Infographic: What is Green Steel?

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D. and Adam Sibal

Iron and steel manufacturing is one of the most energy-and carbon-intensive industries worldwide. The global steel industry emitted around 3.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2019. This accounts for around 7% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 11% of global CO2 emissions.

In decarbonizing the global steel industry, standards, protocols, initiatives, and government policies have a significant role to play. In recent years, major growth has been seen in the number of standards, protocols, initiatives, and policies focused on decreasing the emissions from iron and steel production.

Recently, we published a report, “What is Green Steel?”, that aims to bring together a summary of 26 major standards, protocols, initiatives, and government policies focused on reaching the goal of green/low-carbon steel production and decarbonization of this sector.

The infographic below highlights some of the key aspects of the study and its recommendations.

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, Download the full report from this link.

You can watch the recording of the webinar from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Cleanest and Dirtiest Countries for Primary Aluminum Production

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Aluminum production accounts for 2% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. World aluminum production has more than doubled between 2000 and 2020. Much of this growth in production came from China, which accounted for 57 percent of global aluminum production in 2020. The energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the aluminum industry are likely to continue increasing because the increased demand for aluminum, particularly in developing countries, is outpacing the incremental decreases in energy and CO2 emissions intensity of aluminum production that are happening under the current policy and technology regime.

Last month we published a report titled “Aluminum Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities”. In this report, we conducted a benchmarking analysis for energy and energy-related CO2 emissions intensity of the aluminum industry among the largest aluminum-producing countries. We focused on the two phases of the aluminum production value chain responsible for the vast majority of energy use and associated CO2 emissions: alumina production and the electrolysis process to produce aluminum.

Figure 1 shows the energy-related CO2 emissions intensities for aluminum production in the countries/region studied, based on our system boundary of the alumina production and electrolysis phases. Our results show that India, China, and Australia have the highest and Iceland, Norway, and Canada have the lowest energy-related CO2 emissions intensities among the countries/region studied (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Final energy-related CO2 intensity of aluminum production in 2019
(Note: Both smelters and alumina production processes are included. The CO2 emissions from both electricity and fuel use are included.)

Because electricity makes up a large share of the energy used in primary aluminum production, the CO2 emissions associated with aluminum production vary widely based on the fuel mix used for electricity generation in a given country or region (Figure 2). It should be noted that in our analysis we did take into account the captive power and hydro power used in aluminum industry in different countries.

Figure 2. Electricity grid CO2 emissions factor the countries/regions studied

The following factors can influence the primary aluminum production’s energy and CO2 emissions intensity values across countries:

• The fuel mix used for alumina production

• The electricity grid CO2 emissions factor

• The source of alumina used for aluminum production

• The share and type of captive power used for aluminum production

• The level of penetration of energy-efficient technologies

• The aluminum product mix in each country

• The age of aluminum manufacturing facilities in each country

• Environmental regulations

• Cost and quality inputs

• Boundary definition for the aluminum industry

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, Download the full report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Saving Natural Gas in a Hurry in Industry

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The tragic and unjust war in Ukraine has caused an energy crisis in Europe and around the world. The prices of oil and natural gas are skyrocketing within a short period of time putting pressure on consumers in different sectors of the economy. Even before the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the energy prices in Europe were in steep upward trends. The Dutch TTF Gas (a leading European benchmark price) is up by 10 folds compared to the same time in 2021. With increasing energy prices and uncertainly over the war in Ukraine, policymakers especially in Europe are struggling to reduce the burden of higher natural gas prices for people and businesses.

Figure: Natural Gas EU Dutch TTF (EUR/MWh) – https://tradingeconomics.com - Accessed March 8, 2022

There are many things that can be done in medium and long term to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas and keep the prices under control for the consumers. Many people are already talking about different strategies to do that. But those actions will take time to implement and show their impact. Here in this blog post, I focus on what can be done in a short term (aka in a hurry) to save natural gas and reduce energy costs now. Since my field of expertise is industrial energy efficiency and decarbonization, I will focus on different strategies that can be implemented by industrial companies to save natural gas now.

In Europe, over a quarter of the total energy used in industry is natural gas (Eurostat Energy Balances-2022 edition). The chemical, petroleum refining, iron and steel, non-metallic minerals (e.g. cement and glass), and food and beverage industry are the top five natural gas consuming industries in Europe accounting for around 75% of total natural gas used in industry.

There are different strategies that can help reduce natural gas consumption in industry. But in this blog post we want to focus on options that can be implemented now in a very short period of time and results in natural gas cost savings.

The best solution for saving natural gas in a hurry in industry is Energy Efficiency!

Of course, there are other options such as fuel switching, electrification, material efficiency, alternative materials and alternative processes that can also help to reduce natural gas use in industry. We have also conducted in-depth studies on those options over the years as well. But most of those options will require longer time period to implement and often higher capital for deployment. On the other hand, there are numerous studies that have identified cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities with low payback period in different industry sectors. All energy efficiency measures and technologies are even much more cost-effective now with this staggeringly high energy prices in industry in Europe. So, all industrial companies should re-evaluate their efficiency investment strategy and un-shelve energy efficiency projects that may have not been cost-effective before with lower energy prices.

Industrial companies in Europe that are facing challenges with this high natural gas and energy prices should immediately form an Energy Efficiency Task Force in their companies. Such task force should consist of people from management, engineering, finance and process operation. If companies do not have in-house expertise in energy efficiency, they should seek help from a local energy efficiency consulting firm. An investment in such services in such high energy price environment will have a very favorable rate of return. Government should consider providing financial support especially to SMEs for conducting an energy assessment.

A detailed energy assessment/audit of the industrial plant that can be conducted in 2-3 days should be implemented with a focus on process heating and boiler and steam systems where majority of natural is used. Natural gas saving opportunities should be identified and ranked based on their ease of implementation (how fast they can be implemented) and rate of return. The measures with the best economic rate of return that can be implemented rather quickly should be prioritized and presented to top management for approval and implementation.

There are many energy efficiency and system optimization measures that can be implemented at low cost in short period of time if the industrial plants have in-house expertise to identify and implement these measures. The approval of such projects should not get stuck in bureaucratic process of larger corporates. More capital-intensive energy efficiency projects that can be implemented in relatively short period of time should still be considered especially in such high energy-price environment.  

