Structural Change in Chinese Steel Industry and Its Impact on Energy Use and GHG Emissions up to 2030

Production of iron and steel is an energy-intensive and air polluting manufacturing process. In 2014, the iron and steel industry accounted for around 28 percent of primary energy consumption of Chinese manufacturing (NBS 2015a). Steel production in 2015 was 804 Mt (worldsteel, 2016), representing 49.5% of the world production that year (Figure 1).

Figure 1. China’s Crude Steel Production and Share of Global Production (1990-2015) (EBCISIY, various years; NBS, 2015b, worldsteel 2016)

Figure 1. China’s Crude Steel Production and Share of Global Production (1990-2015) (EBCISIY, various years; NBS, 2015b, worldsteel 2016)

China is a developing country and the iron and steel industry, as a pillar industry for Chinese economic development, has grown rapidly along with the national economy. The average annual growth rate of crude steel production was around 18% between 2000 and 2010. China’s steel production in 2014 consumed around 580 TWh of electricity and 18,013 PJ of fuel (NBS 2015a).

The promotion and application of energy-saving technologies has become an important step for increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption of steel enterprises, especially during the 11th Five Year Plan (FYP) (2006-2010) and 12th FYP (2011-2015). During this time, energy-efficiency technologies adopted in China’s steel industry included: Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ), Top-pressure Recovery Turbine (TRT), recycling converter gas, continuous casting, slab hot charging and hot delivery, Coal Moisture Control (CMC), and recycling waste heat from sintering. The penetration level of energy-efficiency technologies in the steel industry has improved greatly in China, improving its energy efficiency and emissions reductions (Hasanbeigi et al. 2011).

Couple of years ago, my colleagues and I conducted a study that aimed to analyze influential factors that affected the energy use of steel industry in the past in order to quantify the likely effect of those factors in the future. For the first time, we developed a decomposition analysis method that can be used for the steel industry to analyze the effect of different factors including structural change on energy use of the steel industry.

The factors we analyzed were:

  1. Activity: Represents the total crude steel production.

  2. Structure: Represents the activity share of each process route (Blast Furnace/Basic Oxygen Furnace (BF-BOF) or Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) route).

  3. Pig iron ratio: The ratio of pig iron used as feedstock in each process route. This is especially important for the EAF process because the higher the pig iron ratio in the feedstock of the EAF, the higher the energy intensity of EAF steel production.

  4. Energy intensity: Represents energy use per ton of crude steel

In that study, a bottom-up analysis of the energy use of key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises (which account for around 85% of steel production in China) was performed using data at the process level. Both retrospective and prospective analyses were conducted in order to assess the impact of factors that influence the energy use of the steel industry in the past and estimate the likely impact in the future up to 2030.

Three scenarios were developed as follows:

o   Scenario 1: Low scrap usage: the share of EAF steel production grows slower and the pig iron feed ratio in EAF drops slower than other scenarios

o   Scenario 2: Medium scrap usage: the rate of growth in the share of EAF steel production and the drop in the pig iron feed ratio in EAF production is medium (between scenario 1 and 3)

o   Scenario 3: High scrap usage: the share of EAF steel production grows faster and the pig iron feed ratio in EAF production drops faster than other scenarios.

Figure 2 shows the energy intensities calculated for different steel production route up 2030

Figure 2. Final energy intensities calculated for key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises (2000-2030)

Figure 2. Final energy intensities calculated for key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises (2000-2030)

The results of our analysis showed that although total annual crude steel production of key Chinese steel enterprises (and most likely entire Chinese steel industry) is assumed to peak in 2030 under all scenarios, total final energy use of the key Chinese steel enterprises (and most likely the entire Chinese steel industry) peaks earlier, i.e. in year 2020 under low and medium steel scrap usage scenarios and in 2015 under high scrap usage scenario (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Total final energy use in key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises under each scenario (2000-2030)

Figure 3. Total final energy use in key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises under each scenario (2000-2030)

Energy intensity reduction of the production processes and structural shift from Blast Furnace/Basic Oxygen Furnace (BF-BOF) to Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel production plays the most significant role in the final energy use reduction. The decomposition analysis results showed what contributed to the reduction in the final energy use and its peak under each scenario. Figure 4 shows an example of results for Medium scrap usage scenario. 

