ORNL/TM-2010/146

RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE 

 2008 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE: 

DOE’s Partnership with U.S. Industry to Reduce 

Energy Consumption, Energy Costs, 

and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

DETAILED ASSESSMENT OPPORTUNITY DATA REPORT

July 2010 

Prepared by 

Anthony Wright, Michaela Martin, and Sachin Nimbalkar 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

James Quinn, Sandy Glatt, and Bill Orthwein 

DOE Industrial Technologies Program 

 
 

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. 

Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge 

Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the 

following source. 

 National Technical Information Service 

 5285 Port Royal Road 

 Springfield, VA 22161 

Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) 

TDD 703-487-4639 

Fax 703-605-6900 

E-mail info@ntis.gov 

Web site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm 

Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange 

(ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from 

the following source. 

 Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

 P.O. Box 62 

 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

Telephone 865-576-8401 

Fax 865-576-5728 

E-mail reports@osti.gov 

Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an 

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States 

Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, 

makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal 

liability or 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 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. The views and opinions of authors expressed 

herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

Government or any agency thereof.
ORNL/TM-2010/146 

Energy and Transportation Science Division 

RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE 

 2008 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE: 

DOE’s Partnership with U.S. Industry to Reduce 

Energy Consumption, Energy Costs, 

and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

DETAILED ASSESSMENT OPPORTUNITY 

DATA REPORT 

Prepared by 

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283 

Managed by 

UT-BATTELLE, LLC 

For the 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725

3 
RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE 

 2008 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE: 

DOE’s Partnership with U.S. Industry to Reduce 

Energy Consumption, Energy Costs, 

and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

DETAILED ASSESSMENT OPPORTUNITY DATA REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION 

In October 2005, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Bodman launched his Easy Ways to Save 

Energy campaign with a promise to provide energy assessments to 200 of the largest U.S. 

manufacturing plants. DOE’s Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) responded to the Secretary’s 

campaign with its Save Energy Now initiative, featuring a new and highly cost-effective form of 

energy savings assessment. 

The approach for these assessments drew heavily on the existing resources of ITP’s technology 

delivery component. Over the years, ITP Technology Delivery has worked with industry partners to 

assemble a suite of respected software tools, proven assessment protocols, training curricula, certified 

energy experts, and strong partnerships for deployment. 

The Save Energy Now assessments conducted in calendar year 2006 focused on natural gas savings 

and targeted many of the nation’s largest manufacturing plants – those that consume at least 1 TBtu of 

energy annually. The 2006 Save Energy Now assessments focused primarily on assessments of steam 

and process heating systems, which account for an estimated 74% of all natural gas use by U.S. 

manufacturing plants. 

Because of the success of the Save Energy Now assessments conducted in 2006 and 2007, the 

program was expanded and enhanced in two major ways in 2008: 1) a new goal was set to perform at 

least 260 assessments; and 2) the assessment focus was expanded to include pumping, compressed 

air, and fan systems in addition to steam and process heating. DOE ITP has also developed software 

tools to assess energy efficiency improvement opportunities in pumping, compressed air, and fan 

systems. 

The Save Energy Now assessments integrate a strong training component designed to teach industrial 

plant personnel how to use DOE’s opportunity assessment software tools. This approach has the 

advantages of promoting strong buy-in of plant personnel for the assessment and its outcomes and 

preparing them better to independently replicate the assessment process at the company’s other 

facilities. 

Another important element of the Save Energy Now assessment process is the follow-up process used 

to identify how many of the recommended savings opportunities from individual assessments have 

been implemented in the industrial plants. Plant personnel involved with the Save Energy Now 

assessments are contacted 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after the assessments are completed 

to determine implementation results. 

A total of 260 Save Energy Now assessments were successfully completed in calendar year 2008. 

This means that a total of 718 assessments were completed in 2006, 2007, and 2008. As of July 2009, 

we have received a total of 239 summary reports from the ESAs that were conducted in year 2008. 

Hence, at the time that this report was prepared, 680 final assessment reports were completed (200 

from year 2006, 241 from year 2007, and 239 from year 2008). The total identified potential cost 

savings from these 680 assessments is $1.1 billion per year, including natural gas savings of about 98 

1 
TBtu per year. These results, if fully implemented, could reduce CO2 emissions by about 8.9 million 

metric tons annually. 

When this report was prepared, data on implementation of recommended energy and cost savings 

measures from 488 Save Energy Now assessments were available. For these 488 plants, measures 

saving a total of $147 million per year have been implemented, measures that will save $169 million 

per year are in the process of being implemented, and plants are planning implementation of measures 

that will save another $239 million per year. The implemented recommendations are already 

achieving total CO2 reductions of about 1.8 million metric tons per year. 

This report provides detailed information on key results for all of the 2008 assessments of steam, 

process heating, pumping, compressed air, and fan systems. This report discusses the opportunities in 

the top 10 categories, and identified savings and payback summary for different system type 

assessments. A separate report (Wright et al. 2010) provides a summary of the key results of the Save 

Energy Now assessments completed in 2008, the 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month implementation 

results obtained to date, an evaluation of these implementation results, and key accomplishments, 

findings, and lessons learned from the Save Energy Now assessments completed to date. 

Two prior reports (Wright et al. 2007 and Wright et al. 2009) detail the results from the 2006 and 

2007 assessments and discuss the major components of the assessment process and improvements in 

the process made in 2007. 

2. OVERVIEW OF THE 2008 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT PROCESS 

2.1 A Unique Approach 

The Save Energy Now in-plant energy efficiency assessments use a unique approach. Energy audits or 

assessments are typically done by energy experts who go into a plant, identify potential savings 

opportunities, and write reports that are left with plant personnel after the assessments are completed. 

Save Energy Now assessments, in contrast, have a training element. These assessments focus on 

hands-on demonstrations to industrial plant personnel specifically on how to use the DOE steam, 

process heating, pumping, compressed air, and fan software tools. Assessments are done in no more 

than three days, so, by necessity, they are very focused assessments. When making contact with a 

plant, the Energy Expert identifies a Plant Lead who has to agree to stay with the Energy Expert 

during the entire three-day assessment. The Energy Expert, Plant Lead, and other plant personnel who 

participate in the assessment identify some “target” opportunities to investigate using the DOE 

software. The target opportunities chosen are often those with the potential to achieve significant 

plant energy and cost savings. The Energy Expert and plant personnel identify any data requirements 

for assessing the target opportunity, obtain or measure data as necessary, and enter that data in the 

DOE software to quantify a specific energy savings opportunity. Often no more than three or four 

target opportunities are investigated during an assessment. 

On the last day of the assessment, a required Closeout Meeting is held to review and discuss the 

opportunities identified in the assessment. Plant management personnel are invited to attend and 

participate. Prior to the Closeout Meeting, the Energy Expert and the Plant Lead agree on the 

opportunities that will be highlighted at the meeting and documented in the final assessment report. 

Only the opportunities approved by the Plant Lead are presented or discussed at the Closeout 

Meeting. 

The positive effect of using this approach for conducting assessments is that: 1) plant personnel get 

hands-on experience in effectively using the DOE software tools and the opportunity to see the value 

2 
of applying these tools to their operations; 2) plant personnel are willing to buy-in to the opportunities 

identified and evaluated during the assessment, which increases the likelihood that the identified 

opportunities will implemented ; and 3) opportunities are investigated that often can result in 

significant energy and cost savings for the plant.

A full discussion of the Save Energy Now assessment process is provided in the 2006 Save Energy 

Now Assessment Summary Report (Wright et al. 2007). 

2.2 DOE ITP Decision Software Tools Used in 2008 Save Energy Now Assessments 

The ITP program developed a suite of software-based decision tools to help industrial plant personnel 

identify energy efficiency improvements for plant process and utility systems. These tools use 

analytical models to evaluate process heating, steam, pumping, compressed air, fan, motor, and other 

plant utility systems. There is also a Quick Plant Energy Profiler, or “Quick PEP,” online software 

tool that helps industrial plant personnel to quickly understand how energy is used at the plant and 

how they might save energy and reduce costs. 

