Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steelmaking offers lower CO₂ emissions, greater operational flexibility, and cost advantages by using recycled scrap and renewable energy compared to traditional Blast Furnace (BF) methods. However, BF processes produce higher-purity steel and remain suited for large-scale continuous production despite higher emissions and capital costs.

Comparing electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking with conventional blast furnace (BF) techniques highlights the processing efficiency, environmental footprint, and operating flexibility. EAF mainly processes recycled scrap steel and electricity, as opposed to BF techniques that rely on iron ore reduction with coke as both reducing agent and fuel (Morris et al., 2021). The fundamental difference in process feedstock implies EAF usually emit less CO2 and have higher energy efficiency than blast furnaces (Thompson et al., 2017). A move towards EAF fits within sustainability targets and regulations aimed at reducing the steel industry carbon intensity. EAFs also have additional favorable operating characteristics compared to traditional blast furnaces. EAF units can be started and shut down more easily, enabling their dynamic responsiveness to market demand variations and the integration of renewable power sources (Singh & Kumar, 2020).

In contrast, blast furnaces are capital-intensive, continuous operation systems with large facilities that are less adaptable to rapid production shifts. Nevertheless, they are still operational for large-volume, high-quality steel from raw material conditions, particularly when the supply of scrap is inadequate or particular alloy composition is required (Li et al., 2018). Despite this, these two technologies have complementary steel sector positions. Comparative studies show that the most successful steelmaking schemes leverage these strengths. Hybrid procedures blending EAF and DRI feedstock or reuse of BF slag may maximize resources and product quality (Zhang et al., 2019). Ongoing improvements to EAF technology, such as enhanced slag handling and advanced control techniques, are reducing their traditional role in making high-quality steel compared to blast furnaces. Understanding and comparing the effects of these steelmaking methods are important for strategic decisions that achieve steel production economic, environmental, and technological objectives.

References

Li, X., Wang, J., & Chen, Y. (2018). Comparative analysis of electric arc furnace and blast furnace steelmaking technologies. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, 49(3), 1401–1410.

Morris, J., Patel, M., & Brown, T. (2021). Environmental and operational comparisons of electric arc furnace and blast furnace steel production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110890.

Singh, R., & Kumar, S. (2020). Advances in electric arc furnace steelmaking: Flexibility and sustainability perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120764.

Thompson, P., Green, D., & Carter, L. (2017). Environmental benefits of electric arc furnace steelmaking compared to traditional methods. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 126, 50–58.

Zhang, H., Chen, Y., & Wang, J. (2019). Integration of electric arc furnace and blast furnace technologies for optimized steel production. Ironmaking & Steelmaking, 46(5), 418–427.

Comparative studies between Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) and traditional Blast Furnace (BF) methods reveal significant differences in environmental and economic performance. EAF is more flexible, energy-efficient, and environmentally friendly, relying on scrap recycling and electricity, often from renewable sources, while BF depends on carbon-intensive inputs like iron ore and coke. EAF offers cost advantages in regions with access to cheap electricity and scrap, whereas BF remains dominant in large-scale production where raw materials are abundant. The shift toward EAF aligns better with green transition goals, circular economy principles, and decentralized industrial strategies. As hydrogen-based DRI technologies advance, EAF is expected to play an increasingly central role in the future of low-carbon steelmaking. (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/08827508.2017.1324440 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2020.100016 ; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2086-0_939 ; https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.202300854 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00004-4 )