# ORNL/TM-2009/074



# RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2007 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

April 2009

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 general ly available free via t he 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 c ontractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange

(ETDE) representatives, and Inter national 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 Gove rnment. Neither the United States

Government nor any agency thereo f, 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 na me, trademark, manufacturer, or

otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by t he 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-2009/074

Energy and Transportation Science Division

RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2007 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

# iii CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ ....... iv

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ......... v

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ...... 1

2. OVERVIEW OF THE 2007 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...................... 2

2.1 A Unique Approach ......................................................................................................... .. 2

2.2 DOE ITP Decision Soft ware Tools Used in 2007 Save Energy Now Assessments .......... 3

2.2.1 Steam System Scoping Tool (SSST), Steam System Assessment Tool (SSAT)

and 3E-Plus.................................................................................................................... .... 3

2.2.2 Process Heating Assessment and Surv ey Tool (PHAST) and Process Heating

Scorecard ...................................................................................................................... ..... 3

2.2.3 Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT) ................................................................. 3

2.2.4 AirMaster+ Compressed Air System Performance Software.................................. 4

2.2.5 Fan System Assessment Tool (FSAT) .................................................................... 4

2.3 Major Changes to the Save Energy Now Assessment Process in 2007............................. 4

3. DETAILED ASSESSMENT OPPO RTUNITY RESULTS FOR THE 2007 SAVE ENERGY

NOW ASSESSMENTS................................................................................................................... 5

4. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. ......... 7

# iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. More than 20 Save Energy Now assessments were completed in Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan,

Indiana, and Georgia, respectively, in 2006 and 2007. (Based on 458 completed assessments (200 SENAs

in year 2006 and 258 in year 2007). As of July 1 st 

# 2008, summary reports are available for 440

assessments. ................................................................................................................... ............................... 8

Figure 2. Of the 440 Save Energy Now assessments completed in 2006 and 2007, 220 were completed in

the chemical manufacturing, food, and paper manufacturing industries. ..................................................... 9

Figure 3. The total recommended energy cost savings from 240 Save Energy Now assessments completed

in 2007 was $244 million per year. This is about ha lf of the recommended cost savings from the 2006

assessments. ................................................................................................................... ............................. 10

Figure 4. The total recommended source-energy savings from 240 Save Energy Now assessments

completed in 2007 was 36 TBtu per year. This is about 60% of the recommended source energy savings

from the 2006 assessments...................................................................................................... .................... 11

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

assessments could result in plant energy savings of $417 million per year............................................... 12

Figure 6. Opportunities in the top 10 pro cess heating categories for the 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now

assessments could result in plant energy savings of $180 million per year............................................... 13

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

could result in plant energy savings of $5.2 million per year. ................................................................. ... 14

Figure 8. Opportunities identified in the top 10 compressed air categories for the 2007 Save Energy Now

assessments could result in $8.2 million per year of plant energy savings................................................. 15

Figure 9. Opportunities identified in the top 10 fan categories for the 2007 Save Energy Now assessments

could result in $5.4 million per year of plant energy savings. ................................................................. ... 16

Figure 10. For all opportunities identified in 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now assessments

, approximately 70% had estimated pa ybacks of less than 2 years.............................................................. 17

Figure 11. About 72% of the opportunities identifie d in compressed air assessments had estimated

paybacks of less than 2 years. About 50% of th e opportunities identified in the pumping and fan

assessments had estimated payb acks of less th an 2 years........................................................................ ... 18

Figure 12. Each of the individual identified steam oppor tunities in eight categories, if implemented,

could typically save industrial plants at l east 1% of their total source-energy use.................................... 19

Figure 13. Many of the individual identified pro cess heating opportunities, if implemented, could

typically save industrial plants at least 1% of their total source-energy use............................................... 20

Figure 14. Each of the individual identified comp ressed air opportunities in six categories, if

implemented, could typically save industrial plants at least 0.4% of their total source-energy use. ......... 21

Figure 15. 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

Figure 16. Each of the individual identified fan opport unities in six categories, if implemented, could

typically save industrial plants at least 0. 3% of their total source-energy use............................................ 23

# v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Total number of 2006 and 2007 assessments conducted per state ............................................... 24

Table 2. Number of 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now assessments completed in 20 major U.S. industry

sectors ........................................................................................................................ ................................. 25

Table 3. The steam system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessment and data

analysis....................................................................................................................... ................................. 26

Table 4. The process heating system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline

assessments and data analysis.................................................................................................. ................... 28

Table 5. The pump system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and

data analysis.................................................................................................................. .............................. 30

Table 6. The compressed air system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline

assessments and data analysis.................................................................................................. ................... 31

Table 7. The fan system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and data

analysis....................................................................................................................... ................................. 33

Table 8. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 

# emissions from identified steam

opportunities in pick-list categories. ......................................................................................... .................. 34

Table 9. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 

# emissions from identified process

heating opportunities in pick-list categories. ........................................................................................ ...... 35

Table 10. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 

# emissions from identified pumping

opportunities in pick-list categories. ......................................................................................... .................. 36

Table 11. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 

# emissions from identified

compressed air opportunities in pick-list categories. .................................................................................. 37

Table 12. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO 2 

# emissions from identified fan

opportunities in pick-list categories. ......................................................................................... .................. 38

Table 13. Estimated payback periods for energy savings opportunities identified in the 2006 and 2007

Save Energy Now assessments.................................................................................................................... 39

Table 14. Steam assessments — potential percentage sav ings in plant energy costs and source-energy use

from all identified opportuniti es, by pick- list category....................................................................... ........ 41

Table 15. Process heating assessments — potential per centage savings in plant energy costs and sourceenergy use from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category ........................................................... 42

Table 16. Compressed air assessments — potential per centage savings in plant energy costs and sourceenergy use from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category ............................................................ 43

Table 17. Pumping assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energy

use from all identified opportun ities, by pick-list category ................................................................... ..... 44

Table 18. Fan assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energy use

from all identified opportuniti es, by pick- list category....................................................................... ........ 45

# 1 RESULTS FROM THE U.S. DOE

2007 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-eff ective 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 pr otocols, training curricula, certified energy experts,

and strong partnerships for deployment.

The Save Energy Now assessments conducted in calendar year 20 06 focused on natural gas savings and

targeted many of the nation’s largest manufacturing plan ts – 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 are estimated to account for approximately 74% of all natural gas use for U.S.

manufacturing plants.

