Next Article in Journal
Short Text Classification for Faults Information of Secondary Equipment Based on Convolutional Neural Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatial-Temporal Pattern and Driving Factors of Carbon Efficiency in China: Evidence from Panel Data of Urban Governance
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization of Well Control during Gas Flooding Using the Deep-LSTM-Based Proxy Model: A Case Study in the Baoshaceng Reservoir, Tarim, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Reporting of Sustainable Energy Action Plans of Municipalities: Methodology and Results of Case Studies from the Abruzzo Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/en15072399
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Market Stakeholder Analysis of the Practical Implementation of Carbonation Curing on Steel Slag for Urban Sustainable Governance

by
Jiajie Li
1,2,
Chenyu Wang
1,
Xiaoqian Song
3,4,5,*,
Xin Jin
1,
Shaowei Zhao
1,
Zihan Qi
1,
Hui Zeng
2,
Sitao Zhu
1,
Fuxing Jiang
1,
Wen Ni
1 and
Michael Hitch
6
1
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Efficient Mining and Safety of Metal Mines, School of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
2
Shandong Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd., Jinan 250101, China
3
China Institute of Urban Governance, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
4
School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
5
SJTU-UNIDO Joint Institute of Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
6
Western Australian School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, P.O. Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(7), 2399; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072399
Submission received: 30 November 2021 / Revised: 15 March 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published: 24 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in CO2 Mitigation in Energy and the Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Carbonation curing on steel slag is one of the most promising technologies for the iron and steel industry to manage its solid waste and carbon emissions. However, the technology is still in its demonstration stage. This paper investigates the market stakeholders of carbonation curing on steel slag for construction materials for its effective application by taking China as a case study. A holistic analysis of the competition, market size, and stakeholders of carbonation curing on steel slag was carried out through a literature review, a survey, a questionnaire, and interviews. The results showed that carbonation curing on steel slag had the advantages of high quality, high efficiency, low cost, and carbon reduction compared with other technologies. Shandong province was the most suitable province for the large-scale primary application of the technology. Stakeholder involvement to establish information platforms, enhance economic incentives, and promote adequate R&D activities would promote carbonation curing of steel slag into practice. This paper provides a reference for the commercialization of carbonation curing on similar calcium- and magnesium-based solid waste materials.

1. Introduction

Since the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has released a large amount of CO2, which lead to global climate change and irreversible harm to the planet [1]. Currently, the global temperature has increased 1 °C compared with the preindustrial level [2]. The international community has reached a consensus to control the temperature rise below 1.5 °C by 2050 [3]. The main CO2 management methods include enhancement of fuel utilization efficiency, application of renewable energy, and CO2 capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) [4].
The iron and steel industry generated 7–9% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions [5]. The energy-intensive industry is facing unprecedented pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, the industry generates a large amount of steel slag, at a production rate of 280–374 Mt/y [6]. The stockpile of steel slag in the landscape has aroused serious environmental problems [7]. Steel slag contains a high weight percentage of CaO and is extremely suitable for CCUS via mineral carbonation [8]. Collaborative disposal of the gas and solid wastes in the iron and steel industry would contribute to sustainable development and governance, especially in the urban areas where most steel mills are located. Carbonation curing on steel slag for the production of building materials is one of the most promising technologies for application in iron and steel industry [9]. However, the technology has not been widely adopted in the market. Promoting the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag would assist with urban sustainable development by utilizing solid wastes, reducing carbon emissions, and generating green building materials for construction.
The effective implementation of carbonation curing of steel slag requires not only high efficiency in steel slag treatment and high utilization rate but adequate information exchange [10]. Emergy analysis [11], input–output analysis [12], and material flow analysis [13] have been widely used to evaluate the implementation of various waste management technologies (e.g., biological treatment [14]) in different aspects (e.g., eco-efficiency [15]). However, these methods are not sufficient for analyzing the effective implementation of carbonation curing of steel slag, which would be based on effective collaboration among different stakeholders, including governmental supervisors, steel slag suppliers (e.g., steel firms), steel slag consumers (e.g., construction material producers), research institutes (e.g., academia), and neighboring society and local government [16]. Thus, a systematic and comprehensive study including social, economic, and environmental factors is necessary [17,18,19] by which decision makers can achieve a better operational performance of carbonation curing on steel slag.
Stakeholder analysis is critical in the context of sustainable development research, and particularly in environmental research. Since the mid-1980s, stakeholder analysis has been widely found in management literature. It is treated as a method for facilitating institutional and policy reform processes, because it can take all “stakes” or interests into account to incorporate all of the relevant requirements [20]. Stakeholder analysis is widely used in political, economic, and environmental research. The performance and involvement of stakeholders in waste management (i.e., stakeholders’ roles [21], influences [10,22], and interests [22,23]) are identified by various assessment and rating methods [24,25] in various scales (i.e., country level, city level, sector level, and organization level). Research has indicated that stakeholders are not isolated. The sociocultural and municipal relations between stakeholders are varied [26]. Stakeholders coordinate their contributions to waste management [27]. Unlike other waste management technologies, carbonation curing on steel slag has specific features that have not yet been studied by stakeholder collaboration analysis. Stakeholders’ interests, attitudes, power, knowledge, and information in regard to carbonation curing of steel slag differ from each other. Therefore, stakeholders’ collaboration across different sectors in the implementation of carbonation curing of steel slag should also be mentioned.
This paper studied market stakeholders for the implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag in China, which produces nearly half of the world’s steel slag and has a comprehensive utilization rate of only 30% [8]. Competition analysis in regard to carbonating curing on steel slag was carried out through comparison with commercialized CCUS technologies, steel slag utilization technologies, and cement production technologies. Then, the market size and suitable location for application of carbonation curing of steel slag were studied by surveying the amount of CO2 emission and carbon quotas, the steel slag production rate, and the cement production capacity in each province. Furthermore, stakeholder coordination analysis was performed to increase the feasibility of policy formulation. With a holistic analysis, strategies for the promotion of carbonated steel slag building materials are provided. The results of this paper would provide a reference for the commercialization of carbonation curing technology in China.

2. Methodologies

The paper studied the potential application of carbonation curing on steel slag based on a holistic analysis of the market stakeholders, including competition analysis, market size analysis, and stakeholder analysis. Figure 1 shows the methodology in each part.

2.1. Competition Analysis

The competition analysis was based on a review of the literature on the latest technologies in carbon dioxide management, steel slag utilization, and cement production. The advantages and disadvantages of carbonation curing on steel slag were characterized through comparison with various technologies. The application directions of carbonation curing on steel slag were determined based on its features.

2.2. Market Size Analysis

The market size analysis was based on a survey of official websites and literature. The demands of CO2 management, steel slag utilization, and cement replacement were determined at the provincial level. Suitable places for the application of carbonation curing and the size of the market were found based on the demand analysis.