The three scenarios produced for the forward looking decomposition analysis up to 2030 showed the structural effect is negative (i.e. reducing the final energy use) during 2010-2030 because of the increase in the EAF share of steel production in this period. Similarly, the pig iron ratio effect reduces the final energy use of key steel enterprises because of reduction in the share of pig iron used as feedstock in EAF steel production during this period. High scrap usage scenario had the largest structural effect and pig iron ratio effect because of higher EAF steel production and lower pig iron use in EAFs in this scenario.

Figure 4. Medium scrap usage scenario: Results of prospective decomposition of final energy use of key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises up to 2030

Figure 4. Medium scrap usage scenario: Results of prospective decomposition of final energy use of key medium- and large-sized Chinese steel enterprises up to 2030

The intensity effect also played a significant role in reducing final energy use of steel manufacturing during 2010-2030. This is primarily because of the energy intensity assumptions for production processes in 2020 and 2030. While the realization of such energy intensity reduction is uncertain and remains to be seen in the future, the aggressive policies by the Chinese government to reduce the energy use per unit of product of the energy intensive sectors, especially the steel sector, are a promising sign that the Chinese steel industry is moving towards those energy intensity targets. The “Top-10,000 Enterprises Energy Saving Program” and the “10 Key Energy Saving Projects Program” along with other policies and incentives in the coming years will significantly help to reduce the energy intensity of the steel industry in China.

More details of our analysis and results are presented in our report that 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 LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

Some of our related publications are:

  1. Hasanbeigi, Ali; Arens, Marlene; Rojas-Cardenas, Jose; Price, Lynn; Triolo, Ryan. (2016). Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Intensity of Steel Industry in China, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Volume 113, October 2016, Pages 127–139

  2. Zhang, Qi; Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn; Lu, Hongyou; Arens, Marlen (2016). A Bottom-up Energy Efficiency Improvement Roadmap for China’s Iron and Steel Industry up to 2050. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. LBNL- 1006356

  3. 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

  4. Hasanbeigi, Ali; Price, Lynn, Aden, Nathaniel; Zhang Chunxia; Li Xiuping; Shangguan Fangqin. 2014. Comparison of Iron and Steel Production Energy Use and Energy Intensity in China and the U.S. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 65, 15 February 2014, Pages 108–119

  5. Hasanbeigi, Ali; Morrow, William; Sathaye, Jayant; Masanet, Eric; Xu, Tengfang. (2013). A Bottom-Up Model to Estimate the Energy Efficiency Improvement and CO2 Emission Reduction Potentials in the Chinese Iron and Steel Industry. Energy, Volume 50, 1 February 2013, Pages 315-325

  6. 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.

 

References

Editorial Board of China Iron and Steel Industry Yearbook (EBCISIY). Various years. China Iron and Steel Industry Yearbook. Beijing, China (in Chinese).

Hasanbeigi, A., Price, L., Aden, N., Zhang C., Li X., Shangguan F. 2011. A Comparison of Iron and Steel Production Energy Use and Energy Intensity in China and the U.S. Berkeley CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-4836E.

NBS. 2015a. China Energy Statistics Yearbook 2015. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

NBS. 2015b. China Statistical Yearbook 2015. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

World Steel Association (worldsteel). 2016. Steel Statistical Yearbook 2016. 


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

cement.jpg

The cement industry accounts for approximately 5 percent of current anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide (WBCSD/IEA 2009a). 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. This significant increase in cement production is associated with a significant increase in the cement industry’s absolute energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions..

Figure 1. Global cement production from 1990 to 2030

Figure 1. Global cement production from 1990 to 2030

Studies have documented the potential to save energy by implementing commercially-available energy-efficiency technologies and measures in the cement industry worldwide. However, today, given the projected continuing increase in absolute cement production, future reductions (e.g., by 2030 or 2050) in absolute energy use and CO2 emissions will require further innovation in this industry. Innovations will likely include development of different processes and materials for cement production or technologies that can economically capture and store the industry’s CO2 emissions. The development of these emerging technologies and their deployment in the market will be a key factor in the cement industry’s mid- and long-term climate change mitigation strategies.

Many studies from around the world have identified commercialized sector-specific and cross- energy-efficiency technologies for the cement industry that have already been (See figure below).