Because of the success of the initial Save Energy Now assessments conducted in 2006, the program was

expanded and enhanced in two major ways in 2007: 1) a new goal was set to perform at least 250

assessments in 2007; and 2) the assessment focus was expanded to include pumping, compressed air, and

fan systems in addition to steam and process heatin g. DOE ITP has 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 assessme nt 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 th e 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 op portunities from individual assessments have been

implemented in the industrial plants. Plant contacts involved with the Save Energy Now assessments are

contacted 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after individual assessments have been completed so that

assessment implementation results can be identified.

A total of 258 Save Energy Now assessments were successfully completed in calendar year 2007. This

means that a total of 458 assessments were completed in 2006 and 2007. At the time that this report was

prepared, 440 final assessment reports were complete d. The total identified potential cost savings from

these 440 assessments is $763 million per year, including na tural gas savings of about 75 TBtu per year.

# 2 These results, if fully implemented, could reduce CO 2 

# emissions by about 6.5 million metric tons

annually.

When this report was prepared, assessment implementation results from 352 Save Energy Now

assessments were available. For these 352 plants the to tal implemented cost savings is $118 million/year,

the total cost savings “in progress” is $98 million/year, and the total cost savings in the planning stage is

$215 million/year. Based on actual implementation of assessment results, the present total CO 2 

# reduction

that has actually been achieved is a bout 1.5 million metric tons annually.

A separate report (Wright et al. 2009) provides a detailed summary of the key results of the Save Energy

Now assessments completed in 2007, the details of th e 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month implementation

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

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

This report also provides detailed information on ke y results for all of the steam, process heating,

pumping, compressed air, and fan system assessments completed in 2006 and 2007.



# 2. OVERVIEW OF THE 2007 SAVE ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1 A Unique Approach

The Save Energy Now assessment initiative uses a unique appro ach for conducting in-plant energy

efficiency assessments. Energy aud its or assessments are typically done by energy experts who go into a

plant, identify potential savings opportunities, and write reports that are left with the 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 industri al 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 identifi es a Plant Lead who has to agree to stay with the Energy Expert during

the entire three-day assessment. The Energy Expert, Pl ant 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 ones with the potential to achieve significant plant energy and cost savings.

The Energy Expert and plant personnel identif y any data requirements for assessing the target

opportunity, obtain or measure data as necessary, and en ter 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 Clo seout Meeting is held to review and discuss the

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

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

opportunities that will be highlighted at the meeting a nd documented in the final assessment report. Only

the opportunities approved by the Plant Lead are pr esented or discussed at the Closeout Meeting.

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

hands-on experience of how to effectively use the DOE software tools and of the value 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 like lihood that many of the identified opportunities

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

cost savings for the host plant.

A full discussion of the overall process that is being used to conduct the Save Energy Now assessments is

provided in the 2006 Save Energy Now Assessment Summary Report (Wright et al. 2007).

# 3 2.2 DOE ITP Decision Software Tools Used in 2007 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 pr ocess 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 Profile r, or “Quick PEP,” online software tool that helps

industrial plant personnel to quickly understand how ener gy is used at the plant and how they might save

energy and reduce costs.

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

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

increasing condensate return in steam systems or re ducing 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 Hydrau lics Institute to develop the pump tool, with the

International Heating Equipment A ssociation to develop the process h eating tool, with the Compressed

Air Challenge to develop the AirMaster+ tool, and wi th 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 the 2007 assessments.

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

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

to develop a greater awareness of steam system im provement 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 generat es results detailing the energy, cost, and emissions

savings that could be achieved by up to 18 diffe rent improvements. 3E-Plus calculates the most

economical thickness of industrial insulation fo r 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 equipmen t that uses fuel, electricity, or steam (though only

the direct-fuel-fired systems modeling is presently deve loped) and identifying the most energy-intensive

equipment. PHAST performs energy (heat) balances on furnaces to identify ways to improve efficiency.

PHAST has several calculators th at compare the performance of individual pieces of equipment under

various operating conditions. The Process He ating Scorecard is a pre-screening tool.

2.2.3 Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT)

The Pump System Assessment Tool software 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 wi th the fluid work (flow and head) required by the

application. It estimates a system’s achievable effi ciency based on pump efficiencies and performance

characteristics of pumps and motors. PSAT also provid es a pre-screening filter to identify areas that are

likely to offer the greatest savings.

# 4 2.2.4 AirMaster+ Compressed Ai r System Performance Software

AirMaster+ provides a systematic approach for assess ing the supply-side perform ance of compressed air

systems. Using plant-specific data, the software ef fectively 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)

The Fan System Assessment Tool helps users qua ntify energy consumption and energy savings

opportunities in industrial fan systems. With FSAT, u sers can calculate the amount of energy used by a

fan system, determine system efficiency, and quantif y the savings potential of an upgraded fan system.

FSAT estimates the work done by the fan system and comp ares that to the estimated energy input into the

system. The tool also provides a pre-screening filter to identify fan systems that are likely to offer

optimization opportunities.

More details about all of the DOE ITP decision softwa re tools can be found at the following web link:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/indust ry/bestpractices/software.html

.



# 2.3 Major Changes to the Save En ergy Now Assessment Process in 2007

There were a number of important changes to the Save Energy Now assessment process in 2007. The most

important of these changes are discussed below.

1. The most important change in 2007 was the expa nsion to include pumping, compressed air, and

fan system assessments. These three plant utility systems almost exclusively use electricity

rather than a direct fuel.

2. The second major change in 2007 was that plants could qualify for assessments if their total

annual energy use was greater than 0.3 TB tu, lowered from 1 TBtu for the assessments

conducted in calendar year 2006. Lowering this th reshold permits more plants to be able to

qualify for obtaining Save Energy Now assessments.

3. The Energy Expert group performing Save Energy Now assessments was expanded from 38 in

2006 to 85 in 2007. The need to expand the Energy Expert pool was partly attributable to the

need for experts to perform pumping, compressed air, and fan assessments. The Energy Expert

pool for 2007 included 30 steam, 26 process heating, 10 pumping, 16 compressed air, and 3 fan

Energy Experts. All of the Energy Experts we re chosen through a solicitation that was open to

all DOE Qualified Specialists.

4. In 2006, the Energy Experts entered assessment data into spreadsheets, and the data from the

spreadsheets was manually entered into the DOE Energy Savings Assessment Management

System (ESAMS) database. In 2007 Energy Experts we re allowed to enter this data directly into

ESAMS using a Web-based interface. Automating this data entry greatly simplified the process

for collecting assessment data and impr oved the quality of database content.