All of the software tools focus on energy efficiency “opportunity” assessments — quantifying the 

potential savings from specific improvements. For example, there are often potential savings from 

increasing condensate return in steam systems or reducing excess oxygen to furnaces for process 

heating. 

DOE ITP has partnered with key trade associations and focused technical groups to develop the 

software tools. For example, DOE worked with the Hydraulics Institute to develop the pump tool, 

with the International Heating Equipment Association to develop the process heating tool, with the 

Compressed Air Challenge to develop the AirMaster+ tool, and with the Air Movement and Controls 

Association to develop the fan tool. 

The DOE steam, process heating, pumping, compressed air, and fan system software tools, described 

below, were used for the2008 assessments. 

More details about all of the DOE ITP decision software tools can be found at the following Web 

link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/software.html. 

2.2.1 Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST), Steam System Assessment Tool (SSAT) and 3E-Plus 

Three tools address steam systems. SSST is a pre-screening tool that allows plant personnel to 

develop a greater awareness of steam system improvement opportunities in their facilities. An SSST 

analysis was performed for each steam assessment. SSAT estimates the impacts of key improvements 

for models of representative steam systems. SSAT generates results detailing the energy, cost, and 

emissions savings that could be achieved by up to 18 different improvements. 3E-Plus calculates the 

most economical thickness of industrial insulation for operating conditions specified by the user. 

2.2.2 Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST) and Process Heating Scorecard 

PHAST is a tool for surveying process heating equipment that uses fuel, electricity, or steam (though 

modeling for only the direct-fuel-fired systems is presently developed) and identifying the most 

energy-intensive equipment. PHAST performs energy (heat) balances on furnaces to identify ways to 

improve efficiency. PHAST has several calculators that compare the performance of individual pieces 

of equipment under various operating conditions. The Process Heating Scorecard is a pre-screening 

tool. 

3 
2.2.3 Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT) 

PSAT uses data that are typically available or easily obtained in the field (e.g., pump head, flow rate, 

and motor power) to estimate potential energy and dollar savings in industrial pump systems. PSAT 

assesses current pump system operating efficiency by comparing field measurements of the power 

delivered to the motor with the fluid work (flow and head) required by the application. It estimates a 

system’s achievable efficiency based on pump efficiencies and performance characteristics of pumps 

and motors. PSAT also provides a pre-screening filter to identify areas that are likely to offer the 

greatest savings. 

2.2.4 AirMaster+ Compressed Air System Performance Software 

AirMaster+ provides a systematic approach for assessing the supply-side performance of compressed 

air systems. Using plant-specific data, the software effectively evaluates supply-side operational costs 

for various equipment configurations and system profiles. It provides useful estimates of the potential 

savings to be gained from selected energy efficiency measures and calculates the associated simple 

payback periods for implementing these measures. 

2.2.5 Fan System Assessment Tool (FSAT) 

FSAT helps users quantify energy consumption and energy savings opportunities in industrial fan 

systems. With FSAT, users can calculate the amount of energy used by a fan system, determine 

system efficiency, and quantify the savings potential of an upgraded fan system. FSAT estimates the 

work done by the fan system and compares that to the estimated energy input to the system. The tool 

also provides a pre-screening filter to identify fan systems that are likely to offer optimization 

opportunities. 

3. DETAILED ASSESSMENT OPPORTUNITY RESULTS FOR THE 2008 SAVE 

ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENTS 

In 2008, 239 Save Energy Now assessments (assessments with summary reports submitted) were 

performed in large U.S. industrial plants. A total of 74 steam assessments, 51 process heating 

assessments, 60 compressed air assessments, 29 pumping assessments, 17 fan assessments, and 8 

multi-system paper assessments were completed. 

At the time this report was prepared, assessment reports for 134 of the plants visited in 2008 were 

available. The data from completed 2008 assessment reports is for 41 steam assessments, 34 process 

heating assessments, 37 compressed air assessments, 13 pumping assessments, and 9 fan system 

assessments. 

Figure 1 is a color-coded U.S. map that illustrates how many of the 2006, 2007 and 2008 assessments 

have been performed in each state. The map shows that there are 24 states where at least 10 Save 

Energy Now assessments were completed. More than 20 assessments have been conducted in the 

states of Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Louisiana, 

Alabama and Georgia, respectively. 

Table 2 provides a summary of how many of each type of Save Energy Now assessments were 

conducted in each state. The states with the largest number of assessments of one or two type include 

Texas (28 steam assessments and 23 process heating assessments), Wisconsin (32 steam 

assessments), and Michigan (17 compressed air assessments and 17 steam assessments). Many of 

these states rank high in terms of industrial energy consumption. 

4 
Table 3 and Figure 2 show the industrial sectors in which the Save Energy Now assessments were 

performed. Of the 680 assessments that were finalized in 2006 through 2008, 582 were performed in 

chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, food, primary metals, transportation equipment, nonmetallic mineral, petroleum and coal, and plastic and rubber product plants. The industries in which 

the most assessments were performed were: 

● 73 steam and 26 process heating assessments in chemical manufacturing plants, 

● 59 steam assessments in paper manufacturing plants, 

● 59 steam assessments in food processing plants, 

● 55 process heating assessments in primary metals plants, 

● 28 compressed air and 24 steam assessments in transportation equipment plants, and 

● 35 process heating assessments in non-metallic mineral product plants. 

Figures 3 and 4 provide a broad comparison of results of the 2006 through 2008 assessments. The 

potential $284 million of annual energy cost savings and 43.3 TBtu of annual source-energy savings 

identified and recommended in the 2008 assessments were substantial. In general, however, the 

recommended cost and energy savings from the 2008 assessments were less than from the 2006 

assessments. The total recommended cost savings from the 239 assessments from 2008 were about 

55% of those from the 200 assessments from 2006; recommended source-energy savings from the 

2008 assessments were about 75% of those from the 2006 assessments. 

A major difference between the 2006, 2007, and 2008 assessments was the addition of pumping, 

compressed air, and fan assessments in 2007 and 2008. The potential annual cost savings identified 

by the 2008 assessments of 106 pumping, compressed air, and fan systems (where there is available 

data), is about $48.5 million (see Figure 3), much less than $195.4 million potential annual cost 

savings identified by 125 steam and process heating assessments from 2008. Much of the difference 

between 2006 and 2007-2008 assessment results is attributable to the greater identified savings 

opportunities in steam and process heating assessments than in pumping, compressed air, and fan 

system assessments. 

In performing the Save Energy Now assessments, the Energy Experts used standard — or “pick-list” 

— wordings whenever possible to classify the identified opportunities. This was done so that the 

savings opportunity data could be analyzed using these pick-list categories. Tables 4 through 8 

present the opportunity pick-list categories for steam, process heating, pumping, compressed air, and 

fan system assessments. 

Tables 9 through 13 present detailed information on potential cost, energy, and CO2 emissions 

reductions for all available 2006 through 2008 assessment results. Figures 5 through 10 illustrate the 

potential cost savings that could result from the “Top 10” energy savings opportunities — ranked by 

total recommended cost savings — for steam, process heating, pumping, compressed air, fan, and 

multi-system paper plant assessments. For each of the assessment areas, the Top 10 opportunities 

capture the majority of the energy cost savings identified from assessments completed in 2006 

through 2008 (Table 1): 

Table 1. Identified energy cost savings captured by Top 10 opportunities 

System type assessed Annual potential savings 

captured in Top 10 

Percentage of total savings for 

system type 

Steam $514 84% 

Process heating $222 70% 

Pumping $16.2 99% 

Compressed air $18 93% 

Fan $40.7 100% 

Multi-system paper $40 100% 

5 
6 

The Energy Experts estimated high and low values of the capital costs for implementing each 

identified savings opportunity and used the higher values to estimate payback periods. Savings 

payback period (in years) is defined as (cost to implement opportunity)/ (yearly savings for the 

opportunity). Most industrial plants will not consider implementing savings opportunities that have 

payback periods longer than two years. 

Estimated payback results for the 2006 through 2008 Save Energy Now assessments are summarized 

in Table 14 and Figures 11 and 12. Some of the key results shown in the table and figures are 

summarized below: 

● A total of 3,823 energy saving opportunities were identified for the 680 assessments, an 

average of 5.6 opportunities per assessment. 