2.3. Stakeholder Analysis

For stakeholder analysis, several tools and methods were introduced to gather data [28]. Similar to the methods used by Schmeer [29], Caniato et al. [30] and Wasserman and Faust [31], stakeholder tables, instruction tables, and interview questionnaires were used to obtain the primary data describing the different characteristics of stakeholders (Figure 1). Data were collected mainly from semistructured interviews.
First, stakeholders for the implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag were selected according to the literature.
Second, a snowball method was used to improve the list of stakeholders. Meanwhile, basic information on the stakeholders was gathered.
Third, semistructured interviews with stakeholders were carried out to collect the primary data. Interviews were conducted between May and July in 2021. Out of 89 invited stakeholders, 54 attended face-to-face interviews. The questions in the semistructured interviews are attached in Appendix A.
Fourth, data screening and analysis were conducted to discover the stakeholders’ knowledge, interests, attitudes, and power in regard to the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag under the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals. The roles and coordination of stakeholders during the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag technology were also studied.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Competition Analysis

3.1.1. Literature Review of carbonation Curing on Steel Slag

The carbonation curing process is similar to the hydration curing process, but with an added CO2 inlet in the reactor. Figure 2 shows schemes of hydration curing and carbonation curing of steel slag for building materials and their reaction mechanisms [32].
Steel slag is composed of various calcium and magnesium minerals, which are carbonation active minerals [33]. The carbonation processes of the main minerals in steel slag are shown in reactions 1–6, including calcium and magnesium oxides (Reaction 1 and 2), hydroxides (Reaction 3 and 4), and silicates (Reactions 5 and 6). The carbonate products fill the pores between particles and consolidate the precast steel slag materials. Because of the high carbonation activity of the minerals in the steel slag, the precast steel slag materials quickly gain strength during carbonation curing [34].
Carbonation neutralizes the free oxide in steel slag and stabilizes the volume of steel slag-containing building materials [8]. Furthermore, both hydraulic and nonhydraulic calcium silicates (Reactions 5 and 6) react quickly with CO2 and develop strength quickly at an early curing time [35]. These are the main factors that control the cements after carbonation curing.
CaO + CO2 → CaCO3,
MgO + CO2 → MgCO3,
Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O,
Mg(OH)2 + CO2 → MgCO3 + H2O,
3CaO·SiO2 + 3CO2 + µH2O → SiO2 ·µH2O + 3CaCO3,
2CaO·SiO2 + 2CO2 + µH2O → SiO2·µH2O + 2CaCO3,
The state of the art of carbonation curing on steel slag has been reviewed in many studies [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], which came to a common recognition that the mechanical properties and durability of carbonated steel slag materials were controlled not by the amount of CO2 uptake but by the morphology and microstructure of CaCO3 [35]. Many methods have been investigated to improve the compressive strength of the carbonated steel slag materials, including steel slag pretreatment, usage of additives, and optimization of carbonation curing conditions [9,45,46]. The purpose of these studies was to obtain the required mechanical performance of building materials at a low cost.

3.1.2. Comparison with Other CCUS Technologies

There are many CCUS methods, such as underground geological storage [47], ocean storage [48], mineral carbonation, industrial uses of CO2 [49], and biomass storage [50]. At present, ocean storage has been avoided, because it leads to ocean acidification, which is harmful to marine organisms. Underground geological storage methods have been commercialized in many aspects, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) [51] and enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) production [52,53], because of their economic benefits of incremental oil production and methane production. However, geological storage is location-oriented, and some locations may not be near sources of CO2. Furthermore, geological storage needs careful monitoring to prevent CO2 leakage [54].
Among all CCUS methods, mineral carbonation is the only method that can safely store CO2 without monitoring [55,56]. In the mineral carbonation process, calcium- and magnesium-containing rocks or alkaline wastes react with CO2 in the presence of water and form carbonates [57,58,59,60,61]. Mineral carbonation is extremely suitable for small or medium emitters (<2.5 Mt CO2) [47] such as iron and steel plants. However, mineral carbonation is still in its demonstration stage because of its low reaction rate and the high cost of its accelerated measurements [62,63,64,65]. Integrating mineral carbonation into an industrial processes by using industrial alkaline wastes as cheap CO2 feedstock is a promising strategy to reduce the production cost [66,67,68,69].
Mineral carbonation on steel slag has been studied by many researchers [70,71]. There are two main methods for mineral carbonation, direct carbonation and indirect carbonation [72]. In the indirect carbonation process, calcium ions are leached from steel slag and then precipitated as pure CaCO3 [73], while in the direct carbonation process, calcium ion leaching and carbonate precipitation occur in the same container. However, the carbonated products from the direct carbonation process are in the form of a mixture, which is hard to utilize [74]. Nonetheless, carbonation curing is a direct carbonation process for the production of carbonated building materials [75]. Direct carbonation curing on steel slag is simple and chemical free. The performance of carbonated steel slag building materials is comparable to that of cement-based building materials [38]. Carbonation curing on steel slag for the production of building materials is becoming one of the most promising technologies to make mineral carbonation commercialized [9].

3.1.3. Comparison with Other Steel Slag Utilization Technologies

There are three main methods for the utilization of steel slag: aggregates for road construction, iron recycling, and filler for cement. Steel slag is abrasion resistant and thus very suitable as aggregates for road construction. This method is widely used in the United States and Europe, where the utilization rate of steel slag is nearly 100% [75]. However, use as aggregates is a low-value utilization of steel slag. Recycling iron from steel slag has higher value [76]. However, the overall economic gain is limited because of steel slag tailing becoming a new issue.
Steel slag contains a large amount of calcium silicates, like cement. However, the replacement of cement with steel slag is limited because of the latter’s low hydration activity, which leads to extremely long solidification time and low early compressive strength. Furthermore, the high free calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content in steel slag could cause volume instability, which is a serious hazard for construction [77]. However, carbonation curing of steel slag could overcome all these disadvantages through its high carbonation rate and neutralization of free oxides. Moreover, steel slag is usually used as filler for cementitious materials. Since the addition of steel slag lowers the early strength of cementitious materials, the amount of steel slag has be a compromise with the mechanical performance of the building materials. However, steel slag is the main cementitious material in the carbonation curing process, which could result in high-value utilization of large amounts of steel slag.