5. In 2006, ORNL coordinated all contracting, assessment scheduling, and technical review and

approval of assessment reports. In 2007 this effort was divided between the DOE Golden Field

Office and ORNL staff. In 2007 DOE Golden Field Office staff were responsible for making

initial contacts with plant personnel to start th e qualification and scheduling process, scheduling

of assessments, assignment of Energy Experts to perform assessments, and payment of Energy

# 5 Experts. ORNL provided technical support to the assessment process – providing technical

review of reports, managing efforts to obtain assessment implementation data, and distribution

and maintenance of “measurement kits” that Energy Experts used to perform assessments.



# 3. DETAILED ASSESSMENT OPPO RTUNITY RESULTS FOR THE 2007 SAVE

ENERGY NOW ASSESSMENTS

Two hundred Save Energy Now assessments were performed in large U.S. industrial plants in 2006, and

258 in 2007. A total of 204 steam assessments, 148 process heating assessment s, 56 compressed air

assessments, 35 pumping assessments, and 15 fan assessments were completed in 2006 and 2007.

At the time this detailed data report was prepar ed, final results for 440 assessments — 200 assessments

completed in 2006 and 240 completed in 2007 — we re available. The data from completed 2006 and

2007 assessment reports is for 203 steam assessment s, 142 process heating assessments, 46 compressed

air assessments, 34 pumping assessments, and 15 fan system assessments.

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

performed in each state. The map shows th at there are 14 states where at least 10 Save Energy Now

assessments have been completed. More than 20 assessments have been conducted in the states of Texas,

Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Georgia, respectively.

Table 1 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 type include Texas (23 steam

assessments and 17 process heating assessments), Wi sconsin (9 pumping assessments), Michigan (7

compressed air assessments), and Wisconsin (3 fan assessments). Many of these states rank high in terms

of industrial energy consumption.

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

performed. Of the 440 assessments that were finalized in 2006 and 2007, 313 were performed in chemical

manufacturing, food, paper manufacturing, primary me tals, and non-metallic mi neral product plants. The

industries in which the most ass essments were performed were:

● 55 steam assessments in chemical manufacturing plants,

● 43 process heating assessments in primary metals plants,

● 10 pumping assessments in paper manufacturing plants,

● 9 compressed air assessments in food and in transportation equipment plants, and

● 4 fan assessments in paper manufacturing and non-metallic mineral product plants.

Figures 3 and 4 provide a broad comparison of results of the 2006 and 2007 assessments. The potential

$244 million of annual energy cost savings and 36 TBtu of annual source-energy savings identified and

recommended in the 2007 assessments was substantial. In general, however, the recommended cost and

energy savings from the 2007 assessments were less than from the 2006 assessments. The total

recommended cost savings from the 240 assessments from 2007 were about 50% of those from the 200

assessments from 2006; recommended source-energy sav ings from the 2007 assessments were about 60%

of those from the 2006 assessments.

A major difference between the 2006 and 2007 assessment s was the addition of pumping, compressed air,

and fan assessments in 2007. The potential annual cost savings identified by the 2007 assessments of 95

pumping, compressed air, and fan systems (where th ere is available data), is about $28 million (see

Figure 3), much less than $216 million potential annual cost savings identified by 145 steam and process

heating assessments from 2007. Much of the differe nce between 2006 and 2007 assessment results is

# 6 attributable to the greater identified savings oppor tunities 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 identifie d opportunities. This was done so that the savings

opportunity data could be analyzed using these pi ck-list categories. Tables 3 through 7 present the

opportunity pick-list categories for steam, process heating, pumping, compressed air, and fan system

assessments.

Tables 8 through 12 present detailed inform ation on potential cost, energy, and CO 2 

# emissions reductions

for all available 2006 and 2007 assessment results. Figur es 5 through 9 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, and fan assessments. For each of the

assessment areas, the Top 10 opportunities capture the ma jority of the energy cost savings identified from

assessments completed in 2006 and 2007:

System type assessed Annual potential savings

captured in Top 10 Percentage of total savings for

system type

Steam $417 87%

Process heating $180 70%

Pumping $5.2 87%

Compressed air $8.2 86%

Fan $12.6 100%

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

savings opportunity and used the higher values to es timate the payback period. Savings payback period is

defined as (cost to implement opportunity)/(yearly sa vings for the opportunity). Most industrial plants

will not consider implementing savings opportuniti es that have paybacks greater than two years.

Estimated payback results for the 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now assessments are summarized in Table

13 and Figures 10 and 11. Some of the key results sh own in the table and figures are summarized below:

● A total of 2480 energy saving opportunities were identified for the 440 assessments, an average

of 5.6 opportunities per assessment.

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

of 2 years or less.

● The estimated paybacks of about 70% of the iden tified steam, process heating, and compressed

air opportunities had estimated paybacks of 2 years or less.

● The data for pumping and fan assessments is sli ghtly different — about 50% of the identified

opportunities had estimated paybacks of 2 years or less.

The available data can be analyzed to determine av erage percentages of plant energy cost and sourceenergy use represented by each pick-list category. Tables 14 through 18 present this data. Figures 12

through 16 show the Top 10 identified opportunities for each assessment area, b ased on estimated average

plant source-energy savings. The following are the ke y results presented in these tables and figures. It

should be noted that this data is based on plant s ource-energy used, which in many cases is largely from

fired systems at these large plants.

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

opportunities can potentially save, if implemented, mo re than 1% of the plant source-energy use.

# 7 ● A number of the compressed air and fan opportun ities can also, if implemented, save as much or

more than 1% of plant source-energy use.

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

assessments are somewhat lower than for the ot her systems. Potential savings opportunities,

however, are still substantial, in the range of 0.3% of plant source-energy use.

It is important to note that the data shown in tabl es 14 through 18 are based on plant source-energy used,

and in many cases source-energy used is larg ely from fired systems for these large plants.



# 4. REFERENCES

Wright, Anthony, Michaela Martin, Sachin Nimbalka r, 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/TM2007/138.8Figure 1. More than 20Save Energy Nowassessments were completed in Texas, Wisconsin,Michigan, Indiana, and Georgia, respectively,in 2006 and 2007. (Based on 458 completed assessments (200SENAs in year 2006 and 258 in year 2007). As of July 1st2008, summaryreports are available for 440 assessments.