Below I’ll provide more specific resources that can help industrial plants in their assessment of natural gas saving potential in industrial process heating and industrial boilers and steam systems. These are just a few examples for sources of information available in English. I am sure there are other sources of information available in different languages. If you are not familiar with those resources, just reach out to your local energy department or universities with energy studies and I am sure they’d be happy to help you.

Industrial boilers and steam systems optimization:

Steam is used extensively as a means of delivering energy to industrial processes. Steam holds a significant amount of energy on a unit mass basis that can be extracted as mechanical work through a turbine or as heat for process use. In addition, steam can be used to control temperatures and pressures during processing, strip contaminants from process fluids, dry solid products, and in other miscellaneous applications. Equipment that use steam vary substantially across industries and are generally process- and location-specific.

In most cases, the focus on improvements for industrial steam systems has been mainly on the equipment (primarily boilers) rather than the entire steam system, which includes steam generation, distribution, end uses, and heat recovery systems. Although system optimization might be more difficult than changing a piece of equipment since it requires more holistic knowledge and assessment of the system, it will often yield much greater energy saving compare to replacing a single component with a more efficient one. Besides, the presence of energy efficient components (e.g. boilers), while important, provides no assurance that an industrial steam system will be energy efficient. Misapplication of equipment to demand, mismanagement of the system, and operation below the optimal efficiency in the industrial steam systems are common. Therefore, there is a need for shifting the paradigm to focus attention on steam systems optimization and efficiency as a whole rather than focusing solely on the boiler efficiency.

Some examples of energy efficiency measures that can be implemented on natural gas boilers are:

·       Excess air management: Tune existing positioning control (or simple control)

·       Excess air management: Upgrade from simple control to standard oxygen trim

·       Excess air management: Upgrade from standard oxygen trim to oxygen trim with CO tuning

·       Flue gas thermal energy recovery (Economizer and/or air heater)

·       Optimization of boiler blowdown and recovery of heat from boiler blowdown

·       Optimization of insulation of steam piping, valves, fittings, and vessels

·       Implementation of an effective steam trap maintenance program

·       Optimization of condensate recovery

·       Flash-steam recovery

You can find much more detail information on industrial boiler and steam systems efficiency improvement in US DOE’s steam system optimization guidebook.

There are also many natural gas saving opportunities in industrial heating systems such as cement kilns, steel industry’s furnace, glass melter, chemical industry reactors, etc. However, those opportunities are more sector-specific. The sector-specific energy efficiency guidebooks provided by US EPA (see below) and other institutions such as the ones by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (see below) provide more in-depth information about natural gas saving opportunities in different industries.

Resources:

U.S. DOE’s Resources for Industry

US DOE has developed and published various guidebooks and tools on energy saving in industrial heating and steam systems. All the materials are available for free from the links below.

• Plant-wide Systems

• Steam Systems

• Combined Heat & Power Systems

• Waste Heat Recovery Systems

• MEASUR Tool: It is an integrated tool suite (MEASUR) to aid manufacturers in improving the efficiency of energy systems and equipment within a plant.

• 50001 Ready Navigator Tool: It is an online guide that can assist you in putting an energy management system in place.

• Energy Performance Indicator LITE (EnPI LITE) Tool: It is an online regression-based calculator for modeling energy performance at the facility level.

• Energy Footprint Tool: It can help manufacturing, commercial and institutional facilities to track their energy consumption, factors related to energy use, and significant energy end-use.

• The Plant Energy Profiler Excel (PEPEx) Tool : It is an excel based software tool to help industrial plant managers identify how energy is being purchased and consumed at their plant and identify potential energy and cost savings.

• Steam System Modeler Tool: The properties and equipment calculators in this tool allow the user to input the metrics of their system, generate a list of detailed steam specific steam properties, and test a variety of adjustments on individual equipment.

• The Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST): It introduces methods to improve thermal efficiency of heating equipment. This tool helps industrial users survey process heating equipment that consumes fuel, steam, or electricity, and identifies the most energy-intensive equipment.

UNIDO’s Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator

This platform provides various case-studies and training materials on how to reduce energy use in industrial energy systems including the heating systems.

US EPA’s ENERGY STAR’s Energy Efficiency Guidebooks

These energy efficiency technology-guidebooks provide sector-specific recommendations for energy efficiency improvement opportunities in many different industries including chemical, petroleum refining, iron and steel, non-metallic minerals (e.g. cement and glass), and food and beverage industry, which account for 75% of natural gas use in industry in Europe.

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s Industrial Energy Efficiency Guidebooks

Over the years, my former colleagues at LBNL and I developed series of energy efficiency technology-guidebooks for different industries. These guidebooks are available for free from the link above.

Here is a guidebook on industrial energy auditing that I wrote a while ago:

Industrial Energy Audit Guidebook: Guidelines for Conducting an Energy Audit in Industrial Facilities.

You may find some of our publications on energy efficiency opportunities in different industries and industrial energy systems around the world helpful for your energy efficiency journey. You can find my full list of publications from this link. All the reports are available for free from GEI or LBNL or other websites.

Keep in mind that energy efficiency will benefit your organization both in the short-term and long-term. While working on energy efficiency, other medium-and long-term options such as electrification (using renewable electricity) should be considered by industrial companies in order to both increase their energy security and also lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope you find this information helpful. Feel free to contact us if you need additional support in developing energy efficiency strategy for your organization.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Global Aluminum Industry’s GHG Emissions

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D., Cecilia Springer, Dinah Shi

World aluminum production has more than doubled between 2000 and 2020. Much of this growth in production came from China, which accounted for 57 percent of global aluminum production in 2020.

The energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the aluminum industry are likely to continue increasing because the increased demand for aluminum, particularly in developing countries, is outpacing the incremental decreases in energy and CO2 emissions intensity of aluminum production that are happening under the current policy and technology regime.

We have conducted a benchmarking study for energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the aluminum industry among the largest aluminum-producing countries. We focused on the two phases of aluminum production value chain responsible for the vast majority of energy use and associated CO2 emissions: alumina production and the electrolysis process to produce aluminum.

[The full report of this study titled “Aluminum Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities” will be released in mid-February 2022.]

Based on the final estimated CO2 intensity for the 11 countries covered in this study, we estimate the total CO2 emissions from aluminum production in these countries (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China, Iceland, India, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States). We calculated a production-weighted average emissions intensity for these 11 countries. We find that the aluminum industry in these 11 countries emitted 597 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 in 2019. This only includes energy-related emissions and not the process-related emissions. These 11 major aluminum-producing countries represented 86 percent of total world aluminum production. Assuming the rest of the world produced aluminum with the average CO2 emissions intensity of the countries in this study, then total global energy-related CO2 emissions from aluminum production in 2019 would be 663 Mt CO2.

We also estimate the total CO2 emissions from each of the countries studied, based on our estimated CO2 intensity by country and the amount of production in each country. Figure 1 shows the results of this analysis, with China standing out as responsible for 67% of estimated global CO2 emissions – more than its production share, due to the high CO2 intensity of aluminum production.

Figure 1. Total Energy-Related CO2 Emissions from Aluminum Production in the Countries Studied and Rest of the World in 2019 (Source: Global Efficiency Intelligence’s analysis)

The global aluminum industry’s total energy-related CO2 emissions was around 663 million tonne CO2 in 2019.

Based on the total aluminum industry emissions presented above and the global CO2 emissions of 33 Gt CO2 in 2019 reported by IEA, the global aluminum industry’s energy-related CO2 emissions account for 2 percent of total global CO2 emissions.

It is worth highlighting that if the global aluminum industry represented a country, it would be the 10th largest emitter of annual energy-related CO2 emissions in the world.

For the 11 countries studied, we also estimate the total amount of emissions from fuel and from electricity (Figure 2). Fuel use is almost entirely consumed during the alumina production phase, which also consumes some electricity. We find that 19% of emissions in the countries studied comes from fuel use, while 81% of emissions come from electricity use. This indicates that decarbonization efforts in these countries should be focused on electricity, but that alumina production should also be oriented towards lower carbon fuels and even carbon capture, given the presence of carbon neutrality goals in many of the countries studied.

The fuel vs. electricity mix also ranges from country to country, because some countries, like Iceland and Norway, use essentially zero-emissions electricity for aluminum production, while other countries, like India, use carbon-intensive fuels both for electricity used in the electrolysis phase and alumina production.

Figure 2. Total Energy-Related CO2 Emissions from Global Aluminum Production (Both Smelters and Alumina Production Processes) by Energy Source in 2019 (Source: Global Efficiency Intelligence’s analysis)

The full report of this study titled “Aluminum Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities” will be released in mid-February 2022.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Global Cement Industry’s GHG Emissions

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The cement industry is one of the most energy- and carbon-intensive industries. There are various values in the literature regarding the total GHG emissions of the global cement industry some of which vague and unclear causing confusion among people who read and use these numbers.

In 2019, we published a report on international benchmarking of energy intensity and CO2 emissions intensity of the cement industry in 14 major cement-producing countries. These 14 major cement-producing countries account for over two-third of total world cement production. Therefore, we have a high coverage of global cement production in our study.

We used the weighted average CO2 intensities from our study and the global cement production to calculate total CO2 emissions of the global cement industry. We have considered the important issue related to the differences in clinker to cement ratio across countries and have adjusted our analysis to reflect these differences. Figure below shows the results of our analysis.

Global cement industry emitted around 2.3 gigaton of CO2 (Gt CO2) emissions in 2019.

Of this, 1.4 Gt CO2 is related to the process-related emissions (from chemical reaction during the calcination process), 0.6 Gt CO2 is related to fuel use (also called Direct emissions) and 0.3 Gt CO2 was from electricity use (also called Indirect emissions).

The energy-related emissions from the fuel and electricity use accounts for only 40% of total GHG emissions of the global cement industry. The remaining 60% of emissions is related to the process emissions from calcination.

Based on total cement industry emissions presented above and the global GHG emissions of 52 Gt CO2-e in 2019 (includes non-CO2 GHG emissions as well) reported in UN Emissions Gap Report 2020, the global cement industry accounts for around 4.5% of total global GHG emissions.

Based on the total cement industry emissions presented above and the global CO2 emissions of 33 Gt CO2 in 2019 reported by IEA, the global cement industry accounts for around 7% of total global CO2 emissions.

It is worth highlighting that only the annual GHG emissions of China, U.S. and India are higher than annual GHG emissions of global cement industry.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Carbon Loophole in Carbon Neutrality Targets

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The carbon loophole refers to the embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with production of goods that are ultimately traded across countries. These emissions are a growing issue for global efforts to decarbonize the world economy. Embodied emissions in trade are not accounted for in current GHG accounting systems. If they were, many promising climate trends would be negated or reversed.

These embodied flows of carbon, which are not accounted for in production-based or territorial emissions accounting are responsible for around 25% of the global carbon emissions (Hasanbeigi et al. 2018).

President Biden announced a new target for the United States to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net GHG pollution in 2030. Many other countries have in fact committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050, including major GHG emitters such as Britain, Japan and South Korea. China which emits more than a quarter of world’s GHG emissions set a 2060 carbon neutrality target.

Most of these commitments are focused on domestic GHG emissions generated within the country (also known as production-based or territorial emissions). When goods are traded, the emissions associated with their production (or embodied emissions) are also traded, and these emissions for imported goods are not counted towards the consumer country’s emissions reporting and GHG reduction targets. Many argue that these accounts should be corrected to account for emissions embodied in imported goods, also called consumption-based accounting.

Recent studies have shown that, when using consumption-based accounting, the apparent progress among developed countries in reducing their emissions is actually negated or reversed due to import of embodied emissions into developing countries. Accordingly, substantial share of the increase in emissions in some developing countries can be attributed to production for export to developed countries. For example, UK and the U.S. are net imported of embodied emissions and China is net exporter of embodied emissions as a whole.

While all these newly announced carbon neutrality targets by countries and corporations are encouraging and a step into a right direction, it is extremely important that accurate “consumption-based” accounting is used by countries to assess their GHG reduction in order to avoid carbon leakage. The carbon leakage refers to the situation when countries or companies simply outsourcing the production of carbon-intensive materials to other countries usually with less strict environmental standards and then importing those goods without accounting for embodied GHG emissions of the imparted products.

If the countries with carbon neutrality targets do not pay attention to the Carbon Loophole and do not use consumption-based accounting, their achievement of carbon reduction goals will have much less actual positive impact than claimed and may even in some cases result in an overall increase in global GHG emissions.

For example, producing one ton of steel in the U.S. emits less than half a carbon emission compared to producing a ton of steel in China (Hasanbeigi and Springer 2019). So, if the U.S. outsources parts of its steel or steel products production to China in the future in order to reduce its domestic GHG emissions, it will actually result in an increase in global GHG emissions.

The same concept discussed above also applies to corporations and their carbon neutrality targets. If corporation do not count the carbon emissions across their value chain and the embodied carbon in materials they use (scope 3 carbon emissions), their carbon neutrality target has far less impact than claimed.

To learn more about the Carbon Loophole see our reports, “The Carbon Loophole in Climate Policy- Quantifying the Embodied Carbon in Traded Products”.

To learn more about the embodied carbon in U.S. manufacturing and trade, see our recent report, “Embodied Carbon In The U.S. Manufacturing And Trade”.

To learn more about the GHG emissions of steel industry across countries, see our report, “How Clean is the U.S. Steel Industry? - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities”.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Industrial Heating Profile and Electrification

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The U.S. industrial sector accounts for about a quarter of energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. The majority of the energy used in U.S. industry is fossil fuels (Figure 1).

Figure 1. U.S. industrial sector energy use by fuel type, 1950-2019 (US DOE/EIA, 2020)

The top five U.S. manufacturing sectors in terms of energy use are bulk chemicals, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, primary metals, and the food and beverage industry

Thermal processes account for 74% of total manufacturing energy use in the U.S.; process heating accounted for 35%; combined heat and power/cogeneration for 26%; conventional boilers for 13% (US DOE, 2019) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. U.S. manufacturing energy use by end uses- values in Trillion Btu (US DOE, 2019)

Five industries account for more than 80% of all U.S. manufacturing thermal process energy consumption: petroleum refining, chemicals, pulp and paper, iron and steel, and food and beverage (US DOE/EIA, 2017).

Industrial process heating operations include drying, heat treating, curing and forming, calcining, smelting, and other operations (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Energy use for process heating in the U.S. industry by type of process heat (US DOE, 2015)

Process heating technologies can be grouped into four general categories based on the type of energy consumed: direct fuel-firing, steam-based, electric-based, and hybrid systems (which use a combination of energy types). In process heating, material is heated by heat transfer from a heat source such as a flame, steam, hot gas, or an electrical heating element by conduction, convection, or radiation—or some combination of these. In practice, lower-temperature processes tend to use conduction or convection, whereas high-temperature processes rely primarily on radiative heat transfer. Energy use and heat losses from the system depend on process heating process parameters, system design, operating practices, and other factors (ORNL, 2017).

Around 30% of the total U.S. industrial heat demand is required at temperatures below 100°C. Two-thirds of process heat used in U.S. industry are for applications below 300°C (572°F) (Figure 4) (McMillan, 2019). In the food, beverage, and tobacco, transport equipment, machinery, textile, and pulp and paper industries, the share of heat demand at low and medium temperatures is about, or even above, 60% of the total heat demand. With a few exceptions, it is generally easier to electrify low-temperature processes than high-temperature processes. Therefore, there is significant potential for electrification of industrial processes for low or medium heating applications. Figure 5 shows the share of industrial head demand by temperature in selected industries.

Figure 4. Cumulative process heat demand by temperature in 2014 (McMillan, 2019).

Figure 5. Share of industrial head demand by temperature in selected industries (Caludia et al., 2008)

Industry uses a wide variety of processes employing different types and designs of heating equipment. Process heating methods used in manufacturing operations largely depend on the industry, and many companies use multiple operations. For example, steelmaking facilities often employ a combination of smelting, metal melting, and heat-treating processes. Chemical manufacturing facilities may use fluid heating to distill a petroleum feedstock and a curing process to create a final polymer product (ORNL 2017). Table 1 shows the industrial process heating temperature profile for various subsectors. As can be seen from this table, a variety of thermal processing is conducted in each industry under different temperature profiles.

Table 1. Industrial process heating temperature profile for various subsectors (DGA, 2018)

As can be seen, there is a significant opportunity to decarbonize the industrial sector by shifting heat production away from carbon-intensive fossil fuels to electrified technologies where low- or zero-carbon electricity is used.

On January 27, 2021, Global Efficiency Intelligence and David Gardiner and Associates (DGA) released a report on industrial electrification titled “Electrifying U.S. Industry: A Technology and Process-Based Approach to Decarbonization”. The report’s Technical Assessment provides an analysis of the current state of industrial electrification needs, the technologies available, and the potential for electrification in thirteen industrial subsectors. The report also analyzes a separate scenario for electrification of all conventional boilers in the U.S. industrial sector. Besides, the report reviews the major technical, economic, market, institutional, and policy barriers to scaled development and deployment of industrial electrification technologies, as well as proposals that could help to overcome these barriers.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Reference:

Hasanbeigi, Ali, et al. 2021. Electrifying U.S. Industry: A Technology and Process-Based Approach to Decarbonization.

U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE). (2019). Manufacturing Energy and Carbon Footprint.

U.S. DOE/ Energy Information Administration (US DOE/EIA). (2017). Manufacturing energy consumption survey, 2014. 

U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE). (2015). Technology Assessments: Chapter 6: Innovating Clean Energy Technologies in Advanced Manufacturing. Quadrennial Technology Review 2015.

McMillan. C. 2019. Solar for Industrial Process Heat Analysis. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/solar-industrial-process-heat.html

Caludia, V., Battisti, R., & Drigo, S. 2008. Potential for solar heat in industrial processes.

David Gardiner and Associates (DGA). (2018). A Landscape Review of the Global Renewable Heating and Cooling Market.

Oakridge national laboratory (ORNL). 2017. Application of Electrotechnologies in Process Heating Systems—Scoping Document.

Global Steel Industry’s GHG Emissions

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

(Update on April 7, 2022)

Iron and steel industry is one of the most energy intensive and largest contributing industries to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There are various values in the literature regarding the total CO2 emissions of the global steel industry some of which vague and unclear causing confusion among people who read and use these numbers.

In April 2022, Global Efficiency Intelligence published a report titled “Steel Climate Impact - An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities". In this study, we conducted a benchmarking analysis for energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry among the 15 major steel-producing countries. We also calculated separately the intensities associated with the electric arc furnace (EAF) and blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) production routes in each country.

These 15 major steel producing countries account for 87% of total world steel production, 92% of BF-BOF and 75% of EAF steel production. Therefore, we have a high coverage of global steel production in our study.

We used IEA’s world energy statistics 2020 energy use data to estimate total steel industry’s CO2 emissions in 2019 and the weighted average CO2 intensities of BF-BOF and EAF route from countries/region included in this study to estimate total global emissions for each steel production route.

The Global steel industry emitted around 3.6 gigaton of CO2 (Gt CO2) emissions in 2019.

Global BF-BOF steel production emitted around 3.1 Gt CO2 and EAF production emitted around 0.5 Gt CO2 in 2019.

The high CO2 intensities of EAFs in China and India because of their use of large share of pig iron or coal-based direct reduced iron (DRI) as feedstock instead of steel scrap in EAFs causes an increase in global EAF’s CO2 emissions.

Based on total steel industry emissions presented above and the global GHG emissions of 52 Gt CO2-e in 2019 (includes non-CO2 GHG emissions as well) reported in UN Emissions Gap Report 2020, the global steel industry accounts for around 7% of total global GHG emissions.

Based on the total steel industry emissions presented above and the global CO2 emissions of 33 Gt CO2 in 2019 reported by IEA, the global steel industry accounts for around 11% of total global CO2 emissions.

It is worth highlighting that only the annual GHG emissions of China and the U.S. are higher than annual GHG emissions of global steel industry.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Part 2: Cleanest and Dirtiest Countries for Secondary (EAF) Steel Production

(Updated: April 7, 2022)

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Recently, we conducted a benchmarking study for energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry among the largest steel-producing countries.

In the previous blog post, I discussed the results of our benchmarking analysis for primary steel production. In this blog post, I will discuss the results for Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) (or secondary) steel production. The secondary steelmaking is producing steel from mostly scrap in EAF. In some cases, direct reduced iron (DRI) which is produced from iron ore will be used as feedstock in EAF. Around 28% of the total steel produced globally is by EAF steel production route.

Figure 1. The share of EAF from total steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019 (Source: Hasanbeigi 2022)

EAF steel production is less energy and carbon intensive than BF-BOF steel production, especially when most or all of EAF feedstock is recycled steel scrap. (Note: the embodied energy and carbon in recycled steel scrap are usually not included in EAF energy and emissions intensities calculation).

Figure 2 shows the CO2 intensity of EAF steel production in the 16 countries/region studied. Brazil and France have the lowest and India and China have the highest CO2 intensity of EAF steel production. A key reason why the CO2 intensity of EAF steel production in India, China, and Mexico are significantly higher than that in other countries is the type of feedstock used in EAF in these countries. In most countries, steel scrap is the primary feedstock for EAF. In India and Mexico, however, a substantial amount of DRI (around 50% in India and 40% in Mexico) is used as feedstock in EAFs. In China, instead of DRI, a significant amount of pig iron (around 50% of EAF feedstock), which is produced via blast furnace, is used as feedstock in EAFs. Both DRI and pig iron production are highly energy-intensive processes, which result in higher energy and CO2 intensity of EAF steel production when used as feedstock in EAFs. Vietnam’s high CO2 intensity of EAF steelmaking can be mainly attributed to its very high electricity grid CO2 emissions factor.

Figure 2. The CO2 intensity of EAF steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019 (Source: Hasanbeigi 2022)

Another important factor that influences CO2 intensity of EAF steel production is electricity grid CO2 emissions factor (Figure 3). Around half of the energy used in EAF steelmaking (including rolling and finishing) is electricity. The share of electricity from total energy use decreases as the share of DRI used in the EAF steelmaking increases. Therefore, if the emissions factor of the electricity used in the steel industry is lower, it will significantly help to reduce the CO2 intensity of EAF steel production. France, Brazil, and Canada have the lowest electricity grid CO2 emissions factors thanks to large nuclear (in France) and hydro (in Brazil and Canada) power generation. India, Vietnam, and China have the highest electricity grid CO2 emissions factors among studied countries due to large share of coal used in their power generation.

Figure 3. Electricity grid CO2 emissions factors in the studied countries in 2019 (IEA 2021)

The following factors can influence the EAF steel production’s energy and CO2 emissions intensity values across countries:

1. The fuel mix in the iron and steel industry

2. The electricity grid CO2 emissions factor

3. The type of feedstocks in BF-BOF

4. The level of penetration of energy-efficient technologies

5. The steel product mix in each country

6. The age of steel manufacturing facilities in each country

7. Capacity utilization

8. Environmental regulations

9. Cost of energy and raw materials

10. Boundary definition for the steel industry

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, Download the full report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Part 1: Cleanest and Dirtiest Countries for Primary Steel Production

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

(Updated: April 7, 2022)

The iron and steel industry accounts for around a quarter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the global industrial sector. Global steel production has more than doubled between 2000 and 2020. China accounted for 53 percent of global steel production in 2020.

The energy use and GHG emissions of the steel industry is likely to continue increasing because the increased demand for steel, particularly in developing countries, is outpacing the incremental decreases in energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions intensity of steel production that are happening under the current policy and technology regime.

Recently, we conducted a benchmarking study for energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry among the largest steel-producing countries.

In this blog post, I will discuss the results of our benchmarking analysis for primary steel production. In the next blog post, I will discuss the results for Electric Arc Furnace (or secondary) steel production. The primary steelmaking is producing steel from iron ore using Blast Furnace (BF) and Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) production route. Over 70% of the total steel produced globally is by primary steel production route (BF-BOF). Over 90% of the steel produced in China is by primary steel production route.

Figure 1 shows the CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production in the studied countries in 2019.

Figure 1. The CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production in the studied countries/region in 2019 (Source: Hasanbeigi 2022)

Note: Brazil-Charcoal CN refers to when charcoal is considered carbon neutral. Brazil-Charcoal C+ refers to when charcoal is not considered carbon neutral because of questions and concerns regarding the sustainability of biomass used in steel industry in Brazil. See methodology in the report for more information.

Key factors influencing energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry are explained in our report. It should be noted that no single factor could be used to explain the variations in energy and CO2 intensity among countries. In addition to energy intensity of BF-BOF plants, one key factor affecting CO2 intensity of BF-BOF steel production is the mix of fuel used in BF-BOF plants in each country. Figure 2 shows the weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry in the studied countries in 2019. As can be seen U.S., Mexico and Canada have among the lowest and India, Vietnam, and China have among the highest weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry. If charcoal is considered carbon neutral, the Brazil have the cleanest fuel mix and if charcoal is not considered carbon neutral, then Brazil have the highest carbon-intensive fuel mix for the steel industry.

Figure 2. Weighted average CO2 emissions factors of fuels in the steel industry in the studied countries/region in 2019 (Source: Hasanbeigi 2022)

Note: Brazil-Charcoal CN refers to when charcoal is considered carbon neutral. Brazil-Charcoal C+ refers to when charcoal is not considered carbon neutral because of questions and concerns regarding the sustainability of biomass used in steel industry in Brazil. See methodology in the report for more information.

The following factors can influence the primary steel production’s energy and CO2 emissions intensity values across countries:

1. The fuel mix in the iron and steel industry

2. The electricity grid CO2 emissions factor

3. The type of feedstocks in BF-BOF

4. The level of penetration of energy-efficient technologies

5. The steel product mix in each country

6. The age of steel manufacturing facilities in each country

7. Capacity utilization

8. Environmental regulations

9. Cost of energy and raw materials

10. Boundary definition for the steel industry

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, Download the full report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Rushing to Efficiency, We Sacrificed Manufacturing Resiliency

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Everyone knows by now the story of personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators and how many countries faced a massive shortage of such equipment without having sufficient domestic production and being overly reliant on imports of these equipment from China.

In a rush to cost-efficiency, the United States and many other nations sacrificed their manufacturing resiliency. This has caused some real pain in the U.S. and other countries during COVID-19.

But this is just one example in a decades-long trend of sacrificing manufacturing resiliency for cost-efficiency. In the past two decades and especially after China joining WTO in 2001, many developed countries have expedited the outsourcing of manufacturing supply chain to China or other developing countries mainly to reduce cost and increase their profit margin.

This is understandable, especially when the average manufacturing labor cost in some of the developing countries where these manufacturing are moving to is 15-20 times lower than that in the U.S. or western Europe. In addition, availability of raw material and suppliers often at lower price, a different regulatory environment, and some other factors have resulted in exodus of manufacturing supply chain from developed to developing countries with a largest move being to China.

While such outsourcing of supply chain can result in cost-efficiency, companies and countries have barely considered the critical vulnerability of supply chain disruption such the one we are witnessing these days with COVID-19. While it is hard to predict the timing of such major disruptive events, it is a given that these events will happen again. Whether it is a pandemic, environmental disaster, political disputes, or other events, we will certainly face such disruption in the supply chain again. What countries and companies can do to better prepare for the next event? Resiliency is the answer.

“Business resilience is the ability an organization has to quickly adapt to disruptions while maintaining continuous business operations and safeguarding people, assets and overall brand equity.”

At the country level, the US government should boost the domestic manufacturing supply chain for vital products such as health care, food, defense, etc. This will increase resiliency of the U.S. that is currently overly reliant on imported vital products such as personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilator, drugs, etc. This is not only to bring back the manufacturing of end products, but also (most of) the upstream supply chain and take action to secure and diversify raw material sourcing. Where onshoring of the manufacturing is not possible, the U.S. companies should take action to diversify their supply chain and have suppliers located in different countries and regions.

The U.S. Government and Congress should design and help to implement policies and program such as investment tax credit for companies that bring back their manufacturing to the U.S., programs for skilled workers training needed for new manufacturing jobs, increased RD&D investment that uses full force of excellent U.S. universities and DOE’s national laboratories research capacity in collaboration with U.S. companies, major increase in funding for smart manufacturing in the U.S. that can help to lower the cost of production and make U.S. companies more competitive, thereby incentivize more onshoring of manufacturing.

This onshoring of U.S. manufacturing will be a clean, energy-efficient, and low carbon transition for the U.S. manufacturing since these new U.S. industrial plants and processes will use state-of-the-art technologies that are most likely more efficient and cleaner than their counterparts in the developing countries. In addition, the average electric grid and fuel mix in the U.S. has lower carbon emissions intensity than in China and some other major manufacturing countries because of large availability and use of natural gas and increased use of renewable energy in the U.S.

Currently, the U.S. is a large net imported of GHG emissions embodied in traded goods and products. (See our report The Carbon Loophole in Climate Policy: Quantifying the Embodied Carbon in Traded Products).

The U.S. government can also take advantage of Green Public Procurement or Buy Clean programs to support cleaner and more environmental friendly domestic production of goods in the U.S. (See our report Curbing Carbon from Consumption: The Role of Green Public Procurement).

Companies also can take action to increase resiliency across their supply chain. Here are some specific, detailed actions in addition to those mentioned above:

• Companies must diversify supply chain and do not be overly reliant on just a few supplier in one or two single country even if such diversification increases the cost.

• Diversified supply chain means higher chance of variability in raw material or intermediate products quality. Companies have to have proper standards and systems in place and take a full advantage of smart manufacturing and integrated product management systems to ensure compatibility and harmonization across value chain. Block chain technology can be a useful tool for secure tracing of products across supply chain.

• Companies need to invest in workforce training across their suppliers globally to ensure high quality and harmonized production.

• Companies should design production processes to have ability to produce a variety of products on a single machine or process. In the event of disruption in market for one product, these companies can retool and produce an alternative product. Overall a more versatile production process that can be retooled and produce variety of products adds to the resiliency of a companies.

• Companies should diversity the supply of raw materials. For example, companies are overly reliant on China for supply of rare-earth metals. One could see a major political issue between US and China could disrupt that flow.

• Companies should conduct integrated risk assessment across their supply chain to assess risk and cost of major disruption and make appropriate changes to reduce risk and increase resiliency.

The answer to these problems is certainly not anti-globalization and reshoring everything. International trade has benefited both developed and developing countries. However, in light of the serious problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there are good reasons to reshore manufacturing of some critical products such health care and other products. Most importantly, even after this pandemic, there are many good reasons for companies to increase their supply chain resiliency, so they can better weather the storm in the event of next major disruption.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

New Report: Use of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Water and Sanitation

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Access to clean water and proper sanitation has been highlighted as one of the most pressing issues by the United Nation’s Agenda 2023, and is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG6). Issues related to water and sanitation affect all aspects of human life across various geographies, with a particular emphasis on least developed countries and marginalized communities. It is estimated that about 36% of the global population live in water-scarce regions, and more than 2 billion people have no choice but to consume contaminated water. Millions die yearly from otherwise preventable diseases, particularly children.

The technological advances in recent years in Industry 4.0 technologies such as: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data, Internet of Things (IoT), Blockchain, Drones, and Virtual and Augmented Reality, have provided new tools to address water issues.

Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC participated in a study led by Tambourine Innovation Ventures and funded by Inter-American Development Bank to provide an overview of some of the current applications of key Industry 4.0 technologies in the water and sanitation sectors globally as well as recommendations of how to further harness their potential.

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, Download the full report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Infographic: Hydrogen for Deep Decarbonization of Manufacturing

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

According to IPCC, the industry sector accounts for about a quarter of the world’s total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (after allocating electricity-related emission to end use sectors). The steel, chemical, and cement industry account for around 65% of total manufacturing GHG emissions.

Over 50% of final energy demand globally is for heating. Around half of that is for heating demands in the industry sector. Unlike transportation and building sector, the industry sector is more complex and it is more difficult to electrify its head demand using renewable energy sources. It is especially challenging to electrify high temperature head demand for energy-intensive sectors such as the cement and chemical industry. Figure below shows the temperature requirements of key industrial processes and the temperature limits provided by some options for low-carbon heat source replacements.

Figure. Temperature requirements of key industrial process and the temperature limits provided by some options for low-carbon heat source replacements (Friedmann et al. 2019, ICEF 2019)

Hydrogen when produced from renewable electricity (RE Hydrogen) can be a green alternative fuel to provide high temperature heat to industrial processes in some cases without significant changes to existing plants. Biomass is another option, but has challenges such as local availability and sustainability of its supply sources.

The infographic below highlights some general aspects of Hydrogen use as an alternative fuel or raw materials in the industry sector. There is a substantial need for more research and analysis on the potential use of hydrogen in different industry subsectors and technologies RD&D needs and challenges.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

New Report: How Clean is the U.S. Steel Industry?

An International Benchmarking of Energy and CO2 Intensities

The iron and steel industry accounts for around a quarter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the global industrial sector. Global steel production has more than doubled between 2000 and 2018. China accounted for 51 percent of global steel production in 2018. The energy use and GHG emissions of the steel industry is likely to continue increasing because the increased demand for steel, particularly in developing countries, is outpacing the incremental decreases in energy and CO2 emissions intensity of steel production that are happening under the current policy and technology regime.

In this study, which was supported by the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation, we conduct a benchmarking analysis for energy and CO2 emissions intensity of the steel industry among the largest steel-producing countries. Because of the difference in the composition of the steel industry across countries and the variation in the share of electric arc furnace (EAF) steel production, a single intensity value for the overall steel industry is not a good indicator of efficiency of the steel industry in a country. Therefore, in addition to calculating energy and CO2 intensities for the entire steel industry, we also calculated separately the intensities associated with the EAF and blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) production routes in each country.

Our results show that when looking at the entire steel industry, Italy and Spain have the lowest and China has the highest energy and CO2 emissions intensities among the countries studied. Among several reasons, this is primarily because of a significantly higher share of scrap-base EAF steel production from total steel production in Italy and Spain and a very low share of EAF steel production in China. The U.S. steel industry’s final energy and CO2 emissions intensities rank 4th lowest among the countries studied.

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, Download the full report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

New Report: Deep Decarbonization Roadmap for California Cement Industry

California’s cement plants are the largest consumers of coal in the state. California is the second-largest cement producing state in the United States after Texas. More than 70 percent of the energy used in California’s cement industry is coal and petroleum coke, which are two of the most air-polluting fossil fuels.

In early 2019, we published a report titled “California’s Cement Industry: Failing the Climate Challenge”. In that report we analyzed the current status of cement and concrete production in California, and benchmarked the energy use and CO2 emissions intensity of the state’s cement industry in comparison to other key cement-producing countries. The study presented in this report is a follow up to that study.

The goal of this study supported by the ClimateWorks Foundation is to develop a roadmap for decarbonization of California’s cement and concrete production. In this study, we develop scenarios up to 2040 to analyze different decarbonization levers that can help to reduce CO2 emissions of cement and concrete production in California. We included four key major decarbonization levers in our analysis, which are: energy efficiency, fuel switching, clinker substitution, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).

Under the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, the total CO2 emissions from California’s cement industry will increase from 7.9 MtCO2 per year in 2015 to 10.7 MtCO2 per year in 2040, a 36% increase. Under the study’s Advanced Technology and Policy (Advanced) scenario, the total CO2 emissions from California’s cement industry will decrease to about 2.5 MtCO2 per year in 2040, a 68% reduction compared to the 2015 level, while cement production increases by 42% from 9.9 Mt in 2015 to 14.1 Mt in 2040.

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis of this new study, download the report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Report: Green Public Procurement for Curbing Carbon from Consumption

Because public entities exercise large-scale purchasing power in contracts for goods, services, and construction of infrastructure, policies prioritizing environmentally and socially responsible purchasing can drive markets in the direction of sustainability. In fact, public procurement accounts for an average of 12 percent of GDP in OECD countries, and up to 30 percent of GDP in many developing countries. Significant GHG emissions are attributable to products and services that are commonly procured by governments, for example, large infrastructure such as roads, buildings and railways; public transport; and energy.

The European Commission defines green public procurement (GPP) as "…a process whereby public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle when compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured".

A wide range of countries around the world practice some form of GPP to promote products and materials that are more environmentally friendly and have lower energy or carbon footprint.

This report looks at 30 of those programs, 22 of which are countries in Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Oceania, and five case-studies at the city and regional level, as well as GPP programs of three multi-lateral banks and the UN to promote sustainable production and consumption. Fifteen of the countries we reviewed are among the top 20 GHG-emitting nations. The GPP programs included in this study are at country-, state-, region-, or city- level.

To read the full report and see complete results and analysis, download the report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Energy Efficiency in California's Chemical Industry

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The chemical and petrochemical industry is the largest consumer of energy among industrial sectors in California and is one of the top GHG emissions-intensive industries as well. California's chemical industry employs over 80,000 people and its total value of shipment is around US$82 billion. In 2015, this industry emitted 6.0 million tonne of CO2 in California.

Global efficiency Intelligence, LLC has partnered with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to conducted a study for California Energy Commission on energy efficiency in the Chemical industry in the state. The goal of this project is to produce a technical assessment of the chemical industry that will provide a clear understanding of R&D needs to improve the energy efficiency in the chemical industry in California and potential energy saving by adoption of current best available technologies.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Also read our related blog post:

Infographic: Chemical Industry’s Energy Use and Emissions

Report Release- California’s Cement Industry: Failing the Climate Challenge

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Cement production is one of the most energy-intensive and highest carbon dioxide (CO2) emitting manufacturing processes in the world: On its own, the cement industry accounts for more than 5 percent of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

California is the second-largest cement producing state in the United States after Texas. California’s nine cement plants together produced about 10 million metric tonnes (Mt) of cement and emitted 7.9 Mt of GHG emissions in 2015. California’s cement factories are the largest consumers of coal in the state.

Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC conducted a study supported by the Sierra Club and ClimateWorks Foundation to analyze the current status of cement and concrete production in California, and benchmarks the energy use and GHG emissions of the state’s cement industry in comparison to other key cement-producing countries.

The result of our benchmarking analysis shows that California’s cement industry has the second highest electricity intensity and fuel intensity among 14 countries/regions studied.

To read the full report and see the complete results and analysis, download the report from this link.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn , Facebook and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Infographic: Chemical Industry’s Energy Use and Emissions

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The chemical and petrochemical industry is the largest consumer of energy among industrial sectors and is one of the top GHG emissions-intensive industries as well. The infographic below is prepared by Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC to summarize some key information on energy use and emissions in the chemical industry.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Also read our related blog posts:

• Infographic: The Iron and Steel Industry’s Energy Use and Emissions

• Infographic: Energy Use and Emissions in the Cement Industry

• Infographic: Deep Electrification of Manufacturing Industries

Glass Industry: 16 Emerging Technologies for Energy-efficiency and GHG Emissions Reduction

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Glass production is a highly energy-intensive industrial process. The container and flat glass industries (which combined account for 80% of glass production) emit over 60 million tonne of CO2 emissions per year. The global increase in glass consumption and production will drive significant growth in the industry’s absolute energy use and GHG emissions.

Studies have documented the potential to save energy by implementing commercially-available energy-efficiency technologies and measures in the glass industry worldwide. However, today, given the projected continuing increase in glass production, future reductions (e.g., by 2030 or 2050) in absolute energy use and GHG emissions will require further innovation in this industry. Innovations will likely include development of different processes and materials for glass production or technologies that can economically capture and store the industry’s GHG emissions. The development of these emerging technologies and their deployment in the market will be a key factor in the glass industry’s mid- and long-term climate change mitigation strategies.

Many studies from around the world have identified sector-specific and cross- energy-efficiency technologies for the glass industry that have already been commercialized. However, information is scarce and scattered regarding emerging or advanced energy-efficiency and low-carbon technologies for the glass industry that have not yet been commercialized.

In 2017, Cecilia Springer of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and I wrote a report that consolidated available information on emerging technologies for the glass industry with the goal of giving engineers, researchers, investors, glass companies, policy makers, and other interested parties easy access to a well-structured database of information on this topic.

The information about the 16 emerging technologies for the glass industry was covered in the report and was presented using a standard structure for each technology. Table below shows the list of the technologies covered.

Table. Emerging energy-efficiency and GHG emissions-reduction technologies for the glass industry (Springer and Hasanbeigi, 2017)

Shifting away from conventional processes and products will require a number of developments including: education of producers and consumers; new standards; aggressive research and development to address the issues and barriers confronting emerging technologies; government support and funding for development and deployment of emerging technologies; rules to address the intellectual property issues related to dissemination of new technologies; and financial incentives (e.g. through carbon trading mechanisms) to make emerging low-carbon technologies, which might have a higher initial costs, competitive with the conventional processes and products.

Our report is published on LBNL’s website and can be downloaded from this Link. Please feel free to contact me if you have any question.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Some of our related publications are:

1.     Springer, Cecilia and Hasanbeigi, Ali (2016). Emerging Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Emissions-Reduction Technologies for the aluminum Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

2.     Hasanbeigi, Ali (2013). Emerging Technologies for an Energy-Efficient, Water-Efficient, and Low-Pollution Textile Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-6510E

3.     Hasanbeigi, Ali; Arens, Marlene; Price, Lynn; (2013). Emerging Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Reduction Technologies for the Iron and Steel Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory BNL-6106E.

4.     Kong, Lingbo; Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn (2012). Emerging Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technologies for the Pulp and Paper Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL-5956E.

5.     Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn; Lin, Elina. (2012). Emerging Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Reduction Technologies for Cement and Concrete  Production. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBNL-5434E.

References:

• Springer, Cecilia; Hasanbeigi, Ali and Price, Lynn (2017). Emerging Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions Reduction Technologies for the glass Industry. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.