3.1.4. Comparison with Cement

The competitive product of carbonation curing on steel slag is cement. There are two main type of cement, ordinary Portland (P.O.) cement and slag cement. P.O. cement is widely used all over the world. However, the production process of one ton P.O. cement releases nearly 0.78 t CO2. Slag cement is composed of various solid wastes from the iron and steel industries, such as granulated blast-furnace slag and gypsum [78,79]. The mechanical performance of slag cement is similar to that of P.O. cement, while slag cement is carbon emission free. The average price of both cements has increased year by year. In 2022, the average prices of P.O. 42.5 cement and slag cement in China were 118 and 64 USD/t, respectively [16]. However, the price for steel slag powder was about 41 USD/t.
Compared with hydration curing of P.O. cement, carbonation curing of steel slag has the following advantages:
(1)
Carbonation curing has a high consolidation ability. After carbonation curing for 24 h, the compressive strength of carbonated steel slag blocks reached 30–120 MPa, which was even higher than the compressive strength of hydrated steel slag products after 28 days of curing [80].
(2)
The durability of carbonated steel slag material is high. The long-term volume stability of carbonated steel slag materials, which is due to the neutralization of free oxide by the chemical reaction with CO2, has been proven in the literature [81,82]. Furthermore, the carbonated steel slag building material is resistant to the cycle of freezing and thawing because of its lack of -OH containing phases.
(3)
Carbonated steel slag materials are environmentally clean. The carbonated product is mainly CaCO3, which is a naturally existing, environmentally benign mineral. The carbonated building materials are pH neutral and thus extremely suitable to be used in artificial reefs for the construction of marine ranching and aquafarms [83,84]. Furthermore, carbonation could consolidate various heavy metals by turning the heavy metals ions into carbonates [85,86]. Carbonation curing could assist with hazardous waste management.
(4)
Carbonation curing of steel slag yields great economic profit. The raw materials for carbonation curing on steel slag, which are solid waste materials and flue gas, are cheap. The process could also benefit from waiving of the solid waste disposal tax and carbon tax. In addition, the fraction is similar to that of the ordinary hydration curing process. The only differences are the addition of a CO2 inlet and gas transportation pipelines. A raw analysis showed that a 1.6 Mt C30 prefabricated building production project via carbonation curing on steel slag could generate annual profit of USD 49 million. The NPV of the project at the 3rd year could reach USD 75 million at a discount rate of 10%.
(5)
The CO2 reduction capacity of steel slag is huge. Carbonation curing of steel slag could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by two ways, direct storage of CO2 and indirect reduction by replacement of cement. Assuming that the average weight percentage of CaO in the steel slag is 40%, and the average stoichiometric conservation of CaO in steel slag in the carbonation curing process is 35% (according to Li et al. [9,35]), the carbon sequestration potential is 94 kg CO2/t steel slag. Assuming that the carbonation cementitious ability of steel slag is the same as the hydration cementitious ability of P.O. cement with the same weight, the replacement of cement could prevent the release of 0.78 t CO2 per t cement during its production. If all of the annually produced 120 Mt steel slag in China were used in the carbonation curing technology to produce building materials, the theoretical reduction in CO2 emissions would be about 104.9 Mt, including a direct reduction of 11.3 Mt and indirect reduction of 93.6 Mt.
Table 1 lists the cost, performance, pH, and carbon emissions of P.O. cement hydration, slag cement hydration, and steel slag carbonation as methods for producing cementitious materials for construction. As shown in Table 1, compared with other cements, the advantages of steel slag carbonation are low cost, high early strength, neutral pH, and carbon reduction. Although the current market share of cement production is high, carbonation curing on steel slag carbonation has significant market competitiveness under carbon management policies.
However, the neutral pH of carbonated steel slag may not be applicable in some situations, such as high-performance concrete (HPC), which requires high alkalinity to protect the steel bars. Carbonated steel slag material is suitable for use in prefabricated building materials in nonbearing structures, such as square brick, pitching store, permeable brick, artificial reef, and walls. The drawbacks of carbonation curing could be overcome with the development of technology.

3.2. Market Size Analysis

3.2.1. Provinces in Urgent Need of Carbon Reduction

China has the largest carbon emissions in the world [87], and 15% of the total CO2 emissions in China is generated from the steel industry [88]. In order to determine the provinces in urgent need of carbon reduction, the amount of carbon emissions and carbon allowance in each province of China was surveyed. Table 2 lists the carbon emissions, carbon allowance, and initial available balance of 30 provinces in China in 2017 [89]. As shown in Table 1, the top three high-CO2 emission provinces in China were Shandong, Shanxi, and Hebei, the CO2 emissions of which were 1446.5, 911.8, and 874.7 Mt, respectively. However, the carbon allocations of these provinces were 281.9, 59.1, and 383.5 Mt, respectively. These provinces had severe deficits from their initial available carbon balances. Xinjiang and Liaoning also had severe deficits from their initial available carbon balances due to their low allocation of carbon allowance. The amounts of the initial available carbon balances in these provinces were similar to that of Hebei. Therefore, the provinces in urgent need of reducing their CO2 emissions were Shandong, Shanxi, Xinjiang, Hebei, and Liaoning.

3.2.2. Provinces in Urgent Need of Steel Slag Utilization

In order to analyze the provinces in urgent need of steel slag utilization, the distribution of steel mills and the production of steel slag were surveyed. Figure 3 shows the distribution of major steel mills in China [90]. As shown in Figure 3, steel mills were concentrated mainly in the east part of China. The numbers of main steel mills in Hebei, Jiangsu, and Shandong were 26, 13, and 12, respectively.
Table 3 shows the crude steel and steel slag production in each province in China in 2020 [91]. The steel slag production was calculated as 17% of crude steel production. The top five provinces in steel slag production in China were Hebei, Jiangsu, Shandong, Liaoning, and Shanxi, which produced 42.7, 20.6, 13.6, 12.9, and 11.3 Mt, respectively. Among these, Jiangsu had a light surplus in initial available carbon balance. The application of carbonation curing on steel slag in Jiangsu would not be the first choice for steel slag utilization. However, Hebei, Shandong, Liaoning, and Shanxi would be especially suitable places to adopt the technology of carbonation curing on steel slag, as it would not only provide high-value utility to their steel slag but greatly alleviate their CO2 emission problems.

3.2.3. Provinces in Urgent Need of Cement Replacement

In order to identify the provinces in China that are in urgent need of alternative cement production technologies, the clinker production of each province in China was surveyed. Figure 4 shows the cement production in each province in China in 2020 [92]. As shown in Figure 4, the provinces with cement production of more than 100 Mt/y were Jiangsu, Guangdong, Shandong and Sichuan, which had production capacities in 2020 of 136.2, 1109.6, 107.8, and 104.1 Mt/y, respectively. Among these, only Shandong was a suitable province for carbonation curing on steel slag. Hebei, Liaoning, and Shanxi were the other three provinces that most suitable for carbonation curing on steel slag; their cement production capacities were 96.4, 56.1, and 61.9 Mt/y, respectively. The cement production in these provinces was much larger than the steel slag production, which had capacities of 42.4, 12.9, and 11.3 Mt/y, respectively. Thus, the application of carbonation curing on steel slag in these four provinces could replace part of their cement production and would have a broad market space.
Figure 5 shows the cement replacement capacity of the top 17 provinces in China in 2020. The cement replacement capacity is the capacity of new, reform, or expansion cement production projects announced by the Industry and Information Department in each province in 2020 and was calculated according to the capacity replacement implementation. As shown in Figure 3, Guangxi, Yunnan, Fujian, Shandong, and Sichuan were the top five cement replacement capacity provinces in China, with capacities of 8.2, 8.0, 7.6, 6.0 and 5.95 Mt/y, respectively. The cement replacement capacity in Shandong was half of its steel slag production in 2020. The promotion of carbonation curing on steel slag in Shandong could potentially replace all its cement replacement capacity for two years.
The large cement production and cement replacement production indicate that the cement demand in Shandong is large. Carbonation curing on steel slag technology may be quickly promoted to replace cement in Shandong.