# 9 Figure 2. Of the 440 Save Energy Now assessments completed in 2006 and 2007, 220 were completed

in the chemical manufacturing, food, and paper manufacturing industries. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 325 CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING 311 FOOD 322 PAPER MANUFACTURING 331 PRIMARY METALS 327 NON-METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS 336 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 324 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS 332 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS 334 COMPUTER AND ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 326 PLASTICS AND RUBBER PRODUCTS 212 MINING 333 MACHINERY MANUFACTURING 321 WOOD PRODUCTS 314 TEXTILE PRODUCT MILLS 323 PRINTING AND RELATED SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 335 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, APPLIANCES, COMPONENTS 313 TEXTILE MILLS 541 PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL SERVICES 315 APPAREL MANUFACTURING 312 BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTSINDUSTRY TYPE (NAIC)



# NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS 

# YEAR 2006 - 07 (440 SENA's)10Figure 3. The total recommended energy cost savings from 240Save Energy Nowassessments completed in 2007 was $244 million per year. Thisis about half of the recommended cost savings from the 2006 assessments.RECOMMENDED ENERGY COST SAVINGS$109.6$106.5$12.6$6.1$367.6$151.4$9.5$0$50$100$150$200$250$300$350$4002006 2007YEAR

ENERGY COST SAVINGS (Millio n $/Year)SteamProcess HeatingFansCompressed AirPumps114 SENAs 86 SENAs 89 SENAs 56 SENAs 15 SENAs 46 SENAs 34 SENAs11Figure 4. The total recommended source-energy savings from 240Save Energy Nowassessments completed in 2007 was 36 TBtu per year. This isabout 60% of the recommended source energy savings from the 2006 assessments.RECOMMENDED SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS16.015.31.91.236.320.81.405101520253035402006 2007YEAR

SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (Tbtu/Year)SteamProcess HeatingFansCompressed AirPumps114 SENAs 86 SENAs 89 SENAs 56 SENAs 15 SENAs 46 SENAs 34 SENAs

# 12 Figure 5. Opportunities in the top 10 steam categories for the 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now

assessments could result in plant ener gy savings of $41 7 million per year. $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 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 1.11 - Change Condensate Recovery Rates 1.8 - Add or Modify Operation of Condensing Steam Turbine

(High Pressure to Condensing) 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 RateTOP "10" STEAM OPPORTUNITIES



# TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

# 13 Figure 6. Opportunities in the top 10 process heating categories for the 2006 and 2007 Save Energy

Now assessments could result in plant energy savings of $180 million per year. $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air

preheating 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases 3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat 3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources

from a furnace 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 or exhaust

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

delays, waits, cooling between operations etc. 4.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnaceTOP "10" PROCESS HEATINGOPPORTUNITIES



# TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

# 14 Figure 7. Opportunities in the top 10 pumping categories for the 2007 Save Energy Now assessments

could result in plant energy savings of $5.2 million per year. $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time 1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application 1.5 - More flow than required to meet system

requirements 1.3 - Excessive recirculation 1.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time 1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements 1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design 1.12 - Change time of use 1.8 - Degraded equipment performance 1.4 - Unneeded flow pathTOP "10" PUMP OPPORTUNITIES



# TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

# 15 Figure 8. Opportunities identified in the top 10 compressed air categories for the 2007 Save Energy

Now assessments could result in $8.2 millio n per year of plant energy savings. $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 

# 1.2 - Improve End Use Efficiency 1.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install /

improve) 1.1 - Reduce Air Leaks 1.3 - Reduce System Air Pressure 1.7 - Reduce Run Time 3.12 - Sparging 1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points 3.1 - Aspirating 3.8 - Open Blowing 3.6 - Diaphragm PumpsTOP "10" COMPRESSED AIR OPPORTUNITIES



# TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)

# 16 Figure 9. Opportunities identified in the top 10 fan categories for the 2007 Save Energy Now

assessments could result in $5.4 million per year of plant energy savings. $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 1.7 - Install new

appropriately sized fan 1.1 - Use Variable Speed

Drive 1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans 1.6 - Install new

appropriately sized impeller 1.11 - Improve arrangement

of air intake 1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at

fan inlet or discharge 1.2 - Change belt drive ratio 1.10 - Use factory designed

inlet box 1.3 - De-tip fan blades 1.4 - Convert to belt driveTOP "10" FAN OPPORTUNITIES



# TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)17Figure 10. For all opportunities identified in 2006 and 2007Save Energy Now assessments, approximately 70% had estimated paybacks ofless than 2 years.ALL SYSTEM TYPES2%36%32%10%20%0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoffSTEAM ASSESSMENTS1%9%39%32%19%0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoffPROCESS HEATING ASSESSMENTS1%36%34%21%8%0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoff18Figure 11. About 72% of the opportunities identified in compressedair assessments had estimated paybacks of less than 2 years.About50% of the opportunities identified in the pumping and fan assessments had estimated paybacks of less than 2 years.PUMP ASSESSMENTS7%22%28%25%18%0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoffCOMPRESSED AIR ASSESSMENTS3%45%27%12%13%0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoffFAN ASSESSMENTS33%25%25%17%0 - 9 months9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoff

# 19 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat

exchangers, heater tubes, electrical heating elements 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam

Requirements 1.18 - Feedwater Heat Recovery - General 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization 1.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel 1.17 - Other 1.7 - Add or Modify Operation of Backpressure Steam Turbine 1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency 1.19 - Deaerator Heat Recovery - General

1.21 - Reduce or Recover Vented SteamTOP "10" STEAM OPPORTUNITIES



# AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)



# Figure 12. Each of the individual identified steam oppo rtunities in eight categories, if implemented, could

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

# 20 Figure 13. Many of the individual identified process he ating opportunities, if implemented, could typically

save industrial plants at least 1% of their total source-energy use. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation

or absorption cooling 1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source 3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources from

a furnace 1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and

uneconomical methods 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down 3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from

higher temp. process 5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the process

safety requirements 1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion 2.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air

preheatingTOP "10" PROCESS HEATING OPPORTUNITIES



# AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

# 21 Figure 14. Each of the individual identified compressed air opportunities in six categories, if implemented,

could typically save industrial plants at le ast 0.4% of their total source-energy use. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 3.1 - Aspirating 3.4 - Condensate Drain 1.6 - Multiple Compressor

Control (install / improve) 4.1 - Other 1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set

Points 1.4 - Improve Trim Compressor

Part Load Efficiency 1.1 - Reduce Air Leaks 1.2 - Improve End Use

Efficiency 3.5 - Dense Phase Transport 1.7 - Reduce Run TimeTOP "10" COMPRESSED AIR OPPORTUNITIES



# AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

# 22 Figure 15. Each of the individual identified pumping oppo rtunities in six categories, if implemented, could

typically save industrial plants at least 0.2% of their total source-energy use. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.9 - Other 1.3 - Excessive recirculation 1.5 - More flow than required to

meet system requirements 1.10 - Excessive friction loss

due to system design 1.11 - System specs exceed

system requirements 1.7 - Less than optimal

equipment for the application 1.2 - Excessive valve friction

loss all of the time 1.8 - Degraded equipment

performance 1.1 - Excessive valve friction

loss part of the time 1.1 - Use Variable Speed DriveTOP "10" PUMP OPPORTUNITIES



# AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

# 23 Figure 16. Each of the individual identified fan oppo rtunities in six categories, if implemented, could

typically save industrial plants at least 0.3% of their total source-energy use. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.14 - Other 1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans 1.7 - Install new appropriately

sized fan 1.6 - Install new appropriately

sized impeller 1.2 - Change belt drive ratio 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 1.10 - Use factory designed

inlet box 1.11 - Improve arrangement of

air intake 1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan

inlet or discharge 1.4 - Convert to belt driveTOP "10" FAN OPPORTUNITIES



# AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

# 24 Table 1. Total number of 2006 and 2007 assessments conducted per state

State Compressed Air Fans Process Heating Pumps Steam Grand Total

TX 5 2 17 6 23 53

WI 2 3 8 9 21 43

MI 7 5 1 10 23

IN 4 9 8 21

GA 4 8 1 8 21

PA 1 11 1 7 20

IL 2 1 5 1 8 17

TN 2 9 1 4 16

LA 2 14 16

CA 2 1 3 2 8 16

AL 1 7 7 15

OH 2 1 9 2 14

MN 1 2 6 1 4 14

WA 1 3 1 5 10

AR 1 1 7 9

NY 3 2 4 9

VA 1 1 2 1 4 9

NJ 3 5 8

MO 1 1 6 8

OR 2 5 7

OK 2 2 3 7

WV 3 3 6

MS 1 1 4 6

UT 1 3 1 1 6

KY 2 3 1 6

SC 2 2 1 1 6

ID 1 4 5

IA 1 3 1 5

NC 1 1 1 2 5

MA 2 2 4

NE 2 2 4

DE 1 3 4

FL 1 1 2 4

ME 3 3

WY 2 1 3

KS 2 1 3

PR 1 1 1 3

CT 1 1 1 3

MD 2 2

RI 2 2

AZ 1 1 2

CO 1 1

NV 1 1

Grand Total 46 15 142 34 203 440

# 25 Table 2. Number of 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now assessments completed in

20 major U.S. industry sectors

Industry sector Process

heating Steam Fans Compressed

air Pumps Total

325 Chemical manufacturing 21 55 5 4 85

311 Food 10 47 1 9 3 70

322 Paper manufacturing 8 43 4 10 65

331 Primary metals 43 5 3 1 52

327 Non-metallic mineral products 25 4 8 6 43

336 Transportation equipment 3 16 1 9 3 32

324 Petroleum and coal products 6 10 1 1 18

332 Fabricated metal products 10 4 1 1 1 17

334 Computer and electronics 2 4 1 2 1 10

326 Plastics and rubber products 2 5 3 10

212 Mining 4 2 1 1 8

333 Machinery manufacturing 2 2 1 2 7

321 Wood products 4 1 1 1 7

314 Textile product mills 5 5

323 Printing and related support 1 2 1 4

335 Electrical equipment,

appliances, components 1 1 2

313 Textile mills 1 1 2

541 Professional, scientific &

technical services 1 1

315 Apparel manufacturing 1 1

312 Beverage and tobacco 1 1

TOTAL 142 203 15 46 34 44026Table 3. The steam system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessment and data analysisSteam assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description1.1 - Reduce steam demand by changing the processsteam requirementsEliminating or optimizing the operation of steam-using process equipment reduces required steamgeneration rates which in turn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumption rates.1.2 - Use an alternate fuel When switching from a fuel with a lower theoretical combustion efficiency (e.g. natural gas) to a fuelwith a higher efficiency (e.g. fuel oil with a lower hydrogen content), a lower boiler fuel (and energy)consumption rate results. Switching to a less costly fuel (on an energy basis) will reduce operatingcosts.1.3 - Change boiler efficiency Energy is saved if boiler efficiency is improved since boiler losses are reduced, and less fuel(andenergy) is needed to achieve a desired steam production rate.1.4 - Change boiler blowdown rate Boiler blowdown constitutesa pressurized, hot water loss from a boiler (energy loss). Actions (e.g.improved boiler water treatment) which allow a reduction in this loss improve boiler efficiency.1.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam Blowdown water (superheated liquid) flashes to steam when pressure is lowered in the exit stream.Flash steam directed to a low pressure header reduces needed boiler steam generation rate. This inturn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) use rate.1.6 - Change steam generation conditions For boilers producing superheated steam, reducing output temperature (e.g. by removingasuperheater) will reduce boiler fuel (and energy) use.For boilers producing saturated steam, improvingsteam quality (decreasing wetness) improves downstream process1.7 - Add or modify operation of backpressure steamturbineIf a backpressure turbine is taken out-of-service,steam usage, boiler load and fuel (and energy)consumption rate are reduced. If a new backpressure turbine is added to reduce steam flow throughpressure reducing valves, steam flows through pressure reducing valves will be reduced but totalsteam usage will increase. This action will reduce totalenergy costs if the electricity savings (related tothe turbine drive) are greater than theincreased boiler fuel consumption rate.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. by rebuilding), a lowersteam flow is required to drive the turbine load. Thisin turn reduces boiler load and fuel (and energy)consumption rates. If a condensing turbine is taken out-of-service, steam usage is reduced, boiler loaddecreases and boiler fuel (and energy) consumption is lowered.1.9 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger usingcondensate tank ventThe main condensate receiver is typically vented to atmosphere when flash steam forms at thereduced receiver pressure. Flash steam passed through a heat exchanger can be used for boilerfeedwater heating. The addition of hotter water tothe feedwater system reduces boiler fuel (andenergy) consumption rate.1.10 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger usingboiler blowdownWhen superheated blowdown water undergoes a pressure reduction after leaving the boiler, somewater flashes to steam and a hot water fraction remains. This hot water may be passed through a heatexchanger to heat feedwater or process fluids thereby reducing steam use for heating.271.11 - Change condensate recovery rates If the amount of formedcondensate returned to the boiler is increased, hotter water isfed back into theboiler feedwater system, lowering feedwater heating requirements and feedwater chemical treatmentneeds.1.12 - Modify the medium pressure condensate flashsystemWhen the pressure of condensate formed in a high-pressure system is reduced, flash steam forms.When this steam is supplied to the medium-pressure steam header, an amount of boiler-producedsteam is displaced and boiler load and fuel(and energy) consumption rates are reduced.1.13 - Modify low pressure condensate flashsystem When the pressure of condensate formed at a given pressure is reduced flashsteam forms. When thissteam is supplied to the low-pressure steam header, an amount of boiler-produced steam is displacedand boiler load and fuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced.1.14 - Implement steam trap maintenance programAn improved steam trap maintenance program results in a reduced number of trapsfailed in theleaking steam mode. If trap steam leaks are reduced,less steam energy is lost in the condensatesystem and boiler load and fuel (andenergy) consumption rates are reduced.1.