Sustainable Energy & Environmental Systems Department
Energy Analysis & Environmental LBNL-2001478
Impacts
Division

Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory

Electrification of U.S. Manufacturing
With Industrial Heat Pumps

M. Jibran S. Zuberi1, Ali Hasanbeigi2, William R. Morrow1
1

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2

Global Efficiency Intelligence

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

2Disclaimer
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States
Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither theUnited States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University ofCalifornia, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes
any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information,
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe 		privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or 		
service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government
or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California. The views and opinionsof authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

Copyright NoticeThis manuscript has been authored by an author at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S.
Government retains, and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges
that the U.S. Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to
publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for U.S.
Government purposes.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. ManufacturingIAcknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Joe Cresko of U.S. DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing Office,
Ed Rightor of American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Paul Scheihing of
50001 Strategies LLC, and, Cordin Arpagaus and Frédéric Bless of Eastern Switzerland
University of Applied Sciences (OST) for their contributions to this report. The work describedin this study was conducted at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and supported by the
U.S. Department of Energy Advanced manufacturing Office under Contract No. DE-AC0205CH11231.
The authors thank the following experts for reviewing this report (affiliations do not imply thatthose organizations support or endorse this work):

Arman Shehabi			Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Prakash Rao				Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Ed Rightor				

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

Paul Scheihing				

50001 Strategies LLC

Cordin Arpagaus			

Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

IIElectrification of U.S. Manufacturing
With Industrial Heat Pumps

M. Jibran S. Zuberi1, Ali Hasanbeigi2, William R. Morrow1
1

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2

Global Efficiency Intelligence

October 2022

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

III

Executive Summary
Thermal processes in U.S. manufacturing are responsible for approximately two-thirds of thetotal final energy demand. Decarbonization of industrial heat demand through electrification
could contribute significantly to climate change mitigation efforts. Cross-cutting electrification
technologies that are applicable to a range of industrial processes without needing major
modifications to the existing infrastructure may facilitate the clean energy transition in the 		
industry. Electric-driven heat pumps are among those technologies that are suitable forprocess heat supply to several industrial unit operations in a sustainable manner, while also
improving the overall energy efficiency. However, despite a promising alternative for an
efficient and emission-free supply of process heat at technically feasible temperatures inindustrial processes, the industrial heat pump (IHP) deployment in the U.S. has been limited.
Presently, there is a lack of studies in the literature that focus on wide-scale applications of
IHP in U.S. manufacturing. To address these literature gaps, the objectives of this work are i)to review the current state-of-the-art and real-life applications of IHP globally, ii) to analyze thetechnical, economic, and energy-saving and CO2 reduction potentials of the IHP technology’s
wide-scale deployment in several U.S. manufacturing sectors under different energy supply
and price scenarios, and iii) to identify the drivers and barriers to implementation and provide
action plans to overcome the barriers. We conducted the closed-loop IHP application analysis
for the following industrial subsectors: meat processing, dairy, beer, canned vegetable andfruit processing, cane sugar refining, beet sugar, corn wet-milling, soybean oil, textile
spinning, and weaving, textile wet processing, pulp and paper, and automotive industries.
CO2 abatement cost curves and energy conservation cost curves are developed to estimate
the marginal costs and the technical potentials for CO2 emissions reduction and energy
savings from IHP applications respectively. The results show that despite the current average
U.S. electricity grid emission factor being higher than the emission factor of natural gas,
electrifying hot water and steam generation systems in the thirteen industrial processes
studied can already decrease the annual CO2 emissions by around 17 Mt CO2 per year in thebase year 2021, assuming a 100% adoption rate of IHP applications. However, given the factthat electricity grids will be further decarbonized and potentially fully decarbonized in 2050,
the magnitude of total CO2 abatement potential is projected to be 58 Mt CO2 per year in
2050 (equivalent to 5% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. manufacturing), as
shown in Figure ES-1. The figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in different
industrial processes range between 49 and 160 $/tCO2 in 2050. Since the coefficient of
performance (COP) of an IHP application with a high-temperature lift (i.e. difference between
heat source and heat sink temperatures) is typically low, the CO2 abatement costs in industrial
sectors with few or no applications requiring high-temperature lifts (i.e. greater than 100 K) arefound to be relatively less expensive (e.g. in the automotive industry as shown in Figure ES-1).
This means that high-temperature heat sources must be first utilized for heat sinks with thehighest temperatures, to minimize the temperature lifts and operational costs, and maximize
heat pump COPs.
As far as the rankings of the CO2 abatement costs for each sector are concerned, multiple
factors including current process-specific boiler efficiencies, IHP’s COPs, required IHP
capacities, and the corresponding investment and operational costs affect the marginal costsof IHP applications in U.S. manufacturing sectors. One of the major reasons for the highElectrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. ManufacturingIVabatement costs is the disparity between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry.
For example, the average electricity price in the U.S. industry (i.e. 70 $/MWh) is almost 5 times
higher than the average price of natural gas (i.e. 14 $/MWh) in 2021. The assumed heat source
temperature i.e. 25oC is another factor influencing the costs to be high and it is recommended to explore and utilize suitable waste heat sources at higher temperatures to minimize thetemperature lifts and consequently reduce the electricity costs.

Figure ES - 1. CO2 abatement cost curve for industrial heat pump applications in U.S. manufacturing.

The CO2 abatement costs for each industrial process are quite sensitive to fuel andelectricity price projections and waste heat source temperatures. A sensitivity analysis isperformed to evaluate the impact of changes in energy prices and source temperatures on
the CO2 abatement costs. The analysis shows that the costs can be significantly reduced if
waste heat sources at 40oC (if available) are utilized by IHP, consequently minimizing
temperature lifts and maximizing COPs. Hence it is essential to explore and utilize heatsources at high temperatures to optimize IHP operation. It is further observed that theabatement costs can be reduced by an order of 2 to 3 times if natural gas prices are
increased by 50%. Natural gas prices must be raised to a level closer to the price of electricity
to make IHP economically competitive. Any form of a carbon price scheme (e.g. carbon tax
or levy or cap and trade system, etc.) that results in higher fossil fuel prices could make theelectrified process heat supply substantially more cost-effective. It is further realized that thecosts can be decreased by up to 6 times if electricity prices are halved from those projected
in 2050. These scenario results show that reducing electricity rates in the future could be themost impactful measure to facilitate the wide-scale applications of IHP in the relevant
industrial facilities.
Despite the increase in natural gas prices, decrease in electricity prices, and utilization ofhigh-quality waste heat sources, the marginal costs are not found economical. However, inthe combined scenario where all the aforementioned factors are considered simultaneously,
the marginal costs for most industrial processes are found to be cost-effective. This concludes
that optimizing IHPs or revising energy prices alone will not make wide-scale implementation
attractive, instead, a combination of different techno-economic measures must be appliedby different stakeholders to encourage wide-scale IHP deployment in U.S. manufacturing.
Despite the large potential for energy and CO2 emissions reduction in U.S. manufacturing,
there are several barriers associated with the wide-scale applications of IHP. To address thesechallenges, key and targeted actions including further research, development, demonstration,

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. ManufacturingVand deployment (RDD&D), policy interventions, workforce development, and capacity
building, are needed. Detailed action plans are provided by the authors that different
stakeholders could take to facilitate the applications of IHP in industrial processes where
suitable in U.S. manufacturing.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

VITable of Contents

Acknowledgments

II

Executive Summary

IV

Table of Contents

VII

1.

Introduction

1

2.

Industrial Heat Pump Basics and Market Overview

3

3.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Application Scenarios

6

4.

Industrial heat pump applications

8

4.1

Meat processing industry

8

4.2

Dairy industry

12

4.3

Beer industry

16

4.4

Canned vegetable and fruit processing industry

21

4.5

Cane sugar refining industry

29

4.6

Beet sugar industry

32

4.7

Corn wet-milling industry

36

4.8

Soybean oil industry

40

4.9

Textile industry

44

4.10

Pulp and Paper industry

51

4.11

Automotive industry

56

5.

6.

Cross-sectoral comparison of energy savings and costs

60

5.1

Relative energy savings

60

5.2

Marginal cost curves

61

5.3

Sensitivity analysis

63

Barriers and Recommendations

67

6.1

Challenges and barriers

67

6.2

Recommendations

68

References

71

Appendices75

A.

Methodology: Potential and costs of industrial heat pump applications

75

B.

Methodology: Industrial heat pump capital and O&M costs

77

C.

Methodology: Projected industrial energy prices

77

List of Figures

IX

List of Tables

XII

Acronyms and Abbreviations

XIII

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

VII

1

Introduction

The United States has set an ambitious goal to reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035
(The White House, 2021, n.d.). These efforts provide a significant opportunity to decarbonize
different U.S. economic sectors, for example, by shifting heat production away fromcarbon-intensive fossil fuels to clean sources such as electrification where low- or zerocarbon electricity is used. The U.S. manufacturing industry accounts for approximately 25% of
the country’s total energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (U.S. EIA, 2021a).
Thermal processes in U.S. manufacturing are responsible for approximately two-thirds of thetotal final energy demand (U.S. DOE/Energetics, 2022; U.S. EIA, 2021b). Hence 			decarbonization of industrial heat demand through electrification could contribute 		significantly to climate change mitigation efforts. However, the heterogeneity of the
manufacturing sector and the variety of different production methods on a process level 		enable different levels of process integration. It also requires a detailed assessment todevelop optimal industrial decarbonization pathways.
In contrast, cross-cutting electrification technologies that are applicable to a range ofindustrial processes without needing major modifications to the existing infrastructure may
facilitate the clean energy transition (Zühlsdorf et al., 2019). Electric-driven heat pumps areamong those technologies that are suitable for process heat supply to several industrial unit
operations in a sustainable manner, while also improving the overall energy efficiency (Zühlsdorf et al., 2019) see Section 2 for details. Despite a promising alternative for an efficient andemission-free supply of process heat at technically feasible temperatures in industrial
processes, the industrial heat pump (IHP) deployment in the U.S. industry sector has been
limited, unlike in Europe and Japan where substantial IHP deployment in manufacturing has
occurred.
To increase the awareness of technical possibilities and to choose between the alternatives, ahigh level of expertise in process design, integration and planning must be developed.
Presently, there is a lack of studies in the literature that focus on wide-scale applications of
IHP for high-temperature heat supply (i.e. greater than 40-60oC by most conventional heat

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

1

pumps) in U.S. manufacturing. A recent study by ACEEE (Rightor et al., 2022) is one of the
few in this direction for the U.S. where a limited number of unit operations in three industrial
groups were analyzed for potential IHP integration.
To address the aforementioned literature gaps, the aims and objectives of this work are:i)

To review the current state-of-the-art and real-life applications of IHP in a variety of
manufacturing sectors,ii) To analyze the technical, economic, and environmental potentials of the closed-loop IHPtechnology’s wide-scale deployment in suitable U.S. manufacturing sectors under
different energy supply and price scenarios, andiii) to identify the drivers and barriers to implementation and provide action plans to
overcome the barriers.
This study offers recommendations for various stakeholders and provides novel insights to
inform policymakers’ and executives’ decisions about electrification of the current and future
process heat supply in U.S manufacturing.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

2

2

Industrial Heat Pump Basics and Market
Overview

Heat pumps drive heat from one or more heat sources (Qin) at low temperatures (Tsource) to one
or more heat sinks (Qout) at high temperatures (Tsink) with the assistance of an externalenergy source (electricity; Win). The thermodynamic working principle of an electric heat pumpis illustrated in Figure 1a. In other words, heat pumps are designed to transfer thermal 		energy opposite to the direction of natural heat flow by absorbing heat from a cold reservoir
and discharging it to a hot one (U.S. DOE, 2003). The external energy or work required todrive a heat pump depends on how much the temperature of the low-quality heat is to beraised.
Heat pumps employ refrigerants as transitional fluids to absorb heat and vaporize in an
evaporator. Refrigerants have low boiling points and evaporate even at sub-zero 		temperatures. Despite the evaporation, the refrigerant is not hot enough to warm the process
fluid. Hence a compressor is used to further raise the temperature and pressure of therefrigerant through volume reduction and forces the high temperature and pressure gas to acondenser. The absorbed heat is released where the refrigerant condenses in a 		condenser. Finally, the temperature and pressure of the refrigerant are further reduced after
passing through an expansion valve (Gagneja and Pundhir, 2016). Figure 1b presents the heatpump cycle. The most common examples of heat pumps are refrigerators and air 		
conditioners.

Figure 1. Thermodynamic representation and cycle of a heat pump.

Heat pumps are very efficient because they only transfer heat instead of combusting fuels tocreate it, ultimately reducing GHG emissions from heating applications such as in the
manufacturing industry (Gagneja and Pundhir, 2016). The performance of a heat pump is 		
defined by the coefficient of performance (COP) which is the ratio of heat output to energy
input as shown in Equation 1.
𝑄𝑄

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = ( 𝑊𝑊𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 )
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

(1)

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

3

In the heating mode, heat pumps based on the ideal Carnot cycle, operate between two heat
reservoirs having absolute temperatures Tsource ≈ Tevap (heat source) and Tsink ≈ Tcond (heat sinkor process temperature). The maximum theoretical COP is given as Equation 2.1 Since thermodynamic processes undergo many losses, the real COP of a heat pump is a fraction of the
maximum theoretical COP. An efficiency term, also known as quality grade or 2nd law efficiency, ɳHP that relates the actual COP (COPreal) to the maximum theoretical COP (COPcarnot) is given
in Equation 3. The COP of a heat pump is greater than 1 as it always supplies more heat thanthe electricity consumed.
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)=
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = (𝑇𝑇∆𝑇𝑇𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙( 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 )(2)

Where ∆Tlift is the temperature lift applied to the process streams i.e. heat sources and sinks.
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ɳ𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = (COP 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 )										𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐(3)

The ranges of IHP capacities and sink temperatures have steadily grown over the years.
Industrial heat pumps with high-temperature heat sink temperatures of up to 165°C arecommercially available at scale (Marina et al., 2021). The terminology for the temperature 		level of an IHP is not consistent in the literature, refer to the literature review in Arpagaus etal. (2018) for more details. This work classifies IHP with heat sink temperatures lower than
100°C as high-temperature heat pumps (HTHP). While IHP with steam delivery temperatures
greater than or equal to 100°C are termed steam-generating heat pumps (SGHP).
There are several HTHP manufacturers on the market that can provide heat sink 		
temperatures of up to 90°C, however, a limited number of SGHP suppliers including Kobelco(Japan), Mitsubishi (Germany), Siemens (Germany), MAN Energy (Switzerland), Heaten(Norway), Ochsner (Austria), Mayekawa (Japan), Combitherm (Germany), etc. have commercial
success in exceeding 120°C (steam supply). It is evident that the market capabilities for IHP
are most developed in Europe and Japan due to strong economic and policy incentives(Arpagaus et al., 2018). Moreover, the heating capacities of IHP range from 20 kW to 100 MW(for example, MAN Energy and Siemens Energy have SGHP units with heating capacities of
up to 100 MW and 70 MW respectively). Some of the commonly used refrigerants in IHP are
R134a, R245fa, R717, R744, and R1234ze(E). For more technical details on the heat pump
circuits, refrigerants used, and compressor types, refer to Arpagaus (2018) and Arpagaus etal. (2018).
Furthermore, the COP values range as a function of the respective temperature lift for thevarious IHP on market with 140°C sink temperature are presented in Figure 2 (with thepermission of Arpagaus et al., 2018). Figure 2 shows that the COP values range from 1.6 to
5.8 at temperature lifts of 130 to 40 K respectively. The quality grade ɳHP of an IHP typicallyranges between 40 and 60% (Schlosser et al., 2019), as also shown in the figure, however,this work assumes a rather conservative value of 45%. Several research groups in Europe andEast Asian countries are working on research projects to push the limits and achieve higher
levels of COPs and heat sink temperatures (Arpagaus et al., 2018).

