2 emissions factors among studied countries due to large share of coal used in theirpower generation. Other factors affecting the CO2 emissions intensity of BF-BOF steel
production are discussed at the end of this chapter.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 17

France
BrazilCanadaEU-27
Italy
Germany
UkraineRussiaU.S.
MexicoTurkeyJapanSouth Korea
China
Vietnam
India
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Electricity grid CO2 emissions factor in 2019 (kg CO2/kWh)Figure 10. Electricity grid CO2 emissions factors in the studied countries in 2019 (IEA 2021)

4.3. Benchmarking EAF Steel Production’s CO2 Emissions
Intensities
EAF steel production is less energy- and carbon-intensive than BF-BOF steel production,
especially when most or all of EAF feedstock is recycled steel scrap. (Note: the embodied
energy and carbon in recycled steel scrap are usually not included in EAF energy andemissions intensities calculation).
Figure 11 shows the CO2 intensity of EAF steel production in the 16 countries/region studied.
Brazil and France have the lowest and India and China have the highest CO2 intensity of EAF
steel production. A key reason why the CO2 intensity of EAF steel production in India, China,
and Mexico are significantly higher than that in other countries is the type of feedstock used in
EAF in these countries. In most countries, steel scrap is the primary feedstock for EAF. In India
and Mexico, however, a substantial amount of DRI (around 50% in India and 40% in Mexico)
is used as feedstock in EAFs (Worldsteel 2020). In China, instead of DRI, a significant amountof pig iron (around 50% of EAF feedstock), which is produced via blast furnace, is used as
feedstock in EAFs (Wang 2017). Both DRI and pig iron production are highly energy-intensive
processes, which result in higher energy and CO2 intensity of EAF steel production when usedas feedstock in EAFs. Vietnam’s high CO2 intensity of EAF steelmaking can be mainly
attributed to its very high electricity grid CO2 emissions factor (see below).

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 18

1.6

EAF CO2 Intensity (t CO2/t crude steel)

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

ia
In
d

Ch

in
a

m

Vi
et
na

ex
ico

M

re
a

n

Ko

pa
So

ut
h

Ja

in
e

ey

sia

Uk
ra

Ru
s

rk

Tu

U.
S.

ly
Ita

y
an
rm

Ge

EU
-2
7

da
na

ce

Ca

an
Fr

Br
a

zil

0.0

Figure 11. The CO2 intensity of EAF steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019

Another important factor that influences CO2 intensity of EAF steel production is electricity gridCO2 emissions factor (Figure 10). Around half of the energy used in EAF steelmaking (including
rolling and finishing) is electricity. The share of electricity from total energy use decreases as
the share of DRI used in the EAF steelmaking increases. Therefore, if the emissions factor of
the electricity used in the steel industry is lower, it will significantly help to reduce the CO2
intensity of EAF steel production. France, Brazil, and Canada have the lowest electricity gridCO2 emissions factors thanks to large nuclear (in France) and hydro (in Brazil and Canada)
power generation. India, Vietnam, and China have the highest electricity grid CO2 emissions
factors among studied countries due to large share of coal used in their power generation.

4.4. Key Factors Influencing Energy and CO2 Emissions
Intensity of the Steel Industry
In this sub-section we discuss the following eleven factors that could explain why the steel
industry’s energy and CO2 emissions intensity values differ among the countries:
1) The share of EAF steel in total steel production2) The fuel mix in the iron and steel industry
3) The electricity grid CO2 emissions factor
4) The type of feedstocks in BF-BOF and EAF
5) The level of penetration of energy-efficient technologies
6) The steel product mix in each country7) The age of steel manufacturing facilities in each country8) Capacity utilization
9) Environmental regulations
10) Cost of energy and raw materials
11) Boundary definition for the steel industry

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 19

While a combination of several factors can explain variations in energy and CO2 emissions
intensity of the steel industry across countries, some factors have larger impacts than other.
It is difficult and sometime not possible to quantify the impact of each factor on energy andCO2 emissions intensity of steel production across different countries. Nonetheless, even a
qualitative discussion of these influencing factors can help the reader to better understand thereasons behind variations in energy and CO2 emissions intensity among the countries studied.