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program An improved steam leak maintenance program reduces the number of steam leaks (lost energy). Lesssteam must be generated in the boiler to satisfy process loads and boiler fuel (and energy)consumption rates are reduced.1.16 - Improve insulation Improving insulation quality (e.g. replacing ineffective wet insulationor increasing insulation thickness)and insulating uninsulated components will reduce energy loss from hot steam components.1.17 – Other Miscellaneous projects may minimize or eliminate the need for boiler-generated steam. These projectssave energy by reducing the use of process energyor by improving the efficiency of converting fuelenergy to process heating (e.g. steam) energy.1.18 - Feedwater heat recovery - general Available process wasteheat other than condensate tankvent energy or liquid blowdownheat can beused in a heat exchanger to heat boiler feedwater. Hotter water fed back into the boiler feedwatersystem lowers feedwater heating requirements.1.19 - Deaerator heat recovery - general Boiler water deaeratorsare often vented to atmosphere. The installation of a heat exchanger canrecover heat for feedwater or process heating. This heating reduces needed boiler output.1.20 - Multiple boiler optimization Optimization of overall steam generation efficiency in multi-boiler systems requires selection ofindividual boiler loads to maximize their efficiencies and minimize total boiler fuel use while meetingtotal steam production requirements.1.21 - Reduce or recover vented steam Steamis vented from steam headers when steam supplied by backpressure turbines exceedsdownstream process needs. Steam is also vented from some plant processes (e.g. furnace decoking).If steam venting is reduced or vented steam is recovered (for process heating) boiler steam load andfuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced.28Table 4. The process heating system “pick-list” recommendationclassifications that streamlineassessments and data analysisProcess Heating assessment "pick-list" savingsprojectsDescription1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases Reduced oxygen reflects a reduction in excess air entering the heating equipment. This raises theavailable heat, and consequently, the efficiency. Excess air can be lowered by adjusting burner air-fuelratios, closing off air leaks into the equipment or maintaining a slightly positive chamber pressure toexclude 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 can be lowered byimproving the thoroughness of air-fuel mixing in burners or avoiding operating burners fuel-rich or withinsufficient excess air.1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficientand uneconomical methods with economical/efficientsystemSome heating equipment is either obsolete or poorlymatched to the needs ofthe process. Replace itwith modern equipment which takes the unique needs of the process into account.1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source In certain situations, fuels like by-product gases may be available at lower costthan the primary fuel.Waste energy from other nearby operations mightbe able to be used in the process underconsideration.1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion Using oxygen to enrich or replace combustion air lowers the weight flow of nitrogen in theexhaustgases, increasing available heat and efficiency. Flame temperatures will also increase, and this mayenhance radiation heat transferto the furnace and its load.1.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion If this aircontains sufficient oxygen (usually 18% or more) and is at elevated temperature, it can beused as a combustion air source. Its heat content will raise the available heat of the combustionprocess.1.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air In aclosed building with space heating in use, drawing combustion airfrom inside and then exhaustingit through the stack wastes the energy that aircontains. Heated replacement air will be needed.Drawing combustion air from outdoors bypasses thebuilding heating system, reducing the burden on it.2.1 – Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven The work load mustbe exposed as effectively as possible to the source of radiant or convective heat.This will entail steps like changing loading patterns, increasing burner or hot air nozzle velocities orrelocating heat sources so they "see" more of the furnace load.2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heatexchangers, heater tubes, electrical heating elementsBuildups of scale, soot and dirt reduce the thermal conductivity of tubes, heating elements and heatexchangers. Heat turned back by these deposits short-circuits out the exhaust, increasing losses,slowing the process and lowering efficiency.3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion airpreheatingThis is one of the most effective ways to recyclewaste heat. Incoming ambient combustion air is routedthrough a heat exchanger and preheated withenergy extracted from the outgoing exhaust gases.Every unit of energy transferred to the air isone less that must be provided by burning fuel.3.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue orexhaust gas or other source of waste heatInstead of exhausting flue gases from the process athigh temperatures, they are passed over incomingcold charge materials. This raises the load partway to its processing temperature and lowers theamount of energy need to support the process.293.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or exhaust gas heatfrom higher temp. process to supply heat to lowertemperature processesWaste gases from one process can be usedto heat a lower temperature process.3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heatsources (i.e. from walls) from a furnace - ovenProducts are often removed from ovens or furnacesat elevated temperatures and allowed to cool inthe open air. Cooling them with forced air in an enclosure will heat the air, which might be useful forheating another process.3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steamgeneration or absorption coolingHeated exhaust gases can be routed through wasteheat boilers, hot water generators or absorptionchillers to perform a variety of heating or cooling roles.4.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnacestructure or partsMaintain furnace and oven insulation to avoid localized losses through the walls, roof and floor.Consider increasing the thickness or efficiency ofthe existing insulation to further lower wall losses.4.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling Some furnaces contain components protected from overheating with cooling water and air.Make sureexcessive amounts of cooling media aren't used.4.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in thefurnaceOpenings allow radiant energy to escape and ambientair to leak in. As much as possible, seal thoseopenings and leaks. As an added measure, maintain thefurnace or oven at a slightly positive internalpressure to prevent in-leakage.5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoidingdelays, waits, coolingbetween operations etc.Heating equipment efficiency is highest at 100%of design capacity. Underloaded or overloadedequipment 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 temperatures than they entered,they contribute to wastedheat. Lowering their mass causes a corresponding decrease in the amount ofenergy they extract from the process.5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet theprocess safety requirementsOvens handling flammable solvents or vapors must have sufficient fresh air ventilation to dilute thosecombustible materials well below their lower flammable limit. Any ventilation in excess of the saferequired amount wastes energy.5.