3.3. Stakeholder Analysis

The interaction among stakeholders plays an important role in the implementation of the primary action to the environmental problems of the cities [94]. Stakeholder analysis involves stakeholders identification, stake holders grouping, and stakeholders investigation [95]. The stakeholders related to the practical implementation of carbonation curing of steel slag were identified from existing scientific literature and the snowball method. Stakeholders were categorized into four groups according to [96,97,98]. Figure 6 shows the chain of stakeholder groups of carbonation curing on steel slag according to their positions, impacts, and relationships. Group (1) comprises national and local government, which provide governance by making policies, enforcing the regulation and law; group (2) comprises iron and steel plants, which generate steel slag and CO2; group (3) comprises building material manufacturing companies, which consume steel slag and CO2 and produce building materials; and group (4) comprises research institutes, which provide advanced waste management technologies and strategies.
The stakeholder analysis for carbonation curing of steel slag was conducted by taking Shandong as a case study. A stakeholder and instruction table for the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag is shown in Table 4.
(1)
National and local government:
The Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (MEE) is the main administrative department in charge of making policies and monitoring the emissions of steel slag and CO2. The Department of Ecology and Environment of Shandong Province (SDEE) is in charge of granting steel slag management licenses. The Bureau of Ecology and Environment of Jinan (JBEE) is a subordinate department that communicates with SDEE about affairs related to steel slag management, such as issuing waste disposal licenses.
(2)
Iron and steel plants:
Iron and steel plants are waste producers that generate CO2 and steel slag. Iron and steel Plants in Shandong include Jinan Steel, Laiwu Steel, Qingdao Steel, Taiyuan Steel, Weifang Steel, and Rizhao Steel.
(3)
Building material manufacturing companies:
Building material manufacturing companies, such as cement production companies and construction material production firms, are waste consumers. They consume the CO2 and steel slag waste from iron and steel plants. Figure 7 shows that the major cement companies in Shandong include China United Cement Co. Ltd., Sunnsy Group, Yizhou Group, and Mengyin Guanghui Building Materials Co., Ltd. As shown in Figure 4, the cement production capacity of China United Cement Co. Ltd. and Sunnsy Group account for 47% and 25% of the provincial cement production, respectively. Collaboration with China United Cement Co. Ltd. and Sunnsy Group would assist carbonation curing on steel slag in quickly seizing the market.
(4)
Research institutes:
Research institutes include research centers and universities, mainly the University of Science and Technology Beijing (USTB) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU). USTB focuses on improving waste disposal technology and waste management methods, such as the R&D of the technology of carbonation curing on steel slag. SJTU concentrates on commercial management and environmental impact assessment in order to plan a circular economy for the iron and steel industry.
Stakeholder analysis was carried out on four main aspects [30], the knowledge, attitude, interests, and power of different stakeholders in regard to the implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. The raw data were obtained by semistructured interviews based on a five-level scored questionnaire as shown in Appendix A. The purpose of stakeholder analysis was to find out the difficulties in the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. The main findings were as follows.
The local government was more interested in the technology than the national government. However, the local government had less power in practical implementation than building material manufacturing companies, as the governments were the leaders and planers but not the executors in the implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. Among the municipal levels of government, JBEE had the highest power and should thus be a target for research institutions issuing their comprehensive knowledge on carbonation curing on steel slag.
Building material manufacturing companies had the highest power over and interest in the implementation of steel slag recycling technologies. The result was in line with Gustafsson et al. [70], who found that waste consumers had high interest and power in waste management in Sweden. However, building material manufacturing companies had limited knowledge and a conservative attitude towards emerging advanced technologies, such as carbonation curing on steel slag.
The iron and steel plants were interested in carbonation curing on steel slag because of cost saving. They had the most positive attitude and interests but less power to propose the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag, because whether or not steel slag is chosen as a production material depends on the decision of building material manufacturing companies. Iron and steel plants also had absolute knowledge on carbonation curing on steel slag and were interested in investing in research and development.
The research institutes had enough knowledge of, attitude towards, and interest in the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. However, they had little power to realize the practical implementation.

4. Technology Application Suggestions

Carbonation curing on steel slag is a good technology for resource saving and carbon neutralization; however, its implementation is very difficult. In order to understand the reasons for this from a holistic perspective, sociological, economic, and ecological perspectives on the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag were analyzed by a comprehensive method. The below technology application recommendations are raised.
First, stakeholders have different interests and power on practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. Among all the stakeholders, building material manufacturing companies were the most influential. Unfortunately, they had insufficient drive to pursue the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag due to lack of knowledge. Thus, the establishment of an information platform is necessary to allow stakeholders share their knowledge on CO2 and steel slag management information. In this way, advanced technologies can be put into practice on time.
Second, the application of economic tools would push the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. Normally, few companies would like to manage their waste with ineffective or inefficient economic incentives. Tax policy is one of the effective economic tools and could stimulate companies to pay attention to taxed items for cost saving [28]. Carbon taxes, environmental taxes, and resource taxes could work for the implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
Third, supportive policies should be provided to research and development activities. Necessary funds are required to support the technology initiatives and the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. Once a successful demonstration is achieved in Shandong, the technology could spread to the other provinces in China. Therefore, sustainable development would take place in the iron and steel and building construction industries.

5. Conclusions

This paper studied the market stakeholders of carbonation curing on steel slag for construction materials production. Carbonation curing on steel slag was found to have great market potential in China through a holistic analysis of its competition, market size, and stakeholders. The detailed conclusions were as follows:
(1)
Carbonation curing on steel slag is a potential replacement of cement for construction material production. Compared with other CCUS technology, it has the advantages of permanent storage of CO2 and suitability for small or medium CCUS plants. Compared with other steel slag management methods, it stabilizes the volume of its products and enhances their consolidation ability. Compared with other cement production technologies, it has the advantages of low cost, high performance, and carbon reduction.
(2)
Shandong, Shanxi, Hebei, Xinjiang, and Liaoning seriously lacked carbon emission balance. Hebei, Jiangsu, Shandong, Liaoning, and Shanxi were the top five steel slag production provinces in China. The cement production capacities of Shandong, Hebei, Liaoning, and Shanxi were much higher than their steel slag production. Shandong had the highest annual cement replacement compacity, which was twice its annual steel slag production. Shandong is especially suitable for the rapid promotion of carbonation curing on steel slag.
(3)
The stakeholders for implementation of carbonation curing are governmental supervisors, iron and steel plants, building material manufacturing companies, and research institutes. Establishment of information platforms, effective economic incentives, and adequate research and development activities would promote carbonation curing on steel slag into practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, and writing—original draft, J.L.; formal analysis and writing—original draft, C.W.; writing—review and editing, investigation, methodology, and funding acquisition, X.S.; data curation and analysis, X.J.; data survey and analysis, S.Z. (Shaowei Zhao); data survey and analysis, Z.Q.; supervision, H.Z.; validation, S.Z. (Sitao Zhu); supervision, F.J.; supervision and project administration, W.N.; project administration and funding acquisition, M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant numbers 52004021, 72004130, 71810107001, and 7169024; the National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2019YFC1908501; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the Youth Teacher International Exchange and Growth Program, grant number QNXM20210006; Major Project of Scientific and Technological Innovation of Shandong, grant number 2019SDZY02; and the 111 Project, grant number B20041; and the China Youth Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, grant number 18YJC630148.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Interview Questionnaire