The share of EAF steel in total steel production
The structure of the steel manufacturing sector is one of the key variables that explains thedifference in energy and CO2 emissions intensity. EAF is a secondary steel production
process that primarily uses steel scrap and therefore uses less energy per unit of final productcompared to BF-BOF. In other words, the higher share of EAF production help to reduce theoverall energy intensity of the steel industry in a country. Figure 6 shows the differences in
EAF steel production ratio across countries.

The fuel mix in the iron and steel industry
The share of different fuels used in the iron and steel industry in the countries studied is an
important factor that influences the industry CO2 emissions intensity because some fuels are
more carbon intensive than others. For example, the higher share of natural gas used in Mexico
and Canada (66% and 50% of total fuel used in the steel industry, respectively) has helped
lower the CO2 emissions intensity of BF-BOF steel production in these two countries. Natural
gas has a significantly lower emissions factor per unit of energy compared to coal and coke
which are the primary type of energy used in the steel industry in many countries.
Figure 9 shows the weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry in thestudied countries in 2019.

The electricity grid CO2 emissions factor

In addition to the share of fuels used directly in the iron and steel industry, the fuel mix for
power generation in each country is also an important factor, especially when we compare theCO2 emissions of the steel industry in the countries. The fuel mix becomes even more
important in light of the significant difference in the share of EAF steel production among
countries. Because the share of EAF steel production in Italy, Mexico, Turkey, and the U.S.
is much higher than in the other countries, the share of steel-industry electricity use in totalenergy use is also higher in these four countries than in the other countries. In this case, thefuel mix for power generation in the country, and as the result the emissions factor of the grid(kg CO2/kWh), plays an important role when comparing the CO2 emissions of the iron and steel
industry in these countries. Figure 10 shows the electricity grid CO2 emissions factors in thestudied countries in 2019.

The type of feedstocks in BF-BOF and EAF
The main reason why the energy intensity of EAF steel production in India and China and
Mexico are significantly higher than that in other countries is the type of feedstock used in
EAF in these countries. In most countries, steel scrap is the primary feedstock to EAF. In India
and Mexico, however, a substantial amount of DRI (around 50% of feedstock in India and 40%
in Mexico) is used as feedstock in EAFs (Worldsteel 2020). In China, instead of DRI,
a significant amount of pig iron (around 50% of feedstock), which is produced by blast furnace,
is used as feedstock in EAFs (Wang 2017). When high quality scrap is not available in sufficientquantities, DRI or pig iron are used in EAFs as a source of iron ore for production of(high-grade) steel. Both DRI and pig iron production are highly energy-intensive processes,
which result in higher energy intensity of EAF steel production when used as feedstock in
EAFs. Finally, the quality of iron ore (Fe content, impurities, etc.) could also influence theenergy use of the steel production.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 20

The level of penetration of energy-efficient technologies
Data on penetration of energy-efficient and CO2 emissions reduction technologies andpractices in countries are scarce and not fully comparable. The types of information available
in these countries differ, so direct comparison of the penetration of certain technologies is notpossible. One direct comparison that is possible is the penetration of EAFs, which waspresented above. The application of energy-efficient and CO2 emissions reduction
technologies depends on factors such as raw materials used, energy sources, energy andoperation costs, product mix, and the regulatory regime in the country.
For example, in China, the penetration of waste-heat and waste-energy recycling technologies
and other energy efficient technologies such as coke dry quenching (CDQ) for the coking
process, top-pressure recovery turbines (TRTs) for BFs, pulverized coal injection, and continuous casting has helped to reduce the energy intensity of BF-BOF steel production in China. CDQ
is a heat-recovery technology that produces electricity. Other technologies, such as low-temperature waste-heat recovery, are also being adopted in China. Many Chinese steel companies
benefited from the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and government
financial incentives for additional funding to support CDQ and TRT projects in their plants. Suchfinancial incentives may not be available in some of the countries studied.

The steel product mix in each country
Different steel products have different energy requirements in the rolling/casting/finishingprocesses. Therefore, the product mix is another key factor that could influence the CO2
intensities among countries. Worldsteel (2020) shows the differences in the production ofsome iron and steel industry products in the studied countries.

The age of steel manufacturing facilities in each country
The average age of BF vessels in the U.S. is over 30 years. Even though the BF vessels in the
U.S. have been relined and other upgrades have been made, they are overall older than mostof the steel production facilities in China, which has an average age of around 13 years (IEA
2020b), and therefore could be less energy-efficient than the Chinese facilities. India has thehighest energy intensity of BF-BOF steel production mainly because of many old and inefficient BF-BOF plants and coal-based smelting reduction plants still in operation. It should be
noted, however, that some of the newly built steel plants in India are among the world’s mostefficient, as they use latest state-of-the-art technologies.