1.

Tevap and Tcond are the evaporating and condensing temperatures that are assumed approximately equal
to Tsource and Tsink temperatures respectively. Although we are making the simplifying assumption, it must
be noted that, typically, there exists a small temperature difference between the process streams and theheat pump working fluid. The actual temperature lift internal to the heat pump is slightly greater than thetemperature lift applied to the process streams (U.S. DOE, 2003).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

4Figure 2. COP of various industrial heat pumps as a function of temperature lift (Arpagaus et al., 2018).

There is also a wide range of industrial sectors that requires process heat in the low tomoderate temperature ranges that are suitable for IHP applications. A large number of IHPapplications have been acknowledged particularly in food and beverage, textile, paper, metal
processing, and chemical sectors, especially for drying, evaporation, pasteurizing, anddistillation processes. The recent Annex 48 of the IEA Technology Collaboration Programme
on Heat Pumping Technologies (IEA, 2020) presents several case studies on IHP applications(including SGHP installations) in European and Japanese plants and demonstrates real-life
experiences that other regions might learn from. This work has also made use of these realexamples as a reference to build the case for U.S. manufacturing.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

53

Assumptions, Limitations, and Application
Scenarios

The optimal placement and integration of an IHP in an industrial plant can be investigatedthrough pinch analysis. Pinch analysis is a technique to minimize the energy demand ofindustrial processes by identifying the potential heat recovery between hot and cold streams
and optimizing unit operations (Becker et al., 2011) . Pinch analysis includes the developmentof composite curves where the profiles of available heat sources (hot composite curve) are
combined with heat sinks (cold composite curve) and the magnitude of overlap between the
curves is determined as the potential heat integration. The point where the hot and cold composite curves most closely approach each other is referred to as the “pinch point”. There is aheat deficit above the pinch point and a heat surplus below the point (Olsen et al., 2017). Generally, the optimal placement of an IHP in a process is where heat is driven from below thepinch point to above it at a higher temperature (also called temperature lift).
The higher the temperature lift, the lower the COP and the higher the capital and operationalcosts of an IHP (Rightor et al., 2022). It is, therefore, crucial to carefully assess the available
waste heat resources that can be utilized for optimal IHP integration into a process. However,
the amount of waste heat resources available in an industrial plant is strictly site-specific. The
level of process heat integration of an industrial plant depends on a range of techno-economic variables (including waste heat volume and temperature, competing opportunities for
waste heat utilization, plant complexity, space available, energy prices, external agreements,etc.) that are unique to that plant. Given these site-specific characteristics and constraints,
developing generalized composite curves for an industrial process and estimating the pinchtemperature based on these curves possess a significant level of uncertainty. In other words,
the resultant IHP integration design may not necessarily be optimal.
The prime objective of this study is to identify and generalize potential applications of IHP
in different industrial processes where heat can be supplied by IHP. In addition, since theplant-level process data for each industrial site within each sector are not publicly available,
we are making a simplifying assumption that heat sources (such as water and air) areavailable at ambient conditions i.e. at a temperature and pressure of 25oC and 1 bar,
respectively. For a specific IHP application in a plant, there might be waste heat sources
available at temperatures higher than 25oC, utilization of which for the same application
would enhance the IHP performance. Hence, the techno-economic results (e.g. COPs, future
electricity demand by IHPs, marginal costs, etc.) computed in this study are rather conservative and could significantly change if systematic process optimization and heat integration
techniques (pinch analysis) are applied to individual U.S. industrial processes. However, thesensitivity of the economic energy conservation and CO2 abatement potentials to changes inheat source temperature has been tested and shown in Section 5.2. Moreover, real-life casestudies for the relevant IHP applications (as studied in this report) are also discussed where
possible, to highlight potential waste heat sources and their temperature levels in similarindustrial plants around the world.
Apart from heat source temperatures, there are other important considerations made in thisstudy as discussed below. There are a limited number of SGHP manufacturers on the market
that can provide heat sink temperatures of over 120°C (steam), unlike HTHP which are at anadvanced stage of commercial maturity. The literature review for this work further suggeststhat there are a substantial number of HTHP already implemented in different industrial plants
in different countries, however, only a few SGHP installations have been made in the industry
sector due to the technology’s early stage of commercial deployment and lack of awareness.
In this context, the following two implementation scenarios have been developed for IHPapplications in U.S. manufacturing:Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

6•

Scenario 1 - Conservative: In the conservative scenario, only HTHP applications are
considered. These applications include suitable heat demand at temperatures less than
100oC and boiler feedwater preheating for steam generation.

•

Scenario 2 - Ambitious: In the ambitious scenario, both HTHP and SGHP applications arestudied. The maximum heat sink temperature of SGHP is cut-off at 150oC for two reasons.
The first is the existence of even fewer SGHP manufacturers who could deliver
temperatures over 150oC. The second is the maximum temperature lift of 130 K (refer toFigure 2) demonstrated by only a few SGHP suppliers. Given our assumption for heatsource temperature (25oC), a temperature lift higher than 130 K is techno-economicallynot favorable.

Moreover, the abatement cost curve is a tool frequently used to analyze the techno-economic
perspectives of energy and/or CO2 reduction. The curves show the marginal costs of energy
efficiency and CO2 abatement measures as a function of the energy or CO2 reduction
potentials. In this study, abatement cost curves are developed to estimate the marginal costs
and the technical potential for energy and CO2 savings for IHP applications in the studied U.S.
manufacturing sectors. The method to build these curves is described in detail in Appendix
A. To estimate the marginal costs of IHP, capital costs and operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs are acquired from literature sources and adjusted for the U.S. where necessary, refer
to Appendix B. A real discount rate of 10% from the private perspective is assumed for the
economic analysis and the technical lifetime of IHP is assumed as 15 years (Panos andKannan, 2016).
The key components of IHP lifetime costs are electricity and fuel prices. The averagenatural gas and electricity prices for the U.S. industry in constant 2021 dollars are projected
for the study period 2021-2050 based on the national statistics (U.S. EIA, 2021a), see
Appendix C. It must be noted that the climate impact of electrification of process heat supply cannot be significant and can be negative in some cases if electricity generation remains
CO2-intensive. Therefore, it is indispensable to decarbonize the electricity grid via low-carbon
energy sources to reduce the CO2 intensity of industrial process heating. Given the specificelectricity grid targets in the U.S., both at the federal and the state level (refer to the summaryof these targets presented in our previous work i.e. Zuberi et al. (2021), this study assumes
the rate of electricity grid decarbonization in the future. Two grid decarbonization scenarios
have been developed i.e. 100% CO2-free electricity by a) 2035 (given the federal pledge2) andb) 2050 (as assumed by several other studies in the literature). This work further assumes alinear trend for grid decarbonization in both scenarios. The emission factor for natural gas istaken as 0.05 tCO2/GJ based on (U.S. EPA, 2014) while the national average electricity gridemission factor in 2021 is estimated at 0.37 tCO2/MWh based on (U.S. EIA, 2022a).

2.

The U.S. administration has set an ambitious target to produce 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 (TheWhite House, 2021, n.d.).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

7

1.

4

Industrial Heat Pump Applications

Based on the methods and assumptions described in Appendices A-C and Section 3
respectively, this study analyzes IHP applications in the following eleven U.S. manufacturingsectors and thirteen processes. The sectors are selected based on a) initial screening forprocess temperatures and operations suitable for IHP applications and b) data availability.
The specific energy consumption (SEC) of each industrial process is adapted based on Brown
et al. (1996). The individual sources for process-specific production volumes are given in therelevant sections.

4.1 Meat Processing Industry
Production process
The U.S. red meat processing plants produced approximately 25 million tonnes (Mt) in 2021
(estimated based on (USDA ERS, 2022a). The production volume is estimated to grow to 30
Mt in 2050. The red meat production process is briefly described as follows. The first stepin red meat production is the slaughtering of livestock and letting it bleed to prevent decay
while blood is processed in the next step. The blood is heated to coagulate the albumin andseparate albumin and fibrin from blood water (serum). After bleeding, the hide is removed andthe animal is eviscerated. The internal organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc.) are removed from theviscera along with waste products such as intestines and washed, followed by trimming,
cutting, and deboning of the carcass (U.S. EPA, 2004).
Edibles from the cutting process that do not go into products like sausages and canned meat
are directed to rendering. The rendering process separates fats and water from the tissue.
Dry batch rendering is the widely used rendering process, particularly for edible rendering.
These edibles are processed in a variety of ways including sausages, canned and pickled
meat, portioned cuts, etc. The inedibles are processed in a separate area mainly for
producing animal feed. Part of the wastewater from the meat processing plants runs throughgrease traps to recover grease which is also sent to inedible rendering. After packaging,processed meat is refrigerated to inhibit bacterial growth (U.S. EPA, 2004).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

8

Table 1 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of a meat processing plant,
disaggregated by fuel and electricity demand in each process step.

IHP applications
Table 1 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 3 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their 		
corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to heat processwater to 60oC for evisceration and viscera handling. The same heat pump is also supposed topreheat the makeup feed water to 60oC. Since the steam condensate returns from theprocess at around 82oC, the mixing of makeup water and return condensate at different
temperatures is not good from an exergy point of view. Hence the makeup water may befurther heated from 60oC to 82oC using another HTHP before it enters the condensate tankfor steam generation. The total required heating capacity of HTHP for the U.S. red meat
processing industry is estimated at 850 MW.
To support the discussion on HTHP applications identified for the U.S. meat processing
plants, a real-life example is presented. A HTHP system (comprised of three CO2 heat pumps)
with a heating capacity of 800 kW and COP of 3.4 was installed in a slaughterhouse in
Switzerland (Arpagaus and Bertsch, 2020). The system uses waste heat at 20 to 30oC frommultiple sources including refrigeration and air compressor plants and fan-coil units to heatprocess water to 90oC. The heated water is used for different purposes including 		slaughtering and cleaning, boiler feedwater, and space heating. The HTHP system reduced
30% of the plant’s annual CO2 emissions.
Table 1. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the meat processing
industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

9In our Ambitious Scenario 2, a SGHP can be employed to generate process steam at 120oC for
drying, scalding, rendering, and other processes. The total required heating capacity of SGHP
is estimated at 2620 MW. Furthermore, the COP of the SGHP is determined to be low i.e. 1.8(calculated using Equations 2 and 3), mainly because the temperature lift is high. The
utilization of an available heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed(25oC) will result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation.
It should be noted that the level of an industrial plant’s process integration and the available
nearby heat resources determine where an IHP must optimally be placed. However, since thelevel of integration varies by industrial plant, it gets very difficult to estimate available waste
heat source temperatures. As discussed in Section 3, we have assumed the available heatsource (e.g. plant water supply) at 25oC. Hence the schematic shown in Figure 3 and all otherschemes discussed in Sections 4.2 – 4.11 may not be the ideal configuration for a specificproduction plant. The figure only highlights the typical process steps to which IHP could
potentially be applied. It is therefore recommended that a more systematic analysis (or pinch
analysis) must be done for a plant, based on its detailed site-specific data, to design an
optimal IHP system for that specific plant. Our assumptions are reasonable for the 		
industry-level analysis. In the same context, the results presented below are rather
conservative i.e. the energy and CO2 savings could be considered close to the lower bound(minimum net savings) and specific costs close to the upper bound (maximum costs).
However, to evaluate the change in the magnitude of all the computed results, a detailed
sensitivity analysis is done in Section 5.2.

Figure 3. Industrial heat pump applications in the meat processing industry.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified processes
using IHP is also presented in Table 1. The change in annual final energy demand in the U.S.
meat processing industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 4.3 The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 3 can significantly
reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase in production between
2021 and 2050. It is estimated that nearly 18 PJ per year of final energy can be saved if only
HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050. However, the technical potential		3.

It should be noted that no heat integration measures except for the IHP applications and condensate
recovery are considered as they are site-specific and difficult to generalize. Hence the final energy demand in business-as-usual (BAU) in Figure 4 (and in all the similar figures in Sections 4.2 – 4.11) is the maxi
mum required by the individual process without heat integration. Depending on what a plant currently
does with its waste heat, the demand might be slightly lower.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

10

increases to approximately 69 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications (Scenario2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due to theincrease in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. More precisely, 23 and 102 PJ
per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 4 and 33 PJ per year (or 1.1 and 9.2 TWh peryear) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050 respectively.

Figure 4. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. meat processing industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 						Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2
considers both HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. meat processing industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 5. The figure shows up to 1.8 Mt
of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption/diffusion of all
IHP applications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated that 		
approximately 1.3 and 5.5 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and
2 in 2050 respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a
projected decline in the electricity grid’s CO2 emissions factor (grid decarbonization) between
2021 and 2050. It must be noted that the different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction
in 2035 represent two different grid decarbonization scenarios i.e. zero-carbon grid andpartial grid decarbonization by 2035, see Section 3.

Figure 5. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. meat processing industry up to 2050 (This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

11Figure 6 presents the costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement costs for IHP 		
applications in the U.S. meat processing industry. The figure shows that the energy
conservation costs range from 3 to 8 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes. The figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 40
and 74 $/t CO2 in Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The abatement costs for 2021 are foundto be very high due to no effective grid decarbonization in the base year, hence not shownin Figure 6. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. meat processing plants incurs additionalcosts and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would have otherwise
represented cost savings. One of the major reasons for the high costs is the disparity
between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry.

Figure 6. Costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. meat processing industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year
are shown as error bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

The assumed heat source temperature i.e. 25oC is another factor influencing the costs tobe high (see earlier discussion). Given our assumptions, since the SGHP has a higher
temperature lift than the HTHPs, the amount of electricity required per unit of energy savingsis also higher for SGHP. Consequently, the costs in Scenario 2, which considers the SGHP
application, are found to be greater than in Scenario 1. It is therefore advised to explore
suitable waste heat sources at higher temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts and theelectricity costs. It should however be noted that a moderate carbon price of around $50/
tCO2 can make IHP integration in the U.S. meat processing industry cost-competitive in 2035
and beyond. Furthermore, the electricity to natural gas price ratio varies substantially acrossstates in the U.S. Different price ratios among different states may influence the costs ofenergy conservation and CO2 abatement substantially, however, state-level analysis is outside
the scope of this study, hence not done.