Stakeholder analysis in practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag
Date: ___/____/_____ ID #: ______
Organization: _______________________________________________
Name: _______________________
Dear friends:
Thanks for your participation in our research. We are researchers from the University of Science and Technology Beijing and Shanghai Jiao Tong University. We’re doing research to see if carbonation curing on steel slag can be done in a practical way. It’s critical for us to get you and your organization’s perspectives, because you are the important stakeholders in the area. We will select 89 stakeholders to interview, with questionnaires for a survey on the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. All your opinions will be used for research but not for commercial use. We will ask you some questions about your opinion on the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag. Thanks for your kind participation. Please choose your score in Table A1.
Table
Table A1. Scoring of the questionnaire for the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
Table A1. Scoring of the questionnaire for the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
TopicPossible ScoringYour Score
Knowledge: Describes knowledge about practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
  • I have no idea (2)
  • Lack of knowledge (4)
  • General knowledge (6)
  • Excellent knowledge (8)
  • Comprehensive understanding (10)
Attitude: Opinion/attitude towards practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
  • Very positive (10)
  • Positive (8)
  • Neutral (6)
  • Negative (4)
  • Very negative (2)
Interest: The degree of stakeholders’ interest in practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
  • No (2)
  • Limited (4)
  • General (6)
  • Very (8)
  • High (10)
Power: The power to influence and restrict other stakeholders to promote practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
  • Very low (2)
  • Low (4)
  • General (6)
  • Very (8)
  • High (10)