Capacity utilization
Capacity utilization of plants also affects the energy intensity and CO2 emissions intensity ofsteel production. Higher capacity utilization improves overall energy performance comparedto lower capacity utilization if all other factors remain constant. Because it takes a long timeand is costly to shut down and restart BFs, operators avoid shutting down for short periods
and instead reduce production so that the BFs continue to work at less than full capacity. This
reduces BF energy efficiency and productivity and increases overall energy and CO2
intensities of steel production.

Environmental regulations
There are differing environmental requirements from country to country. Environmental
regulations can affect industry CO2 emissions intensity by incentivizing different operationaland equipment choices. At the same time, operation of some pollution control equipment
requires additional energy, which can also add CO2 emissions.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 21

Cost of energy and raw materials
Low-cost energy and raw materials are key components of managing costs in the steel
industry. Changing energy and materials sources in order to optimize costs can affect the CO2
and energy intensities of a plant. Also, the lower cost of energy in some countries provides
less incentive for energy optimization and increases the payback period for energy efficiency
projects.

Boundary definition
The boundary definition for the steel industry might vary from country to country in theirenergy statistics. For example, some countries may report the energy use of coke-making
within the steel industry while some others may report it separately. That is the main reason
why for this study we decided to primarily rely on the IEA data since IEA uses the same
boundary and definition when reporting the energy use data. The steel industries in eachcountry also vary in the amount of auxiliary/intermediary products such as sinter, coke, pigiron, DRI, oxygen, lime that they import from outside the industry (either domestically orinternationally). See Appendix 1 for description of steel industry boundary used in this study.
Fortunately, for the main intermediary products, pig iron, DRI, and coke we obtained the data
for their net imports for each country. To have a more accurate and fair comparison, we took
into account the embodied energy in net imported pig iron, DRI, and coke when calculatingenergy and CO2 emissions intensity for each country. For some other auxiliary/intermediary
products, the net import data was not available for most countries and we could not include
those in our analysis, but their impact on total energy and CO2 emissions intensity is not
significant based on our earlier studies. Finally, the consumption of pellets in BFs can affectenergy consumption. Pellets are produced at the iron ore mine sites and have a high ironcontent. If pellets replace sinter in BFs, the energy consumption decreases, since energy
consumption for sinter making is omitted and also the higher iron content of the pellets. The
differences in the share of pellets and sinter used in BFs in different countries can slightly
affect the energy intensity of BF-BOF steel production across countries.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 22

5Conclusions

In this study we conduct a benchmarking analysis for energy and CO2 emissions intensity ofthe steel industry among the largest steel-producing countries. Because of the difference instructure of the steel industry among countries and variation in the share of EAF steel
production, a single intensity value for the overall steel industry is not a good indicator of theefficiency of the steel industry in a country. Therefore, in addition to calculating energy andCO2 intensities for the entire steel industry, we also calculated separately the intensities
associated with the EAF and BF-BOF production routes in each country.
Our results show that when looking at the entire steel industry, Italy, Turkey, Mexico, and the
U.S. have the lowest and Ukraine, India, and China have the highest energy and CO2
emissions intensities among the countries studied. Among several reasons, this is primarily
because of significantly higher share of EAF steel production from total steel production in
Italy, Turkey, and the U.S. and a very low share of EAF steel production in Ukraine and China(only 6% and 10 percent, respectively in 2019).
For CO2 emissions intensity of BF-BOF steel production, Canada has the lowest and India has
the highest CO2 emissions intensity. Canada has one of the lowest and India has one of thehighest weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry.
For the CO2 emissions intensity of EAF steel production, India and China still have the highest
intensity, while Brazil and France have the lowest CO2 emissions intensity of EAF steel
production. One key factor that explains this is that the primary type of energy used in EAFs iselectricity and France and Brazil have the lowest electricity grid CO2 emissions factors. Also, in
China and India, a substantial amount of energy-intensive pig iron (in China) and DRI (in India)
are used as feedstock in EAFs, which results in higher energy and CO2 emissions intensity
steel produced by the EAF route in these two countries.
In view of the projected continuing increase in absolute steel production and the need fordeep decarbonization of the steel industry to meet Paris Agreement targets, future
reductions in absolute energy use and CO2 emissions will require innovation beyond
technologies that are available today. New developments will likely include different
processes, fuels, and materials (e.g. hydrogen-direct reduction steelmaking using renewableenergy to produce hydrogen and use it in DRI process) as well as technologies that caneconomically capture and store steel industry’s CO2 emissions. Deployment of these newtechnologies in the market will be critical to the industry’s climate change mitigation strategies
for the mid and long term. It should be noted that top ten steel producing countries accountof 86% and top five countries (China, India, Japan, U.S., and Russia) account for 74% of global
steel production. Therefore, substantial actions are need by these countries in near, medium,and long term in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 23