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilotswhere possibleFlame curtains and door pilots insure burnoff offlammable prepared atmospheres escaping aroundfurnace doors and out vents. If the process atmosphere has been changed to a non-flammable mixture,these ignition sources are no longer necessary.30Table 5. The pump system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and data analysisPump assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description1.1 – Excessive valve friction loss part ofthe time Throttled valve losses incurred periodically when system flow requirementhas to bereduced.1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design Can be caused by unnecessary flow paths, excessive numbers of fittings, poor suctiongeometry, etc.1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements Often the result of excessive conservatism during the design phase of a projector achange in process conditions/system function after the original design wasimplemented.1.12 - Change time of use Systems that are not required to operate continuously may be operated during a timeof day when the cost of electricity is lower.1.2 – Excessive valve friction loss all ofthe time Often occurs when system capacity exceeds the current operating requirementor anundersized motor has been used.1.3 – Excessive recirculation Use of recirculation as amethod of flow control rather than turning off pumps orthrottling flow.1.4 – Unneeded flow path Flow supplied to non-operating equipment to avoid changing valve alignment.1.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements System oversized, eitherby having a pump that is too large or operating multipleparallel pumps necessarily. Usually used with multiple parallel pumps. Use 1.11 foroversized 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 sizeor type for current operating requirements.1.8 – Degraded equipment performance Equipment wear/degradation (impeller damage,erosion, corrosion, wear rings, etc.)that prevents operation at design conditions.31Table 6. The compressed air system “pick-list” recommendation classifications thatstreamline assessments and data analysisCompressed Air assessment "pick-list"savings projectsDescription1.1 - 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 airflow and improve specificpower (kw / 100 scfm). This measure includes reducing pressure loss at the compressor intake and providing lowerinlet air temperature.1.11 - Heat recovery As much as 85% of the input energy to anair compressor is rejected as heatthat can potentially be recovered andused to offset another energy use. To the extent that the alternate energy use is reduced, a system energy reductionis possible.1.2 - Improve end use efficiency The measure can cover a widerange of end use improvements thatreduce or eliminate the use ofcompressed air.See also items 3.1 through 3.9 which further classify the type of end use that is being improved.1.3 - Reduce system air pressure Reducing system air pressureprovides two potential benefits.The energy of positive displacement compressors isreduced at lower working pressure. Also at reduced pressure unregulated air demands and leaks consume lesscompressed air. See also items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 for individual pressure reduction of supply or demand side pressure.1.4 - Improve trim compressor part loadefficiencyVarious compressor capacity control methods provide different power reduction characteristics at reduced capacity.Changing the control method of a single trim compressor can improve generation efficiency reducing specific power(kw / 100 scfm).1.5 - Adjust cascading set points Adjusting cascade set pointcan improve system efficiency by eliminating the part load operation of multiplecompressors.1.6 - Multiple compressor control (install /improve)Multiple compressor control can improve system efficiency by eliminating part load operation of multiplecompressors. The more sophisticated controls can alsorespond to changes in system air demand selecting theoptimum mix of various size compressors and compressorcontrol types to improve overall generation efficiency.1.7 - Reduce run time Reduce run time can result from system changes reducing air demand to a point that a compressor can simply beshut 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 lubricant injected rotary screwcompressors. Longer unload time can reduce energyuse by reducing part load power consumption.1.9 - Optimize air treatment Optimizing air treatment can reduce energy use by two means. First by reducing irrecoverable pressure drop throughtreatment equipment, system pressure might be reduced withthe associated energy savings. Second, if the air ispresently being treated to a greater level of contaminate removal than necessary, reducing the amount of airtreatment can reduce system energy use.For example changing from regenerative style to refrigerated style airdryers.2.1 - Stabilize control pressure signal Control pressure variations caused by system dynamics are corrected to provide a stablecontrol signal improvingcompressor efficiency.2.2 - Reduce supply side pressure Reducing supply side operating pressure and the resulting lower compressor discharge pressurewill decreasepower consumption of positive displacement compressors.2.3 - Install flow pressure control Install a flow / pressure control to optimize compressed air storage and / or eliminate artificial demand. Bymaintaining a recoverable pressure differential storage ofcompressed air energy can be optimized. To the extentthat artificial demand is reduced, or stored energy preventsthe start-up of an air compressor in response to peak airdemand, system energy reduction is possible.2.4 - Reduce demand side pressure Reducing demand side pressure to eliminate artificial demand. All unregulated air demand andleakage consumesless compressed air at reduced demand side operating pressure.322.5 - Install primary storage for peak airdemandPrimary Storage to address peak air demand or permissivestart-up event loads. Peak air demand may cause an aircompressor to operate, where-as application ofstorage may allow the compressor to be shutdown.2.6 - Install secondary storage Application of Secondary Storage may allow savings through reduced system pressure, improved compressorcontrol, or other energy reduction measures made possible through the used of Secondary Storage to supplydemand events.2.7 - Reduce distribution piping pressuregradientExcessive piping resistance in distribution piping can leadto irrecoverable pressure loss, or excessive pressuredecay during peak airflow events. Eliminating piping pressure gradient can allow reduced system pressure withassociated energy savings.2.8 - Reduce component pressure drop Pressure loss through a discrete component or group of components i.e. "filter pressure drop", "pressure dropthrough treatment", etc.2.9 - Resolve high pressure demand Perceived high pressure demands are modified or corrected to operate at normal working pressure. Valid highpressure demands are served by other means. The resultant system pressure reduction can save energy.3.1 – Aspirating Using compressed air to introduce the flow ofanother gas (such as flue gas).As an alternative the application of afan or blower can provide a net energy reduction.3.10 – Padding Using compressed air to transport liquids and lightsolids. By pumping or using a low pressure blower as the energysource, 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 be a net energy reduction.3.12 – Sparging Aerating, agitation, oxygenating, or percolatingliquid with compressed air. Alternatives include pumping, mechanicalagitation, or a low pressure blower as the energy source. Alternatives can provide a net energy reduction.3.13 - Vacuum generation Using air with venturi effect to create vacuum can be replaced by an electrically driven vacuum pump with net energyreduction.3.2 – Atomizing Delivering a liquid as an aerosol using compressed air may alternatively be accomplished with high pressure liquidpump and suitable spray nozzle. Alternatives can provide net energy reduction.3.3 - Cabinet cooling Cooling of electrical panels with open tubesthat expand compressed air to create a cooling affect can alternativelybe accomplished with ventilation fans, heat tubes, or smallmechanical refrigeration units. The alternatives canprovide a net energy