References

  1. IPCC. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. NOAA. State of the Climate: Global Climate Report for Annual 2019; NOAA: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement; UNFCCC: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021. Available online: http://www.ukcop26.org (accessed on 20 November 2021).
  5. Ekdahl, Å. Climate Change and the Production of Iron and Steel; World Steel Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, J.; Wang, C.; Ni, W.; Zhu, S.; Mao, S.; Jiang, F.; Zeng, H.; Sun, X.; Huang, B.; Hitch, M. Orthogonal Test Design for the Optimization of Preparation of Steel Slag-Based Carbonated Building Materials with Ultramafic Tailings as Fine Aggregates. Minerals 2022, 12, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rybak, J.; Gorbatyuk, S.M.; Bujanovna-Syuryun, K.C.; Khairutdinov, A.M.; Tyulyaeva, Y.S.; Makarov, P.S. Utilization of Mineral Waste: A Method for Expanding the Mineral Resource Base of a Mining and Smelting Company. Metallurgist 2021, 64, 851–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Humbert, P.S.; Castro-Gomes, J. CO2 activated steel slag-based materials: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 448–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, J.; Ni, W.; Wang, X.; Zhu, S.; Wei, X.; Jiang, F.; Zeng, H.; Hitch, M. Mechanical activation of medium basicity steel slag under dry condition for carbonation curing. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 50, 104123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, B.; Geng, Y.; Sterr, T.; Dong, L.; Liu, Y. Evaluation of promoting industrial symbiosis in a chemical industrial park: A case of Midong. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 995–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Geng, Y.; Liu, Z.; Xue, B.; Dong, H.; Fujita, T.; Chiu, A. Emergy-based assessment on industrial symbiosis: A case of Shenyang Economic and Technological Development Zone. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 13572–13587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ohnishi, S.; Dong, H.; Yong, G.; Fujii, M.; Fujita, T. A comprehensive evaluation on industrial & urban symbiosis by combining MFA, carbon footprint and emergy methods—Case of Kawasaki, Japan. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhe, L.; Yong, G.; Hungsuck, P.; Huijuan, D.; Liang, D.; Tsuyoshi, F.; Zhe, L.; Yong, G.; Hungsuck, P.; Huijuan, D. An emergy-based hybrid method for assessing industrial symbiosis of an industrial park. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nair, S.; Abraham, J. Hazardous Waste Management with Special Reference to Biological Treatment. In Handbook of Environmental Materials Management; Hussain, C.M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–27. ISBN 978-3-319-58538-3. [Google Scholar]
  15. Geng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Haight, M. Planning for integrated solid waste management at the industrial park level: A case of Tianjin, China. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Velenturf, A.P.M.; Jensen, P.D. Promoting Industrial Symbiosis: Using the Concept of Proximity to Explore Social Network Development. J. Ind. Ecol. 2016, 20, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chertow, M.R. “Uncovering” Industrial Symbiosis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2007, 11, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Melville, S.; Goddard, W. Research Methodology: An Introduction for Science and Engineering Students; Juta & Co Ltd.: Kenwyn, South Africa, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  19. Borowski, P.F. Significance and Directions of Energy Development in African Countries. Energies 2021, 14, 4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ramírez, R. Stakeholder Analysis and Conflict Management; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  21. Heidrich, O.; Harvey, J.; Tollin, N. Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste management systems. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ghinoi, S.; Silvestri, F.; Steiner, B. The role of local stakeholders in disseminating knowledge for supporting the circular economy: A network analysis approach. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, W.; Zhou, C.; Lan, Y.; Jin, J.; Cao, A. An incentive-based source separation model for sustainable municipal solid waste management in China. Waste Manag. Res. 2015, 33, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L.; Wu, K.J.; Chiu, A.S. A performance assessment approach for integrated solid waste management using a sustainable balanced scorecard approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. D’Adamo, I.; Falcone, P.M.; Imbert, E.; Morone, P. A Socio-economic Indicator for EoL Strategies for Bio-based Products. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 178, 106794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rerat, C.; Papadokonstantakis, S.; Hungerbühler, K. Integrated waste management in batch chemical industry based on multi-objective optimization. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2013, 63, 349–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Song, X.; Ali, M.; Zhang, X.; Sun, H.; Wei, F. Stakeholder coordination analysis in hazardous waste management: A case study in China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 23, 1873–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Song, X.; Geng, Y.; Dong, H.; Chen, W. Social network analysis on industrial symbiosis: A case of Gujiao eco-industrial park. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 414–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schmeer, K. Guidelines for Conduction a Stakeholder Analysis; Abt Associates Inc.: Bethesda, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  30. Caniato, M.; Vaccari, M.; Visvanathan, C.; Zurbrügg, C. Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 938–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Contemp. Sociol. 1994, 91, 219–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, X.; Ni, W.; Li, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, K.; Hu, W. Use of CO2 to cure steel slag and gypsum-based material. Energies 2021, 14, 5174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, X.; Ni, W.; Li, J.; Zhang, S.; Hitch, M.; Pascual, R. Carbonation of steel slag and gypsum for building materials and associated reaction mechanisms. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 125, 105893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ashraf, W.; Olek, J. Carbonation behavior of hydraulic and non-hydraulic calcium silicates: Potential of utilizing low-lime calcium silicates in cement-based materials. J. Mater. Sci. 2016, 51, 6173–6191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, J.; Zhao, S.; Song, X.; Ni, W.; Mao, S.; Du, H.; Zhu, S.; Jiang, F.; Zeng, H.; Deng, X.; et al. Carbonation Curing on Magnetically Separated Steel Slag for the Preparation of Artificial Reefs. Materials 2022, 15, 2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pan, S.Y.; Chung, T.C.; Ho, C.C.; Hou, C.J.; Chen, Y.H.; Chiang, P.C. CO2 Mineralization and Utilization using Steel Slag for Establishing a Waste-to-Resource Supply Chain. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ekolu, S.O. A review on effects of curing, sheltering, and CO2 concentration upon natural carbonation of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 127, 306–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, D.; Ghouleh, Z.; Shao, Y. Review on carbonation curing of cement-based materials. J. CO2 Util. 2017, 21, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ashraf, W. Carbonation of cement-based materials: Challenges and opportunities. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 120, 558–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. He, Z.; Wang, S.; Mahoutian, M.; Shao, Y. Flue gas carbonation of cement-based building products. J. CO2 Util. 2020, 37, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, Q.; Liu, W.; Hu, J.; Wang, L.; Gao, J.; Liang, B.; Yue, H.; Zhang, G.; Luo, D.; Li, C. Energy-efficient mineral carbonation of blast furnace slag with high value-added products. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. You, X.; Hua, X.; He, P.; Liu, J.; Shi, C. A review on the modelling of carbonation of hardened and fresh cement-based materials. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 125, 104315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Castro-Gomes, J.; Soares, E.G. Carbonation curing influencing factors of Carbonated Reactive Magnesia Cements (CRMC)—A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, Z.; Meng, W. Fundamental understanding of carbonation curing and durability of carbonation-cured cement-based composites: A review. J. CO2 Util. 2021, 44, 101428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mo, L. Carbon Dioxide Sequestration on Steel Slag; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; ISBN 9780081024447. [Google Scholar]
  46. Humbert, P.S.; Castro-Gomes, J.P.; Savastano, H. Clinker-free CO2 cured steel slag based binder: Optimal conditions and potential applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 210, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sanna, A.; Uibu, M.; Caramanna, G.; Kuusik, R.; Maroto-Valer, M.M. A review of mineral carbonation technologies to sequester CO2. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 8049–8080. [Google Scholar]
