Manufacturing
Countries Bangladesh China
Ghana Mongolia Honduras
Sector Steel
Chemicals Textiles Cement
Sugar Energy-efficiency initiatives Reparation of leaks and insulation of pipelines Installation of a heat recovery system to recover heat for a CHP ROI
260% 96%
Installation of hi-tech de-scaling equipment for the boiler and steam pipes. Water conservation measures resulted in comparable savings. 159%
Improvements in the dust control system (filter bags) using new electric motors.
Replacement of steam turbines in the crushing mill with electric motors, powered by CHP; surplus electricity sold to the grid
552% Not available
See the following links accessed June 2010:
http://www.energyefficiencyasia.org/,
http://www.ghanaef.org/publications/documents/2savingenergyindustry.pdf and
http://www04.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/316e45d4d67ae21bc125751a00321e72/$file/Sugar+mill+case+study.pdf
Table 5: Examples of investment and environmental returns from energy-efficiency initiatives in
developing countries Source: Adapted from Energy Efficiency Asia UNEP, SIDA, GERIAP, Energy Foundation Ghana, ABB Switzerland
described the effects of applying many of the strategies discussed here to a variety of manufacturing industries in the Mediterranean region. The study found that with the use of alternative machines and production input, ROI can be substantial. In the automotive industry ROI reached 250 per cent, in textiles 26 per cent, in chemicals 9 per cent, and in electronics 6 per cent, with payback periods varying between 3.4 and 11.3 months. However, the magnitudes of identified savings were not large. On the energy-efficiency front, case studies from around the world show similar levels of economic and environmental benefits from energy-efficiency initiatives (Table 5).
The IEA (2008, 2009b) scenarios – aimed at realising emission levels by 2050 that limits GHG concentrations to 450 ppm and average temperature rise to 2-3o
would gradually increase the price of carbon to US$ 150 per tonne of CO2
by 2050.
The case of CCS shows the advantage of an integrated resource-efficiency perspective, as opposed to pursuing investment decision-making focused on single measures (such as carbon emissions) at the cost of lower resource- efficiency and lower economic growth. CCS systems involve capturing, liquefying and injecting CO2
deep into C – imply
high expectations of both technological innovation and regulation. It presents a BAU scenario that includes regular resource- and energy-efficiency improvements, implementation of best-practice technologies, and profitable
recycling and valorization options that
firms can implement profitably under existing market conditions5
. The energy efficiency or carbon-reducing
measures presented in the BLUE scenario would be more difficult to implement, and less likely to yield positive returns on investment6
. For example, the scenario
assumes the use of expensive forms of carbon-neutral electricity, including power plants equipped with CCS to achieve almost two-thirds of the required reductions of CO2
the earth’s crust. CCS requires flue gases to be filtered and passed through a chemical process that dissolves the carbon dioxide in another chemical, then compresses and liquefies the carbon dioxide so that it can be pumped or shipped to a long-term storage site. The problem is that CCS requires a lot of energy. CCS systems being considered for cement plants today could double a current market price of US$ 70 per tonne. In the case of electric power, a 500 megawatt power plant would need to use between 25 per cent and 40 per cent of its output to capture and store the CO2
(Metz
et.al. 2005). This would increase the number
of power plants needed to supply the same amount of electric power to the rest of the economy by a factor of 4/3 to 5/3, adding significantly to the cost of electric power.
4.2 Investing in water efficiency . The IEA is frank in spelling out the cost implications,
explaining that the drastic reductions in the BLUE scenario would require the widespread use of regulatory policy instruments, such as economic instruments, that
5. This includes resource-efficiency measures such as enhanced steel, paper and aluminum recycling, and the use of secondary fuels and solid waste as secondary raw materials in cement kilns.
6. Unfortunately, IEA (2009a) does not provide information on which energy efficiency measures presented in the BLUE scenario can be implemented with positive returns for industry.
Water scarcity and hence the costs and benefits of reducing water scarcity are highly region-specific. Overall, by 2030 there is expected to be a water gap between potential demand and reliable supply (4,200 bio m3 m3
per cent of global water demand, the energy sector for an equivalent amount and agriculture for 70 per cent. The fraction used by industry will probably rise beyond 20 per cent in the next decades, in line with the growth of industrial production (Water Resources Group 2009; OECD, 2007; World Bank 2008; UNESCO 2009).
265 Payback
3.5 months 7 months
4 months 2 months 1 year CO2 savings 137 tons/year
51,137 tons/ year Not available
11,007 tons /year Not available
) of 40 per cent of potential demand (6,900 bio ). Industry is currently responsible for an estimated 10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45