4.2

Dairy Industry

Production process
The U.S. dairy industry produced around 103 Mt of milk in 2021 (USDA ERS, 2022b). The
production volume is estimated to grow to 118 Mt in 2050. Some of the common dairy
production processes are briefly described below. In the first step, raw milk entering a dairy

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

12

plant undergoes preliminary analytical tests to check the quality of milk and stored. After
having passed the quality control, raw milk proceeds to a clarifier where dirt particles are
removed followed by the separation of globular milk from the serum (skim milk). Skim milk
is directed for cheesemaking while the rest including creme is sent for fluid milk production.
The fluid milk is pasteurized using steam to destroy pathogens by passing it through a heatexchanger (Díaz and García-Gimeno, 2018). The milk is later homogenized to disperse fat
globules. Raw milk containing fat easily absorbs substances that give a foreign smell andtaste. The next step is deodorization where steam distillation of odorizing materials from themilk is performed. The fluid milk is packaged and stored in the final step (Popov andTerechuk, 2016).
Skim milk for cheese production is first pasteurized before pumping into cheese vats. In
cheese vats, skim milk is slowly cooked by jacketed steam using mild agitation. The cooked
curd and whey are then moved to a vertical silo where the whey is removed and dried in thefirst step. On the other hand, the curd grains are washed with water and cooled, followed bymixing with cream or dressing to produce cottage cheese (Tetra Pak, 2015; Kealey and
Kosikowski, 1986).
Table 2 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of an integrated milk andcheese (cottage) production plant, disaggregated by fuel and electricity demand in eachprocess step.
Table 2. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the dairy industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

13

IHP applications
Table 2 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 7 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their 			corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to preheat the
makeup feed water to 82oC before it enters the return condensate tank for steam generation.
The total required heating capacity of this HTHP in the sector is estimated at 43 MW.

Figure 7. Industrial heat pump applications in the dairy industry.

In Ambitious Scenario 2, a SGHP can be employed to generate process steam at 120oC forpasteurization and deodorization in fluid milk production and pasteurization, and settling andcooking in cottage cheese production. The total required heating capacity of SGHP isestimated at 1656 MW. Furthermore, the COP of the SGHP is determined to be low i.e. 1.8, mainly
because the temperature lift is high (heat source at ambient). The utilization of an available
heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will
result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation. It must be noted thatthe schematic shown in Figure 7 may not be the ideal solution for a specific dairy plant forreasons explained in Sections 3 and 4.1.
To support the discussion on IHP applications identified for U.S. dairy plants, a couple ofreal-life examples are presented. A Norwegian dairy integrated an IHP for combined heating
and cooling for all processes in their facility. In other words, the dairy plant does not consume
any fossil fuels for heating anymore, thereby reducing CO2 emissions to zero. The IHP has aheating capacity of 940 kW and a COP of 5. The final energy consumption was reduced by
40% per year (de Boer et al., 2020). In another example, a Swiss cheese factory used waste
heat from a nearby data center as a heat source for a HTHP to supply process hot water, andheat for buildings at >90°C. The IHP installation saves the factory around 5.4 TJ of natural gas
per year (de Boer et al., 2020).

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (using IHP)
processes is also presented in Table 2. The change in annual final energy demand in the U.S.
dairy industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 8.
The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 7 can significantly reduce the total
final energy demand despite the projected increase in production between 2021 and 2050.
It is estimated that only a slight decrease of approximately 0.8 PJ per year of final energy canElectrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

14

be achieved if only the HTHP application (Scenario 1) is realized in 2050. However, thetechnical potential increases to nearly 26 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications(Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due tothe increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. More precisely, 1.1 and 45 PJ
per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 0.3 and 19 PJ per year (or 0.1 and 5.1 TWh peryear) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050, respectively.

Figure 8. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. dairy industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 								Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. dairy industry in different IHP application 		
scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 9. The figure shows up to 0.5 Mt of potential
CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHP applications inthe sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher average
emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated that approximately 0.1
and 2.4 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050
respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a projected
decline in the electricity grid emissions factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021 and 2050.
The different levels of CO2 emissions reduction potential in 2035 represent different grid 		
decarbonization scenarios (refer to Section 3).
Figure 10 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPs 		
applications in the U.S. dairy industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation costs
range from 7 to 12 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The figure also
shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 90 and 102 $/t CO2 in 		
Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. dairy plants 			incurs additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would
have otherwise represented cost savings. One of the major reasons for the high specific costs
is the disparity between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry. The assumed heatsource temperature is another factor influencing the costs to be high (see earlier discussion). It
is therefore advised to explore suitable waste heat sources at higher temperatures to 		minimize the temperature lifts, and consequently the electricity costs.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

15

Figure 9. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. dairy industry up to 2050 (This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 10. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. dairy industry.										Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year
are shown as error bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

4.3 Beer Industry
Production process
The U.S. breweries produced around 180 million barrels of beer in 2020 (Statistica, 2021). The
production volume is estimated to grow to 210 million barrels in 2050. The beer production
process is briefly described as follows. The brewing process uses several ingredients such as
malted barley, cereals, etc. for the production of beer. The first production step involves themodification of barley to malt called malting followed by milling to produce coarse powder
called grist. In the next step, the grist is mixed with warm water in a tank and constantly
agitated for an hour. Hot water is added to the grist to help the conversion of starch to sugar
by enzymes. The mash is heated in stages with the help of steam jackets. The liquid obtained
from mashing is called wort which is separated from the residual grain in a filter (also calledlautering) (Hasanbeigi et al., 2021). The residual/spent grain is screened and dried to produce
animal feed.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

16

The wort is sterilized through a boiling process in a kettle which halts enzyme activity andcondenses the liquid. On the completion of the boiling process, the wort is cooled down toaround 20oC. The fermentation process involves adding yeast to the wort. The yeast helps
ferment the wort and converts it into beer. The beer is chilled and stored in a tank formaturation (Hasanbeigi et al., 2021). The beer is then filtered to remove yeast, resulting inclear beer stored in a bright beer tank. The beer must be kegged or bottled and carbonated,either naturally or by force. Typically, force carbonation is performed by adding high-pressure
CO2 to a container, forcing it to get absorbed into the beer. Some facilities also pasteurize
their beer to improve clarity and shelf life (The Beer Connoisseur, 2016).
Table 3 presents the specific final energy consumption of a typical brewery, disaggregated bydirect and indirect fuel and electricity demand in each process step.
Table 3. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the beer industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

17

IHP applications
Table 3 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 11 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a series of HTHPs can be employed to provide hotwater at temperatures ranging from 54oC to 82oC to processes including mash tun, cleaning,filtration, and pasteurization. The same heat pumps are also supposed to preheat the makeup
feed water to 82oC in different stages before it enters the condensate tank for steam
generation. The required heating capacity of HTHP for the U.S. beer industry is estimated ataround 2 GW.
To support the discussion on HTHP applications identified for U.S. breweries, a real-life example is presented. A HTHP system with a heating capacity of 370 kW and a COP of 4.4 was installed in an Austrian brewery (IEA, 2014). The heat pump utilizes waste heat from its chillers toheat process water to 77oC. The HTHP system reduced 6.6 TJ per year of natural gas demandand consumed only 1.5 TJ per year of electricity for the HTHP operation.

Figure 11. Industrial heat pump applications in the beer industry.

In Ambitious Scenario 2, a SGHP can be employed to generate process steam at 120oC forcooking, mashing, and brewing. The total required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at
880 MW. Furthermore, the COP of the SGHP is estimated to be low i.e. 1.8, mainly because thetemperature lift is high. The utilization of an available heat source at a temperature higher thanwhat is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will result in a higher COP or lower electricity
demand for an IHP operation. It must be noted that the schematic in Figure 11 may not be an
ideal configuration for a specific brewery for the reasons explained in Sections 3 and 4.1.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

18

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to
IHP integration) processes is also presented in Table 3. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. beer industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 12. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 11 cansignificantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 26 PJ per year of final
energy can be saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050. However, thetechnical potential increases to nearly 32 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications(Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due tothe increase in efficiency measured in terms of COP of the IHPs. More precisely, 33 and 44 PJ
per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 6 and 12 PJ per year (or 1.8 and 3.4 TWh peryear) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050 respectively.

Figure 12. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. beer industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 								Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. beer industry in different IHP application
scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 13. The figure shows up to 1 Mt of potential
CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHP applications inthe sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher average emission
factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated that approximately 1.8 and 2.4
Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050 respectively. This
substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a projected decline in theelectricity grid emission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021 and 2050. The different
levels of potential CO2 abatement in 2035 represent different grid decarbonization scenarios,
refer to Section 3.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

19

Figure 13. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. beer industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 14 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHP applications in the U.S. beer industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation costs range from
6 to 11 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The figure also shows that
the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 88 and 123 $/t CO2 in Scenarios 1 and 2
respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. beer plants incurs additional costs andnone of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would have otherwise represented
cost savings. The two major reasons for the high marginal costs are the large difference between the U.S. average electricity and fuel prices and the low heat source temperature (25oC)
as assumed in this study. It is therefore recommended to explore relevant waste heatsources at higher temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts, and consequently theelectricity costs.

Figure 14. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. beer industry.										Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing20

4.4 Canned Vegetable and Fruit Processing Industry
Production process
The production of U.S. canned vegetable and fruit processing plants was around 8 Mt in 2021
estimated based on U.S. DOE/AMO (2017). The production volume is estimated to reach 10
Mt in 2050. The canned vegetable and fruit production processes are briefly described asfollows. The basic process steps in the conventional canning of fruits and vegetables are
similar for both product types, however, the sequencing of these processes may differ. Thereis also a great diversity among plant operations processing the same commodity. Typically,
the production process begins with the washing and grading of fruits and vegetables. The
raw produce is graded for size and maturity followed by cutting/slicing where relevant. Mostof the fruits are not blanched before filling into cans, while many of the vegetables undergo
this process step. Canned vegetables generally require more processing than fruits because
the vegetables have much lower acidity and contain more heat-resistant soil organisms.
Moreover, many vegetables require more cooking than fruits to advance their desirable flavor
and texture (U.S. EPA, n.d.).
For both vegetables and fruits, peeling is done either by mechanical, steam, or lye peelingand the choice mainly depends on the type of product. Furthermore, in the case ofvegetable products, salt is added for palatability. Cans or containers are first washed with hotwater followed by product filling by a machine. Exhausting is done in the next step to remove
air so that the pressure inside the container following the downstream processes will be lessthan atmospheric, ultimately extending the shelf life of canned food products. In the sealing
process, a double seam is made by interlocking the curl of the lid and flange of the can.
Sealing machines are often equipped to create a vacuum in the headspace by steam flow
before lids are sealed. In retorting, microorganisms that can cause decay during processing
are sterilized using steam. The retort temperature and processing time vary with the natureof the product and the size of the container. After heat retorting, containers are immediately
cooled to prevent overcooking. In the last step, cans or jars are labeled and packed into
shipping cartons (U.S. EPA, n.d.).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

21

4.4.1. Canned vegetables
IHP applications
Table 4 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of a canned vegetableproduction plant and highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures
suitable for IHP applications.
Table 4. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the canned vegetableindustry.

Figure 15 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their corresponding COPs. In
Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to heat process water to 60oC for washingvegetables and cans. The same heat pump is also supposed to preheat the makeup feed 		
water to 60oC followed by another HTHP raising the water temperature from 60oC to 82oC
before it enters the condensate tank for steam generation. The required heating capacity of
HTHP applications for the U.S. canned vegetable industry is estimated at 225 MW.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

22

In a real-life example, a Swiss vegetable production plant installed a multi-purpose heat pumpthat serves both heating and cooling (Arpagaus and Bertsch, 2020). In winter, groundwater isused as the heat source to provide hot air at approximately 60°C to the plant greenhouses.
The capacity of the heat pump is 1 MW while the COP in heating mode is 3.6. The couplingof the refrigeration with their heat pump system enables the plant to significantly reduce thecosts of refrigeration and heat generation. The heat pump generates 14.4 - 18 TJ of thermalenergy per year, saving the plant around 500,000 m3 of natural gas for heating thegreenhouses.

Figure 15. Industrial heat pump applications in the canned vegetable industry.

In Ambitious Scenario 2, two separate SGHP can be employed to generate process steam,
one at 120oC for scalding, cooking, brine heating, exhausting, and sealing, and the second at
150oC for the retort. The total required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 740 MW. 		
Furthermore, the COPs of the SGHP are determined to be low mainly because the temperature lift is high, especially for delivering steam at 150oC. The utilization of an available heatsource at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will result ina higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation. It must be noted that the schematic shown in Figure 15 may not be the ideal configuration for a specific canned vegetableproduction plant for reasons explained in Sections 3 and 4.1.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 4. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. canned vegetable industry in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes is presented in Figure 16. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure
15 can significantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 5 PJ per year of final
energy can be saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050. However, thetechnical potential increases to nearly 16 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications(Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due tothe increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. More precisely, 6 and 26 PJ
per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 1 and 10 PJ per year (or 0.3 and 2.8 TWh peryear) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050 respectively.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

23

Figure 16. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. canned vegetable industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 						Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. canned vegetable industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 17. The figure shows up to 0.3
Mt of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated thatapproximately 0.3 and 1.4 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in
2050 respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a 		projected decline in the electricity grid emissions factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021
and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent		
different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Figure 17. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. canned vegetable industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 18 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPs
applications in the U.S. canned vegetable industry. The figure shows that the energy 		
conservation costs range from 3 to 11 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes. The figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at
40 and 98 $/t CO2 in Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

24

canned vegetable plants incurs additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling
below zero which would have otherwise represented cost savings. One of the major reasonsfor the high marginal costs is the disparity between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S.
industry. The other major factor is the assumed heat source temperature that influences thecosts to be high. Hence it is advised to explore waste heat sources at higher temperatures tominimize the temperature lifts and maximize the COPs.

Figure 18. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. canned vegetable industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

4.4.2.

Canned Fruits

IHP applications
Table 5 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of a canned fruit production
facility and highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitablefor IHP applications. Figure 19 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and theircorresponding COPs. Since the production processes for canned vegetables and fruits arevery similar, the potential HTHP applications are also very similar. The required heating
capacity of HTHP for the U.S. canned fruit industry is estimated at 80 MW.
The SGHP application in Ambitious Scenario 2 is similar to that in the canned vegetableindustry, however, since retort also requires steam at 120oC, one SGHP is sufficient to supply
steam to all processes. The total required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 100 MW.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

25

Table 5. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the canned fruit industry.

Figure 19. Industrial heat pump applications in the canned fruit industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

26

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 5. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. canned fruit industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes
is presented in Figure 20. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 19 cansignificantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 2 PJ per year of final
energy can be saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050. However, thetechnical potential increases to nearly 3.5 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications (Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand isdue to the increase in efficiency measured in terms of COP of the IHPs. More precisely, 2 and5 PJ per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 0.4 and 1.6 PJ per year (or 0.1 and 0.4
TWh per year) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050
respectively.