  48. Levine, J.S.; Matter, J.M.; Goldberg, D.; Lackner, K.S. Gravitational trapping of carbon dioxide in deep ocean sediments: Hydraulic fracturing and mechanical stability. Energy Proc. 2009, 1, 3647–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Woodall, C.M.; McQueen, N.; Pilorgé, H.; Wilcox, J. Utilization of mineral carbonation products: Current state and potential. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2019, 9, 1096–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Borowski, P.F. Management of Energy Enterprises in Zero-Emission Conditions: Bamboo as an Innovative Biomass for the Production of Green Energy by Power Plants. Energies 2022, 15, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rubin, E.S.; Davison, J.E.; Herzog, H.J. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 40, 378–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Norhasyima, R.S.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Advances in CO2 utilization technology: A patent landscape review. J. CO2 Util. 2018, 26, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Khoo, H.H.; Tan, R.B.H. Environmental impact evaluation of conventional fossil fuel production (oil and natural gas) and enhanced resource recovery with potential CO2 sequestration. Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 1914–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guyot, F.; Daval, D.; Dupraz, S.; Martinez, I.; Ménez, B.; Sissmann, O. CO2 geological storage: The environmental mineralogy perspective. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 2011, 343, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, N.; Chai, Y.E.; Santos, R.M.; Šiller, L. Advances in process development of aqueous CO2 mineralisation towards scalability. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Power, I.M.; Harrison, A.L.; Dipple, G.M.; Wilson, S.A.; Kelemen, P.B.; Hitch, M.; Southam, G. Carbon mineralization: From natural analogues to engineered systems. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2013, 77, 305–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Veetil, S.P.; Hitch, M. Recent developments and challenges of aqueous mineral carbonation: A review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 17, 4359–4380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Mechanical activation of ultramafic mine waste rock in dry condition for enhanced mineral carbonation. Miner. Eng. 2016, 95, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Ultra-fine grinding and mechanical activation of mine waste rock using a high-speed stirred mill for mineral carbonation. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 2015, 22, 1005–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, J.; Jacobs, A.D.; Hitch, M. Direct aqueous carbonation on olivine at a CO2 partial pressure of 6.5 MPa. Energy 2019, 173, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Carbon dioxide sorption isotherm study on pristine and acid-treated olivine and its application in the vacuum swing adsorption process. Minerals 2015, 5, 259–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Kelemen, P.B.; McQueen, N.; Wilcox, J.; Renforth, P.; Dipple, G.; Vankeuren, A.P. Engineered carbon mineralization in ultramafic rocks for CO2 removal from air: Review and new insights. Chem. Geol. 2020, 550, 119628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hitch, M.; Dipple, G.M. Economic feasibility and sensitivity analysis of integrating industrial-scale mineral carbonation into mining operations. Miner. Eng. 2012, 39, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, C.; Qin, J.; Li, J.; Hou, Q. The accident early warning system for iron and steel enterprises based on combination weighting and Grey Prediction Model GM (1,1). Saf. Sci. 2016, 89, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Ultra-fine grinding and mechanical activation of mine waste rock using a planetary mill for mineral carbonation. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2017, 158, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Li, J.; Hitch, M.; Power, I.M.; Pan, Y. Integrated mineral carbonation of ultramafic mine—A review. Minerals 2018, 8, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Economic analysis on the application of mechanical activation in an integrated mineral carbonation process. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018, 128, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Carbon dioxide adsorption isotherm study on mine waste for integrated CO2 capture and sequestration processes. Powder Technol. 2016, 291, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, J.; Jacobs, A.D.; Hitch, M. The effect of mineral composition on direct aqueous carbonation of ultramafic mine waste rock for CO2 sequestration, a case study of Turnagain ultramafic complex in British Columbia, Canada. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2022, 36, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sanna, A.; Dri, M.; Hall, M.R.; Maroto-Valer, M. Waste materials for carbon capture and storage by mineralisation (CCSM)—A UK perspective. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Selamat, S.N.; Nor, N.H.M.; Rashid, M.H.A.; Ahmad, M.F.; Mohamad, F.; Ismail, A.E.; Hassan, M.F.; Turan, F.M.; Mohd Zain, M.Z.; Bakar, E.A.; et al. Review of CO2 Reduction Technologies using Mineral Carbonation of Iron and Steel Making Slag in Malaysia. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 914, 012012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Ibrahim, M.H.; El-Naas, M.H.; Benamor, A.; Al-Sobhi, S.S.; Zhang, Z. Carbon mineralization by reaction with steel-making waste: A review. Processes 2019, 7, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Polettini, A.; Pomi, R.; Stramazzo, A. Carbon sequestration through accelerated carbonation of BOF slag: Influence of particle size characteristics. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 298, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, J.; Hitch, M. Mechanical activation of magnesium silicates for mineral carbonation, a review. Miner. Eng. 2018, 128, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Guo, J.; Bao, Y.; Wang, M. Steel slag in China: Treatment, recycling, and management. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, X.; Chen, J.; Jiang, J.J.; Li, J.; Tyagi, R.D.; Surampalli, R.Y. The potential utilization of slag generated from iron- and steelmaking industries: A review. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 1321–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, Q.; Wang, D.; Zhuang, S. The soundness of steel slag with different free CaO and MgO contents. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 151, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, Y.; Qiao, C.; Ni, W. Green concrete with ground granulated blast-furnace slag activated by desulfurization gypsum and electric arc furnace reducing slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Du, H.; Li, J.; Ni, W.; Hou, C.; Liu, W. The hydration mechanism of magnesium oxysulfate cement prepared by magnesium desulfurization byproducts. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 17, 1211–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wei, X.; Ni, W.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X.; Li, J.; Du, H. Influence of the key factors on the performance of steel slag-desulphurisation gypsum-based hydration-carbonation materials. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mo, L.; Zhang, F.; Deng, M.; Jin, F.; Al-Tabbaa, A.; Wang, A. Accelerated carbonation and performance of concrete made with steel slag as binding materials and aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 83, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mo, L.; Yang, S.; Huang, B.; Xu, L.; Feng, S.; Deng, M. Preparation, microstructure and property of carbonated artificial steel slag aggregate used in concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 113, 103715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Oyamada, K.; Okamoto, M.; Iwata, I. Reproduction technology of coral reefs using “Marine Block®”. JFE Tech. Rep. 2014, 19, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
  84. Prasad, N.T.; Sadhu, S.; Murthy, K.N.V.V.; Pilli, S.R.; Ramesh, S.; Kumar, S.V.S.P.; Dharani, G.; Atmanand, M.A.; Rao, M.B.V.; Dey, T.K.; et al. Carbon-dioxide Fixation by Artificial Reef Development in Marine Environment using Carbonated Slag Material from Steel Plant. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2014—TAIPEI, Taipei, Taiwan, 7–10 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
  85. Li, W.; Qin, J.; Yi, Y. Carbonating MgO for treatment of manganese- and cadmium-contaminated soils. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 128311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Höllen, D.; Berneder, I.; Capo Tous, F.; Stöllner, M.; Philipp Sedlazeck, K.; Schwarz, T.; Aldrian, A.; Lehner, M. Stepwise treatment of ashes and slags by dissolution, precipitation of iron phases and carbonate precipitation for production of raw materials for industrial applications. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 750–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhang, H.; Li, S. Carbon emissions’ spatial-temporal heterogeneity and identification from rural energy consumption in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 304, 114286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ren, L.; Zhou, S.; Peng, T.; Ou, X. A review of CO2 emissions reduction technologies and low-carbon development in the iron and steel industry focusing on China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tian, Y.; Lin, Z. Provincial distribution of China’s carbon emission rights and assessment of its emission reduction potential under the Paris Agreement. J. Nat. Resour. 2021, 36, 921. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. JOSEN. The Distribution of Main Steel Mills Distribution in the Mainland China. Available online: http://www.josen.net/Steel-Mill/zgdlqggcmlfbtjlxfsq.html (accessed on 20 November 2021).