References
Association for Iron and Steel Technology (AIST). 2010. 2010 North American BOF Roundu
Iron & Steel Technology. November.
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). 2010. The State–of-the-Art
Clean Technologies (SOACT) for Steelmaking Handbook. (2nd Edition).
Birat, J.P., 2010. Steel sectoral report - Contribution to the UNIDO roadmap on CCS1 - fifth
draft.
Carbon footprint. 2020. 2020 Grid Electricity Emissions Factors v1.4 – September 2020
Federal Statistics Services (FSS). 2021. Russia Statistical Yearbook 2021.
Hasanbeigi, A., Arens, M., Rojas-Cardenas, J., Price, L., Triolo, R. (2019). Comparison of Carbon
Dioxide Emissions Intensity of Steel Industry in China, Germany, Mexico, and the United States.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Volume 113, October 2019, Pages 127–139
Hasanbeigi, A.; Arens, M.; Price, L.; (2013). Emerging Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Re
duction Technologies for the Iron and Steel Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley Nation
al Laboratory BNL-6106E.
Haslehner, R., Stelter, B., Osio, N. 2015. Steel as a Model for a Sustainable Metal Industry in
2050. Boston Consulting GroupIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Pro
gramme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds).IGES, Japan.
International Energy Agency (IEA). 2021. World Energy Statistics 2020. Paris, France.
IEA. 2020a. Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap- Towards more sustainable steelmaking.
IEA. 2020b. Age profile of global production capacity for the steel sector (blast furnaces and
DRI furnaces).
IEA. 2020c. Global CO2 emissions in 2019. Available at https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2emissions-in-2019

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 24

IEA. 2019. IEA Technology Roadmap. The global iron and steel sector. International Energy
Agency, 29th March 2019, Paris
IEA. 2018. World Energy Statistics 2018. Paris, France.
IEA. 2010. The Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program (ETSAP)- Technology Brief: Iron
and Steel.
Hasanbeigi, A., Moran, D., Springer, C. 2018. The Carbon Loophole in Climate Policy: Quantifying the Embodied Carbon in Traded Products. San Francisco, CA. Global Efficiency Intelli
gence, LLC.
National Statistical Office (NSO) India. 2021. Energy Statistics 2020. Ministry of Statistics andProgram Implementation. India.
Oda et al., 2012. International comparisons of energy efficiency in power, steel, and cement
industries, Energy Policy, 44, pp.118-129, 2012.
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE). 2012a. 2010 Energy intensity(Scrap-EAF; Iron and Steel Sector).
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE). 2012b. 2010 Energy intensity(Converter Steel; Iron and Steel Sector).
SAAB. 2021. Timeline for HYBRIT and fossil-free steel. Available at https://www.ssab.com/com
pany/sustainability/sustainable-operations/hybrit-phases
United Nations’ Statistics division (UN Statistics). 2018. Energy Balances of 2019. Available athttps://unstats.un.org/unsd/energystats/pubs/balance/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Available and Emerging Technologies
for Reducing. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Iron and Steel Industry.
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). 2020. Emissions Gap Report 2020.
Wang, W. 2017. 2019 China Steel Association unit steelmaking Technical review
Worldsteel Association. 2021. World Steel in Figures.
Worldsteel Association. 2020. Steel statistical yearbook 2020.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 25