Figure 2. Commercialized energy efficiency technologies and measures for cement production process (Source: IIP, 2017)

Figure 2. Commercialized energy efficiency technologies and measures for cement production process (Source: IIP, 2017)

However, information is scarce and scattered regarding emerging energy-efficiency and low-carbon technologies for the cement industry that have not yet been commercialized.

A few years ago, while I was working at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, my colleagues and I wrote a report that consolidated available information on emerging technologies for the cement industry with the goal of giving engineers, researchers, investors, cement companies, policy makers, and other interested parties easy access to a well-structured database of information on this topic.

The information about the 19 emerging technologies covered in the report and was presented using a standard structure for each technology. Table below shows the list of the technologies covered.

Table 1. Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emissions-reduction technologies for cement and concrete production (Hasanbeigi et al. 2012)

Table 1. Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emissions-reduction technologies for cement and concrete production (Hasanbeigi et al. 2012)

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 LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.

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.

 

References:

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.

Institute for Industrial Productivity, 2012. Cement energy efficiency technologies.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)/International Energy Agency (IEA). 2009a. Cement Technology Roadmap 2009 - Carbon emissions reductions up to 2050.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)/International Energy Agency (IEA). 2009b. Cement roadmap targets.


Moving Beyond Equipment and to System Efficiency: Massive Energy Efficiency Potential in Industrial Steam Systems in China

China is responsible for nearly 20% of global energy use and 25% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. The industrial sector dominates the country’s total energy consumption, accounting for about 70% of primary energy use and also country’s CO2 emissions. For these reasons, the development path of China’s industrial sector will greatly affect future energy demand and dynamics of not only China, but the entire world.

Sources: NBS, China Energy Statistical Yearbooks 2015. EIA, 2015

Sources: NBS, China Energy Statistical Yearbooks 2015. EIA, 2015

Steam is used extensively as a means of delivering energy to industrial processes. On average, industrial boiler and steam systems account for around 30% of manufacturing industry energy use worldwide. There exists a significant potential for energy efficiency improvement in steam systems; however, this potential is largely unrealized. A major barrier to effective policymaking, and to more global acceptance of the energy efficiency potential of steam systems, is the lack of a transparent methodology for quantifying steam system energy efficiency potential based on sufficient data to document the magnitude and cost-effectiveness of these energy savings by country and by region.

Source: U.S. DOE/AMO, 2012

Source: U.S. DOE/AMO, 2012

In 2013-2014, I led a UNIDO-funded study to develop and apply a steam system energy efficiency cost curve modeling framework to quantify the energy saving potential and associated costs of implementation of an array of boiler and steam system optimization measures. The developed steam systems energy efficiency cost curve modeling framework was used to evaluate the energy efficiency potential of coal-fired boiler (around 83% of industrial boilers) and steam systems in China’s industrial sector. Nine energy-efficiency technologies and measures for steam systems are analyzed.

The study found that total cost-effective (i.e. the cost of saving a unit of energy is lower than purchasing a unit of energy) and technically feasible fuel savings potential in industrial coal-fired steam systems in China in 2012 was 1,687 PJ and 2,047 PJ, respectively. These account for 23% and 28% of the total fuel used in industrial coal-fired steam systems in China in that year, respectively. The CO2 emission reduction potential associated with the cost-effective and total technical potential is equal to 165.82 MtCO2 and 201.23 MtCO2, respectively. By comparison, the calculated technical fuel saving potential for industrial coal-fired steam systems in China is approximately 9% of the total coal plus coke used in Chinese manufacturing in 2012 and is greater than the total primary energy use of over 160 countries in the world in 2010.

Several sensitivity analyses were conducted, their policy implications discussed, and uncertainties and limitations of this study were presented in the report we published. Our report is published by UNIDO and can be downloaded from here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any question.

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


Utilities large missed opportunity: Demand Response in manufacturing

Demand Response (DR) helps utilities to manage the peak electricity demand by temporarily shifting the demand on the consumer side instead of building new power plants to meet the short-time peak demand. On the other hand, customers use demand response to reduce their electrical cost using the time-of-use price signals. Nowadays, work is underway to automate the process using automated demand response (AutoDR).

In this post I will not get into the details of DR or AutoDR and rather discuss the DR potential in the manufacturing sector. I believe one of the main barriers to DR in manufacturing is that the DR potential in this sector is not well understood by utilities, companies and other parties involved.

