Universal Approach to Estimate Perfluorocarbons Emissions During Individual High-Voltage Anode Effect for Prebaked Cell Technologies
- 34 Downloads
Recent investigations on aluminum electrolysis cell demonstrated limitations to the commonly used tier-3 slope methodology to estimate perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions from high-voltage anode effects (HVAEs). These limitations are greater for smelters with a reduced HVAE frequency. A novel approach is proposed to estimate the specific emissions using a tier 2 model resulting from individual HVAE instead of estimating monthly emissions for pot lines with the slope methodology. This approach considers the nonlinear behavior of PFC emissions as a function of the polarized anode effect duration but also integrates the change in behavior attributed to cell productivity. Validation was performed by comparing the new approach and the slope methodology with measurement campaigns from different smelters. The results demonstrate a good agreement between measured and estimated emissions as well as more accurately reflect individual HVAE dynamics occurring over time. Finally, the possible impact of this approach for the aluminum industry is discussed.
Part of this work was financed by a BMP-Innovation grant from a partnership composed of “Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et Technologies” (FRQNT), “National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada” (NSERC), and Aluminerie Alouette Inc. The authors would like to thank Aluminerie Alouette Inc. and Rio Tinto for allowing them to perform in situ measurements as well as for granting the permission to present these results. Additional thanks go to Dr. Jerry Marks for providing advice and the FTIR equipment used during some of the experimental campaigns.
- 2.G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. by T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M.Midgley (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013).Google Scholar
- 3.International Aluminium Institute, Results of the 2013 Anode Effect Survey (London: International Aluminium Institute, 2014), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
- 5.J. Marks and C. Bayliss, Light Metals 2012, ed. by C. Suarez (Wiley, Hoboken, 2012), pp. 805–808.Google Scholar
- 6.L. Dion, S. Gaboury, L.I. Kiss, S. Poncsák, and C.-L. Lagacé. Light Metals 2018, ed. by O. Martin (Wiley, Hoboken, 2018).Google Scholar
- 7.J. Marks and P. Nunez. Light Metals 2018, ed. by O. Martin (Wiley, Hoboken, 2018).Google Scholar
- 8.IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, ed. by H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (IGES, Japan, 2006).Google Scholar
- 9.US Environmental Protection Agency and International Aluminium Institute, Protocol for Measurement of Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production (2008).Google Scholar
- 10.D. Wong, A.T. Tabereaux, and P. Lavoie, Light Metals 2014, ed. by J. Grandfield (Wiley, Hoboken, 2014), pp. 529–534.Google Scholar