Appendices
Appendix 1. Methodology
For this study, we have conducted benchmarking of the energy intensity and CO2 emissions
intensity of the U.S. iron and steel industry against that of the steel industry in fourteen othermajor steel producing countries. All the countries included in this study are among the top
twenty steel producing countries in the world and combined accounted for 87% of world’s
steel production in 2019. We used 2019 as the base year for our analysis.
For the benchmarking study, we compared the energy and CO2 emissions intensity of theentire steel industry in these 16 countries. In addition, to provide more in-depth insight andtake into account the differences in steel industry structure in terms of type of process used,
we conducted CO2 emissions intensity benchmarking for BF-BOF and EAF steel production,
separately. To have a more accurate and fair comparison, we also took into account theembodied energy in net imported pig iron and DRI when calculating energy and CO2
emissions intensity for each country. The energy and CO2 emissions intensities shown in thisreport also include the energy use and associated CO2 for the steel rolling and finishingprocesses.
There are some differences between the energy and CO2 emissions intensity resultspresented in this report compared to those of our previous report, “How Clean is the U.S.
Steel Industry? An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities”. Some of the
primary reasons for these differences are:
•

•
•
•

•

The use of different sources of data for energy use in the steel industry in selected
countries. Unlike the previous study, in this study, we mainly relied on energy use
reported by International Energy Agency (IEA 2021). This was to have a similarboundary for energy use reported for the steel industry as much as possible. In a few
cases where IEA data was missing or result in unreasonably low or high intensity
values we used energy use reported by countries and published in their energybalances.
A refined method to better account of energy use in coke making and embodied
energy in net import coke.
A refined method in calculating energy intensity by process route and better allocationof overall energy intensity and calibration of historical data
The use of different sources for electricity grid emissions factor. We used the same
source in this study for grid emissions factor of all countries, while in the previous
report we obtained grid emissions factor from various sources. The emissions factors
used in this analysis for some countries (e.g. China) are substantially different fromthe previous analysis contributing to differences in calculated CO2 emissions intensity
between this study and previous report.
The primary source of energy use data published in IEA energy balances are the datathat are reported by each country to IEA. It should be noted that some countries refine
their data collection and reporting system over time. For example, every few years,
China publishes a revised industrial energy use statistics for the previous years basedon their refined data or revised method of accounting. Such changes in countries
energy data reporting may impact the energy intensities calculated for different years.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 26

Unlike the previous study, in this study, we mainly relied on energy use reported byInternational Energy Agency (IEA 2021). This was to have a similar boundary for energy use
reported for the steel industry as much as possible. In a few cases where IEA data was
missing or result in unreasonably low or high intensity values we used energy use reported bycountries and published in their energy balances. In a few cases (e.g. India (NSO 2021) andRussia (FSS 2021)), a combination of sources was used for energy use data of the steel
industry that resulted in more accurate intensity values.
The production and trade data for the steel industry are from Worldsteel (2020). Table A.1 andTable A.2 show the production and trade data for crude steel, pig iron, and DRI in the
countries studied in 2019.
Table A.1. Crude steel production in 2019 (Worldsteel 2020)
No.

Country

Crude steel production (Mt)
Total

BOF

EAF

OHF*

Other

EAF
share

1

China

996.5

893.3

103.2

-

-

10%

2

India

111.4

48.7

62.7

-

-

56%

3

Japan

99.3

75.0

24.3

-

-

24%

4

U.S.

87.8

26.6

61.2

-

-

70%

5

Russia

71.7

45.9

24.2

1.7

-

34%

6

South Korea

71.4

48.7

22.7

-

-

32%

7

Germany

39.6

27.7

11.9

-

-

30%

8

Turkey

33.7

10.9

22.9

-

-

68%

9

Brazil

32.6

24.8

7.3

-

0.5

22%

10

Italy

23.2

4.2

19.0

-

-

82%

11

Ukraine

20.8

14.8

1.2

4.8

-

6%

12

Vietnam

17.5

9.7

4.9

-

2.8

28%

13

Mexico

18.4

4.2

14.1

-

-

77%

14

France

14.5

10.1

4.4

-

-

30%

15

Canada

12.9

7.8

5.1

-

-

39%

16
EU-27
* OHF: open-hearth furnace

149.9

86.5

63.4

-

-

42%

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 27

Table A.2. Pig iron and DRI production and trade in 2019 (Worldsteel 2020)
No.

Country

Pig Iron (kt)

DRI (kt)

Production

ExportImportProduction

ExportImport1

China

809,365

1

1,000

-

-

1,365

2

India

74,156277

20

36,818

861

58

3

Japan

74,907

44

164

-

19

4

U.S.

