Abstract
Rising costs for fossil fuels and the need to reduce emissions in the production of castings are subjecting foundries worldwide to increasing pressure to act and innovate. Due to fierce global competition in this sector and high investment costs for alternative technologies, foundries are therefore under high pressure to transform, while at the same time having limited financial resources. This article examines the economic and environmental differences between a conventional industrial foundry process chain, a process chain based on a hydrogen (H2)-fired melting furnace and an all-electric approach using conversion of H2 to electricity within a solid oxide fuel cell. To ensure an unbiased comparison of the process chains introduced, the respective mass efficiencies are first determined using an absorbing Markov chain before calculating the mass-specific costs and emissions of each approach using a literature-based process model. The comparison of the setups shows negligible differences in terms of material loss and cost in the respective best case. However, significantly higher emission minimums are found for both H2 approaches compared to the biogas-based conventional approach, especially for the use of green H2. In summary, no significant economic disadvantages of the H2-based approaches can be identified. Even considering that the economic comparison is biased in favor of biogas due to accounting measures, the environmental difference is comparatively small. The results indicate that the conversion of the foundry industry towards more sustainable H2-based foundry process chains is in principle reasonable as well as affordable and should therefore be achieved in the medium term.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- High pressure die casting
- absorbing Markov chain
- energy demands
- greenhouse gas emissions
- hydrogen in foundries
1 Introduction
Like all energy-intensive industries, the light metal foundry industry, which relies on fossil energy production for 53% of its energy, is under increasing pressure to innovate due to the foundry's cost-intensive energy use and fierce competition for a limited amount of CO2 certificates [1]. The modification of existing plant technology is cost-intensive and thus represents a potential risk in the economic competition of metal production. In conjunction with low achievable margins and the need to continuously maintain production operations as a result of supply commitments, a lack of innovation can thus arise [2, 3]. However, due to the rising costs of conventional process chains, the cost differential to more sustainable process chains based on renewable energy is increasingly narrowing. Therefore, a sound prediction of the expected costs for the more sustainable process chains represents a crucial factor for the economic success of the foundry industry. As energy efficiency has been a focus of research in recent decades, a variety of different methods for predicting energy consumption and process emissions for casting processes can be found in the literature. These range from approaches based on thermomechanical models [4, 5] and simulations [6, 7] to audit-based methods [8,9,10,11,12,13]. While simulations require a deeper understanding of the interactions and physical conditions in the process, audit methods demand a high organizational effort and sufficient industry participation. In the case of the established fossil fuel-based foundry process chain, a sufficient amount of data is available, showing that the range of energy required to produce aluminum castings worldwide is from 0.35 kWh/kgCast to 2.28 kWh/kgCast, depending on process technology and requirements, batch size and equipment. [9, 11, 14,15,16] The average value of this span – 1,315 kWh/kgCast – results in emissions per ton of aluminum casting between 0.109 kgCO2/kgCast and 0.909 kgCO2/kgCast, depending on the emission factor of the natural gas combusted. [17] Based on the available literature, no approach could be found to predict energy consumption and process emissions for hydrogen-based casting process chains, which makes it much more difficult for foundries to decide to invest in this technology due to planning uncertainty. In this work, therefore, the energy consumption and emissions per kg of aluminum casting are calculated for two hydrogen-based process chains, one which burns hydrogen (C-route) and the other uses H2 as an energy source for electric melting technologies (E-route). This information will help accelerate the foundry industry's transition towards more climate-neutral casting production.
2 Methods
2.1 Definition of the Process Chain
The casting process chains and thus system boundaries investigated in this work comprise the melting of the aluminum ingots in a melting furnace, the holding of the melt at a target temperature by means of a holding furnace, the actual casting process, and the trimming of the casting at the casting line immediately after casting production. The electrically operated die casting cell and the electrically operated holding furnace are identical in all scenarios examined. These three scenarios – conventional setup (setup 1), C-route (setup 2) and E-route (setup 3) – thus differ only in the energy source of the first process step for melting the aluminum ingots in a furnace. The transition possibilities pt from step to step are shown in the arrows between the corresponding steps (see Fig. 1) while the sum of the energetic demands of the respective setups are given under the corresponding title.