Figure 20. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. canned fruit industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 							Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. canned fruit industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 21. The figure shows up to 0.1 Mt ofpotential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated thatapproximately 0.1 and 1.3 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in
2050 respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a 		projected decline in the electricity grid emission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021
and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.
Figure 22 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPs
applications in the U.S. canned fruit industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation
costs range from 3 to 9 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The fig-

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

27

ure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 45 and 86 $/t CO2
in Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. canned fruit plants
incurs additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would
have otherwise represented cost savings. The reasons for the high marginal costs are nodifferent than in the canned vegetable processing industry. It is hence recommended to
explore suitable waste heat sources at higher temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts,
and consequently the electricity costs.

Figure 21. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. canned fruit industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 22. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. canned fruit industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing28

4.5 Cane Sugar Refining Industry
Production process
The cane sugar production plants in the U.S. manufactured around 3.6 Mt in 2021 (USDA ERS,
2022c). The production volume is estimated to reach 4.2 Mt in 2050. The cane sugar refining
process is briefly described as follows. In the first step, a mingler is used to start transforming
raw sugar extracted from sugarcane into a refined granulated product. Retention time andintense mixing are critical in this step. Raw sugar is blended with hot water (affination syrup)
to loosen molasses. In the next step, sugar crystals are separated from the syrup in acentrifuge and washed with warm water. The sugar crystals are then directed to a melter
where they are mixed with hot water. The mixture undergoes clarification where sludge isremoved using steam followed by pressure filtration (U.S. EPA, n.d.).
Decolorization is done in the next step to remove soluble impurities by adsorption. Spentadsorbent (activated charcoal) is then removed from the bed, regenerated, cooled, and 		
reused. The decolorized sugar solution is sent to multiple-effect evaporators to concentrate
the juice, and then to the vacuum pans to crystallize the sugar. The sugar crystals are
separated from the liquor and washed in the centrifuge. The sugar crystals are shredded toform soft (brown) sugar. The sugar solution from the centrifuge is sent to a granulator where
it is dried using steam. In addition to white granulated sugar and brown sugar, liquid sugar isprocessed in the final step (Brown et al., 1996; U.S. EPA, n.d.)
Table 6 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of a cane sugar refining plant,
disaggregated by direct and indirect fuel and electricity demand in each process step.
Table 6. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the cane sugar
refining industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

29

IHP applications
Table 6 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for
IHP applications. Figure 23 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and theircorresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a series of HTHP can be employed toprovide hot water at temperatures ranging from 63oC to 90oC to process equipment including
mingler, centrifuge, filter, and melter. The required heating capacity of HTHP for the U.S. canesugar refining industry is estimated at 285 MW.

Figure 23. Industrial heat pump applications in cane sugar refining.

In Ambitious Scenario 2, two separate SGHP can be employed to generate process steam,
one at 120oC for clarification, granulation, drying, and vacuum pans, and the second at 150oC
for the evaporator. The required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 485 MW. 		
Furthermore, the COPs of the SGHP are determined to be low mainly because the 		temperature lift is high, especially for delivering steam at 150oC. The utilization of an available
heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will
result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation. It must be noted thatthe schematic shown in Figure 23 may not be the ideal solution for a specific cane sugar 		
refining plant for reasons explained in Sections 3 and 4.1.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to
IHP integration) processes is also presented in Table 6. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. cane sugar industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes
is presented in Figure 24. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 23 cansignificantly reduce the sector’s total final energy demand. It is estimated that approximately
6 PJ per year of final energy can be saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized
in 2050. However, the technical potential increases to nearly 15 PJ per year if both the HTHP
and SGHP applications (Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final
energy demand is due to the increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP.
More precisely, 8 and 23 PJ per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 2 and 8 PJ peryear (or 0.5 and 2.2 TWh per year) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1
and 2 in 2050 respectively.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

30

Figure 24. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. cane sugar refining industry up to 2050 (This isa total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 						Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

Figure 25. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. cane sugar industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. cane sugar refining industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 25. The figure shows up to 0.4
Mt of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated thatapproximately 0.4 and 1.2 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in
2050 respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a 		projected decline in the electricity grid emissions factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021
and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent 		
different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

31

Figure 26 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPapplications in the U.S. cane sugar refining industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation costs range from 3 to 8 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The
figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 38 and 69 $/t CO2
in Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. cane sugar refining
facilities incurs additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which
would have otherwise represented cost savings. The disparity between the averageindustrial electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. is the major reason for the high marginal costs.
The assumed heat source temperature is another factor impacting the costs. Hence suitablewaste heat sources at higher temperatures must be explored to minimize the temperature lifts
that ultimately also minimize the electricity costs.

Figure 26. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. cane sugar refining industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

4.6 Beet Sugar Industry
Production process
The U.S. beet sugar plants manufactured approximately 33 Mt of sugar in 2021 (USDA ERS,
2022c). The production volume is estimated to grow to 38 Mt in 2050. The beet sugar
production process is briefly described as follows. The production process starts with thewashing and slicing of sugar beet into thin slices called cossettes. In the second step,
cossettes are exposed to hot water in a diffuser for the extraction of sucrose in the form of
the resulting diffusion juice (Hasanbeigi et al., 2021). The residual pulp is compressed, dried,and processed as animal feed. Milk of lime is used to chemically react with different soluble
non-sugars in the juice. The juice is then directed to carbonation tanks where it is carbonatedto form a calcium carbonate precipitate, allowing filtration of the impurities (U.S. EPA, n.d.).
In the next step, the resulting purified juice is sent to the evaporation section. The major
steam requirements in the diffuser and purification sections are for heating the juice. The
evaporation process in a multiple-effect evaporator reduces the water content in the juice,consequently increasing the sugar content of the juice and producing syrup. Evaporation is
responsible for more than half of the steam demand in the entire production process. The
syrup feeds the sugar end, where sucrose is crystallized to obtain granulated refined sugar
and molasses. The granulated sugar is separated and dried in the final step (Brown et al.,
1996; U.S. EPA, n.d.)Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing32

Table 7 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of a beet sugar plant, disaggregated by direct and indirect fuel and electricity demand in each process step.
Table 7. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the beet sugar
industry.

IHP applications
Table 7 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 27 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their 			corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to heat processwater to 60oC for diffusion. The same heat pump is also supposed to preheat the makeup
feed water to 60oC. Since the steam condensate returns from the process at around 82oC, themixing of makeup water and return condensate at different temperatures is not appropriate
from an exergy point of view. Hence the makeup water may be further heated from 60oC to
82oC using another HTHP before it enters the condensate tank for steam generation. The
required heating capacity of HTHP for the U.S. beet sugar industry is estimated at 235 MW.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

33

In Ambitious Scenario 2, two separate SGHP can be employed to generate process steam,
one at 120oC for the diffuser, juice heaters, evaporators, and dryers, and the second at 138oC
for the vacuum pans. The required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 2.7 GW.
Furthermore, the COPs of the SGHP are determined to be low mainly because thetemperature lift is high especially for delivering steam at 138oC. The utilization of an available
heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will
result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation. It must be noted thatthe schematic presented in Figure 27 may not be the ideal configuration for a specific beetsugar manufacturing plant for reasons explained in Sections 3 and 4.1.

Figure 27. Industrial heat pump applications in the beet sugar industry.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to
IHP integration) processes is also presented in Table 7. The change in annual final energy demand in the U.S. beet sugar industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes ispresented in Figure 28. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 27 can significantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase in production
between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 5 PJ per year of final energy canbe saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050. However, the technicalpotential increases to nearly 51 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications (Scenario2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due to theincrease in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. More precisely, 7 PJ and 84 PJ
per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 1.2 PJ and 33 PJ per year (or 0.3 and 9.2 TWh
per year) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050 respectively.
The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. beet sugar industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 29. The figure shows up to 1 Mtof potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated thatapproximately 0.4 and 4.6 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2
in 2050, respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a
projected decline in the electricity grid emission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021
and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent 		
different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

34

Figure 28. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. beet sugar industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 							Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

Figure 29. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. beet sugar industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 30 presents the costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement cost for IHP 		
applications in the U.S. beet sugar industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation
costs range from 2 to 10 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The
figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 22 and 84 $/t CO2 in
Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. beet sugar plants incurs
additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would haveotherwise represented cost savings. Likewise earlier discussion, the major reason for the highmarginal costs is the large difference between U.S. industrial electricity and fuel prices. The
heat source temperature assumed at 25oC is another factor influencing the costs to be high. It
is therefore recommended to find and utilize suitable waste heat sources at higher 		temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts, and consequently the electricity costs.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

35

Figure 30. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. beet sugar industry.										Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

4.7 Corn Wet-milling Industry
Production process
The U.S. corn wet mills processed a total of around 26 Mt of corn input in 2021 (USDA ERS,
2022c). The processing is estimated to grow to 30 Mt in 2050. The corn wet-milling process
is briefly described as follows. In the first step, corn is removed from the cobs and cleared of
all foreign materials. The corn kernels then undergo steeping, where they are soaked in largetanks in mildly acidic warm water normally for 20-36 hours. During steeping, the kernels
absorb water, gluten bonds are loosened and starch is released followed by coarse grinding
to release the germ from the kernels. To maximize efficiency, steep water is evaporated using
steam in multiple effect evaporators. In the degermination process, the germ is separated
from the other components since it contains most of the oil present in the corn kernel. The
germ is dewatered using a screw press requiring electricity. The resultant consists of 50-60%
water content. To achieve a moister content of 2-4%, rotary steam driers are used to dry thegerm. After germ drying, corn oil is extracted through a combination of mechanical andchemical processes. In the next step, all impurities are removed from the extracted oil in aseries of steps, and the oil is prepared for the market (Galitsky et al., 2003; Hasanbeigi et al.,2021).
The corn-water slurry after oil extraction undergoes fine grinding and screening to separate
all starch and gluten from the fiber. The fiber is also washed with water to recover starch andgluten as much as possible. The fiber is dewatered in a centrifuge, dried, and prepared asanimal feed while a filtering system or set of hydro-cyclones is used to separate the starchfrom the gluten. For the starch to be sold directly (instead of being converted into syrups
and/or ethanol), the starch is completely dried to powder using steam. Part of the starch canalso be physically modified to produce a range of products with varying functionality, such as
dextrin. Dextrin is made from the starch that is roasted and then hydrolyzed by amylase (anenzyme that digests starch taken in as food) (Galitsky et al., 2003; U.S. EPA, n.d.).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

36

The starch that is not dried undergoes saccharification to convert the solution to sugar
syrups. The syrups are further refined to make a variety of final products, including highfructose corn syrup (HFCS). Evaporation is a key step in syrup refining and consumes a 		significant amount of energy (mainly steam). The liquor after refining is transferred to
crystallizing vessels where it is held for days. After about 60 percent of the dextrose is
crystallized, they are separated from the liquid by centrifuges, dried, and packaged (Brown
and Hamel, 1996; Galitsky et al., 2003; U.S. EPA, n.d.)
Table 8 presents the specific final energy consumption of a typical corn wet-milling facility,
disaggregated by direct and indirect fuel and electricity demand in each process step.
Table 8. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the corn wet-millingindustry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

37

IHP applications
Table 8 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 31 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their 			corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to preheat the
makeup feed water to 82oC. The required heating capacity of HTHP for the U.S. corn
wet-milling industry is estimated at 60 MW.
In Ambitious Scenario 2, two separate SGHP can be employed to generate process steam,
one at 107oC for steeping, and the second at 120oC for the evaporators, dryers, oil extractors,
refiners, and starch conversion. The required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 5.7 GW.
Furthermore, the COPs of the SGHP are determined to be low, mainly because thetemperature lift is high. The utilization of an available heat source at a temperature higher thanwhat is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will result in a higher COP or lower electricity
demand for an IHP operation.

Figure 31. Industrial heat pump applications in the corn wet-milling industry.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 8. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. corn wet-milling industry in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes is presented in Figure 32. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 31 can significantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 1.1 PJ per year of final
energy can be saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050. However, thetechnical potential increases to nearly 75 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP applications(Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due tothe increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. More precisely, 2 and 138 PJ
per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 0.4 and 63 PJ per year (or 0.1 and 17.6 TWh
per year) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050 respectively.
The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. wet corn-milling industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 33. The figure shows up to 0.9 Mt
of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

38

average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated thatapproximately 0.1 and 7.4 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in
2050 respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a 		projected decline in the electricity grid emission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021
and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Figure 32. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. corn wet-milling industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 						Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

Figure 33. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. corn wet-milling industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 34 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement cost for IHPapplications in the U.S. corn wet-milling industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation costs range from 5 to 14 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The
figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 69 and 112 $/t CO2 in
Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. corn wet-milling plants
incurs additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would
have otherwise represented cost savings. One of the major reasons for the high marginal
costs is the large disparity between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry. The
assumed heat source temperature is another factor impacting the costs to be high (see earlier
discussion). Thus, it is advised to explore plant-specific waste heat sources at higher 		temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts and the electricity costs.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

39

Figure 34. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. corn wet-milling industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

4.8

Soybean Oil Industry

Production process
The U.S. soybean oil plants manufactured approximately 12 Mt of oil in 2021 (USDA ERS, n.d.).
The production volume is estimated to grow to 14 Mt in 2050. The soybean oil production
process is briefly described as follows. The first step is the cleaning of the soybeans on ascreen to remove foreign materials such as stems, pods, sand, dirt, etc. The beans are thendried to reduce their moisture content to approximately 10-11% by weight. Cracking mills breaksoybeans into smaller pieces followed by mechanical separation of the hulls. The cracked
beans are then put into a rotary steam tube or a stacked cooker and heated using steam tomake them pliable and keep them hydrated (also referred to as conditioning). The heatedcracked beans are later fed to smooth cylindrical rolls that press them into smooth flakes. The
flaking process exposes the soybean oil cells and facilitates oil extraction (U.S. EPA, n.d.).
In the next step, soybean flakes are directed to an oil extractor, where they are first washedcounter currently with various hexane/oil mixtures and then with pure hexane. In the 		
desolventizer, hexane solvent is evaporated using steam. The solvent is condensed,
separated from the steam condensate, and reused. The desolventized flakes then pass a
steam dryer to remove extra moisture followed by grinding and cooling for use as animal
feed. Crude soybean oil from the extractor contains a small amount of naturally occurring
substances including proteinaceous materials, free fatty acids, and phosphatides which areremoved to produce refined oil. Volatile substances which may cause undesirable flavors andodors are removed in a stripper, which employs the use of steam injection under a highvacuum and temperature. The refined oil is then filtered and stored until transported (U.S.
EPA, n.d.).
Table 9 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of a soybean oil production
plant, disaggregated by direct and indirect fuel and electricity demand in each process step.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

40

Table 9. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the soybean oil
industry.

IHP applications
Table 9 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 35 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their 		
corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to preheat the
makeup feed water to 82oC. The required heating capacity of HTHPs for the U.S. soybean oil
industry is estimated at 105 MW.
In Ambitious Scenario 2, a SGHP can be employed to generate process steam at 120oC for theconditioner, desolventizer, and evaporator. For meal drying and vacuum stripping, the required
steam temperature is higher (i.e. 177oC) than the current state of the art, hence not considered.
The required heating capacity of the SGHP is estimated at 2520 MW. Furthermore, the COPof the SGHP is determined to be low i.e. 1.8, mainly because the temperature lift is high. The
utilization of an available heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed(refer to Section 3) will result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

41

Figure 35. Industrial heat pump applications in the soybean oil industry.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 9. The change in annual final energy 		demand in the U.S. soybean oil industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes
is presented in Figure 36. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 35 cansignificantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 2 PJ per year of final
energy can be saved if only the HTHP application (Scenario 1) is realized in 2050. However,
the technical potential increases to nearly 37 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP
applications (Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy
demand is due to the increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. Moreprecisely, 3 and 66 PJ per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 0.8 and 29 PJ per year
(or 0.2 and 8 TWh per year) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1 and 2 in
2050 respectively.
The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. soybean oil industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 37. The figure shows up to 2 Mtof potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated thatapproximately 0.2 and 5.4 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2
in 2050 respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a projected decline in the electricity grid emission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021 and
2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent different
grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

42

Figure 36. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. soybean oil industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).							Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

Figure 37. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. soybean oil industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 38 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPs 		
applications in the U.S. soybean oil industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation
costs range from 5 to 13 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes. The figure
also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated at 72 and 69 $/t CO2 in 		
Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. soybean oil plants
incurs additional costs and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would
have otherwise represented cost savings. One of the major reasons for the high specific costs
is the disparity between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry. The assumed heatsource temperature is another factor influencing the costs to be high (see earlier discussion). It
is therefore advised to explore suitable waste heat sources at higher temperatures to 		minimize the temperature lifts, and consequently the electricity costs.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

43

Figure 38. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. soybean oil industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

4.9 Textile industry
Production process
The U.S. woven fabric mills weaved roughly 0.5 Mt of grey goods in 2021 (estimated based on
Groz-Beckert, 2017). Almost half of these woven fabrics (i.e. 0.25 Mt) are assumed to be madeof synthetic fibers which undergo finishing (or wet-processing) in different U.S. textile mills.
The production volume of finished synthetic goods is estimated to grow to 0.3 Mt in 2050.
The textile weaving and finishing processes are briefly described as follows. In the first step,
spinning is done using machines with bobbins that have been wound with fiber or spinningmaterial called roving. The machine winds the roving around a bobbin and pulls it between
two rollers that turn at different speeds to make yarn. The yarn is used as input for warping.
Warping combines yarns from different cones together to form a sheet of yarns. The process
also preserves the yarn elongation and maintains it at a uniform level to ensure better performance during weaving in terms of low-end breakage rate. Moreover, the short protruding
hairs on the yarn may entangle during weaving. Hence it is made flat by adding starch to thesurface of the yarn in a process called sizing (or slashing) followed by drying using steam
rollers. This step makes the yarn smoother and stronger. In the weaving process, two yarns ofsimilar materials are interlaced at right angles to manufacture grey woven fabrics (Brown etal., 1996; Hasanbeigi, 2010).
Textile wet-processing involves different unit operations most of which require steam forprocess heat supply. Singeing is a pre-treatment process to remove loosened, hairy, andprojecting fiber by burnout. In desizing, starch and sizing compounds are removed thatwere applied to yarns to ensure tensile strength. In scouring, natural impurities such as
non-cellulose materials, oil, fat, and wax are removed. Mercerizing is an additional treatment to increase the strength and luster of the materials and is only performed when theend consumer requires it. The bleaching process reduces the natural color of raw materials.
Dyeing is the process of applying different colors to white or grey fabrics and its performance
depends on the bleaching process. Printing gives a special appearance on colored or white

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

44

fabrics. After dyeing and/or printing, woven fabrics are heated (curing) in large ovens to
dry and set the dyes. Fabrics are further stretched onto a moving frame (Brown et al., 1996;
Hasanbeigi, 2010).The two subsections below discuss the IHP applications in textile spinningand weaving and wet-processing industries.

4.9.1. Textile Spinning and Weaving
IHP applications
Table 10 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for
IHP applications. Figure 39 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their corresponding COPs. There is no HTHP application identified for weaving. Only steam is requiredin steam rollers for sizing and drying. The steam condensate can be recovered in its entirety
requiring no makeup water preheating. Hence conservative scenario is not developed. In 		
Ambitious Scenario 2, a SGHP can be employed to generate process steam at 120oC for
drying. The required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 150 MW. Furthermore, the COPof the SGHP is determined to be low i.e. 1.8, mainly because the temperature lift is high. The
utilization of an available heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed(refer to Section 3) will result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation.
Table 10. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the textile spinningand weaving industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

45

Figure 39. Industrial heat pump applications in the textile spinning and weaving industry.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 10. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. textile weaving industry in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes is presented in Figure 40. The figure shows that the measure suggested in Figure
39 can significantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. There is no HTHP application identified for weaving (asdescribed in the previous section), however, it is estimated that approximately 1.5 PJ per yearof final energy can be saved if the conventional boilers are replaced with SGHP (Scenario 2)
in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due to the increase in efficiency
measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. More precisely, 3.1 PJ per year of fuel demand could be
reduced while 1.6 PJ per year (or 0.4 TWh per year) of electricity demand would be increasedin Scenario 2 in 2050 respectively.

Figure 40. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. textile spinning and weaving industry up to 2050
(This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 				Note: BAU does not consider any IHP applications while Scenario 2 considers both HTHP and SGHP applications.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

46

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. weaving plants in different IHP application
scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 41. The figure shows negligible potential for
CO2 abatement in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of SGHP in the sector. However,
it is estimated that approximately 0.16 and 0.17 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided
in the second scenario in 2035 and 2050, respectively. The annual CO2 emissions in 2035
and 2050 under Scenario 2 are zero because of the 100% adoption of SGHP and the zero-carbon grid assumed in 2035 and 2050.
According to Figure 42, the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement due todeploying SGHP are estimated at 18 $/GJ and 161 $/t CO2 per year respectively in 2050.
Likewise, in several other sectors, the associated costs of SGHP installations in U.S. weaving
plants do not fall below zero which would have otherwise represented cost savings. Apartfrom the disparity between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry, the assumed
heat source temperature is a major factor influencing the costs to be on a higher side (seeearlier discussion). It is therefore recommended to explore suitable waste heat sources athigher temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts, and consequently the electricity costs.

Figure 41. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. textile spinning and weaving industry up to 2050 (This isa total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 42. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. textile spinning and weaving industry under Scenario 2.					Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing47

4.9.2. Textile Wet-Processing
IHP applications
Table 11 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 43 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their 		
corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, a HTHP can be employed to preheat the
makeup feed water to 82oC before it enters the condensate tank for steam generation. The
required heating capacity of HTHP for the U.S. textile wet-processing industry is estimated at
12 MW. In a real-life example, a HTHP with a heating capacity of 137 kW and COP of 5.1 wasinstalled in a German textile plant producing dyed fabrics. The system uses waste heat at 		30-40oC from the dyeing machine exhaust to produce hot water for space heating at 50oC
(IEA, 2020).
Table 11. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in textile wet-processing.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

48

Figure 43. Industrial heat pump applications in the textile wet-processing industry.

It must be noted that most of the processes in Table 11 need hot water at different 			temperatures which can ideally be supplied directly by HTHP. However, textile plant
equipment often has different water retention rates. For example, a washing machine may
have 4-5 different compartments requiring hot water at different temperatures in different
timeframes. This will require multiple small-scale HTHP only for one-unit operation, hence it
is not feasible. Therefore, the process heat to all these processes is supplied in the form ofsteam which can be generated by SGHP.
In Ambitious Scenario 2, two separate SGHP can be employed to generate process steam,
one at 120oC for desizing, scouring, mercerizing, bleaching, washing, and dyeing, and thesecond at 150oC for drying. The total required heating capacity of SGHP is estimated at 375
MW. Furthermore, the COPs of the SGHP are determined to be low mainly because the temperature lift is high especially for delivering steam at 150oC. The utilization of an available heatsource at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed (refer to Section 3) will result ina higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation. It must be noted that the schematic shown in Figure 43 may not be the ideal configuration for a specific textile wet-processing plant for reasons explained in Sections 3 and 4.1.

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (using
IHPs) processes is also presented in Table 11. The change in annual final energy demand in
the U.S. synthetic textile wet-processing industry in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes is presented in Figure 44. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 43 can significantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increasein production between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 0.2 PJ per year of
final energy can be saved if only HTHP applications (Scenario 1) are realized in 2050.
However, the technical potential increases to nearly 5 PJ per year if both the HTHP and SGHP
applications (Scenario 2) are adopted in 2050. The substantial reduction in final energy
demand is due to the increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP. Moreprecisely, 0.3 and 10 PJ per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 0.1 and 5.2 PJ peryear (or 0.03 and 1.4 TWh per year) of electricity demand would be increased in Scenarios 1
and 2 in 2050 respectively.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

49

Figure 44. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. textile wet-processing industry up to 2050 (This isa total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 						Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. textile wet-processing industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 45. The figure demonstrates up to
0.07 Mt of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all
IHP applications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated that approximately 0.01 and 0.4 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in Scenarios 1 and 2 in 2050
respectively. This substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a projected
decline in the electricity grid emission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021 and 2050.
The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent different grid 		
decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Figure 45. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. textile wet-processing industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

50

Figure 46 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPs
applications in the U.S. synthetic textile wet-processing industry. The figure shows that theenergy conservation costs range from 10 to 16 $/GJ in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes. The figure also shows that the CO2 abatement costs in 2050 are estimated ataround 135 $/t CO2 in both the IHP application scenarios.

Figure 46. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. textile wet-processing industry.								Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

It is evident that IHP integration in U.S. textile wet-processing plants incurs additional costs
and none of the scenarios have costs falling below zero which would have otherwise represented cost savings. One of the major reasons for the high marginal costs is the disparity
between the electricity and fuel prices in the U.S. industry. The assumed heat source temperature is another factor influencing the costs to be high (see earlier discussion). It is therefore
recommended to explore and utilize suitable waste heat sources at higher temperatures tominimize the temperature lifts, and consequently the electricity costs.

4.10 Pulp and Paper industry
Production process
The U.S. paper mills produced around 26 Mt in 2021 (estimated based on Statistica, 2022).
The production volume is estimated to grow to 30 Mt in 2050. The paper production process
is briefly described as follows. In an integrated pulp and paper mill, wood is received at a pulp
mill often in the form of short logs or bolts of round wood with the bark still attached to them.
The round wood is first debarked and then chipped if the pulping process requires chemicaldigestion. The bark is shredded and discarded while the chips are screened, cleaned, andstored for further processing. In Kraft chemical pulping, chips are sent to a large pressure
vessel or digester where other chemicals are added. The chips are digested with steam toseparate fibers and partially dissolve the lignin and other extractives. The resulting pulp mix isfirst filtered to remove large shives, knots, dirt, and other debris and then washed in multiple
stages (Pulp and Paper Technology, 2022).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

51

Black liquor is the by-product of the Kraft process and is concentrated in a multiple-effectevaporator using steam. After this step, the black liquor has about 20–30% solids. The black
liquor is further evaporated to 65-80% solids and burned in a recovery furnace to produce
steam (which is often supplied as process heat to various production steps) and to increase
plant energy efficiency. The green liquor from the recovery furnace is sent to a causticizer
where it is reacted with lime to convert sodium carbonate to sodium hydroxide. The causticized green liquor, called white liquor, is returned to the digester for reuse in the pulping
process while the precipitated calcium carbonate is washed and sent to a lime kiln where it isheated to produce calcium oxide (Tran and Vakkilainen, 2016).
The washed pulp is then screened, cleaned, and most of the water is removed to prepare it
for paper making. Since the pulp mix contains a significant amount of lignin and otherdiscoloration materials, the pulp is bleached using water, steam, and chemicals to produce
light-colored or white papers at a later stage. In the refining process, the fibers are brought
under compression and shear forces which cause several changes in the specifications offibers and improve their quality. Water is added to the pulp slurry to make a thin mixture
containing <1% fiber. The slurry is cleaned and screened before being fed into the wet endof the paper-forming machine. In the forming section, the fibers present in the slurry form apaper web through drainage by gravity and applied suction below the forming fabric. In thepress section, the remaining water is removed by mechanical pressure applied through thenips of a series of presses while the wet web is consolidated. The remaining water content islater dried using steam. Calendaring process smoothens and compresses the paper material
by passing a single continuous sheet through a series of heated rolls. The final step involves
winding and cutting the traveling sheet into paper reels (Brown et al., 1996).
Table 12 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of an integrated paper mill,disaggregated by direct and indirect fuel and electricity demand in each process step.

IHP applications
Table 12 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at a suitable temperature for IHPapplication. It must be noted that there is no HTHP application identified for paper making. Allof the steam condensate from the paper drying process can be recovered, requiring no makeup water preheating. Hence conservative scenario is not developed. However, depending on
specific cases, HTHP may have some applications in the pulp and paper industry. For example, a HTHP with a heating capacity of 4 MW was installed in a Danish paper mill (IEA, 2020).
The system uses waste heat at 50-55oC from the dryer to heat water to 70oC for district heating. The HTHP system reduced 130 TJ of the plant’s annual heat demand which equals 60% of
the energy demand of the 3000 households in the Danish city of Skjern.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

52

Table 12. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the pulp and paperindustry.

In Ambitious Scenario 2, a SGHP can be employed to generate process steam at 120oC for
paper drying after the press section. The required heating capacity of SGHP for the drying
application in the U.S. pulp and paper industry is estimated at 6.8 GW. Furthermore, the COPof the SGHP is determined to be low i.e. 1.8, mainly because the temperature lift is high. The
utilization of an available heat source at a temperature higher than what is currently assumed(refer to Section 3) will result in a higher COP or lower electricity demand for an IHP operation.

Figure 47. Industrial heat pump application in the pulp and paper industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

53

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 12. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. pulp and paper industry in different IHP application scenarios andtimeframes is presented in Figure 48. The figure shows that the measure suggested in Figure
47 can significantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase inproduction between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 207 PJ per year of final
energy can be saved in 2050 if SGHP is used to generate steam for paper drying (Scenario2). The substantial reduction in final energy demand is due to the increase in efficiency
measured in terms of COP of the IHP. More precisely, 330 PJ per year of fuel demand could
be reduced while 123 PJ per year (or 34 TWh per year) of electricity demand would be
increased in 2050.

Figure 48. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. pulp and paper industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 						Note: BAU does not consider any IHP application, Scenario 1 considers only HTHP applications, and Scenario 2 considers both
HTHP and SGHP applications.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. pulp and paper industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 49. The figure shows up to 4.6 Mt
of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of the IHPapplication in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. Furthermore, it is estimated that 		
approximately 17.8 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in 2050. This substantial
reduction in CO2 emissions is the consequence of a projected decline in the electricity gridemission factor (grid decarbonization) between 2021 and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer
to Section 3.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

54

Figure 49. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. pulp and paper industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

Figure 50 presents the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPs
applications in the U.S. paper industry. The figure shows that the energy conservation costs
range from 5 to 7 $/GJ in different timeframes. The figure also shows that the CO2 abatement
costs are estimated at approximately 60 $/t CO2 in 2050.