● When all results are averaged, almost 70% of all identified opportunities have estimated 

paybacks of 2 years or less. 

● The estimated paybacks of about 70% of the identified steam, process heating, and 

compressed air opportunities had estimated paybacks of 2 years or less. 

● The data for pumping and fan assessments is slightly different — about 40% to 50% of the 

identified opportunities had estimated paybacks of 2 years or less. 

The available data can be analyzed to determine average percentages of plant energy cost and sourceenergy use represented by each pick-list category. Tables 15 through 19 present this data. Figures 13 

through 18 show the “Top 10” identified opportunities for each assessment area, based on estimated 

average plant source-energy savings. The following are the key results presented in these tables and 

figures. It should be noted that this data is based on plant source-energy use, which in many cases is 

largely for fired systems at these large plants. 

● The data for steam and process heating assessments show that many of the identified 

opportunities could save more than 1.5% of plant source-energy use. 

● A number of the compressed air and fan opportunities could also save 1% or more of plant 

source-energy use. 

● Potential source-energy-use savings for individual opportunities identified in pump system 

assessments are somewhat lower than for the other systems. Savings opportunities, however, 

are still substantial, in the range of 0.2% of plant source-energy use. 

4. REFERENCES 

Wright, Anthony, Michaela Martin, Sachin Nimbalkar, James Quinn, Sandy Glatt, and Bill Orthwein, 

2010. Results from the U.S. DOE 2008 Save Energy Now Assessment Initiative: Summary and 

Lessons Learned. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2010/145. 

Wright, Anthony, Michaela Martin, Sachin Nimbalkar, James Quinn, Sandy Glatt, and Bill Orthwein, 

2009. Results from the U.S. DOE 2007 Save Energy Now Assessment Initiative: Summary and 

Lessons Learned. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2009/075. 

Wright, Anthony, Michaela Martin, Bob Gemmer, Paul Scheihing, and James Quinn, 2007. Results 

from the U.S. DOE 2006 Save Energy Now Assessment Initiative. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

ORNL/TM-2007/138. 
>25 

20-25 

15-20 10-15 

5-10 

2-5 1-2 

Figure 1. More than 25 Save Energy Now assessments were completed in Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illin

Pennsylvania and Georgia, respectively, in 2006, 2007 and 2008. (Based on 718 completed assessments (200 assessme

in year 2007 and 260 in year 2008). As of July 1, 2009, summary reports are available for 680 assessments.

7 
Figure 2. Of the 680 Save Energy Now assessments completed in 2006, 2007, and 2008, 535 were 

completed in the chemical, paper, food, primary metals, transportation equipment, and nonmetallic mineral industries.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

325 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING

322 PAPER MANUFACTURING

311 FOOD

331 PRIMARY METALS

336 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

327 NON-METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS

324 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS

326 PLASTICS AND RUBBER PRODUCTS

332 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS

212 MINING

334 COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

333 MACHINERY MANUFACTURING

321 WOOD PRODUCTS

339 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING

314 TEXTILE PRODUCT MILLS

323 PRINTING AND RELATED SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

OTHER

313 TEXTILE MILLS

335 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, ...

312 BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS

315 APPAREL MANUFACTURING

337 FURNITURE AND RELATED

541 PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC & TECH. SERVICES

NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS 

YEAR 2006 - 2008 (680 SENA's)

INDUSTRY TYPE (NAIC)

8 
9 

$368

$110

$133 $151

$107

$62

$13

$

$10 $6 

$0

$50

$100$150$200$250$300$350$400

2006 2007 2

YEAR 

SPrFCPu

(86)(114) (56)(89) (15) (35) (46) (74) (51) 

(No. of SENAs 

completed with 

summary reports)

RECOMMENDED ENERGY COST SAVINGS (Million $

Figure 3. The total recommended energy cost savings from 241 Save Energy Now assessments (SENAs) completed in 2year, and $284 million per year for the 239 assessments completed in 2008. These are about 47% and 55% of the recofrom the 2006 assessments. 
10 

Figure 4. The total recommended source-energy savings from the 241 Save Energy Now assessments (SENAs) complet

per year, and from the 239 assessments completed in 2008 was 43.3 TBtu per year. These are about 60% and 75% of energy savings from the 2006 assessments respectively. 

36

16

22 21

15

8

2

5

1 1 

05

10152025303540

2006 2007 200

YEAR 

(114) (86) (89) (56) (15) (46) (35) (74) (51) (1

(No. of SENAs completed 

with summary reports)

RECOMMENDED SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (TBtu/Y
TOP “10” STEAM OPPORTUNITIES 

$0 $50 $100 $150

1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam 

Requirements

1.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel

1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency

1.7 - Add or Modify Operation of Backpressure Steam Turbine

1.8 - Add or Modify Operation of Condensing Steam Turbine

1.11 - Change Condensate Recovery Rates

1.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program

1.16 - Improve Insulation

1.10 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using 

Boiler Blowdown

1.4 - Change Boiler Blowdown Rate

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

Figure 5. Opportunities in the top 10 steam categories for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Save Energy 

Now assessments could result in plant energy savings of $514 million per year. 

11 
TOP “10” PROCESS HEATING OPPORTUNITIES 

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50

3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air 

preheating

1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases

3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources

3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from 

higher temp. process

1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion 

1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and 

uneconomical methods

4.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure 

or parts

3.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue gas

3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam 

generation or absorption cooling 

5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding 

delays

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

Figure 6. Opportunities in the top 10 process heating categories for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Save 

Energy Now assessments could result in plant energy savings of $222 million per year. 

 

12 
TOP “10” PUMP OPPORTUNITIES 

$0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0

1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time

1.9 - Other

1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application

1.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time

1.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements

1.3 - Excessive recirculation

1.8 - Degraded equipment performance

1.12 - Change time of use

1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design

1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

Figure 7. Opportunities in the top 10 pumping categories for the 2007 and 2008 Save Energy Now 

assessments could result in plant energy savings of $16.2 million per year. 

13 
TOP “10” COMPRESSED AIR OPPORTUNITIES 

$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0

1.2 - Improve End Use Efficiency

1.1 - Reduce Air Leaks

1.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install / improve)

1.3 - Reduce System Air Pressure

4.1 - Other

3.8 - Open Blowing

1.4 - Improve Trim Compressor Part Load Efficiency

1.7 - Reduce Run Time

3.12 - Sparging

1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points 

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

Figure 8. Opportunities identified in the top 10 compressed air categories for the 2007 and 2008 

Save Energy Now assessments could result in $18 million per year of plant energy savings. 

 

14 
TOP “10” FAN OPPORTUNITIES 

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0

1.14 - Other

1.16 - Recover heat from stack

1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive

1.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan 

1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans

1.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller

1.15 - Recover heat from exhaust air

1.2 - Change belt drive ratio

1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake

1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge 

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

Figure 9. Opportunities identified in the top 10 fan categories for the 2007 and 2008 Save Energy 

Now assessments could result in $41 million per year of plant energy savings. 

15 
16 

TOP “10” MULTI-SYSTEM PAPAR OPPORTUNITIES 

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

1.1 - Change operating parameters

1.5 - Recover heat

1.12 - Develop a water system balance

1.2 - Improve paper machine performance

1.7 - Inspect/test papermaking equipment

1.6 - Repair papermaking equipment

1.8 - Install more energy-efficient equipment

1.9 - Install more energy-efficient paper machine clothing

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

Figure 10. Opportunities identified in the top 10 multi-system paper categories for the 2007 and 

2008 Save Energy Now assessments could result in $40 million per year of plant energy savings. 
PROCESS HEATING ASSESSMENTS

1%

10%

21%

33%

35%

ALL SYSTEM TYPES

1%

38%

32%

10%

19%

0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoff

STEAM ASSESSMENTS

1%

9%

39%

32%

19%

Figure 11. About 70% of all opportunities identified in 2006, 2007, and 2008 Save Energy Now assessments have esti

less than 2 years. 

17 
PUMP ASSESSMENTS

4%

23%

30%

25%

18%

COMPRESSED AIR ASSESSMENTS

1%

46%

34%

10%

9%

FAN ASSESSMENTS

0%

26%

31%

24%

19%

ALL SYSTEM TYPES

1%

38%

32%

10%

19%

0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoff

Figure 12. About 80% of the opportunities identified in compressed air assessments have estimated paybacks of less 40 to 50% of the opportunities identified in the pumping and fan assessments have estimated paybacks of less than 2 

18 
TOP “10” STEAM OPPORTUNITIES 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel

2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat 

exchangers

1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam 

Requirements

1.8 - Add or Modify Operation of Condensing Steam Turbine 

1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization

1.18 - Feedwater Heat Recovery - General

1.19 - Deaerator Heat Recovery - General

1.7 - Add or Modify Operation of Backpressure Steam Turbine

1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency

1.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

Figure 13. Each of the individual identified steam opportunities in eight categories, if implemented, could 

typically save industrial plants at least 1% of their total source-energy use. 

 

19 
TOP “10” PROCESS HEATING OPPORTUNITIES 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source

3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam 

generation or absorption cooling 

1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient 

methods with efficient system

3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources

1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion 

3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air 

preheating

5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the 

process safety requirements

5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, 

waits, cooling between operations etc.

2.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven

3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from 

higher temp. process

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

Figure 14. Many of the individual identified process heating opportunities, if implemented, could typically 

save industrial plants at least 2% of their total source-energy use. 

20 
TOP “10” COMPRESSED AIR OPPORTUNITIES 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

3.1 - Aspirating

1.4 - Improve Trim Compressor Part Load Efficiency

3.3 - Cabinet Cooling

3.4 - Condensate Drain

3.8 - Open Blowing

1.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install / improve)

1.1 - Reduce Air Leaks

1.7 - Reduce Run Time

4.1 - Other

1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points 

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

Figure 15. Each of the individual identified compressed air opportunities in six categories, if implemented, 

could typically save industrial plants at least 0.6% of their total source-energy use. 

 

21 
TOP “10” PUMP OPPORTUNITIES 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

1.9 - Other

1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design

1.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time

1.3 - Excessive recirculation

1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time

1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements

1.8 - Degraded equipment performance

1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application

1.5 - More flow than required to meet system 

requirements

1.4 - Unneeded flow path

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

Figure 16. Each of the individual identified pumping opportunities in six categories, if implemented, could 

typically save industrial plants at least 0.2% of their total source-energy use. 

 

22 
TOP “10” FAN OPPORTUNITIES 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

1.15 - Recover heat from exhaust air

1.16 - Recover heat from stack

1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans

1.14 - Other

1.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan 

1.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller

1.2 - Change belt drive ratio

1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box

1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive

1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

4.0

Figure 17. Each of the individual identified fan opportunities in six categories, if implemented, could 

typically save industrial plants at least 0.5% of their total source-energy use. 

23 
24 

TOP “10” MULTI-SYSTEM PAPER OPPORTUNITIES 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

1.12 - Develop a water system balance

1.5 - Recover heat

1.6 - Repair papermaking equipment

1.1 - Change operating parameters

1.7 - Inspect/test papermaking equipment

1.8 - Install more energy-efficient equipment

1.9 - Install more energy-efficient paper machine 

clothing

1.2 - Improve paper machine performance

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

Figure 18. Each of the individual identified multi-system paper opportunities in six categories, if 

implemented, could typically save industrial plants at least 0.3% of their total source-energy use. 
Table 2. Total number of 2006, 2007, and 2008 assessments conducted per state 

State Compressed 

Air Fans Process Heating Pumps Steam Multi-System Paper Grand Total 

TX 6 3 23 9 28 69 

WI 3 4 8 11 32 2 60 

MI 17 1 6 4 17 45 

GA 6 2 11 1 12 1 33 

IN 10 1 11 1 10 33 

TN 6 1 12 4 7 1 31 

OH 8 1 12 4 5 30 

PA 2 1 14 4 7 28 

IL 5 2 5 3 12 27 

AL 2 1 7 2 9 1 22 

LA 4 16 1 21 

MN 2 4 7 1 7 21 

CA 3 1 5 2 8 19 

KY 6 1 7 4 18 

NY 1 5 2 8 16 

AR 1 3 1 8 13 

VA 1 2 3 1 5 12 

MO 2 2 1 7 12 

MA 2 5 4 11 

OR 1 4 6 11 

OK 3 3 1 4 11 

MS 1 4 2 4 11 

WA 1 3 1 5 10 

NJ 1 3 6 10 

NC 1 3 1 2 1 8 

WV 1 4 3 8 

UT 1 4 1 2 8 

SC 3 2 2 1 8 

ME 1 6 1 8 

KS 2 2 1 3 8 

IA 2 4 1 7 

AZ 3 1 1 2 7 

FL 1 2 3 6 

CT 2 1 3 6 

ID 1 4 5 

NE 2 2 4 

DE 1 3 4 

PR 1 1 1 1 4 

WY 2 1 3 

MD 3 3 

RI 2 2 

CO 1 1 2 

NV 1 1 2 

ND 1 1 

SD 1 1 

NM 1 1 

Grand 

Total 106 32 193 64 277 8 680 

25 
Table 3. Number of Save Energy Now assessments completed in 

20 major U.S. industry sectors in 2006, 2007, and 2008 

Industry Sector Compressed Air Fans Process Heating Pumps Steam 

325 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING 8 2 26 7 73 322 PAPER MANUFACTURING 4 5 10 15 59 311 FOOD 16 1 13 5 59 331 PRIMARY METALS 8 5 55 11 8 336 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 28 2 10 6 24 327 NON-METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS 17 7 35 9 324 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS 3 10 1 13 326 PLASTICS AND RUBBER PRODUCTS 7 2 1 10 332 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS 1 1 11 2 4 212 MINING 1 3 5 2 2 334 COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 2 2 2 1 4 333 MACHINERY MANUFACTURING 2 1 4 3 321 WOOD PRODUCTS 1 1 4 1 339 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING 2 1 1 3 314 TEXTILE PRODUCT MILLS 6 323 PRINTING AND RELATED SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 4 1 1 OTHER 1 1 1 2 313 TEXTILE MILLS 1 1 2 335 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, COMPONENTS 1 2 1 312 BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS 1 1 315 APPAREL MANUFACTURING 1 337 FURNITURE AND RELATED 1 541 PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL SERVICES 1 

Grand Total 106 32 193 64 277 

26 
Table 4. The steam system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessment and da

Steam assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description 

1.1 - Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam requirements 

Eliminating or optimizing the operation of steam-using process equipment generation rates which in turn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumptio

1.2 - Use an alternate fuel When switching from a fuel with a lower theoretical combustion efficiency 

with a higher efficiency (e.g. fuel oil with a lower hydrogen content), a loweconsumption rate results. Switching to a less costly fuel (on an energy bascosts. 

1.3 - Change boiler efficiency Energy is saved if boiler efficiency is improved since boiler losses are red

energy) is needed to achieve a desired steam production rate. 

1.4 - Change boiler blowdown rate Boiler blowdown constitutes a pressurized, hot water loss from a boiler (e

improved boiler water treatment) which allow a reduction in this loss impro

1.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam Blowdown water (superheated liquid) flashes to steam when pressure is lo

Flash steam directed to a low pressure header reduces needed boiler steaturn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) use rate. 

1.6 - Change steam generation conditions For boilers producing superheated steam, reducing output temperature (e

superheater) will reduce boiler fuel (and energy) use. For boilers producinsteam quality (decreasing wetness) improves downstream process 

1.7 - Add or modify operation of backpressure steam turbine 

If a backpressure turbine is taken out-of-service, steam usage, boiler load consumption rate are reduced. If a new backpressure turbine is added to pressure reducing valves, steam flows through pressure reducing valves wsteam usage will increase. This action will reduce total energy costs if the the turbine drive) are greater than the increased boiler fuel consumption ra

1.8 - Add or modify operation of condensing steam turbine (high pressure to condensing) 

If the isentropic efficiency of a utilized condensing turbine is improved (e.g

steam flow is required to drive the turbine load. This in turn reduces boiler consumption rates. If a condensing turbine is taken out-of-service, steam 

decreases and boiler fuel (and energy) consumption is lowered. 

1.9 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using condensate tank vent 

The main condensate receiver is typically vented to atmosphere when flasreduced receiver pressure. Flash steam passed through a heat exchangefeedwater heating. The addition of hotter water to the feedwater system reenergy) consumption rate. 

1.10 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using boiler blowdown 

When superheated blowdown water undergoes a pressure reduction after water flashes to steam and a hot water fraction remains. This hot water m

exchanger to heat feedwater or process fluids thereby reducing steam use 

27 
Table 4 (continued)

Steam assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description 

1.11 - Change condensate recovery rates If the amount of formed condensate returned to the boiler is increased, ho

boiler feedwater system, lowering feedwater heating requirements and fee

needs. 

1.12 - Modify the medium pressure condensate flash system 

When the pressure of condensate formed in a high-pressure system is red

When this steam is supplied to the medium-pressure steam header, an amsteam is displaced and boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rate

1.13 - Modify low pressure condensate flash system When the pressure of condensate formed at a given pressure is reduced f

steam is supplied to the low-pressure steam header, an amount of boiler-and boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced. 

1.14 - Implement steam trap maintenance program An improved steam trap maintenance program results in a reduced numb

leaking steam mode. If trap steam leaks are reduced, less steam energy i

system and boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduc

1.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program An improved steam leak maintenance program reduces the number of ste

steam must be generated in the boiler to satisfy process loads and boiler consumption rates are reduced. 

1.16 - Improve insulation Improving insulation quality (e.g. replacing ineffective wet insulation or inc

and insulating uninsulated components will reduce energy loss from hot s

1.17 – Other Miscellaneous projects may minimize or eliminate the need for boiler-gene

save energy by reducing the use of process energy or by improving the ef

energy to process heating (e.g. steam) energy. 

1.18 - Feedwater heat recovery - general Available process waste heat other than condensate tank vent energy or l

used in a heat exchanger to heat boiler feedwater. Hotter water fed back isystem lowers feedwater heating requirements. 

1.19 - Deaerator heat recovery - general Boiler water deaerators are often vented to atmosphere. The installation o

recover heat for feedwater or process heating. This heating reduces need

1.20 - Multiple boiler optimization Optimization of overall steam generation efficiency in multi-boiler systems 

individual boiler loads to maximize their efficiencies and minimize total bototal steam production requirements. 

1.21 - Reduce or recover vented steam Steam is vented from steam headers when steam supplied by backpressu

downstream process needs. Steam is also vented from some plant procesIf steam venting is reduced or vented steam is recovered (for process hea

fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced. 

28 
Table 5. The process heating system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments a

Process Heating assessment "pick-list" savings 

projects Description 

1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases Reduced oxygen reflects a reduction in excess air entering the heating eq

available heat, and consequently, the efficiency. Excess air can be lowereratios, closing off air leaks into the equipment or maintaining a slightly posexclude outside air. 

1.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO, H2, CH4, soot in the exhaust gases) 

Unburned hydrocarbons represent unburned or partially-burned fuel. They improving the thoroughness of air-fuel mixing in burners or avoiding operainsufficient excess air. 

1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and uneconomical methods with economical/efficient system 

Some heating equipment is either obsolete or poorly matched to the need

with modern equipment which takes the unique needs of the process into 

1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source In certain situations, fuels like by-product gases may be available at lower 

Waste energy from other nearby operations might be able to be used in thconsideration. 

1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion Using oxygen to enrich or replace combustion air lowers the weight flow o

gases, increasing available heat and efficiency. Flame temperatures will a

enhance radiation heat transfer to the furnace and its load. 

1.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion If this air contains sufficient oxygen (usually 18% or more) and is at elevat

used as a combustion air source. Its heat content will raise the available hprocess. 

1.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air In a closed building with space heating in use, drawing combustion air fro

it through the stack wastes the energy that air contains. Heated replacemeDrawing combustion air from outdoors bypasses the building heating syst

2.1 – Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven The work load must be exposed as effectively as possible to the source o

This will entail steps like changing loading patterns, increasing burner or hrelocating heat sources so they "see" more of the furnace load. 

2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes, electrical heating elements 

Buildups of scale, soot and dirt reduce the thermal conductivity of tubes, hexchangers. Heat turned back by these deposits short-circuits out the exhslowing the process and lowering efficiency. 

29 
Table 5 (continued)

Process Heating assessment "pick-list" savings 

projects Description 

3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 

This is one of the most effective ways to recycle waste heat. Incoming amthrough a heat exchanger and preheated with energy extracted from the oEvery unit of energy transferred to the air is one less that must be provide

3.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue or exhaust gas or other source of waste heat 

Instead of exhausting flue gases from the process at high temperatures, tcold charge materials. This raises the load partway to its processing temp

amount of energy need to support the process. 

3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or exhaust gas heat from higher temp. process to supply heat to lower temperature processes 

Waste gases from one process can be used to heat a lower temperature p

3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources (i.e. from walls) from a furnace - oven 

Products are often removed from ovens or furnaces at elevated temperatu

the open air. Cooling them with forced air in an enclosure will heat the air, 

heating another process. 

3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling 

Heated exhaust gases can be routed through waste heat boilers, hot watechillers to perform a variety of heating or cooling roles. 

4.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure or parts 

Maintain furnace and oven insulation to avoid localized losses through the Consider increasing the thickness or efficiency of the existing insulation to 

4.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling Some furnaces contain components protected from overheating with cool

excessive amounts of cooling media aren't used. 

4.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace 

Openings allow radiant energy to escape and ambient air to leak in. As mopenings and leaks. As an added measure, maintain the furnace or oven pressure to prevent in-leakage. 

5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits, cooling between operations etc. 

Heating equipment efficiency is highest at 100% of design capacity. Unde

equipment will consume more energy per unit of production. 

5.2 – Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc. If fixtures, baskets and conveyors leave the heating process at higher tem

they contribute to wasted heat. Lowering their mass causes a correspond

energy they extract from the process. 

5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the process safety requirements 

Ovens handling flammable solvents or vapors must have sufficient fresh acombustible materials well below their lower flammable limit. Any ventilatiorequired amount wastes energy. 

5.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots where possible 

Flame curtains and door pilots insure burnoff of flammable prepared atmo

furnace doors and out vents. If the process atmosphere has been change

these ignition sources are no longer necessary. 

30 
Table 6. The pump system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and d

Pump assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description 

1.1 – Excessive valve friction loss part of the time Throttled valve losses incurred periodically when system flow requi

reduced. 

1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design Can be caused by unnecessary flow paths, excessive numbers of f

geometry, etc. 

1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements Often the result of excessive conservatism during the design phase 

change in process conditions/system function after the original desimplemented. 

1.12 - Change time of use Systems that are not required to operate continuously may be oper

of day when the cost of electricity is lower. 

1.2 – Excessive valve friction loss all of the time Often occurs when system capacity exceeds the current operating 

undersized motor has been used. 

1.3 – Excessive recirculation Use of recirculation as a method of flow control rather than turning 

throttling flow. 

1.4 – Unneeded flow path Flow supplied to non-operating equipment to avoid changing valve 1.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements System oversized, either by having a pump that is too large or oper

parallel pumps necessarily. Usually used with multiple parallel pum

oversized pump. 

1.6 - Suction-related problems Inadequate suction head, poor suction geometry, or obstructions. 1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application Installed pump is the wrong size or type for current operating requir1.8 – Degraded equipment performance 

Equipment wear/degradation (impeller damage, erosion, corrosion, 

that prevents operation at design conditions. 

31 
Table 7. The compressed air system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments a

Compressed Air assessment "pick-list" 

savings projects Description 

1.1 - Reduce air leaks Eliminate compressed air waste to leakage. 1.10 - Improve compressor intake condition Conditions that increase air density at the compressor intake will increase the delivered 

power (kw / 100 scfm). This measure includes reducing pressure loss at the compresso

1.11 - Heat recovery As much as 85% of the input energy to an air compressor is rejected as heat that can p

used to offset another energy use. To the extent that the alternate energy use is reduceis possible. 

1.2 - Improve end use efficiency The measure can cover a wide range of end use improvements that reduce or eliminate 

See also items 3.1 through 3.9 which further classify the type of end use that is being im

1.3 - Reduce system air pressure Reducing system air pressure provides two potential benefits. The energy of positive di

reduced at lower working pressure. Also at reduced pressure unregulated air demands compressed air. See also items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 for individual pressure reduction of sup

1.4 - Improve trim compressor part load efficiency 

Various compressor capacity control methods provide different power reduction charactChanging the control method of a single trim compressor can improve generation efficie(kw / 100 scfm). 

1.5 - Adjust cascading set points Adjusting cascade set point can improve system efficiency by eliminating the part load o

compressors. 

1.6 - Multiple compressor control (install / improve) 

Multiple compressor control can improve system efficiency by eliminating part load opecompressors. The more sophisticated controls can also respond to changes in system aoptimum mix of various size compressors and compressor control types to improve ove

1.7 - Reduce run time Reduce run time can result from system changes reducing air demand to a point that a 

shut off during certain periods of time. 

1.8 - Add primary receiver volume Primary storage installed for the purpose of reducing load / unload cycle rate of lubrican

compressors. Longer unload time can reduce energy use by reducing part load power c

1.9 - Optimize air treatment Optimizing air treatment can reduce energy use by two means. First by reducing irrecov

treatment equipment, system pressure might be reduced with the associated energy sa

presently being treated to a greater level of contaminate removal than necessary, reductreatment can reduce system energy use. For example changing from regenerative styldryers. 

2.1 - Stabilize control pressure signal Control pressure variations caused by system dynamics are corrected to provide a stab

compressor efficiency. 

2.2 - Reduce supply side pressure Reducing supply side operating pressure and the resulting lower compressor discharge 

power consumption of positive displacement compressors. 

2.3 - Install flow pressure control Install a flow / pressure control to optimize compressed air storage and / or eliminate ar

maintaining a recoverable pressure differential storage of compressed air energy can bthat artificial demand is reduced, or stored energy prevents the start-up of an air compre

demand, system energy reduction is possible. 

2.4 - Reduce demand side pressure Reducing demand side pressure to eliminate artificial demand. All unregulated air dema

less compressed air at reduced demand side operating pressure. 

32 
Table 7 (continued) 

Compressed Air assessment "pick-list" 

savings projects Description 

2.5 - Install primary storage for peak air demand 

Primary Storage to address peak air demand or permissive start-up event loads. Peak acompressor to operate, where-as application of storage may allow the compressor to be 

2.6 - Install secondary storage Application of Secondary Storage may allow savings through reduced system pressure

control, or other energy reduction measures made possible through the used of Second

2.7 - Reduce distribution piping pressure gradient 

Excessive piping resistance in distribution piping can lead to irrecoverable pressure lossdecay during peak airflow events. Eliminating piping pressure gradient can allow reduceassociated energy savings. 

2.8 - Reduce component pressure drop Pressure loss through a discrete component or group of components i.e. "filter pressure 

through treatment", etc. 

2.9 - Resolve high pressure demand Perceived high pressure demands are modified or corrected to operate at normal worki

pressure demands are served by other means. The resultant system pressure reduction 

3.1 – Aspirating Using compressed air to introduce the flow of another gas (such as flue gas). As an alte

fan or blower can provide a net energy reduction. 

3.10 – Padding Using compressed air to transport liquids and light solids. By pumping or using a low pr

source, a net energy reduction is possible. 

3.11 - Personal cooling Comfort cooling with air, replacing compressed air use with a fan or air conditioner can 3.12 – Sparging Aerating, agitation, oxygenating, or percolating liquid with compressed air. Alternatives 

agitation, or a low pressure blower as the energy source. Alternatives can provide a net 

3.13 - Vacuum generation Using air with venturi effect to create vacuum can be replaced by an electrically driven v

reduction. 

3.2 – Atomizing Delivering a liquid as an aerosol using compressed air may alternatively be accomplish

pump and suitable spray nozzle. Alternatives can provide net energy reduction. 

3.3 - Cabinet cooling Cooling of electrical panels with open tubes that expand compressed air to create a coo

be accomplished with ventilation fans, heat tubes, or small mechanical refrigeration unit

3.4 - Condensate drain Open blowing drain, failed automatic drain, solenoid timer drain will waste compressed 

actions and / or replacement with zero air loss style condensate drains can reduce was

3.5 - Dense phase transport Compressed air is used to transport solids in a batch format. Alternatives such as mech

material handling methods can reduce energy use. 

3.6 - Diaphragm pumps Diaphragm pumps are commonly found installed without regulators and speed control v

the pump air demand can be reduced. Alternatives may also include electrically driven 

3.7 - Dilute phase transport Dilute phase transporting solids such as powdery material in a diluted format using com

might include mechanical conveyors, or lower the use of lower pressure blowers or fans 

3.8 - Open blowing Compressed air blowing for cooling, drying, clean-up, etc. Alternatively a low pressure b

a simple a using a broom to sweep the floor can result in a net energy reduction. 

3.9 - Open hand held blow guns or lances Any unregulated hand held blowing is a variation of blowing described in item 3.8 with t

energy reduction. 

4.1 – Other 

33 
34 

Table 8. The fan system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and dat

Fan assessment "pick-list" savings 

projects Description 

1.1 - Use variable speed drive Fans normally are driven by constant-speed motors. When the process load varies, the 

drive varies the speed of the motor to change the capacity of the fan in order to match tadjustable speed, variable frequency, or adjustable frequency drives. 

1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box If a 90 degree turn at the fan inlet is unavoidable, then a factory-designed inlet box is th

those losses. 

1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake Sharp-edged intakes can have significantly higher losses than flared or bell-mouth entra1.12 - Replace motor Newer motors are usually more efficient than the older motors found in some plants. 1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans If more fans are operating than the process needs, some fans can be shut off 1.14 – Other Sometimes it is possible to do other things to improve the fans than the items on this lis1.15 – Recover heat from exhaust air If fan is handling hot exhaust air, it may be possible to recover heat (or cooling) from the 1.16 – Recover heat from stack If the fan is handling hot boiler exhaust gasses it may be possible to recover some of th1.17 - Reconfigure pollution control equipment 

Sometimes older pollution control equipment my have a very high pressure drop or may by today’s best practices 

1.2 - Change belt drive ratio When fans that are oversized are belt-driven, the fan capacity can be de-rated to match 

changing the pulley ratio to slow the fan down. 

1.3 - De-tip fan blades When fans that are oversized are direct-driven, the fan capacity can be de-rated to mat

carefully taking a little bit off the end of each blade on the impeller wheel. 

1.4 - Convert to belt drive When fans that are oversized are direct-driven, sometimes they can be converted to a b

the capacity to match process needs. 

1.5 - Use high-efficiency belt drive Older style V-Belts can be upgraded to newer, more efficient belts made with modern m1.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller Sometimes the impeller can be changed out to a more efficient configuration, or a differ

improve performance 

1.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan If the fan is the wrong type, performing poorly, or is too big or too small, then sometimes 

option. 

1.8 - Replace outlet damper with variable inlet vanes 

Outlet Dampers are the least efficient means of controlling the fans. Variable inlet vanes losses, although they too should be applied very carefully, and should not be used less 

1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge 

Poor ductwork arrangements such as abrupt turns or abrupt changes in size immediate

of the fan can adversely performance. 
Table 9. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from identified steam opportunities 

Year 2006 - 08 Steam Savings Opportunity Recommendations Cost savings ($/year) Source energy savings (MMBtu/year) Natural gas savings (MMBtu/year) CO2 sa

(metric 

CO2/y

1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements $136,369,000 23,393,000 12,191,000 1,71.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel $122,198,000 5,908,000 23,105,000 91.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency $69,516,000 9,655,000 6,513,000 61.7 - Add or Modify Operation of Backpressure Steam Turbine $55,550,000 7,793,000 -1,155,000 31.17 - Other and 6.2 - Other - Misc. $51,260,000 5,975,000 1,005,000 21.8 - Add or Modify Operation of Condensing Steam Turbine $32,350,000 3,149,000 5,691,000 21.11 - Change Condensate Recovery Rates $32,185,000 3,568,000 2,725,000 21.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program $24,066,000 3,232,000 2,768,000 21.16 - Improve Insulation $18,560,000 2,456,000 1,805,000 11.10 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Boiler Blowdown $11,884,000 1,693,000 1,452,000 1.4 - Change Boiler Blowdown Rate $11,245,000 1,263,000 1,032,000 1.21 - Reduce or Recover Vented Steam $9,132,000 1,338,000 858,000 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization $8,209,000 199,000 614,000 1.18 - Feedwater Heat Recovery - General $8,051,000 1,191,000 1,145,000 1.15 - Implement Steam Leak Maintenance Program $7,871,000 1,580,000 755,000 1.13 - Modify Low Pressure Condensate Flash System $3,986,000 532,000 550,000 1.12 - Modify the Medium Pressure Condensate Flash System $2,002,000 225,000 225,000 1.5 - Install Blowdown Flash to Low Pressure Steam $1,913,000 415,000 245,000 1.6 - Change Steam Generation Conditions $1,419,000 260,000 24,000 1.19 - Deaerator Heat Recovery - General $1,021,000 138,000 90,000 1.9 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Condensate Tank Vent $684,000 77,000 82,000 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating $302,000 38,000 27,000 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes, electrical heating elements $233,000 32,000 32,000 3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation $230,000 24,000 24,000 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases $202,000 28,000 28,000 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits, cooling between operations etc. $74,000 0 0 

Grand Total $610,511,000 74,163,000 61,831,000 5,3

35 
Table 10. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from 

identified process heating opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2006 - 08 Process Heating Savings Opportunity 

Recommendations 

Cost savings 

($/year) 

Source energy 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Natural gas 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

CO2 sa

(metric 

CO2/y

3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating $44,808,000 5,871,000 5,495,000 36.2 - Other - Misc. $36,426,000 4,428,000 3,677,000 21.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases $28,963,000 4,114,000 3,092,000 23.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources $24,382,000 3,633,000 1,869,000 23.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from higher temp. process to supply heat to lower temperature processes $23,214,000 3,223,000 1,843,000 11.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion $21,315,000 3,153,000 2,588,000 11.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and uneconomical methods with economical/efficient system $19,821,000 2,352,000 2,163,000 14.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure/parts $18,677,000 2,778,000 2,039,000 13.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue or exhaust gas $15,874,000 1,966,000 1,876,000 13.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation $12,658,000 2,075,000 531,000 15.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays $12,330,000 1,331,000 1,298,000 4.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace $11,040,000 1,463,000 1,298,000 1.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion $8,104,000 845,000 845,000 6.1 - Other - Measures not directly related to process heating $7,814,000 966,000 -268,500 1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source $7,438,000 2,457,000 1,038,000 14.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling $6,671,000 592,000 536,000 1.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO, H2, CH4, soot in the exhaust gases) $6,593,000 831,000 831,000 2.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven $5,428,000 713,000 380,000 5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the process safety requirements $2,705,000 303,000 318,000 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes, electrical heating elements $2,224,000 288,000 209,000 1.16 - Improve Insulation $1,920,000 237,000 223,000 1.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air $544,000 54,000 54,000 5.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots $181,000 25,000 25,000 1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency $176,000 18,000 18,000 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements $81,000 8,000 8,000 5.2 - Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc. $72,000 7,000 7,000 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization $12,000 2,000 2,000 

Grand Total $319,469,000 43,733,000 31,994,000 2,5

36 
Table 11. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from 

identified pumping opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2007 - 08 Pump Savings Opportunity 

Recommendations 

Cost savings 

($/year) 

Source energy 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Electricity 

savings 

(MWh/year) 

CO2 savin

(metric to

CO2/year

1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time $4,481,000 938,000 275000 51.9 - Other $4,127,000 761,000 223000 41.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application $2,359,000 426,000 125000 21.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time $1,697,000 304,000 89000 11.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements $1,298,000 224,000 66000 11.3 - Excessive recirculation $1,016,000 175,000 51000 11.8 - Degraded equipment performance $448,000 68,000 20000 1.12 - Change time of use $334,000 46,000 13000 1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design $206,000 34,000 10000 1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements $200,000 30,000 9000 1.4 - Unneeded flow path $178,000 27,000 8000 1.6 - Suction-related problems $15,000 2,000 1000 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive $10,000 2,000 1000 

Grand Total $16,368,000 3,038,000 890,000 17

37 
38 

Table 12. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from 

identified compressed air opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2007 - 08 Compressed Air Savings Opportunity 

Recommendations 

Cost savings 

($/year) 

Source energy 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Electricity 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

CO2 savin

(metric to

CO2/year

1.2 - Improve End Use Efficiency $4,469,000 551,000 161,000 31.1 - Reduce Air Leaks $3,763,000 714,000 209,000 41.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install / improve) $2,997,000 546,000 160,000 31.3 - Reduce System Air Pressure $1,656,000 294,000 86,000 14.1 - Other $1,582,000 287,000 84,000 13.8 - Open Blowing $1,355,000 233,000 68,000 11.4 - Improve Trim Compressor Part Load Efficiency $806,000 146,000 43,000 1.7 - Reduce Run Time $730,000 140,000 41,000 3.12 - Sparging $359,000 9,000 3,000 1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points $319,000 44,000 13,000 3.1 - Aspirating $194,000 35,000 10,000 1.9 - Optimize Air Treatment $189,000 23,000 7,000 3.6 - Diaphragm Pumps $164,000 31,000 9,000 2.2 - Reduce Supply Side Pressure $154,000 31,000 9,000 1.11 - Heat Recovery $143,000 26,000 8,000 1.10 - Improve Compressor Intake Condition $122,000 26,000 8,000 2.4 - Reduce Demand Side Pressure $78,000 19,000 6,000 2.3 - Install Flow Pressure Control $68,000 13,000 4,000 3.5 - Dense Phase Transport $62,000 12,000 4,000 3.4 - Condensate Drain $57,000 7,000 2,000 3.3 - Cabinet Cooling $37,000 7,000 2,000 1.8 - Add Primary Receiver Volume $33,000 6,000 2,000 2.7 - Reduce Distribution Piping Pressure Gradient $18,000 4,000 1,000 2.8 - Reduce Component Pressure Drop $10,000 2,000 1,000 2.6 - Install Secondary Storage $9,000 2,000 1,000 2.5 - Install Primary Storage for Peak Air Demand $9,000 1,000 0 3.13 - Vacuum Generation $7,000 1,000 0 3.7 - Dilute Phase Transport $4,000 800 0 3.9 - Open hand held blow guns or lances $3,000 300 0 

Grand Total $19,398,000 3,213,000 942,000 18
Table 13. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from 

identified fan opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2007 - 08 Fan Savings Opportunity 

Recommendations 

Cost savings 

($/year) 

Source energy 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Natural gas 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

CO2 savin

(metric to

CO2/year

1.14 - Other $18,034,000 3,044,000 892,000 81.16 - Recover heat from stack $8,000,000 1,320,000 387,000 71.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive $5,176,000 925,000 271,000 51.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan $4,172,000 670,000 196,000 31.13 - Shut off unneeded fans $2,124,000 326,000 96,000 11.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller $1,811,000 379,000 111,000 21.15 - Recover heat from exhaust air $931,000 151,000 44,000 1.2 - Change belt drive ratio $271,000 50,000 15,000 1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake $121,000 17,000 5,000 1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge $91,000 10,000 3,000 1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box $40,000 6,000 2,000 1.3 - De-tip fan blades $21,000 4,000 1,000 1.4 - Convert to belt drive $15,000 2,000 1,000 