-
Setup 1: Conventional setup (Total energy demand: 1.315 kWh/kgCast)
In conventional plants, the melting furnace is fired with natural gas, using special burners with integrated recuperators that recover the heat in the exhaust gases and thus achieve a higher average efficiency of about 74% [18]. Based on published data in existing literature, the industrial energy demand (including losses) for melting 1 kg of aluminum is estimated at 0.94 kWh/kgCast, of which 90% is generated by natural gas [9, 15, 16]. Taking this distribution into account, the mean value for the fuel demand is 0.846 kWh/kgCast, whereas the mean value for the electrical energy needed results in 0.094 kWh/kgCast. In addition, holding at elevated temperatures as well as processing in the die casting cell consume an average of 0.065 kWh/kgCast and 0.310 kWh/kgCast of electrical energy. [1, 8, 10].
-
Setup 2: C-route (Total energy demand: 1.350 kWh/kgCast)
The C-Route is based on burners that replace natural gas with hydrogen when firing the melting furnace, minimizing changes to the plant equipment. This results in an almost identical setup, which in turn means that both the burner efficiency and the proportion of electricity required for processing are very similar to those of the conventional setup. Due to the resulting moisture in the exhaust gases, a longer melt cleaning process should be considered for the melt prior to casting processing, resulting in a 1.5 times higher percentage of material waste and energy requirement during holding.
-
Setup 3: E-route (Total energy demand: 1.510 kWh/kgCast)
The E-Route is an all-electric approach with an electric melting furnace powered either by electricity from a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) or from the electrical grid. To meet the foundries’ need for a continuous, potentially off-grid energy supply, the option of generating electricity from H2 is selected for this concept. This leads to a higher energy demand during melting due to the required conversion in the SOFC with an average efficiency of 60%. [19] However, due to the more efficient melting process, the final increase in energy demand is only about 1.23 times that of setup 1 [6].
2.2 Absorbing Markov Chain Model
To describe the material flow within the different process chains, a model based on an absorbing Markov chain is used. This model consists of the three transient states Melting, Holding as well as Die-Casting/Trimming (represented by the indices 1–3) as well as the two absorbing states Waste (W) and Casting (C). In order to determine the final amount of aluminum that remains in the casting after trimming fCast, a corresponding transition matrix was created for each setup. Every matrix contains the percentage of aluminum mass flow from one state to another represented by \({p}_{xy}\), where x indicates the source and y the destination of the mass flow. fCast is then calculated by multiplying p12, p23, and p3C with 1 kg as nominal ingot quantity.
2.3 Investigated Energy Sources
Depending on the previously presented setups, different energy carriers are required for the process, resulting in a variety of energy costs and emissions in the process chain. The following table 1 provides an overview over the ranges of energy costs CE and the corresponding emissions EmE per kWh of the energy sources investigated in this paper. Despite the lower costs of directly using green electricity compared to green H2 (see Table 1), the on-demand off-grid supply option makes the mixed scenarios more resilient, which is why these energy source combinations were selected for the study.
2.4 Definition of the Evaluation Criteria
Since the energy demand of an industrial foundry process strongly depends on the mass of the castings produced, the mass-specific costs ci and emissions emi were chosen for an objective evaluation of the three investigated setups. To calculate the mass-specific criteria for each setup i, the energy quantities e for each step s provided by an energy carrier j are multiplied by the respective cost factor CE, or in case of ei by the emission factor EmE, for one kWh and added over the total number of process steps k as well as energy carriers n before being divided by fCast.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Mass-Specific Efficiencies of the Investigated Setups
Due to the various transition probabilities for the described process chains, each setup has its own value for the mass-specific efficiency fCast, as shown in Table 2.
As a result of the longer holding time due to the more intensive melt cleaning, fCast is lowest at 0.47 in setup 2. However, the difference to setup 1 and 3 with mass-specific efficiencies of 0.48 each is subordinate. This strongly suggests that in terms of material losses there are no significant disadvantages of the more sustainable routes compared to the conventional industrial setup.
3.2 Setup-Specific Emissions
Based on the mathematical relationships from (3), the mass-specific emissions shown in Fig. 2 were calculated for the different setups, taking into account the data given in Table 1. Here, the conventional setup on the basis of a biogas combustion with 0.109 kgCO2/kgCast achieves the lowest minimum emissions of all three setups. The minimum value for green H2 is about twice as high at 0.236 kgCO2/kgCast and is exceeded by the values for blue H2 with a minimum of 0.414 kgCO2/kgCast. In particular, green H2 and biogas thus show a considerable range, which complicates the comparison to some extent and suggests that biogas is partly more sustainable than the use of green H2 in foundries. However, the minimum emissions for biogas are only achieved when specific biogenic feedstocks are used as input materials and if the most favorable accounting measures such as waste heat and fertilizer credits are applicable. It must be assumed that these conditions are not met for the majority of industrial consumers, since the specific input materials are not provided in sufficient quantities for an entire industry and are usually only available locally and not sorted by type. On the other hand, considering the average emission value for biogas with 0.446 kgCO2/kgCast instead of the minimum value, the potential of green H2-based plants is clearly shown by almost halving the emissions. It should also be emphasized that the comparatively high emissions of green H2 mainly result from the assumption that grid electricity is used for electrolysis. Thus, if electrolysis is carried out with electricity from renewable energy sources, which is becoming increasingly likely due to current technological possibilities and preferences of society, the use of green H2 in foundries is significantly more sustainable than keeping the conventional biogas-based plants.
3.3 Setup-Specific Costs
The setup-specific cost per kg of casting was calculated using the costs from Table 1 and formula (2), with a significant difference in terms of the maximum cost for each setup (see Fig. 3). The lowest cost was calculated at 0.18 €/kgCast for setup 1. However, the financial differences from the minimum of setup 2 with 0.21 €/kgCast for green H2 and 0.23 €/kgCast for blue H2 are relatively small, as well as the minimum of setup 3 with 0.21 €/kgCast and 0.24 €/kgCast. While the maximum costs for biogas with 0.32 €/kgCast and blue hydrogen are identical for setup 3 and differ only slightly from setup 2 with 0.30 €/kgCast when using blue H2 and for setup 3 with 0.32 €/kgCast, the use of green H2 causes significantly higher maximum costs of up to 4.14 €/kgCast. Considering these price ranges, especially the process chains based on green H2 represent an increased financial effort compared to an existing industrial setup with biogas. This diversity of financial efforts for green H2 is mainly based on electricity costs and electrolyser operating hours, which makes efficient management of the electrolyser urgent for competitive green H2-based process chains. Though especially in the case of green H2, the maximum costs of the more sustainable plants exceed those of the industrial plants, it becomes clear that the financial differences between the minimum costs for each plant are negligible. Since the price ranges for biogas are based on data from 2021 and a decrease in electrolyser costs is expected, which is based on economies of scale and increased price pressure due to more suppliers in this technological segment, a price parity of biogas and green hydrogen can be expected in the near future.
4 Conclusion and Outlook
The results presented in this work clearly underline that foundry process chains based on green H2 are likely to become competitive with conventional process chains and are more sustainable than the industrial average in the non-ferrous foundry.
-
Using green H2 has the potential to nearly halving the mass-specific emissions to 0.236 kgCO2/kgCast compared to the average of biogas firing with 0.446 kgCO2/kgCast.
-
Price parity can be achieved for both, green H2 combustion and electricity generation, if the electricity for electrolysing is sourced from renewable energy sources.
The influences on alloy quality and in-process material losses need to be investigated in further studies using experimental test setups. Nevertheless, the results of this first evaluation indicate the distinct potential as well as the small financial differences between more sustainable H2-based process chains compared to a conventional setup. This of course only applies if, from a macroeconomic perspective, sufficient H2 capacity is made available. It is therefore to be expected that the success of a foundry in the future will depend not only on the technological quality of its products and efficiency of the foundry, but also on the skillful acquisition of energy.