Figure 50. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applications in the
U.S. pulp and paper industry.									Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

It is clear that IHP integration in U.S. paper plants incurs additional costs and none of the
scenarios have costs falling below zero which would have otherwise represented costsavings. The large difference between the U.S. average industrial electricity and fuel prices is
the major reason why the costs are found to be high. The heat source temperature assumed
at 25oC is another reason causing high marginal costs. Exploring and utilizing suitable waste
heat sources at higher temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts is strongly 			recommended.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing55

4.11 Automotive industry
Production process
The U.S. automotive industry manufactured around 9 million automobiles in 2021 (Statistica,
2022b). The production volume is estimated to grow to 10 million in 2050. A typical
automobile production process is briefly described as follows. In the first step, strips or metal
sheets are cut (or bent) into a shape needed. Next is mechanical pressing to drive a punch
against sheet metal to cause a permanent change in the shape of the metal. Welding is doneto sculpt materials using heat and permanently join them together, followed by bodyassembling. Before painting, the body undergoes a rigorous inspection. An assembly
conveyor transports it through a cleaning station where it is immersed and cleaned of all oil,
dirt, and contaminants. The body leaving the cleaning station is then dried. Painting is thenext manufacturing process that is performed in multiple stages and aims to protect the bodyagainst corrosion and give a vehicle body its final appearance (Gekatex Group, 2019; Groover
and Kolchin, 1997).
Once the body has been fully covered with paint, a conveyor carries it to baking ovens where
the paint is cured at temperatures over 100oC. After the body leaves the paint area, it is readyfor interior or trim assembly where the remaining parts and sub-assemblies including engine
and transmission, dashboard, seats, tires, and so on are assembled into the body. The
vehicle then undergoes quality check and testing before the final components including 		
batteries are installed. The vehicle is washed in the final step (Gekatex Group, 2019; Groover
and Kolchin, 1997).
Table 13 presents the typical specific final energy consumption of an automotive 		
manufacturing plant, disaggregated by direct and indirect fuel and electricity demand in eachprocess step.

IHP applications
Table 13 highlights (in green color) the process heat demand at temperatures suitable for IHPapplications. Figure 51 presents the schematic of these IHP applications and their corresponding COPs. In Conservative Scenario 1, two separate high-temperature heat pumps can be
employed to heat water to 50oC and 90oC. Process water at 50oC is used for washing andfinishing while the makeup water at 90oC is utilized for steam generation. Air can beheated and delivered at 27oC for welding and painting processes using an air source heatpump (ASHP) system. The COP of the ASHP system is assumed as 3, based on Zuberi et al.
(2021). The required heating capacity of IHP for the U.S. automotive industry is estimated at
5.8 GW. For body preparation, the required steam temperature is higher (i.e. 177oC) than thecurrent state of the art, hence not considered.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

56

Table 13. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the automotive industry.

Figure 51. Industrial heat pump applications in the automotive industry.

To support the discussion on HTHP applications identified for the U.S. automobile production
plants, a real-life example is presented. A HTHP system with a heating capacity of 			approximately 1.7 MW and COP of 5.6 was installed in a German car manufacturing plant
owned by Volkswagen (IEA, 2020). The system uses waste heat at 26-29oC from the plant’s
cathodic dip-coating process in the paint shop to heat process water to 65-75oC. The heatedwater is used for various purposes.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

57

Energy, emissions, and cost implications
The comparison of the specific energy demand of the conventional and electrified (due to IHP
integration) processes is also presented in Table 13. The change in annual final energy
demand in the U.S. automotive industry in different IHP application scenarios and timeframes
is presented in Figure 52. The figure shows that the measures suggested in Figure 51 cansignificantly reduce the total final energy demand despite the projected increase in production between 2021 and 2050. It is estimated that approximately 96 PJ per year of final energy
can be saved if all IHP applications are realized in 2050. The substantial reduction in final
energy demand is due to the increase in efficiency measured in terms of COPs of the IHP.
More precisely, 128 PJ per year of fuel demand could be reduced while 32 PJ per year (or 8.8
TWh per year) of electricity demand would be increased in 2050 respectively. As mentioned
earlier, since the required steam temperature is higher than the current IHP technology candeliver, Scenario 2 has not been considered for the automotive sector.

Figure 52. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. automotive industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate). 							Note: BAU does not consider any IHP applications while Scenario 1 considers HTHP and ASHP applications. Since the required
steam temperature is higher than the current IHP technology can deliver, Scenario 2 has not been considered for the automotive
industry.

The change in annual CO2 emissions in the U.S. automotive industry in different IHPapplication scenarios and timeframes is presented in Figure 53. The figure shows up to 5 Mt
of potential CO2 abatement already in 2021 as a result of the 100% adoption rate of all IHPapplications in the sector, despite the increased demand for electricity which has a higher
average emission factor than natural gas in the U.S. It is further estimated that approximately
9 Mt per year of CO2 emissions can be avoided in 2050. This substantial reduction in CO2emissions is the consequence of a projected decline in the electricity grid emission factor(grid decarbonization) between 2021 and 2050. The different levels of potential CO2 emissions reduction in 2035 represent different grid decarbonization scenarios, refer to Section 3.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

58

Figure 53. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. automotive industry up to 2050 (This is a total technicalpotential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

According to Figure 54, the specific costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for IHPapplications are estimated at 5 $/GJ and 49 $/t CO2 per year respectively in 2050. The associated costs of IHP applications in U.S. automotive plants do not fall below zero which would
have otherwise represented cost savings. The major factor that is influencing the marginal
costs to be high is the disparity between the U.S. average industrial electricity and fuel prices.
The assumed heat source temperature is another major reason why the costs are not economical (see earlier discussion). Therefore, it is recommended to explore suitable waste heatsources at higher temperatures and utilize them for maximizing the IHP COPs, and minimizing
the temperature lifts and consequently the electricity costs.

Figure 54. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement cost for industrial heat pump applications in
the U.S. automotive industry under Scenario 1. 							Note: The marginal costs as a result of 50% lower electricity prices than those projected in the corresponding year are shown aserror bars. See sensitivity analysis in Section 5.3 for more details.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

59

2.5

Cross-sectoral Comparison of Energy 		Savings and costs

5.1 Relative Energy Savings
Figure 55 presents the summary of fuel savings (presented as % of total fuel used) as a resultof IHP applications in the studied industrial processes in different technical scenarios. The
figure shows that the potential fuel energy savings in manufacturing processes like meat
processing, beer, canned fruits and vegetables, cane sugar refining, automotive, etc. are significant if only HTHP are deployed (Conservative - Scenario 1). On the other hand, the impact
of HTHP on the overall heat demand in the remaining processes including dairy, beet sugar,
corn wet-milling, textiles, paper, etc. is low or even negligible due to high steam demand.
However, the results for the Ambitious - Scenario 2 show that more than two-thirds of the fueldemand, in the majority of the studied processes, can be reduced if SGHP applications arealso exploited. Moreover, all of the heat demand for canned vegetable and fruit production,and textile spinning and weaving can be fulfilled by IHP applications.

Figure 55. Sectoral fuel energy savings potential (as % of total fuel used) in different industrial heatpump application scenarios in the U.S.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

60

Furthermore, since IHP applications increase the electricity demand of an industrial facility,
total final energy savings (or net savings due to simultaneous decrease in fuel demand andincrease in electricity use) are estimated for each industrial process and shown in Figure 56.
The potential final energy savings in the thirteen processes range from 27% to 66%. Theenergy-saving trends in Figure 56 are no different than those in Figure 55. However, theenviro-economic aspects of the technical potential must also be analyzed and are discussed
in the next section.

Figure 56. Sectoral final energy savings potential (as % of the total energy used) in different industrial
heat pump application scenarios in the U.S.

5.2 Marginal Cost Curves
A conservation supply curve is an analytical tool, commonly used to present the techno-economic perspectives of energy and/or CO2 conservation. The curve shows the marginal costsof climate mitigation measures as a function of the potential energy and/or CO2 conservation.
In this study, specific costs of energy conservation and CO2 abatement for IHP applicationsin specific industrial processes are calculated using the methods and materials described inAppendices A-C. For plotting conservation supply curves, industrial processes are arranged
in ascending order by conservation costs and presented against their annual cumulative
potential energy or CO2 savings. The height of each process on the vertical axes shows theprocess-specific costs of IHP applications while the width on the horizontal axes shows theannual energy or CO2 savings. Furthermore, since annual benefits are shown as negativevalues as a consequence of final energy cost savings, all processes that fall below zero on
the horizontal axes will be considered cost-effective.
The energy conservation cost curve in Figure 57 shows the costs of conserved energy due
to the IHP applications (as described in Section 4, Ambitious Scenarios 2) in different U.S. industrial processes as a function of their corresponding process-wide potential energy savingsin the base year 2021 and future years. The height of each industrial process on the y- axis
shows the specific costs while the width of each sector on the x-axis shows the technicalenergy saving potential (in PJ). The figure shows that the technical potential energy savings
as a result of IHP applications are 545 PJ per year (approximately 4% of the total final energy
demand in U.S. manufacturing) in the base year 2021. The figure illustrates that IHP applications incur additional costs in each process and none of the U.S. industrial processes haveenergy conservation costs falling below the horizontal axis (which would have otherwise 		represented cost savings). In other words, the overall costs are not economical (higher thanzero) and additional expenditure on IHPs is required to make the energy shift in all studied
industrial sectors.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing61

As far as the rankings are concerned, multiple factors including current process-specificefficiencies, IHP COPs, required IHP capacities, and the corresponding investment andoperational costs affect the specific costs of IHP applications in U.S. manufacturing. One of
the major reasons for the high specific costs is the disparity between the electricity and fuelprices in the U.S. industry. For example, the average electricity price in the U.S. industry (i.e.
70 $/MWh) is almost 5 times higher than the average price of natural gas (i.e. 14 $/MWh) in
2021 (refer to Appendix C). The assumed heat source temperature i.e. 25oC is another factor
influencing the costs to be high (see Section 3) and it is recommended to explore suitablewaste heat sources at higher temperatures to minimize the temperature lifts (or maximize theCOPs), and consequently the electricity costs. Therefore, it is not possible to pinpoint a single
factor that dictates the rankings of the industrial processes in Figure 57 the most. However,
the impact of the changes in the aforementioned factors is discussed in the next section.

Figure 57. Energy conservation cost curve for industrial heat pump applications (in Ambitious
scenario 2) in U.S. manufacturing.

Furthermore, energy demand for steam generation and natural gas prices are projected to
grow in the future. However, electricity prices are expected to slightly decrease in the future(see Appendix C). All these projections will impact the costs of energy conservation. Figure
57 also presents the marginal cost curves in 2035 and 2050. The figure shows that while thepotential energy savings in 2050 could increase to almost 634 PJ per year, the costs may
moderately decrease i.e. from 6-22 $/GJ-saved in 2021 to 5-18 $/GJ-saved in 2050. The
moderate decrease in costs of conserved energy is because electricity prices are expected
to decrease in the future but as per the projections, they may still be higher on an equal unit
energy basis than natural gas in 2050 (refer to Appendix C).
Despite the current average U.S. electricity grid emission factor being higher than theemission factor of natural gas, electrifying hot water, and steam generation systems in thestudied industrial processes can already decrease the annual CO2 emissions by around 17
Mt CO2 per year in the base year 2021, assuming a 100% adoption rate of IHP applications.
This outcome is in contrast with the findings of Zuberi et al. (2021), who displayed that ahigher grid emission factor than natural gas could initially lead to an increase in annual CO2
emissions as a result of electrified steam generation through electric boilers. This contrast is
mainly because the high efficiencies of IHP (measured in terms of COPs, which are estimatedrather conservatively in this study) as compared to combustion and electric boilers are
dominating the other factors. However, given the fact that electricity grids will be further
decarbonized and potentially fully decarbonized in 2035 or 2050, the magnitude of CO2
abatement is projected to be 54 or 58 Mt CO2 per year respectively (i.e. reaching net-zeroemissions), as presented in Figure 58.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

62Figure 58. CO2 abatement cost curve for industrial heat pump applications (in Ambitious scenario 2) in
U.S. manufacturing.

Figure 58 further shows that the CO2 abatement costs in different industrial processes range
between 49 and 161 $/tCO2 in 2050. Since the COPs of SGHP are estimated lower than thoseof HTHP given the technical assumptions in Section 3, the CO2 abatement costs inindustrial sectors with less to no SGHP applications are found to be relatively less expensive(e.g. automotive industry as shown in Figure 58). This means high-temperature heat sourcesmust ideally be exploited first for SGHP (as they are more impactful than HTHP) to minimize
temperature lifts and operational costs. Since the COP of an IHP application with a high-temperature lift is typically low, the CO2 abatement costs in industrial sectors with few or no
applications requiring high-temperature lifts (i.e. greater than 100 K) are found to be relatively
less expensive (e.g. in the automotive industry as shown in Figures 57 and 58). This meansthat high-temperature heat sources must be first utilized for heat sinks with the highest
temperatures, to minimize the temperature lifts and operational costs, and maximize heatpump COPs.

5.3 Sensitivity Analysis
As mentioned earlier, the marginal costs for each industrial process are quite sensitive to fueland electricity price projections and waste heat source temperatures. It is therefore
important to perform a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of changes in energy prices
and source temperatures on the marginal costs. In this context, the following four hypotheticalcase scenarios have been developed and summarized in Table 14:•

Case 1 - Higher heat source temperature: Substantial waste heat sources are available attemperatures of 40oC instead of 25oC (as assumed in the base case scenario).

•

Case 2 - Higher natural gas prices: Natural gas prices are assumed 50% higher than thoseprojected in 2050.

•

Case 3 - Lower electricity prices: Electricity prices are assumed 50% lower than thoseprojected in 2050.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

63

•Case 4 - Combined: Natural gas prices are assumed 50% higher and electricity prices are
50% lower than those projected in 2050 in our base case. Also, waste heat sources areavailable at 40oC.

Table 14. Assumed values for different variables in different case scenarios for the sensitivity analysis.

Figures 59 and 60 present the sensitivity analysis of energy conservation and CO2
abatement costs in 2050 to different techno-economic variables. The figures show that inCase 1, the marginal costs can be reduced significantly if available waste heat sources at
40oC are utilized by IHPs, consequently minimizing temperature lifts and maximizing COPs.
Hence, it is essential to explore and utilize heat sources at high temperatures yet below thepinch point to optimize IHP operation. It is further shown that in Case 2, the marginal costs
can be reduced by an order of 2-3 times if natural gas prices are increased by 50%. Natural
gas prices must be raised to a level closer to the price of electricity to make IHP economicallycompetitive. Any form of a carbon tax scheme (e.g. CO2 tax or levy or cap and trade system,etc.) that results in higher fossil fuel prices could make the electrified process heat supply
substantially more cost-effective.

Figure 59. Sensitivity analysis of energy conservation costs in 2050 to different techno-economic variables.