  91. China Iron and Steel Association. Steel Industry Economic Performance Report of China in 2020; China Iron and Steel Association: Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  92. China Cement Association. Cement Industry Economic Operation Report of China in 2020; China Cement Association: Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  93. Cement. Cement Production Capacity Ranking of Each Province in China. Available online: https://www.ccement.com/project/paihang2020/index.html (accessed on 20 November 2021).
  94. Joseph, K. Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Grimble, R.; Wellard, K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric. Syst. 1997, 55, 173–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Anbumozhi, V.; Gunjima, T.; Ananth, A.P.; Visvanathan, C. An assessment of inter-firm networks in a wood biomass industrial cluster: Lessons for integrated policymaking. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2010, 12, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Caniato, M.; Tudor, T.; Vaccari, M. Understanding the perceptions, roles and interactions of stakeholder networks managing health-care waste: A case study of the Gaza Strip. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xu, W.; Zhou, C.; Cao, A.; Luo, M. Understanding the mechanism of food waste management by using stakeholder analysis and social network model: An industrial ecology perspective. Ecol. Modell. 2016, 337, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 02399 g001 550
Figure 1. Method, data, and research map.
Figure 1. Method, data, and research map.
Energies 15 02399 g001
Energies 15 02399 g002 550
Figure 2. Hydration and carbonation curing of steel slag for building materials and their reaction mechanisms (reprinted with permission from Wang et al. [32], Copyright 2021 MDPI.).
Figure 2. Hydration and carbonation curing of steel slag for building materials and their reaction mechanisms (reprinted with permission from Wang et al. [32], Copyright 2021 MDPI.).
Energies 15 02399 g002
Energies 15 02399 g003 550
Figure 3. Steel mill distribution in China (Reproduced according to ref. [90]).
Figure 3. Steel mill distribution in China (Reproduced according to ref. [90]).
Energies 15 02399 g003
Energies 15 02399 g004 550
Figure 4. Cement production capacity by province in China in 2020 (Mt/y) (reproduced according to [93]).
Figure 4. Cement production capacity by province in China in 2020 (Mt/y) (reproduced according to [93]).
Energies 15 02399 g004
Energies 15 02399 g005 550
Figure 5. Cement replacement capacity by province in 2020. GX is Guangxi, YN is Yunnan, FJ is Fujian, SD is Shandong, SC is Sichuan, GZ is Guizhou, HN is Hunan, AH is Anhui, JX is Jiangxi, JL is Jilin, HB is Hubei, GS is Gansu, NX is Ningxia, CQ is Chongqing, SX is Shaanxi, ZJ is Zhejiang, and HLJ is Heilongjiang (reproduced according to [93]).
Figure 5. Cement replacement capacity by province in 2020. GX is Guangxi, YN is Yunnan, FJ is Fujian, SD is Shandong, SC is Sichuan, GZ is Guizhou, HN is Hunan, AH is Anhui, JX is Jiangxi, JL is Jilin, HB is Hubei, GS is Gansu, NX is Ningxia, CQ is Chongqing, SX is Shaanxi, ZJ is Zhejiang, and HLJ is Heilongjiang (reproduced according to [93]).
Energies 15 02399 g005
Energies 15 02399 g006 550
Figure 6. The chain of stakeholder categories of carbonation curing on steel slag.
Figure 6. The chain of stakeholder categories of carbonation curing on steel slag.
Energies 15 02399 g006
Energies 15 02399 g007 550
Figure 7. The output portions of major cement enterprises in Shandong.
Figure 7. The output portions of major cement enterprises in Shandong.
Energies 15 02399 g007
Table
Table 1. Comparative product analysis of competitive solutions.
Table 1. Comparative product analysis of competitive solutions.
Competitive ProductCost (USD/t)Curing Time (Days)PerformancepHCarbon Emissions (t CO2/t)
P.O. cement hydration118 a28Commonly used12–130.78
Slag cement hydration6428Low early strength12–130
Steel slag carbonation411High early strength7–8−0.09 b
Note: a Calculation was based on an RMB to USD exchange rate of 0.16. b Negative values represent direct CO2 reduction potential.
Table
Table 2. Allocation of carbon emission rights by province in China (modified from Tian and Lin [89]).
Table 2. Allocation of carbon emission rights by province in China (modified from Tian and Lin [89]).
ProvincesCarbon Allowance (Mt CO2)Carbon Emissions (Mt CO2)Initial Available Carbon Balance (Mt CO2)
Shandong281.91446.5−1164.6
Shanxi59.1911.8−852.7
Xinjiang66.9564.1−497.2
Hebei383.5874.7−491.2
Liaoning300.8728.9−428.1
Inner Mongolia583.8863.6−279.8
Shaanxi247502−255
Hunan173.8399.5−225.7
Guizhou90310.6−220.6
Ningxia38.2257−218.8
Gansu105.8217.2−111.4
Tianjin69.3173.3−104
Fujian199.4282.1−82.7
Zhejiang405458.7−53.7
Chongqing121161.4−40.4
Anhui451.4454.4−3
Jiangsu876.5866.79.8
Guangdong710.9669.541.4
Qinghai147.664.283.4
Henan161.969.592.4
Jilin396.1265131.1
Shanghai414.3261.2153.1
Guangxi451.5279172.5
Hubei609.8416.3193.5
Jiangxi485.5275.2210.3
Henan913.9630.2283.7
Beijing788.580.5708
Heilongjiang1170.4405.8764.6
Sichuan1369.4355.11014.3
Yunnan1420.9245.81175.1
Table
Table 3. Crude steel and steel slag production in China by province in 2020 [91].
Table 3. Crude steel and steel slag production in China by province in 2020 [91].
ProvincesCrude Steel Production
(Mt)		Steel Slag Production (Mt)ProvincesCrude Steel Production
(Mt)		Steel Slag Production
(Mt)
Hebei249.8 42.5 Guangxi22.8 3.9
Jiangsu121.1 20.6 Yunnan22.3 3.8
Shandong79.9 13.6 Tianjin21.7 3.7
Liaoning76.1 12.9 Shanghai15.8 2.7
Shanxi66.4 11.3 Jilin15.3 2.6
Anhui37.0 6.3 Shaanxi15.2 2.6
Hubei35.6 6.1 Zhejiang14.6 2.5
Henan35.3 6.0 Xinjiang13.1 2.2
Guangdong33.8 5.8 Gansu10.6 1.8
Inner Mongolia31.25.3Heilongjiang9.91.7
Sichuan27.9 4.8 Chongqing9.0 1.5
Jiangxi26.8 4.6 Ningxia4.7 0.8
Hunan26.1 4.4 Guizhou4.6 0.8
Fujian24.7 4.2 Qinghai1.9 0.3
Table
Table 4. Stakeholder and instruction table for the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
Table 4. Stakeholder and instruction table for the practical implementation of carbonation curing on steel slag.
CategoriesNo.StakeholdersAbbreviationRoles
(1) National and local government1Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of ChinaMEEIssuing regulations, making policy, supervising, licensing
2Department of Ecology and Environment of Shandong ProvinceSDEEGranting steel slag waste management licenses, governance of environmental impact assessments (EIAs)
3Bureau of Ecology and Environment of Jinan JBEEEnvironmental regulation and issuing of license to the iron and steel plants in Jinan, Shandong, China
(2) Iron and steel plants4Jinan Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd.JIGANGProduction of CO2 and steel slag
5Laiwu Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd.LAIGANGProduction of CO2 and steel slag
6Qingdao Sincerely Steel Co., Ltd.QSSProduction of CO2 and steel slag
7Weifang Special Steel GroupWSSGProduction of CO2 and steel slag
8Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co., Ltd.RSHGProduction of CO2 and steel slag
(3) Building material manufacturing companies9China United Cement Co. Ltd.CUCCConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
10Sunnsy GroupSUNNSYConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
11Yizhou GroupYIZHOUConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
12Mengyin Guanghui Building Materials Co. Ltd. MGBMConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
13Shandong Aluminum Co. Ltd.SDALCOConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
14Tangshan Jidong Cement Co. Ltd.JIDDConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
15Conglin Group Co. Ltd.CONGLINConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
16Lobe Building MaterialsLOBEConsumption of CO2 and steel slag
(4) Research institutes17University of Science and Technology BeijingUSTBProviding environmental technology, improving waste disposal technology and waste management methods
18Shanghai Jiao Tong University.SJTUCircular economy planning and design, commercial management
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, J.; Wang, C.; Song, X.; Jin, X.; Zhao, S.; Qi, Z.; Zeng, H.; Zhu, S.; Jiang, F.; Ni, W.; et al. Market Stakeholder Analysis of the Practical Implementation of Carbonation Curing on Steel Slag for Urban Sustainable Governance. Energies 2022, 15, 2399. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072399

AMA Style

Li J, Wang C, Song X, Jin X, Zhao S, Qi Z, Zeng H, Zhu S, Jiang F, Ni W, et al. Market Stakeholder Analysis of the Practical Implementation of Carbonation Curing on Steel Slag for Urban Sustainable Governance. Energies. 2022; 15(7):2399. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072399

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Jiajie, Chenyu Wang, Xiaoqian Song, Xin Jin, Shaowei Zhao, Zihan Qi, Hui Zeng, Sitao Zhu, Fuxing Jiang, Wen Ni, and et al. 2022. "Market Stakeholder Analysis of the Practical Implementation of Carbonation Curing on Steel Slag for Urban Sustainable Governance" Energies 15, no. 7: 2399. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072399

APA Style

Li, J., Wang, C., Song, X., Jin, X., Zhao, S., Qi, Z., Zeng, H., Zhu, S., Jiang, F., Ni, W., & Hitch, M. (2022). Market Stakeholder Analysis of the Practical Implementation of Carbonation Curing on Steel Slag for Urban Sustainable Governance. Energies, 15(7), 2399. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072399

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop