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.

3 Key Manufacturing Sectors to Target for Reaching Paris Agreement's Goal

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

According to IPCC, the industry sector accounts for about a third of the world’s total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (after allocating electricity-related emission to end use sectors). This is by far greater than GHG emissions from the Building and Transportation sector, yet these two sectors often get more attention than the industry sector.

AFOLU: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
Figure 1. The share of GHG emissions by economic sector (IPCC 2014)

Unlike building and transportation sector, the manufacturing sector is more complex which involves tens of industry subsectors that are vastly different from each other with regards to the production technologies and systems they use. It looks like this complexity drives many people and organizations away from the industry sector. However, without seriously tackling the energy use and GHG emissions in the industry sector, we will absolutely fail to meet the goals of Paris Climate Agreement.

Within the industry sector, there are many industry subsectors. Figure 2 below shows a high-level classification of industry subsector. Among these, there are only 3 industry subsectors that account for over 62% of total final energy use in industry sector worldwide. These three sectors are:

1. Iron and steel industry

2. Chemical and petrochemical industry

3. Non-metallic minerals industry, which is mainly the cement industry, but also includes glass, lime and other smaller subsectors

In terms of GHG emissions, these three manufacturing subsectors, i.e. iron and steel industry, chemical and petrochemical industry, and cement industry account for even larger share, over 65% of total industry sector GHG emissions. This is because of high levels of non-energy related GHG emissions (or process emissions) from these three subsectors particularly the cement industry. Worldwide, around 63% of total GHG emissions from the cement industry is process-related emissions (from chemical reaction during calcination process), which are not included in the Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. The share of different industry subsector from total industry use in the world in 2014 (IEA 2017a)

What makes the matter worse is the high share of fossil fuels, especially coal used in the industry sector. Coal accounts for over 75% of the final energy used in the steel industry worldwide with another 10% of energy coming from natural gas and oil (IEA 2017a). In the cement industry worldwide, coal account for over 60% final energy use and natural gas and oil account for another 15% of total energy use (IEA 2018).

The other point to keep in mind is that with world’s population increasing from 7.6 billion in 2018 to around 10 billion people in 2050 with majority of population increase to happen in developing economies, the absolute demand for cement, steel, and chemicals is expected to increase significantly by 2050.

While many people are hoping that we will clean the electricity grid and then electrify almost everything, thereby addressing the climate change issue, this is far more complex in manufacturing sector compared with the building and transportation sector. First, as mentioned above, industry sector with many subsectors which are quite different technologically will need many different types of electrification technologies. Second, around 74% of the final energy used in industry sector is fuel from which almost 48% is used for high temperature heat (above 400 Degrees Celsius) most of which is used in the steel and cement industry among others (Figure 3).  Electrifying this high temperature heat demand has proved to be difficult in these 3 industry subsectors.

Figure 3. Share of energy use by economic sector (left) and breakdown of heat demand in industry (right) (IEA 2017b)

In summary, without decarbonizing the iron and steel, chemical and petrochemical, and cement industry, it is impossible to reach the Paris Climate Agreement’s goals and peak the total GHG emissions early enough to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. Therefore, we need more focused attention by public and private sectors as well as NGOs and philanthropists to gather and allocate resources to reduce GHG emissions in these 3 industry subsectors. The time is running out with regards to climate change mitigation timeline and peaking world’s GHG emissions. We need to focus on areas where we can get huge savings and gigaton scale GHG emissions reduction.  If we don’t, scientists have given us some clear dire warnings!

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

• 56 Emerging Technologies for Energy-efficiency and GHG Emissions Reduction in the Iron and Steel Industry

• 19 Emerging Technologies for Energy-efficiency and GHG Emissions Reduction in the Cement and Concrete Industry

See the list of some of our related publications for the iron and steel, cement, and chemical industry from this link.

Sources:
IEA/WBCSD. 2018. Technology Roadmap-Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry.
IEA. 2017a. Global Iron & Steel Technology Roadmap.
IEA. 2017b. Renewable Energy for Industry.
IPCC. 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.

---

Infographic: Deep Electrification of Manufacturing Industries

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Over 50% of final energy demand globally is for heating. Around half of that is for heating demands in the industry sector. When talking about electrification, the focus has mostly been on the transportation and to some extend building sectors. The industry sector has often been ignored when considering deep electrification. Even if we electrify the heat demand for the entire transportation sector and building sector in the world, that only covers 30% and 25% of world’s final energy use, respectively.

The infographic below highlights some general aspects of electrification in the industry sector. There is a substantial need for more research and analysis on electrification potential in different industry subsectors and electrification technology R&D for the manufacturing sector.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications. Also, you can join our Electrification & RE in Manufacturing group on LinkedIn to get more information.

To download the high resolution image file (JPEG) of the infographic, click here.

---

What’s the Embodied Carbon in the U.S.-China Trade?

Authors: Ali Hasanbeigi, Daniel Moran

President Donald Trump has just signed an executive order to levy tariffs on a wide range of Chinese products worth an estimated $50 billion. This will certainly have major trade implications not only between China and the U.S., but globally. Perhaps, that’s why a major sell-off is happening in global stock markets. We thought to take this opportunity to look at it from climate change perspective. Do you know what’s the embodied carbon in the trade between the U.S. and China?

In our recent study on Embodied Carbon in Globally Traded Goods funded by the ClimateWorks Foundation, Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC. and KGM & Associate Ltd. used the most recent available data and a cutting-edge model (Eora MRIO) to conduct a global assessment of the extent of the embodied carbon in globally traded goods, so-called carbon loophole.

The graph below highlights our finding related to embodied carbon in the trade between U.S. and China in 2015. As it is illustrated, the embodied carbon in goods that U.S. imports from China is around 502 million ton of CO2, while the embodied carbon in goods China imports from the U.S. is around 67 million ton of CO2. Therefore, the net import of embodied carbon by the U.S. from China is around 435 million ton of CO2.

To put this number in perspective, the entire GHG emissions in California (the 5th largest economy in the world) in 2015 was 440 million ton of CO2.

Source: KGM & Associate and Global Efficiency Intelligence analysis

Figure. Embodied Carbon in the U.S.-China Trade in 2015 (Million ton CO2)

It is hard, however, to quantify the carbon implication of this new U.S. tariff on imports from China without knowing the exact list of products affected and how the tariff will change the trade balance between the U.S. and China.

A tool like the U.S. tariff on imports could be good for the climate and the economy if it was based on the carbon footprint of the goods imported and was not just implemented as a blanket tariff. In fact, California recently passed the Buy Clean legislation (AB 262), which calls for the state to create rules for the procurement of infrastructure materials (steel, glass, etc.) purchased with state funds that take into account pollution levels during production. This could be an example of environmental- and climate-friendly procurement and trade tariffs that level the playing field and can benefit both industry and the environment and incentivize high polluting companies that are out-of-state or out-of-country to clean up their production in order to be able to trade with these states or countries.

The report of our study on Embodied Carbon of Globally Traded Goods which includes results for trade between other countries and regions of the world is available to download from this link.

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 Embodied Carbon in Global Steel and Cement Trade

• Is Trump's Steel Trade War Good for the Climate?

---

Infographic: The Embodied Carbon in Global Steel and Cement Trade

Authors: Ali Hasanbeigi, Daniel Moran, Prodipto Roy

President Trump just signed an executive order to impose a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports to the U.S. While many people are discussing how this can lead to a trade war between certain nations, we decided to take a look at it through the lens of embodied carbon in traded goods.

The UNFCCC’s greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting system works on the basis of national production rather than consumption of emissions. This means that when goods are traded, their embodied emissions (e.g. emissions associated with manufacture) are also traded. However, these imported emissions are not counted towards a country’s reported climate impacts. It is estimated that around 25% of global CO2 emissions comprise goods and services which have been internationally traded.

In the recent study on Embodied Carbon in Globally Traded Goods funded by the ClimateWorks Foundation, Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC. and KGM & Associate Ltd. use the most recent available data and a cutting-edge model to conduct a global assessment of the extent of the embodied carbon in globally traded goods, so-called carbon loophole. In addition, we have conducted a series of higher-resolution, deeper dive case studies into a few key sectors and geographies of most importance, including steel and cement.

The infographic below summarizes some of our key findings related to deep-dive analysis we conducted for embodied carbon in global steel and cement trade. As it is illustrated, steel trade accounts for a significant amount of embodied carbon in trade. Even though China doesn’t feature in the top three steel import sources for the United States (Canada, Brazil, and South Korea occupy the top three spots), China still accounts for 40% of carbon embodied in the global commodity steel extra-regional trade, and 27% of carbon embodied in overall commodity steel trade.

One of the frustrations of U.S. steelmakers, which led to their support of the U.S. tariff, was China systematically overproducing subsidized steel and flooding the international markets. Furthermore, many steel manufacturers in China and other steel exporting countries like the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) produce a comparable unit of steel using significantly more carbon and energy than their cleaner counterparts in their own country or region. We see this disparity of carbon use in production not only in countries like China but also within different states in the U.S.

A tool like the U.S. tariff on steel imports could be good for the climate and the economy if it was based on the carbon footprint of the steel imported and was not just implemented as a blanket tariff. In fact, California recently passed the Buy Clean legislation (AB 262), which calls for the state to create rules for the procurement of infrastructure materials (including steel) purchased with state funds that take into account pollution levels during production. This could be an example of environmental- and climate-friendly procurement and trade tariffs that level the playing field and can benefit both industry and the environment and incentivize high polluting companies that are out-of-state or out-of-country to clean up their production in order to be able to trade with these states or countries.

The study on Embodied Carbon of Globally Traded Goods will be published in September 2018.

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 other blog posts and projects related to energy use and GHG emissions in the steel and cement industry from this link.

Decarbonization Roadmap for California’s Cement and Concrete Industry

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

The cement industry accounts for over 5 percent of current man-made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. World cement demand and production are increasing; annual world cement production is expected to grow from approximately 4,100 million tonnes (Mt) in 2015 to around 4,800 Mt in 2030 and grow even further after that. The largest share of this growth will take place in developing countries, especially in the Asian continent.

According to USGS, United States produced around 86 Mt of cement in 2016 making it the third largest cement producer in the world after China and India. The state of California has 10 cement plants that together produced around 10 Mt of cement in 2015 making it the second largest cement producing state in the U.S. after Texas. This significant cement production in California is associated with a substantial energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state. The cement industry in California is the largest consumer of coal in the state. Therefore, there is a need to develop a roadmap on how to reduce energy use and GHG emissions related to cement and concrete production in California.

Given our extensive experience in this area, Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC is conducting a study for the Sierra Club to develop a roadmap for decarbonizing California’s cement and concrete industry. In this study, we will look into current status of the cement and concrete production in California and conduct a benchmarking analysis for the energy use and emissions of the cement industry in California in comparison with some other key cement producing countries. In addition, we will look into options that can help to decarbonize the cement and concrete production in California such as energy efficiency, fuel switching, alternative raw material and products, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).

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: Energy Use and Emissions in the Cement Industry

• 19 Emerging Technologies for Energy-efficiency and GHG Emissions Reduction in the Cement and Concrete Industry

Some of our related publications are:

• Hasanbeigi, Ali; Agnes Lobscheid; Hongyou, Lu; Price, Lynn; Yue Dai (2013). Quantifying the Co-benefits of Energy-Efficiency Programs: A Case-study for the Cement Industry in Shandong Province, China. Science of the Total Environment. Volumes 458–460, 1 August 2013, Pages 624-636.

• Hasanbeigi, Ali; Morrow, William; Masanet, Eric; Sathaye, Jayant; Xu, Tengfang. 2013. Energy Efficiency Improvement Opportunities in the Cement Industry in China. Energy Policy Volume 57, June 2013, Pages 287–297

• Morrow, William; Hasanbeigi, Ali; Sathaye, Jayant; Xu, Tengfang. 2014. Assessment of Energy Efficiency Improvement and CO2 Emission Reduction Potentials in India’s Cement and Iron & Steel Industries. Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 65, 15 February 2014, Pages 131–141

• Hasanbeigi, Ali; Menke, Christoph; Therdyothin, Apichit (2010). Technical and Cost Assessment of Energy Efficiency Improvement and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potentials in Thai Cement Industry. Energy Efficiency. DOI 10.1007/s12053-010-9079-1

• Hasanbeigi, Ali; Menke, Christoph; Therdyothin, Apichit (2010). The Use of Conservation Supply Curves in Energy Policy and Economic Analysis: the Case Study of Thai Cement Industry. Energy Policy 38 (2010) 392–405

• Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn; Hongyou, Lu; Lan, Wang (2010). Analysis of Energy-Efficiency Opportunities for the Cement Industry in Shandong Province, China: A Case-Study of Sixteen Cement Plants. Energy-the International Journal 35 (2010) 3461-3473.

Utilities and Governments are Wasting Millions of Dollars Subsidizing A Wrong Technology for Motor Systems Efficiency

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), electric motor systems consume more than half of global electricity. Industrial electric motor systems account for over 70% of total global industrial electricity usage. Electric motors operate fans; pumps; and materials-handling, compressed-air, and processing equipment.

Because motor efficiency improvements will only marginally increase the motor system’s efficiency, we must look to improve the efficiency of the equipment and systems being driven by the motor. Optimization measures such as predictive maintenance, avoiding oversized motors, and matching motor systems to specific needs, etc. could improve the energy efficiency of motor-driven systems significantly. Even more savings can be achieved by looking not only beyond the motor to the whole motor system but beyond the system to the end-use device, as shown in Figure below.

Figure. Illustration of two industrial electric motor-driven systems: (a) normal and (b) efficient (IEA 2016)

The traditional approach in most states and countries has been to focus on motors only and not on entire motor systems. As shown above, while increasing motor efficiency saves energy, optimizing the entire pump system will save much more energy. There is a need to shift the paradigm to focus on systems rather than individual motor efficiency. Programs and policies that target systems can save more energy and CO2 emissions in a more cost-effective manner than programs that focus only on motors.

Many utilities in the U.S. and governments around the world give substantial rebate for replacing electric motors with more efficient ones. While this may sound like a good thing to do, our extensive studies for 30 states in the U.S. and over 10 countries around the world shows that it is a clear waste of money. Why? Because in most cases, replacing existing motor with a more efficient one can improve the entire system efficiency by 1% - 5% (depending on the baseline efficiency of the systems). On the other hand, there are many other systems efficiency/optimization measures that can result in up to 20% - 25% efficiency improvement in the system.

For example, in a pump system with a Low efficiency baseline, replacing motor can only improve system efficiency by 5%, while trimming or changing impeller to match output to requirements can save about 15%, removing sediment/scale buildup from piping can save about 10% and installing variable speed drive (VSD) can save about 25% of the electricity use.

There is another very important reason why giving rebate for replacing motors with more efficient ones is such a waste of money in a massive scale. Our analysis consistently showed that replacing motor with more efficient one is by far one of the least cost-effective efficiency measures that can be implement on a motor system (for example in a pump systems or a fan systems). In other words, it cost much higher to save a kWh of electricity by replacing motor than to implement other system efficiency/optimization measures.

So, you might ask why many utilities and government prioritize giving rebate for replacing motors? The answer is it’s easier to implement and measure the saving. Utilities and government staff and program managers often need to show the amount of electricity saved as a result of implementing a rebate program. This is easier to do with equipment replacement than with soft measures such as system optimization. Having this said, many of the system optimization measures are easy to implement by in-house staff in the facilities.

To sum up, our detailed and extensive studies for three major industrial motor systems (pump systems, fan systems, and compressor systems) shows that millions of dollars spent annually by utilities and governments on rebate program for replacing electric motors with more efficient one is clearly waste of public and private funding. The better way would be to provide rebate for system efficiency measures that can save sometime up to 10 times higher energy saving with lower cost.

If utilities and governments persist to keep their motor replacement rebate program, my suggestion to them, based on the findings of our reports, is to bundle one or two efficiency measures with the motor replacement rebate. In other words, for an applicant to quality for motor replacement rebate, they should also implement one or two other system optimization measures from a list of measures that is predefined by utilities or government agencies.

To find out more about our detailed bottom-up studies for energy efficiency in industrial motor systems in the U.S., see our reports:

U.S. Industrial Motor Systems Energy Efficiency Reports Covering 30 States >>

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

References:

IEA. 2016. World Energy Outlook 2016. Paris, France.
IEA, 2011. Energy efficiency policy opportunities for electric motor driven systems. Paris, France.

---

Global Efficiency Intelligence and UNIDO are Helping Egypt to Improve Industrial Energy Efficiency

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Egypt is the largest oil and natural gas consumer in Africa, accounting for about 20% of petroleum and other liquids consumption and around 40% of natural gas consumption in Africa. Increased industrial output, economic growth, energy-intensive natural gas and oil extraction industry, rapid population growth, rapid increase in vehicle sales, and energy subsidies are among key factors contributed to the rapid growth of energy consumption over the past few decades in Egypt.

Industry sector accounted for over 42% of natural gas, 86% of fuel oil, and 25% of total electricity consumption in Egypt in 2015. industrial electric motor systems account for over 70% of manufacturing electricity consumption.

Given its extensive experience on motor systems energy efficiency analysis, Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC. has been working on a project for United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) to conduct a study on electricity saving potential in industrial motor systems in Egypt. We are analyzing energy use, energy efficiency, and GHG emissions-reduction potential in industrial pump systems, fan systems, and compressed-air systems, which together account for over 70% of electricity use in industrial motor systems in Egypt. We will assess the cost-effectiveness of series of energy conservation measures that can be implemented on these motor systems in Egypt.

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

---

Infographic: Textile and Apparel Industry’s Energy and Water Consumption and Pollutions Profile

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Although the textile and apparel industry is not considered an energy-intensive industry, it comprises a large number of plants that, together, consume a significant amount of energy which result in substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions too. 

The textile and apparel industry and especially textile wet-processing is one of the largest consumers of water in manufacturing and also one of the main producers of industrial wastewater. Since various chemicals are used in different textile processes like pre-treatment, dyeing, printing, and finishing, the textile wastewater contains many toxic chemicals which if not treated properly before discharging to the environment, can cause serious environmental damage.

With global population growth and the emergence of fast fashion, the worldwide textile and apparel production are increasing rapidly. In 2014, an average consumer bought 60% more clothing compared to that in 2000, but kept each garment only half as long.

The Infographic below shows the Textile and Clothing Industry’s Energy and Water Consumption and Pollutions Profile.

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

Some of our related publications and tools are:

1.     Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn; (2015). A Technical Review of Emerging Technologies for Energy and Water Efficiency and Pollution Reduction in the Textile Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 

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; Hasanabadi, Abdollah; Abdolrazaghi, Mohamad, (2012). Energy Intensity Analysis for Five Major Sub-Sectors of the Textile Industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 186-194

4.     Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn (2012). A Review of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency Technologies for the Textile Industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 3648– 3665.

5.    Also, you can check out the Energy Efficiency Assessment and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Tool for the Textile Industry (EAGER Textile), which I developed a few years ago while still working at LBNL. EAGER Textile tool allows users to conduct a simple techno-economic analysis to evaluate the impact of selected energy efficiency measures in a textile plant by choosing the measures that they would likely introduce in a facility, or would like to evaluate for potential use.

---

Hurricanes Maria, Irma, Harvey: How to Keep out the Flood Water by Pumping Less

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

First, I should say that my heart goes to all people who are affected by Hurricane Maria, Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Harvey in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Puerto Rico, and all islands in the Caribbean. At times like this, we shall all come together to help the people in need.

Whether or not we like it or believe in it, climate change is causing global warming. That in term is causing an increase in severe weather and natural disasters. We are all witnessing the worst in a century hurricanes, tropical storms, flooding, and droughts all over the world. This is not a coincident. Scientists have been yelling and warning us about this for years now. It’s time to listen and act before it is too late. According to NASA, storms feed off of latent heat, which is why scientists think global warming is strengthening storms. Extra heat in the atmosphere or ocean nourishes storms. While we cannot pin point the extend of effect by climate change on recent strong hurricanes, it is certainly one of the key factors knowing that, according to UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

When hurricane Harvey hit Houston, the fourth most populous city in the US, large areas of the city got flooded. Same thing happened in many cities in Florida and Caribbean Islands when hurricane Irma and Maria devastated cities there. I saw on TV that people were using pumps is some areas to drain the water from their property and streets. Apparently, it is a common practice in Miami even after a heavy rain.

We all believe that “prevention is better than cure.” The same thing is true with global warming and climate change and preventing the consequences of them including hurricanes and flooding. In general, by improving energy efficiency, we can reduce burning fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions which cause global warming and climate change. In this article, as an example, I focus on pumps and pumping systems and how their impact on climate change can be reduced.

In a series of reports we recently published on Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions Reduction Potential in Industrial Motor Systems in the U.S. covering 30 U.S. States (Available from this Link), we estimated the energy use by industrial pump systems in 30 different states in the U.S., separately. Our analysis shows that industrial pump systems in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, which were flooded by recent hurricanes, together consumed over 37,000 GWh of electricity in 2015. That is about the electricity use by 3.5 million U.S. households. Industrial pump systems in the entire U.S. consumed over 147,000 GWh in 2015, which accounts for about 20% of total electricity use in the U.S. manufacturing in that year. In other words, the electricity use by industrial pump systems in the U.S. is equal to electricity use by 13.5 million U.S. households. In terms of GHG emissions, industrial pump systems alone are responsible for over 163 Billion lb of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year in the U.S.