22,301

11

5,005

3,240

314

1,762

5

Russia50,707

4,253

8,030

4,092

6

South Korea

47,521

78

169

7

Germany

25,520

191

428

8

Turkey

9,869

2

1,232

9

Brazil26,280

2,865

10

Italy

4,606

54

1,412

1,014

11

Ukraine20,064

2,580

1

3

12

Vietnam

9,836

-

95

13

Mexico3,845

14France

9,877

126

151

15

Canada

6,420

55

22

16

EU-27

80,069

1,126

3,593

345

470

5,974

-

406

-

767

-

398

-

466

1

361

1,440

2

15

580

340

3,475

Fuel emissions factors are from the IPCC (2006) and electricity grid CO2 emissions factors inthe studied countries in 2019 are from Carbon footprint (2020).
First, we calculated the energy intensity of the entire steel industry in each country in 2019using the steel industry energy use data we obtained from energy balances (IEA 2021) andproduction data from Worldsteel (2020). Then, we used the fuel emissions factors andelectricity CO2 emissions factors to convert energy intensities into CO2 emissions intensities.
Because of significant concern related to sustainability of biomass supply, in our main
analysis we did not consider biomass fuels (including charcoal) carbon neutral and we applied
CO2 emissions factors provided by IPCC to biomass fuels. The share of biomass from total fuelused in the steel industry is quite small in countries studied except in Brazil where
significant amount of charcoal is used in the steel industry. That is why only for Brazil we
calculated two CO2 emissions intensities, one with charcoal is considered carbon neutral(named “Brazil-Charcoal CN”) and another one with charcoal is considered not carbon neutral(named “Brazil-Charcoal C+) and IPCC default emissions factor is applied.
Countries do not report the energy use of their steel industry by production route, i.e. BF-BOF
and EAF, separately. Therefore, we had to estimate the energy intensity of BF-BOF and EAF
steel production in each country using the following method. We used the energy intensity of
BF-BOF and EAF steel production reported for different countries in earlier studies such as
RITE (2012a, b), Oda et al. (2012) and Hasanbeigi et al. (2019). Then, we adjusted these older
energy intensities using overall energy intensity of the steel industry in 2019 calculated above
and the share of EAF steel production in 2019. Other adjustments were made to calibrate theolder BF-BOF and EAF energy intensities based on 2019 data. In addition, we used the values
for net imported pig iron, DRI, and coke to adjust the BF-BOF and EAF intensities by taking
into account the embodied energy in the net import.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 28

Boundary of this study
In this study, the boundary of the iron and steel industry is defined to include all of the following:coke making, pelletizing, sintering, iron making, steel making, steel casting, hot rolling, coldrolling, and processing such as galvanizing or coating (Figure A.1). This boundary definition isused for calculating CO2 emissions and CO2 intensity in this study. We took net imported pig
iron, direct-reduced iron (DRI), and coke into account by adding the energy for production ofthese products to the total energy and CO2 emissions of the steel industry.

Figure A.1. Flow chart of iron and steel sector boundaries used in this study
Note: BF: blast furnace; BOF: basic oxygen furnace; EAF: electric arc furnace; DRI: direct
reduced iron; CC: continuous casting; IC: investment casting

We do not include CO2 emissions associated with other energy-intensive products
manufactured for the iron and steel industry (e.g., electrodes, refractories, etc.). These products
could be included in a more extensive, life-cycle analysis study of the industry but are excluded
here because the focus of this study is on iron and steel production. The current study also does
not take into account the embodied energy and CO2 of the scrap used in the iron and steel
industry or the CO2 emissions associated with mining. Finally, the energy-related CO2 emissions
from further processing of steel by foundries are also excluded from this analysis.

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 29

Appendix 2. List of acronyms
BF

blast furnace

BOF

basic oxygen furnace

CO2carbon dioxide

DRI

direct-reduced iron

EAFelectric arc furnace

EIA

Energy Information Administration (U.S. Department of Energy)

EU

European Union

GHG

greenhouse gas

GJgigajoule

IEA

International Energy Agency

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change

kton

Kilo tonne (1000 metric tonne)

MJ

megajouleMt

million metric tonne

Worldsteel

Worldsteel Association

Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities 30