References
Lässig, J., Schütte, T., Riesner, W.: Energieeffizienz-Benchmark Industrie Energiekennzahlen für kleinere und mittlere Unternehmen. Springer Verlag, Berlin (2020)
Trianni, A., Cagno, E., Thollander, P., Backlund, S.: Barriers to industrial energy efficiency in foundries: a European comparison. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 161–176 (2013)
Haraldsson, J., Johansson, M.T.: Barriers to and drivers for improved energy efficiency in the Swedish aluminium industry and aluminium casting foundries. Sustainability 11(7), S.2043 (2019)
Chen, E., Li, H., Cao, H., Wen, X.: An energy consumption prediction approach of die casting machines driven by product parameters. Front. Mech. Eng. 16, 1–19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-021-0656-0
Selvaraj, J., Marimuthu, P., Devanathan, S., Ramachandran, K. I.: Mathematical modelling of raw material preheating by energy recycling method in metal casting process. Intell. Syst. Technol. Appl., 766–769 (2017)
Salonitis, K., Jolly, M., Zeng, B.: Simulation based energy and resource efficient casting process chain selection: a case study. Procedia Manufact. 8, 67–74 (2017)
Henninger, M., Schlüter, W., Jeckle, D., Schmidt, J.: Simulation based studies of energy saving measures in the aluminum tool and die casting industry. In: Applied Mechanics & Materials, p. 856 (2016)
Brevick, J., Mount-Campbell, C., Mobley, C.: Final Report on Energy Consumption of Die Casting Operations, United States (2004)
Gonçalves, M., Jolly, M.R., Salonitis, K., Pagone, E.: Resource efficiency analysis of high pressure die casting process. In: Martin, O. (ed.) TMS 2018. TMMMS, pp. 1041–1047. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72284-9_136
Röders, G., Indorf, C., Dilger, K., Pries, H., Anders, U.: Optimierung der Energiebilanz beim Aluminium-Druckguss, Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (2006)
Schwegler, R., Schmidt, M., Keil, R.: Erfolgsfaktoren für betriebliches Energie- und Stoffstrommanagement (EFAS), Pforzheimer Forschungsberichte Nr. 7 (2007)
Lazzarin, R.M., Noro, M.: Energy efficiency opportunities in the production process of cast Iron foundries: an experience in Italy. Appl. Therm. Eng. 90, 509–520 (2015)
Schwam, D.: Energy saving melting and revert reduction technology: melting efficiency in die casting operations (2012)
He, K., Tang, R., Jin, M., Cao, Y., Nimbalkar, S.U.: Energy modeling and efficiency analysis of aluminum die-casting processes. Energ. Effi. 12(5), 1167–1182 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-018-9730-9
Herrmann, C., Pries, H., Hartmann, G. (eds.): Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39853-7
Salonitis, K., Zeng, B., Mehrabi, H.A., Jolly, M.: The challenges for energy efficient casting processes. Procedia CIRP 40, 24–29 (2016)
Juhrich, K.: CO2-Emissionsfaktoren für fossile Brennstoffe. Clim. Change 27 (2016)
Furu, J.: An Experimental and Numerical Study of Heat Transfer in Aluminium Melting and Remelting Furnaces (2013)
Bosch Homepage. https://www.bosch.com/stories/sofc-system/. Accessed 13 Apr 2022
Reinholz, T., Völler, K.: Branchenbarometer Biomethan 2021, Berlin (2021)
Bachmaier, H., Bayer, K., Gronauer, A.: Treibhausgasemissionen der Energieproduktion aus Biogas.(2009)
Bukold, S.: Kurzstudie - Blauer Wasserstoff. Greenpeace Energy(2020)
Bullmann, T., Gollnick, C., Schorpp, J.: Wasserstoff DIHK-Faktenpapier (2020)
Hauser, E., Heib, S., Hildebrand, J.: Marktanalyse Ökostrom II. Clim. Change 30 (2019)
BMWI: BMWI – Energiedaten, Tabelle 29a (2021)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pelchen, L., Müller, S. (2023). The Costs of More Sustainable Castings Can we Afford the Change?. In: Kohl, H., Seliger, G., Dietrich, F. (eds) Manufacturing Driving Circular Economy. GCSM 2022. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28839-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28839-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28838-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28839-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)