Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesScrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking has substantially lower reported emissions and energy use per tonne of crude steel than the conventional blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route. But “EAF” covers different feedstocks: direct-reduced iron (DRI)-EAF has higher reported emissions and energy use than scrap-EAF. The available figures do not establish a generic cost winner or show which route produces more steel per furnace.
Compare steelmaking routes, not just furnace types
A blast furnace is part of the integrated BF-BOF route: iron ore is reduced using metallurgical coal to make hot metal, which is then refined into steel in a basic oxygen furnace. An EAF melts and refines metallic inputs using electricity. Those inputs can include recycled steel, DRI, or hot metal, so an EAF is not necessarily charged with scrap alone.
The key distinction is between scrap-EAF, which mainly remelts recycled steel, and DRI-EAF, which first reduces iron ore in a direct-reduction furnace—commonly using natural gas—before refining the iron in an EAF. Combining those routes into one EAF figure can obscure important differences in energy use and emissions. See worldsteel’s overview of steelmaking raw materials.
Representative material inputs
worldsteel gives the following representative inputs for producing 1,000 kg of crude steel. These are route illustrations, not a guarantee of the charge used at every plant.
#1 Best Overall
| Route | Representative inputs per 1,000 kg of crude steel |
|---|---|
| BF-BOF | 1,370 kg iron ore; 780 kg metallurgical coal; 270 kg limestone; 125 kg recycled steel |
| Recycled-steel EAF | 710 kg recycled steel; 586 kg iron ore; 150 kg coal; 88 kg limestone; 2.3 GJ electricity |
These figures come from worldsteel’s raw-materials overview. The EAF example includes iron ore and other inputs, illustrating why “EAF” should not be treated as synonymous with a 100% scrap charge.
How do emissions compare?
In worldsteel’s 2024 Sustainability Indicators report, the 2023 route averages were 2.32 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of crude steel cast for BF-BOF, 0.70 for scrap-EAF, and 1.43 for DRI-EAF. These are route averages under worldsteel’s methodology, not guaranteed results for an individual plant.
| Route | 2023 CO₂ emissions per tonne of crude steel cast |
|---|---|
| BF-BOF | 2.32 tonnes |
| Scrap-EAF | 0.70 tonnes |
| DRI-EAF | 1.43 tonnes |
Source: worldsteel, Sustainability Indicators report 2024. The report includes DRI-based EAF in its global average from 2021 onward, but estimates the DRI production denominator because global crude steel production using DRI is not currently collected.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
The broad reason scrap-EAF tends to have lower emissions is that it remelts existing steel rather than making iron from ore. worldsteel says the majority of the emissions gap between ore-based and scrap-based steelmaking is associated with producing iron from ore. Actual emissions also depend on the metallic charge, the ore-reduction route, electricity generation, and the reporting boundary.
Keep the 2024 sector-wide figure separate
For context, worldsteel reports that the industry produced 1,886 million tonnes of steel in 2024 and averaged 2.18 tonnes of CO₂e per tonne of steel across scopes 1, 2, and 3. It estimates total sector emissions at about 4.1 billion tonnes of CO₂e that year, with 75% classed as direct emissions. These sector-wide 2024 figures use a different emissions measure and boundary from the 2023 route-specific CO₂-per-tonne-of-crude-steel-cast figures above; they are not directly interchangeable. Details are in worldsteel’s 2025 climate and iron-and-steel production overview.
How does energy use compare?
worldsteel’s 2024 report puts 2023 energy intensity at 24.20 GJ per tonne of crude steel cast for BF-BOF, 10.24 GJ for scrap-EAF, and 23.13 GJ for DRI-EAF. The ranking mirrors the emissions comparison: scrap-EAF is lowest, while DRI-EAF is much closer to BF-BOF in this measure.
| Route | 2023 energy use per tonne of crude steel cast |
|---|---|
| BF-BOF | 24.20 GJ |
| Scrap-EAF | 10.24 GJ |
| DRI-EAF | 23.13 GJ |
Source: worldsteel, Sustainability Indicators report 2024. The U.S. Department of Energy separately characterizes making steel by remelting scrap in an EAF as using less than half the energy required to produce steel from iron ore via BF-BOF; that is the DOE’s characterization, not a separate plant-by-plant result. See its Iron and Steel Manufacturing page, dated December 10, 2025.
Energy intensity is not a bill or a production-cost estimate. BF-BOF relies heavily on coal, while EAFs use electricity; the cost of those inputs varies by region. worldsteel notes that the shift from globally traded coal toward locally priced electricity makes affordable electricity increasingly important to regional competitiveness.
Which route costs less?
The evidence here does not establish a defensible, general capital-cost or total-cost winner between conventional BF-BOF and scrap-EAF. Lower energy use does not, by itself, prove lower production cost: a comparison also needs local electricity, coal, scrap and iron-ore prices, labor, financing, carbon costs or incentives, and plant utilization. A new-build comparison may also differ from a retrofit comparison.
Rank #4
One published cost range applies to a narrower route, not to ordinary scrap-EAF. The International Energy Agency estimates that early commercial plants using 100% hydrogen blends for H₂-DRI-EAF could cost 50–140% more than BF-BOF plants today, with the premium varying by region. This estimate concerns hydrogen-based direct reduction and should not be applied to scrap-EAF. See the IEA Breakthrough Agenda Report 2025: Steel.
To make a useful cost comparison for a particular investment, define the geography and year, plant boundary and build type, product and quality, metallic charge, utilization, input prices, and any carbon price or subsidy. Without those assumptions, a single “cheaper furnace” claim would be misleading.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Does a blast furnace or EAF produce more steel?
That depends on what “output” means. worldsteel’s route overview attributes about 70% of global steel production to BF-BOF and about 30% to EAF. Those approximate global production shares describe the routes’ current prevalence; they do not compare the annual capacity or hourly productivity of individual furnaces. The figures are from worldsteel’s raw-materials overview, accessed in 2026.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Geography changes the picture. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that the United States produces about 80 million tonnes of steel annually and that 70% of domestic steel is made in EAFs. That is a U.S.-specific description, not a global EAF share. The DOE’s figures appear on its Iron and Steel Manufacturing page.
The available figures do not provide a like-for-like comparison of output per furnace, plant capacity, or productivity per hour. Those are separate measures from global production share, and the route’s feedstock and plant configuration matter to any comparison.
Quick Recap
What the comparison means in practice
- For route-level emissions and energy: the reported 2023 global averages favor scrap-EAF over BF-BOF; DRI-EAF sits between them for emissions and close to BF-BOF for energy use.
- For production cost: no generic conventional BF-BOF-versus-scrap-EAF winner is established without a region, date, plant scenario, and input-price assumptions.
- For production scale: global or national route shares show how much steel a route makes in aggregate, not how much one furnace can produce.
- For feedstock planning: scrap-EAF depends on suitable scrap and electricity, while DRI-EAF includes ore reduction. Scrap supply and quality vary by country, so the routes are not interchangeable in every market.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