Based on my experience on energy efficiency and demand side management in industry in the past 10 years, for a manufacturing sector or process to have a great potential for Demand Response (DR), it should have one or more of the four characteristics shown in the figure below.

Note: A bottleneck is a stage in a process that causes the entire process and the production rate of the final product to slow down.

Let me open this by giving a few examples below from an energy-intensive industry (cement industry) and a non-energy-intensive industry (textile industry).

Example 1- DR potential in the cement industry:

In a simple form, cement production process consists of raw material (mostly limestone) grinding, high temperature kiln for clinker making, and finish grinding of clinker and some additives into cement.

The electricity use in a cement plant ranges between 90 to 150 kWh/tonne cement depending on the grinding technology, raw material properties, etc. A cement plant may have a production capacity of less than 1000 tonne per day to more than 10,000 tonne per day. Therefore, the amount of electricity use by a cement plant can be quite substantial. Over 70% of the electricity use in cement plant is used in raw material grinding and finish grinding processes.

The raw material grinding process has the following three DR-friendly characteristics:

  1. It is a batch process

  2. It has large storage capacity for its output (ground raw material) which last for hours and often for days

  3. The following process (which is kiln) can be considered a bottleneck of the production. This combined with large storage capacity before the bottleneck process (#2) provides a perfect condition for DR.

The finish grinding process has the following three DR-friendly characteristics:

  1. It is a batch process

  2. There is a large storage capacity after kiln for ground clinker (and before finish grinding), which last for hours if not days.

  3. If production scheduling is flexible, the operation of finish grinding to produce the final cement product can be delayed for a few hours while the previous process can continue their operation.

If we assume that an exemplary cement plant uses 120 kWh/tonne cement of which 70% (84 kWh/tonne cement) used in raw material grinding and finish grinding, and produces 3000 tonne cement pre day (125 tonne/hour), every hour of shift in the operation of both raw material grinding and finish grinding in response to a DR signal will result in 125*84=10,500 kWh reduction in electricity demand.

This is roughly equal to average daily electricity consumption of 350 U.S. residential utility customers. If only the production of either raw material grinding or finish grinding is shifted, this reduction will be cut by almost half. This is such a large DR potential that I am going to hope all utilities and cement companies are taking advantage of it.

Example 2- DR potential in the textile industry:

There are many DR potential in the textile industry. I have done substantial work on this sector and can talk for hours on EE and DR potential in different textile subsectors and process. However, since this post is getting a bit longer than I planned, I will just briefly mention two DR potentials for this industry. If you like to know more, feel free to contact me.

The first example for the textile industry is in the yarn production process. One of the main process is called “spinning process” which uses different machines such as Ring frame, Open-end machines, etc. The spinning process has the following two DR-friendly characteristics:

  1. It is a batch process

  2. It is a bottleneck process. Often, intermediary products that are fed into spinning machines get lined up for hours on the plant floor waiting to be processed by spinning machines. Having a proper storage capacity will allow to store enough feeding product for spinning machines and shut down the previous process, which account for around 30%-40% of electricity demand of the entire yarn production plants, for few hours during the DR period.

Another significant potential for DR in the textile industry is in wet-processing plants. Wet-processing plants conduct preparation, dyeing, printing, and/or finishing of yarn and fabric and other textile products. Many batch processes exist in wet-processing plants. Also, several processes like dryer, Stenter, or batch dyeing machines can be bottleneck processes that provide DR opportunity. Often wet-processing plants work on several different orders and products; thus, proper production scheduling can provide great DR opportunity. To take advantage of this, there needs to be high level of coordination between different departments within a plant who are in charge of production planning, energy management, paying utility bills, etc. Figure below illustrate the concept of DR potential in production processes with batch processing, storage capacity and a bottleneck process.

To sum up, manufacturing sector is a complex and heterogeneous sector. Even within one industry subsector (for example, textile or food industry), there are completely different subsectors. However, there are great potentials for energy saving and Demand Response in the manufacturing sector. More in-depth understanding of production processes and technologies and energy systems in each manufacturing subsector will allow us to tap into these potential. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any question. Also, don't forget to follow us on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter to get the latest about our new blog posts, projects, and publications.