Published date:Jul 17 2018

Journal Title: KnE Engineering

Issue title: VII All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference of Students, Graduate Students and Young Scientists (TIM'2018)

Pages:266–274

DOI: 10.18502/keg.v3i5.2679

V G Lisienkolisienko@mail.ru

Ya M Shchelokov

Yu N Chesnokov

A V Lapteva

The purpose of this article is to estimate the best available technologies for values of the following technological numbers: fuel, ecological, depreciation, greenhouse and their sums. All these numbers have power dimension: t of conditional fuel/unit of production that allows to put them. The fuel technological number characterizes power consumption of production. The technological ecological number transfers a payment of the enterprise for environmental pollution to power units. The technological depreciation number transfers depreciation charges from rubles to power units. The technological greenhouse number translates a payment of the enterprise for emissions of greenhouse gases in power units. Technological numbers have through character – from extraction of raw materials before receiving finished goods. The best available technologies are characterized by the smallest sum of all technological numbers.

Keywords: through power-ecological analysis, power ecological capacity of production of steel products, technological fuel ecological greenhouse number, best available technologies, climatic neutrality

[1] Shchelokov, Ya. M. (2018). Relevance of best available technologies for heat supply in housing and public utilities. Energy Saving, no. 2, pp. 16–20.


[2] Lisienko, V. G., Solovyova, N. V., Trofimova, O. G. (2007). Alternative metallurgy: Alloying problem, model estimates of efficiency: Monograph, V. G. Lisienko (ed.), p. 440. M.: Heating engineer.


[3] Lisienko, V. G., Rozin, S. E., Shchelokov, Ya. M. (1987). Calculation procedure and use of technological fuel numbers. News of Higher Educational Institutions. Ferrous Metallurgy, no. 2, pp. 108–112.


[4] Shchelokov, Ya. M. (1988). About power technological productivity of steel-smelting productions. Steel, no. 9, pp. 20–21.


[5] Lisienko, V. G., Parenkov, A. E., Lapteva, A. V. (2009). Assessment of energy efficiency of alternative without coke metallurgical technologies. Steel, no. 2, pp. 72–77.


[6] Romenets, V. A., et al. (2005). Process of Romelt: Textbook for Higher Education Institutions, V. A. Roments (ed.), p. 400. M.: MISIS, Ore and Metals Publishing House.


[7] Lisienko, V. G., Chesnokov, Yu. N., and Lapteva, A. V. (2011). Comparative ekologogreenhouse analysis of alternative without coke processes of production of cast iron and steel. Metallurgist, no. 7, pp. 40–45.