Grand Total $40,805,000 6,903,000 2,023,000 30

39 
Table 14. Estimated payback periods for energy savings opportunities identified in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Save En

Payback category Number of identified opportunities Potential cost savings ($/year) Potential total source energy savings (MMBtu/year) Po

red

Payback data summary for all assessment completed in 2006 - 08 

0 - 9 months 1456 $363,595,000 55,394,000 

9 months - 2 years 1211 $340,858,000 40,071,000 

2 - 4 years 720 $221,865,000 24,301,000 

4+ years 395 $87,231,000 13,569,000 

spinoff 41 $31,467,000 3,000,000 Totals 3,823 $1,045,015,000 136,335,000 

Payback data summary for steam assessment completed in 2006 - 08 

0 - 9 months 736 $207,885,000 33,510,000 

9 months - 2 years 596 $195,153,000 20,276,000 

2 - 4 years 345 $143,433,000 12,016,000 

4+ years 166 $50,569,000 7,434,000 

spinoff 15 $12,318,000 907,000 Totals 1,858 $609,359,000 74,143,000 

Payback data summary for process heating assessment completed in 2006 - 08 

0 - 9 months 336 $100,949,000 13,823,000 

9 months - 2 years 316 $123,631,000 16,400,000 

2 - 4 years 202 $57,666,000 8,265,000 

4+ years 92 $19,443,000 3,205,000 

spinoff 10 $17,380,000 2,035,000 Totals 956 $319,069,000 43,728,000 

Payback data summary for fan assessment completed in 2007 - 08 

0 - 9 months 33 $2,794,000 441,000 

9 months - 2 years 42 $9,132,000 1,219,000 

2 - 4 years 55 $15,059,000 2,930,000 

4+ years 45 $13,820,000 2,313,000 

spinoff 0 $0 0 Totals 175 $40,805,000 6,903,000 

40 
Payback category Number of identified opportunities Potential cost savings ($/year) Potential total source energy savings (MMBtu/year) Po

red

Payback data summary for compressed air assessment completed in 2007 - 08 

0 - 9 months 224 $8,573,000 1,524,000 

9 months - 2 years 166 $6,604,000 1,150,000 

2 - 4 years 48 $1,837,000 370,000 

4+ years 44 $810,000 149,000 

spinoff 6 $1,573,000 20,000 Totals 488 $19,398,000 3,213,000 

Payback data summary for pump assessment completed in 2007 - 08 

0 - 9 months 62 $4,340,000 901,000 

9 months - 2 years 83 $5,398,000 911,000 

2 - 4 years 69 $3,845,000 718,000 

4+ years 48 $2,589,000 469,000 

spinoff 10 $196,000 38,000 Totals 272 $16,368,000 3,038,000 

41 
Table 15. Steam assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energ

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings opportunities Frequency Average energy co

savings (%) 

1.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel 42 15.2* 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers 1 2.6 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements 253 2.8 1.8 - Add or Modify Operation of Condensing Steam Turbine 27 2.9 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization 19 2.2 1.18 - Feedwater Heat Recovery - General 27 1.5 1.19 - Deaerator Heat Recovery - General 6 1.0 1.7 - Add or Modify Operation of Backpressure Steam Turbine 105 2.2 1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency 335 1.3 1.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program 133 0.8 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases 2 0.8 1.21 - Reduce or Recover Vented Steam 64 1.0 1.12 - Modify the Medium Pressure Condensate Flash System 8 1.3 1.13 - Modify Low Pressure Condensate Flash System 22 1.0 1.11 - Change Condensate Recovery Rates 123 0.9 1.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program 133 0.8 1.9 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Condensate Tank Vent 10 0.6 3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling 2 0.7 1.6 - Change Steam Generation Conditions 19 0.5 1.16 - Improve Insulation 197 0.6 1.10 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Boiler Blowdown 101 0.5 1.5 - Install Blowdown Flash to Low Pressure Steam 25 0.5 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 2 0.4 1.15 - Implement Steam Leak Maintenance Program 100 0.4 1.4 - Change Boiler Blowdown Rate 87 0.4 6.2 - Other - Misc. 1 0.2 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits, cooling between operations 1 0.4  * Includes energy savings from switching to an opportunity fuel. 

42 
Table 16. Process heating assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings opportunities Frequency Average energy cost savings (%) 

1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source 11 6.6* 3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling 20 6.0 1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient methods with efficient system 46 3.7 3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources 42 3.4 1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion 35 3.3 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 99 2.5 5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the process safety requirements 14 2.7 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits, etc. 36 3.1 2.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven 15 2.1 3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from higher temp. process 56 2.5 3.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue or exhaust gas or other source of waste heat 63 1.7 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases 164 1.3 4.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace 67 1.4 6.1 - Other - Measures not directly related to process heating 33 1.8 4.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure or parts 106 1.2 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes 9 0.8 1.16 - Improve Insulation 7 0.7 4.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling 10 1.5 1.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air 4 0.9 1.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion 16 1.1 1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency 8 0.8 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements 3 0.8 1.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO, H2, CH4, soot in the exhaust gases) 11 0.7 5.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots where possible 3 0.3 5.2 - Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc. 3 0.2 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization 1 0.01 6.2 - Other - Misc. 84 3.1  * Includes energy savings from switching to an opportunity fuel.

43 
Table 17. Compressed air assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings opportunities Frequency Average energy cost savings (%) Average 

sa

3.1 - Aspirating 1 1.3 1.4 - Improve Trim Compressor Part Load Efficiency 20 1.0 3.3 - Cabinet Cooling 3 0.6 3.4 - Condensate Drain 4 0.7 3.8 - Open Blowing 23 0.5 1.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install / improve) 59 0.5 1.1 - Reduce Air Leaks 92 0.5 1.7 - Reduce Run Time 24 0.5 4.1 - Other 34 0.5 1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points 10 0.4 1.11 - Heat Recovery 3 0.3 3.5 - Dense Phase Transport 1 0.6 3.6 - Diaphragm Pumps 8 0.3 1.2 - Improve End Use Efficiency 100 0.5 1.9 - Optimize Air Treatment 2 0.6 2.6 - Install Secondary Storage 1 0.3 1.3 - Reduce System Air Pressure 62 0.3 2.8 - Reduce Component Pressure Drop 2 0.2 2.4 - Reduce Demand Side Pressure 3 0.3 3.12 - Sparging 3 0.4 2.7 - Reduce Distribution Piping Pressure Gradient 2 0.2 2.3 - Install Flow Pressure Control 4 0.2 1.10 - Improve Compressor Intake Condition 9 0.1 1.8 - Add Primary Receiver Volume 5 0.2 2.2 - Reduce Supply Side Pressure 9 0.2 2.5 - Install Primary Storage for Peak Air Demand 1 0.1 3.13 - Vacuum Generation 1 0.05 3.7 - Dilute Phase Transport 1 0.04 3.9 - Open hand held blow guns or lances 1 0.02 

44 
Table 18. Pumping assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-ene

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings opportunities Frequency Average energy cost savings (%) Ave

1.9 - Other 36 0.4 1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design 3 0.3 1.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time 25 0.4 1.3 - Excessive recirculation 22 0.3 1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time 71 0.3 1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements 3 0.2 1.8 - Degraded equipment performance 12 0.2 1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application 53 0.2 1.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements 30 0.2 1.4 - Unneeded flow path 8 0.1 1.12 - Change time of use 6 0.2 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 2 0.1 1.6 - Suction-related problems 1 0.03 

45 
46 

Table 19. Fan assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energy 

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings opportunities Frequency Average energy cost savings (%) A

1.15 - Recover heat from exhaust air 1 5.5 1.16 - Recover heat from stack 1 2.2 1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans 13 1.1 1.14 - Other 23 2.4 1.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan 32 0.7 1.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller 14 0.5 1.2 - Change belt drive ratio 17 0.3 1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box 1 0.3 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 65 0.2 1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake 4 0.1 1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge 1 0.7 1.4 - Convert to belt drive 1 0.1 1.3 - De-tip fan blades 2 0.1