The figure also shows that the costs can be decreased by up to 6 times if electricity prices arehalved from those projected in 2050. The three scenario results show that reducing
electricity rates in the future could be the most impactful measure to facilitate the wide-scale
applications of IHP in relevant industrial facilities. Considering the influence of the electricity

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

64

price and the uncertainties of economic return, an option to consider would be backup gas
boilers. In the first phase of the IHP applications, backup gas boilers may be used forindustrial steam generation. These combinations allow choosing between electric heating
and fuel heating depending on the prices of electricity. Since electricity prices are anticipatedto fall due to large volumes of renewable electricity coming online and increasing energy
consumption, there may be times during the day when electricity is available at a price lower
than natural gas. For example, in California, there are hours of the day when excess
renewable electricity is exported to its neighboring states, and the California Independent
System Operator (ISO) pays off-takers a maximum of 25 $/MWh for this electricity (Deason etal., 2018).

Figure 60. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 abatement costs in 2050 to different techno-economic variables.

Despite the increase in natural gas prices, decrease in electricity prices, and utilization ofhigh-quality waste heat sources, the marginal costs in Figures 59 and 60 do not fall below
zero (costs less than zero represent cost savings, refer to the methodology in Appendix A).
However, in the combined scenario where all the aforementioned factors are consideredsimultaneously, the marginal costs for most industrial processes are found to be cost-effective (negative costs). This concludes that optimizing IHPs or revising energy prices alone will
not solve the problem, instead, a combination of different techno-economic measures must
be implemented by different stakeholders to encourage wide-scale IHP deployment in U.S.
manufacturing. The results can also be seen from the perspective that for cases where higher
source temperatures are available, and where the electricity to natural gas price ratio isfavorable (as in some regions of the U.S.), it can be worth investing in IHP to aid the transition
to lower-carbon electricity and GHG emissions reduction.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the cost of energy per unit of production is generally
higher for IHP compared to combustion boilers. However, energy costs are only a small
fraction of the total manufacturing costs for many industrial sectors. In sectors where energy
cost is only a small portion of the total production cost, a small or even moderate increasein energy cost per unit of product, resulting from the IHP applications, will not have a major
impact on the price of the final product. In other words, it will have a minimal impact on theprice that final consumers will pay for the product or the products that are made from thosematerials. Moreover, energy prices vary significantly from state to state and even county tocounty within the U.S. Therefore, the costs of energy conservation and CO2 abatement for
IHP applications in different sectors are highly sensitive to the price of natural gas and electricity in different states).44.

Another study is being planned to investigate sector-specific IHP applications at the level of each U.S. state.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

65

Finally, this work only studies the effect of change in heat source temperatures and energy
prices. To forecast change in all the relevant parameters such as production volumes, boiler
efficiencies, prices of IHPs, discount rates, etc. in the future, much more information isrequired which is currently unavailable, hence not done, and is planned for future work. In
addition, IHP applications possess several co-benefits including simultaneous cooling,elimination of combustion-related pollutants, less frequent maintenance, better safety, etc.,
however, techno-economic quantifications of these co-benefits are outside the scope of thiswork.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

66

6

6.1

Barriers and Recommendations

Challenges and Barriers

Despite the large potential for energy and CO2 emissions reduction in U.S. manufacturing,
there are still some barriers associated with the wide-scale applications of IHP. Some of the
major barriers are listed below based on the information given by Arpagaus and Bertsch(2020), Jakobs and Stadtländer (2021), Rightor et al. (2022):•

The economic feasibility of IHP integration into existing processes due to tailor-madedesigns often leads to long payback times.

•

Low fuel (gas) to electricity price ratios (or large differences between fuel and electricity
prices).

•Limited availability of suitable compressors for high temperatures.

•

Lack of available refrigerants in the high-temperature range with low global warming
potentials (GWP) and no ozone depletion potentials (ODP).

•

Competing heat supply technologies that use fossil fuels to deliver heat at hightemperatures.

•

Heat storage requirements to compensate for the time lag between demand and supply
e.g. in the case of industrial batch processes.

•

Lack of large-scale IHP demonstration systems in the U.S.

•

Lack of awareness and understanding of IHP technology and its technical possibilities
among different end-users, plant designers, consultants, investors, installers, etc.

•

Lack of knowledge about IHP integration in suitable manufacturing processes.

•

Lack of training of the stakeholders of the whole value chain including planners, IHP
manufacturers, installers, consultants, etc., and events that support the spread of IHP
knowledge.

To address the aforementioned challenges, key and targeted action plans including further
research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D), policy interventions,workforce development, capacity building, etc. are needed. Below we provide detailed actionplans that different stakeholders could take to facilitate the electrification of the industrial
process heat supply where suitable.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing676.2 Recommendations
Research, development, demonstration, and deployment
While IHP technologies are commercially available, further advancement especially for HTHP
and SGHP depends on further investment in research, development, and deployment (RDD&D). Optimal IHP integration strategies are influenced by different variables, including
sector, processes, and location. Several RDD&D activities are discussed as follows.
Industrial plants can partner with academia, national laboratories, and think tanks, among
other stakeholders, to explore and enhance IHP applications. IHP can be a part of an 		integrated system that provides both heating and cooling, hence such applications must be
explored and carefully assessed for implementation. It is also not always easy to implement
an IHP into an existing plant as it requires well-thought-out integration on the sides of theheat source and sinks. To overcome this hurdle, successful integrations need to be
demonstrated and published. These plants can also develop business cases for theelectrified heat supply by mapping out their energy and non-energy benefits.
Research efforts must ramp up to develop and demonstrate suitable compressors for hightemperatures, and test refrigerants in the high-temperature range with low GWP and no ODP.
Federal, state, and local governments must step in and incentivize IHP deployments. They
can provide tax credits or grants to financially incentivize large IHP pilots and demonstrations.
They can also help make advancements by using the exceptional capacity of the U.S. DOE’s
national laboratories.
Utilities can collaborate with industry and government to support RDD&D activities forelectrified process heat supply. They can also partner with industry and research institutes toevaluate the grid implication of wide-scale IHP applications in their service area.
Suppliers can collaborate with industry, service and engineering firms, academia, nationallabs, think tanks, and other stakeholders to scale the electrification of process heat supply
through IHPs. Moreover, they can also contribute to devising business cases for IHPapplications by including both energy and non-energy benefits. They can further collaborate
with the industry to demonstrate new IHP technologies and disseminate the results.
Moreover, manufacturing larger lots than today may increase productivity and decrease
capital costs due to economies of scale.

Capacity building
Due to a lack of awareness, industrial consumers may be risk-averse and avoid implementing
new technologies altogether. Subsequently, IHP must compete with familiar fossil fuel-fired
combustion boilers that have been in use for decades and are well established. Companies
and plant operators need more information about the availability, applicability, and integrationof IHPs in existing systems. Employees and contractors may require training on IHPs,
especially on installation, operation, troubleshooting, and maintenance.
Companies can seek information about the types of available IHP and their potential
applications. They can participate in technical assistance programs and engage with thefacility’s electric utility to learn about electricity rates and whether additional infrastructure forconnection is required. They can also learn about where IHP has been implemented, thendisseminate information or case studies about its challenges and successes. Companies
can also educate their peers about the benefits of IHP. They can further inform policymak-

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

68ers about their interest in industrial electrification and the benefits that could be realized byadopting IHPs, including CO2 abatement. In addition, they can also educate utilities,
policymakers, and the public, about the increased demand for renewable electricity due togrowth in process electrification.
Governments can support demonstrations and deployments of IHP that have already beencommercially developed. Moreover, they can offer and/or support technical assistanceprograms for wide-scale IHP deployment. They can create or support an IHP information
dissemination platform, which would include the development and distribution of real casestudies. They can conduct or support research and analysis on the economic development
potential of IHP applications. They can also support grants that create fellowships to provide
dedicated staffing support to industries to help their IHP deployment efforts. Furthermore,governments can educate the public about the benefits that could be realized by adopting
IHP, including CO2 emissions reduction, improved air quality and health, and economic
development opportunities.
Utilities can evaluate the potential demand response (including its financial impacts) that theadvancement of IHP applications can cause. They can provide information to industrial
customers about the utility side implications of IHP applications and potential economic gains
from demand response to each industrial plant where possible. Moreover, they can provide
information about their electricity rates and market structures, and required connection
upgrades. Utilities can also educate policymakers and the public about increased demand
for renewable electricity, energy storage, demand response, transmission system expansion
needs, distribution system hardening, and grid modernization as a result of an increase in theelectrified process heat supply. A better understanding of the capabilities of IHP and the needfor additional investment and support can improve policy and investment decisions.
Suppliers of IHP can engage with industrial companies to learn about their electrificationneeds. They can provide information about available technologies and those underdevelopment to industrial companies, governments, and utilities. They can educate 		policymakers and the industry about their technologies and the benefits that could be realized by adopting IHP. They can further educate financial institutions and potential investors
about their products and the advantages of IHP.

Policy and workforce development
To accelerate the deployment of IHP in the manufacturing sector, a wide range of policy
options could be pursued. Industrial plants can collaborate with policymakers to discuss theirinterest in the electrification of process heat supply and the benefits that could be realized
due to IHP applications.
Governments can adopt policies to support the demonstration and deployment of IHP thatare market-ready. Moreover, they can adopt tax policies that encourage investment in IHP;
policies that price carbon emissions at a level that supports electrified technologies; adopt
electricity rate designs that encourage electrification, and adopt renewable portfolio 		
requirements for thermal energy. Governments can also offer or support education andtraining programs for those that will install, operate, and maintain IHP.
Companies can provide training for employees and contractors on IHP operations. They can
engage with trade groups, educational institutions, and utilities to discuss education andtraining needs and develop IHP application programs. In addition to company knowledge,
employees and contractors at individual plant facilities may require additional training on IHP
integration, installation, and maintenance. Furthermore, companies, governments, and utilities

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing69

can work together with trade groups and educational institutions to ensure that current andfuture workers are prepared to meet the new demands of an increasingly electrified
manufacturing sector. Companies can further engage with utilities about their plans forelectrification and the corresponding viable solutions.
Utilities can adopt electricity rate designs that encourage IHP applications. Additionally, they
can support policies that permit more on-site generation, storage, and microgrid deployment,
to help address reliability concerns and to mitigate costs to all ratepayers of increased
industrial load. Utilities can engage with the manufacturing sector, trade groups, and training
institutes to discuss education and training needs and develop appropriate programs.
Suppliers can provide training on their IHP technologies.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

70References
Arpagaus, C., 2019. Hochtemperatur-Wärmepumpen: Marktübersicht, Stand der Technik und
Anwendungspotenziale. Vde Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-8007-4551-7 https://www.
vde-verlag.de/buecher/494550/hochtemperatur-waermepumpen.html
Arpagaus, C., Bertsch, S., 2020. Industrial Heat Pumps in Switzerland: Application Potentials
and Case Studies. Bern. https://www.aramis.admin.ch/Default?DocumentID=66033
Arpagaus, C., Bless, F., Uhlmann, M., Schiffmann, J., Bertsch, S.S., 2018. High temperature
heat pumps: Market overview, state of the art, research status, refrigerants, and application potentials. Energy 152, 985–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.166
Becker, H., Maréchal, F., Vuillermoz, A., 2011. Process Integration and Opportunities for Heat
Pumps in Industrial Processes. Int. J. Thermodyn. 14, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.5541/
ijot.260
Brown, H.L., Hamel, B.B., 1996. Energy Analysis of 108 Industrial Processes. The Fairmont
Press, Inc.
de Boer, R., Marina, A., Zühlsdorf, B., Arpagaus, C., Bantle, M., Wilk, V., Elmegaard, B., Corberán, J., Benson, J., 2020. Strengthening Industrial Heat
Pump Innovation: Decarbonizing Industrial Heat (Report), Strengthening Industrial
Heat Pump Innovation: Decarbonizing Industrial Heat.
Deason, J., Wei, M., Leventis, G., Smith, S., Schwartz, L., 2018. Electrification of buildings andindustry in the United States Drivers, barriers, prospects, and policy approaches. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley.
Díaz, A.V., García-Gimeno, R.M., 2018. Descriptive Food Science.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73156
Gagneja, A., Pundhir, S., 2016. Heat pumps and its applications. International Journal of Advances in Chemical Engineering and Biological Sciences 3, 117–120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15242/IJACEBS.U0516203
Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., Ruth, M., 2003. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving
opportunities for the Corn Wet Milling Industry: An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy
and Plant Managers (No. LBNL-52307).
Gekatex Group, 2019. Automotive Process. Gekatex.
			
https://www.gekatex.com/en/news/news/automotive-process (accessed 4.15.22).
Groover, M.P., Kolchin, M.G., 1997. Case Study: Automobile Final Assembly Plant.
Groz-Beckert, 2017. The Fabric Year 2017. 							https://www.groz-beckert.com/mm/media/web/9_messen/bilder/veranstaltungen_1/2017_6/the_fabric_year/Fabric_Year_2017_Handout_EN.pdf
Hasanbeigi, A., 2010. Energy-Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for the Textile Industry.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (No. LBNL-3970E).
Hasanbeigi, A., Kirshbaum, L.A., Collison, B., Gardiner, D., 2021. Electrifying U.S. Industry:
Technology and Process-Based Approach to Decarbonization. Global Efficiency
Intelligence.
IEA, 2020. Industrial Heat Pumps – IEA HPT TCP ANNEX 48. 				https://waermepumpe-izw.de/karte-europa (accessed 4.4.22).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

71

IEA, 2014. Application of Industrial Heat Pumps, Part 2 (No. HPP-AN35-2). Sweden.
Jakobs, R.M., Stadtländer, C., 2021. Final Report Annex 48: Industrial Heat Pumps, Second
Phase (No. HPT-AN48-1). IEA, Germany.
Kealey, K.S., Kosikowski, F.V., 1986. Cottage Cheese from Ultrafiltered Skim Milk Retentatesin Industrial Cheese Making. J. Dairy Sci. 69, 1479–1483. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.
S0022-0302(86)80562-8
Marina, A., Spoelstra, S., Zondag, H.A., Wemmers, A.K., 2021. An estimation of the European industrial heat pump market potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 139, 110545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110545
Olsen, D., Abdelouadoud, Y., Liem, P., Hoffmann, S., Wellig, B., 2017. Integration of Heat Pumps
in Industrial Processes with Pinch Analysis, in: HPT - Heat Pumping Technologies. Rotterdam.
Panos, E., Kannan, R., 2016. The role of domestic biomass in electricity, heat and grid balancing markets in Switzerland. Energy 112, 1120–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.107
Popov, D.M., Terechuk, L.V., 2016. Deodorization of raw milk in a rotary spray apparatus. Food
Process. Tech. Technol. 42, 125–132.
Pulp and Paper Technology, 2022. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Process in the paperindustry. Pulp Pap. Technol. https://www.pulpandpaper-technology.com/articles/
pulp-and-paper-manufacturing-process-in-the-paper-industry (accessed 4.30.22).
Rightor, E., Scheihing, P., Hoffmeister, A., Papar, R., 2022. Industrial Heat Pumps: Electrifying
Industry’s Process Heat Supply with Industrial Heat Pumps. ACEEE.
Schlosser, F., Arpagaus, C., Walmsley, T.G., 2019. Heat Pump Integration by Pinch Analysis for
Industrial Applications: A Review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 76, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.3303/
CET1976002
Statistica, 2022a. U.S. paper and paperboard production capacity 2020. Statista.		
https://www.statista.com/statistics/871705/production-capacity-paper-and-paperboard-proejction-united-states/ (accessed 4.8.22).
Statistica, 2022b. U.S. and global motor vehicle production. Statista. 		
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198488/us-and-global-motor-vehicle-production-since-1999/ (accessed 4.8.22).
Statistica, 2021. Beer production United States 2020. Statista. 				https://www.statista.com/statistics/183464/beer-production-in-the-us-since-1870/ (accessed 4.8.22).
Tetra Pak, 2015. Dairy Processing Handbook - Cheese. 					https://dairyprocessinghandbook.tetrapak.com/chapter/cheese (accessed 4.12.22).
The Beer Connoisseur, 2016. Beer 101: The Fundamental Steps of Brewing. 		
https://beerconnoisseur.com/articles/beer-101-fundamental-steps-brewing (accessed
4.30.22).
The White House, 2021. FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies. White House. 				https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/
fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-targetaimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/ (accessed 4.4.22).