In the same reports, we quantified energy saving and GHG emissions reduction potentials and cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency measures for industrial pump systems in each state studied including Florida, Texas, and Louisiana. Our analyses shows that up to 35% of the electricity use in the industrial pump systems can be saved by implementing commercially available energy efficiency and system optimization measures and technologies. Most importantly, over half of this energy saving potential is cost-effective. This means that to save a kWh of electricity will cost less than the average unit prices of electricity for industry in each of the 30 states studied. In other words, investing in energy efficiency in pump systems will result in millions of dollars in savings for companies, utilities, and tax payers. This will also result in creation of thousands of jobs for local communities in each state. In addition, the electricity savings will subsequently result in reduction in GHG emissions and other air pollutions from power plants. The combined GHG reduction potential from energy efficiency in industrial pump systems in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana is over 11 Billion lb of CO2 emissions per year.

These efficiency improvements will have absolutely no negative impact on production or services served by the pump systems. These are just commercially available system optimization measures which will result in both energy and cost savings as well as GHG emissions reduction.

Above, I just gave you an example of industrial pump systems. If you add other motor systems such as fan systems, compressor systems, etc. and also motor systems in other sectors (buildings, power sector, agriculture sector, etc.), the absolute energy saving, cost savings, and GHG emissions reductions will be up to 5 times higher than what was mentioned above for the industrial pump systems.

In addition to the industrial pump systems reports mentioned above, we have also published separate reports to quantify energy use, energy saving, and GHG emissions reduction potentials and cost-effectiveness of efficiency technologies and measures in industrial fan systems and industrial compressed air systems in 30 different states in the U.S. 

See Reports: U.S. Industrial Motor Systems Energy Efficiency Reports Covering 30 States >>

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

---

Available Now: Reports on Electricity Saving Potentials in U.S. Industrial Motor Systems

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

See Reports: U.S. Industrial Motor Systems Energy Efficiency Reports Covering 30 States >>

In the U.S., industrial electric motor systems account for over 70% of manufacturing electricity consumption. Motors are used to drive pumps, fans, compressed air systems, material handling, processing systems and more. Industrial motor systems represent a largely untapped cost-effective source for industrial energy efficiency savings that could be realized with existing commercialized technologies. A major barrier to effective policy making for government and utilities in the U.S. related to energy efficiency improvement in industrial motor systems is the lack of information and data on the magnitude and cost-effectiveness of these energy savings potential in each state in the U.S. and a comprehensive strategy and roadmap.

Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC has been working on an initiative to study and analyze the industrial motor systems in different states in the United States. We have 30 States from different regions in the U.S. that are included in this initiative. All top 20 U.S. states in terms of industrial energy consumption are included in this initiative. We work with various public and private stakeholders on this project. This initiative focuses on industrial pumps, fans, and compressed air systems which together account for over 80% of electricity use in industrial motor systems in the U.S. We conduct various analyses at the state-level such as analyzing the energy use by each motor system type and system size at manufacturing subsector level (e.g. chemical, food, textile, steel, machinery, pulp and paper, etc.), analyzing energy saving potentials and cost by technology and system size for each state, analyzing barriers and drivers to energy efficiency and system optimization in industrial motor systems in each state, and analyzing policy making and market implications for each state.

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

Quantifying The Embodied Carbon Of Traded Goods

Author: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Globalization has resulted in substantial increase in global trade of goods and services across countries around the world. Often, goods are produced in developing countries where labor cost is lower, and developed countries are often net importers.

The UNFCCC’s greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting system works on the basis of national production rather than consumption of emissions. This means that when goods are traded, their embodied emissions (e.g. emissions associated with manufacture) are also traded. However, these imported emissions are not counted towards a country’s reported climate impacts. It is estimated that around 22% of global CO2 emissions comprise goods and services which have been internationally traded. Better understanding and providing solutions to address the embodied carbon of traded goods will be critical in global and national efforts to decarbonize industry. In addition, large and multinational companies are paying more attention to the energy and carbon footprint of their supply chain. Also, with higher consumer awareness, end users of products are also paying increasing attention to energy and carbon footprint of the goods they use.

Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC. has partnered with the ClimateWorks Foundation and KGM & Associate Ltd. to use the most recent available data and a cutting-edge model to conduct a global assessment of the extent of the embodied carbon in globally traded goods, so-called carbon loophole. In addition, we will conduct a series of higher-resolution, deeper dive case studies into a few key sectors and geographies of most importance.

The report of this study is expected to be published in the spring of 2018.

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