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

72

The White House, n.d. President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/ (accessed 4.4.22).
Tran, H., Vakkilainen, E., 2016. The Kraft chemical recovery process.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2020. Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population
Projections for 2020 to 2060. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.html (accessed 4.4.22).
U.S. DOE, 2003. Industrial Heat Pumps for Steam and Fuel Savings.
U.S. DOE/AMO, 2017. Bandwidth Study U.S. Food and Beverage Manufacturing.
U.S. DOE/Energetics, 2022. Manufacturing Energy and Carbon Footprints (2018 MECS). Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/manufacturing-energy-and-carbon-footprints-2018-mecs (accessed 4.4.22).
U.S. EIA, 2022a. Electric Power Annual - Data Tables. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/(accessed 4.4.22).
U.S. EIA, 2022b. State Energy Data System (SEDS): 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/
seds-data-fuel.php?sid=US#DataFiles (accessed 4.4.22).
U.S. EIA, 2021a. Annual Energy Outlook 2021. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo21/(accessed 4.4.22).
U.S. EIA, 2021b. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) - Data - U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2018/ (accessed 4.4.22).
U.S. EPA, 2014. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
U.S. EPA, 2004. Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR432) (No. EPA-821-R-04-011).
U.S. EPA, n.d. AP 42 Air Emissions Factors and Quantification: Chapter 9: Food and Agricultural Industries, 5th ed.
USDA ERS, 2022a. Livestock and Meat Domestic Data. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-and-meat-domestic-data/ (accessed 4.5.22).
USDA ERS, 2022b. Dairy Data. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/dairy-data.aspx (accessed 4.8.22).
USDA ERS, 2022c. USDA ERS - Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables. https://www.ers.
usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables/#U.S.%20Sugar%20Supply%20and%20Use (accessed 4.8.22).
USDA ERS, n.d. Soybeans and Oil Crops - Related Data & Statistics.				
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-oil-crops/related-data-statistics/ (accessed 4.8.22).
Zuberi, J., Hasanbeigi, A., Morrow, W.R., 2021. Electrification of Boilers in U.S. Manufacturing(No. LBNL-2001436). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Zuberi, M.J.S., Bless, F., Chambers, J., Arpagaus, C., Bertsch, S.S., Patel, M.K., 2018. Excess
heat recovery: An invisible energy resource for the Swiss industry sector. Appl. Energy
228, 390–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.070

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing73

Zuberi, M.J.S., Narula, K., Klinke, S., Chambers, J., Streicher, K.N., Patel, M.K., 2021. Potential
and costs of decentralized heat pumps and thermal networks in Swiss residential areas. Int. J. Energy Res. 45, 15245–15264. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6801
Zühlsdorf, B., Bühler, F., Bantle, M., Elmegaard, B., 2019. Analysis of technologies and potentials for heat pump-based process heat supply above 150 °C. Energy Convers. Manag.
X 2, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2019.100011

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing74AppendicesA.

Methodology: Potential and costs of industrial heat pump
applications

There is a general understanding that demand for consumer products typically increases withthe population growth of a country. Since the industrial processes considered in this study are
all producing consumer products including food items, beverages, textiles, 		
automobiles, etc., this study estimates the future production volumes based on the U.S.
population growth projected by U.S. Census Bureau (2020). These production volumes arelater used to estimate the sectoral frozen efficiency energy demand for the reference case.
Frozen efficiency energy demand represents the amount of final energy which the industry
sector would have used if no energy efficiency improvement (e.g. IHP applications in thiscase) had been implemented. In this work, it is calculated by multiplying the specific energy
consumption (SEC) of each product in the reference year 2021 by the production volumes in
the future years. Since the production volumes and SEC values possess uncertainty due tothe lack of detailed statistics, the resulting energy demand has a degree of uncertainty.
However, frozen efficiency energy demand estimates provide the basis to compare the 		energy demand and CO2 emissions with or without IHP integration in studied U.S. 		
manufacturing sectors.
Potential energy savings/conservation ES due to the electrification of heat demand in theindustrial processes (as discussed in Sections 4 and 5) can be estimated by Equation A.1. The
difference between temperature-specific heat demand by current industrial processes (heatsink) and potential electricity demand due to IHP application as a replacement of current
process equipment for the same energy service, is referred to as energy savings.

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 − 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

Where;

Qout= Current heat demand at a certain temperature by industrial processes in a sector
Win= Electricity demand by an IHP for the same energy service in a sector

Similarly, potential CO2 abatement CA due to IHP application and simultaneous 		
decarbonization of the electricity grid can be estimated by the following equation:

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = (𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 × 𝑓𝑓𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) − (𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 × 𝑓𝑓𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 )							Where;

fNG = Natural gas emission factor, taken as 0.05 tCO2/GJ based on U.S. EPA (2014)
fegrid = National average electricity grid emission factor based on U.S. EIA (2022a)

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing75

A conservation supply curve is an analytical tool, commonly used to present the techno-economic perspectives of energy and/or CO2 conservation. The curve shows the marginal costsof climate mitigation measures as a function of the potential energy and/or CO2 conservation.
In this study, specific costs of energy conservation CES and CO2 abatement CCA for IHPapplications in specific industrial sectors are calculated using the following equations.

Costs of conserved energy:
α.𝐼𝐼 + 𝑂𝑂&𝑀𝑀 − 𝐵𝐵

𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑠𝑠 ES 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
𝑠𝑠									(A.3)

Costs of CO2 abatement:

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 =α.𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠 + 𝑂𝑂&𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑠 − 𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠
CA𝑠𝑠

(A.4)

Where;Is = Capital investment costs of IHP in a sector s
O&Ms = Annual operations and maintenance costs of IHP in a sector s
Bs = Annual cost benefits in a sector s, calculated by Equation A.5

α = Capital recovery factor or annuity factor, calculated by Equation A.6
𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠 = (𝑄𝑄𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑠𝑠 × 𝑃𝑃𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) − (𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑠𝑠 × 𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 )								

(A.5)

Where;

PNG = National average natural gas price for industry
Pel = National average electricity price for industry(1+𝑟𝑟)𝐿𝐿 × 𝑟𝑟

𝛼𝛼 = (1+𝑟𝑟)𝐿𝐿 − 1											(A.6)

Where;

r = Real discount rate, taken as 10% from the private perspective
L = Lifetime of industrial heat pumps assumed as 15 years
When plotting the marginal cost curve, industrial sectors are arranged in ascending order byconservation costs and displayed against their annual cumulative potential energy or CO2
savings. The height of each industrial sector on the vertical axes displays the sector-specific costs of IHP applications while the width of each sector on the horizontal axes shows theannual energy or CO2 savings. Finally, since annual benefits in Equations A.3 and A.4 arepresented as negative values as a consequence of energy cost savings, all sectors that fall
below zero on the horizontal axis will be considered cost-effective.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

76

B.

Methodology: Industrial Heat Pump Capital and O&M Costs

Zuberi et al. (2018) estimated the IHP capital costs based on catalog prices of necessarycomponents given by different manufacturers. This study has adapted these capital costs for
the U.S. industry as shown in Figure B.1. The range of capital costs of an IHP as a function ofheating capacity includes equipment and installation costs and are presented in the figure
after adjustments to correct for the regional differences in material and labor costs andexchange rates where necessary. The estimated specific capital costs are also in good
agreement with Arpagaus and Bertsch (2020). The annual operations and maintenance(O&M) costs of IHP applications are assumed to be 1% of the capital costs.

Figure B.1. Capital costs of an IHP as a function of its heating capacity.

C.

Methodology: Projected Industrial Energy Prices

The current and projected national average prices of electricity and natural gas for U.S.
manufacturing are acquired from the EIA’s State Energy Data System (U.S. EIA, 2022b) andthe Annual Energy Outlook (U.S. EIA, 2021a). These price projections are presented in Figure
C.1.

Figure C.1. Projected natural gas (top) and electricity (bottom) prices for the U.S. industry.

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing77

List of Figures
Figure ES - 1. CO2 abatement cost curve for industrial heat pump applications in U.S.
manufacturing.

V

Figure 1. Thermodynamic representation and cycle of a heat pump.

3

Figure 2. COP of various industrial heat pumps as a function of temperature lift (Arpagaus etal., 2018).
5
Figure 3. Industrial heat pump applications in the meat processing industry.

10

Figure 4. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. meat processing industry up to 2050 (This isa total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
11
Figure 5. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. meat processing industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
11
Figure 6. Costs of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. meat processing industry.
12
Figure 7. Industrial heat pump applications in the dairy industry.

14

Figure 8. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. dairy industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

15

Figure 9. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. canned fruit industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
16
Figure 10. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. dairy industry.
16
Figure 11. Industrial heat pump applications in the beer industry.

18

Figure 12. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. beer industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

19

Figure 13. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. beer industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

20

Figure 14. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. beer industry.
20
Figure 15. Industrial heat pump applications in the canned vegetable industry.

23

Figure 16. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. canned vegetable industry up to 2050 (Thisis a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
24
Figure 17. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. canned vegetable industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
24
Figure 18. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. canned vegetable industry.
25
Figure 19. Industrial heat pump applications in the canned fruit industry.

26

Figure 20. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. canned fruit industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
27
Figure 21. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. canned fruit industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
28

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

IX

Figure 22. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. canned fruit industry.
28
Figure 23. Industrial heat pump applications in cane sugar refining.

30

Figure 24. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. cane sugar refining industry up to 2050
(This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

31

Figure 25. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. cane sugar industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
31
Figure 26. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. cane sugar refining industry.
32
Figure 27. Industrial heat pump applications in the beet sugar industry.

34

Figure 28. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. beet sugar industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
35
Figure 29. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. beet sugar industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
35
Figure 30. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. beet sugar industry.
36
Figure 31. Industrial heat pump applications in the corn wet-milling industry.

38

Figure 32. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. corn wet-milling industry up to 2050 (This isa total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
39
Figure 33. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. corn wet-milling industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
39
Figure 34. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. corn wet-milling industry.
40
Figure 35. Industrial heat pump applications in the soybean oil industry.

42

Figure 36. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. soybean oil industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
43
Figure 37. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. soybean oil industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
43
Figure 38. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. soybean oil industry.
44
Figure 39. Industrial heat pump applications in the textile spinning and weaving industry.

46

Figure 40. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. textile spinning and weaving industry up to
2050 (This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
46
Figure 41. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. textile spinning and weaving industry up to
2050 (This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).

47

Figure 42. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. textile spinning and weaving industry under Scenario 2.
47
Figure 43. Industrial heat pump applications in the textile wet-processing industry.

49

Figure 44. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. textile wet-processing industry up to 2050
(This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
50
Figure 45. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. textile wet-processing industry up to 2050
(This is a total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
50

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. ManufacturingXFigure 46. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. textile wet-processing industry.
51
Figure 47. Industrial heat pump applications in the pulp and paper industry.

53

Figure 48. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. pulp and paper industry up to 2050 (This isa total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
54
Figure 49. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. pulp and paper industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
55
Figure 50. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement for industrial heat pump applicationsin the U.S. pulp and paper industry.
55
Figure 51. Industrial heat pump applications in the automotive industry.

57

Figure 52. Annual final energy demand in the U.S. automotive industry up to 2050 (This is a
total technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
58
Figure 53. Annual CO2 emissions from the U.S. automotive industry up to 2050 (This is a total
technical potential assuming a 100% adoption rate).
59
Figure 54. Cost of conserved energy and CO2 abatement cost for industrial heatpump applications in the U.S. automotive industry under Scenario 1.

59

Figure 55. Sectoral fuel energy savings potential (as % of total fuel used) in different industrial
heat pump application scenarios in the U.S.
60
Figure 56. Sectoral final energy savings potential (as % of the total energy used) in different
industrial heat pump application scenarios in the U.S.
61
Figure 57. Energy conservation cost curve for industrial heat pump applications (in Ambitious
scenario 2) in U.S. manufacturing.
62
Figure 58. CO2 abatement cost curve for industrial heat pump applications (in Ambitious scenario 2) in U.S. manufacturing.
63
Figure 59. Sensitivity analysis of energy conservation costs in 2050 to different techno-economic variables.
64
Figure 60. Sensitivity analysis of CO2 abatement costs in 2050 to different techno-economic
variables.
65
Figure B.1. Capital costs of an IHP as a function of its heating capacity.

77

Figure C.1. Projected natural gas (top) and electricity (bottom) prices for the U.S. industry.

77

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

XI

List of Tables
Table 1. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the meat
processing industry.

9

Table 2. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the dairy
industry.

13

Table 3. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the beerindustry.

17

Table 4. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the canned
vegetable industry.
22
Table 5. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the canned
fruit industry.
26
Table 6. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the canesugar refining industry.
29
Table 7. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the beetsugar industry.

33

Table 8. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the corn
wet-milling industry.

37

Table 9. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the soybean
oil industry.
41
Table 10. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the textile
spinning and weaving industry.
45
Table 11. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in textile
wet-processing.

48

Table 12. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in the pulp
and paper industry.
53
Table 13. Specific energy consumption of conventional and modified processes in theautomotive industry.

57

Table 14. Assumed values for different variables in different case scenarios for the sensitivity
analysis.
64

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

XII

Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEO

Annual Energy Outlook

AMO

Advanced Manufacturing Office

BAU

Business-As-Usual

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

COP

Coefficient of Performance

DOE

Department of Energy

EIA

Energy Information Administration

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

GHG

Greenhouse Gases

GWP

Global Warming Potential

HFCS

High Fructose Corn Syrup

HTHP

High-Temperature Heat Pump

IEA

International Energy Agency

IHP

Industrial Heat PumpNG

Natural Gas

O&M

Operations & Maintenance Costs

ODP

Ozone Depletion Potential

RDD&D

Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals

SEC

Specific Energy Consumption

SEDS

State Energy Data System

SGHP

Steam Generating Heat Pump

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

Electrification through Industrial Heat Pump Applications in U.S. Manufacturing

XIII