reduction.3.4 - Condensate drain Open blowing drain, failed automatic drain, solenoid timer drain will waste compressed air. Appropriatemaintenanceactions and / or replacement with zero airloss style condensate drains can reduce waste.3.5 - Dense phase transport Compressed air is used to transport solids in a batch format. Alternatives such as mechanical conveyors, or othermaterial handling methods can reduce energy use.3.6 - Diaphragm pumps Diaphragm pumps are commonly found installed without regulators and speed control valves. By properly controllingthe pump air demand can be reduced. Alternatives may alsoinclude electrically driven pumps which provide an netenergy reduction.3.7 - Dilute phase transport Dilute phase transporting solids suchas powdery material in a diluted format using compressed air. Alternativesmight include mechanical conveyors, or lower the use oflower pressure blowers or fans as the energy source.3.8 - Open blowing Compressed air blowing for cooling, drying, clean-up, etc. Alternatively a low pressure blower, vacuum, or somethinga simple a using a broom to sweep the floorcan 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 withthe same alternatives andenergy reduction.4.1 – Other33Table 7. The fan system “pick-list” recommendation classifications that streamline assessments and data analysisFan assessment "pick-list" savingsprojectsDescription1.1 - Use variable speed drive Fans normally are driven by constant-speed motors. When the process load varies, the electronicVariable Speeddrive varies the speed of the motor to change the capacityof the fan in order to match the load. Also known asadjustable speed, variable frequency, or adjustable frequency drives.1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box If a 90 degree turn at thefan inlet is unavoidable, then a factory-designed inlet box isthe best way to minimizethose losses.1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake Sharp-edged intakes can have significantly higher losses than flared or bell-mouth entrances.1.12 - 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 operatingthan the process needs, some fans can be shut off1.14 – Other Sometimes it is possible to do other things to improve the fans than the items on this list1.15 – Recover heat from exhaust air If fan is handling hot exhaustair, it may be possible to recover heat (or cooling) from the air stream1.16 – Recover heat from stack If the fan ishandling hot boiler exhaust gasses it may be possible to recover some of the heat1.17 - Reconfigure pollution controlequipmentSometimes older pollution control equipment my have a veryhigh pressure drop or may be configured inefficientlyby today’s best practices1.2 - Change belt drive ratio When fans thatare oversized are belt-driven, the fan capacity can bede-rated to match the process needs bychanging 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 match the process needs bycarefully 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 belt drive inorder de-ratethe capacity to match process needs.1.5 - Use high-efficiency belt drive Olderstyle V-Belts can be upgraded to newer, more efficient belts made with modern materials and designs1.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller Sometimes the impeller can be changed out to a moreefficient configuration, ora different type in order toimprove performance1.7 - Install new appropriately sized fanIf the fan is the wrong type, performing poorly, or is too big or too small, then sometimes a new fan is the bestoption.1.8 - Replace outlet damper with variableinlet vanesOutlet Dampers are the least efficient means of controlling the fans. Variable inlet vanes usually have lowerlosses, although they too should be applied very carefully, and should not be used less than 70% open.1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet ordischargePoor ductwork arrangements such as abrupt turns or abruptchanges in size immediatelyat the inlet or the outletof the fan can adversely performance.34Table 8. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions from identified steamopportunities in pick-list categoriesYear 2006 - 07 steam savings opportunity recommendationsCost savings($/year)Energy savings(MMBtu/year)Natural gassavings(MMBtu/year)CO2savings (metrictons/year)Number of timesthe opportunityapplied1.1 - Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam requirements $116,987,000 21,329,000 10,910,000 1,603,000 1831.2 - Use an alternate fuel $92,057,000 -82,000 16,898,000 571,000 321.3 - Change boiler efficiency $59,098,000 8,063,000 5,383,000 545,000 2481.7 - Add or modify operation of backpressure steam turbine $42,609,000 5,892,000 -203,000 215,000 851.11 - Change condensate recovery rates $27,803,000 3,084,000 2,360,000 194,000 961.17 - Other$25,452,000 2,298,000 266,800 141,000 951.8 - Add or modify operation of condensing steam turbine $22,944,000 -34,000 2,323,000 163,000 171.14 - Implement steam trap maintenance program $18,984,000 2,579,000 2,324,000 173,000 991.16 - Improve Insulation $15,547,000 2,168,000 1,521,000 142,000 1491.10 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger - boiler blowdown $10,467,000 1,368,000 1,276,000 74,000 801.4 - Change boiler blowdown rate $9,885,000 979,000 852,200 55,000 661.20 - Multiple boiler optimization $7,400,000 103,000 517,600 75,500 141.18 – Feedwater heat recovery – general $7,104,000 1,079,000 1,035,000 58,000 181.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program $7,007,000 1,461,000 664,100 52,000 711.21 - Reduce or recover vented steam $4,752,000 682,000 469,400 37,000 371.13 - Modify low pressure condensate flash system $2,707,000 391,000 404,800 20,000 161.12 - Modify the medium pressure condensate flash system $1,517,000 184,000 184,500 10,000 61.6 - Change steam generation conditions $1,243,000 235,000 -530 16,000 141.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam $1,193,000 196,000 148,000 11,000 151.19 - Deaerator heat recovery - general $775,000 118,000 69,000 6,600 51.9 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using condensate tank $558,000 66,000 71,000 3,600 73.1 - Use of flue or exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating $302,000 38,000 28,000 2,300 22.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater $233,000 33,000 33,000 1,700 13.5 - Use of waste heat for cooling, steam generation/absorption cooling $230,000 24,000 24,000 1,300 21.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases $202,000 28,000 28,000 1,500 25.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown - avoiding delays $74,000 0 0 0 1Totals$477,182,000 52,294,000 47,595,000 4,173,000 1,36235Table 9. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions fromidentified process heatingopportunities in pick-list categoriesYear 2006 - 07 process heating savings opportunityrecommendationsCost savings($/year)Energy savings(MMBtu/year)Natural gassavings(MMBtu/year)CO2savings(metric tons/year)Number oftimes theopportunityapplied3.1 - Use of flue/exhaust gas heat for combustionair preheating $35,081,0004,421,000 4,063,000 242,700 666.2 - Other - Misc. $30,923,000 3,742,000 3,351,000 205,500 461.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases $22,527,000 3,366,000 2,354,000 206,200 1223.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaustgas heat $21,083,000 2,972,000 1,603,000 150,400 443.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or otherheat sources $20,843,0003,270,000 1,506,000 187,300 341.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion$16,201,000 2,452,0001,890,000 152,800 261.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient anduneconomical methods with economical/efficient system$15,918,000 1,829,0001,746,000 101,200 344.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure $15,900,000 2,487,000 1,767,000 148,200 743.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue/exhaust gas $12,666,0001,586,000 1,541,000 86,080 405.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown $11,092,000 1,190,000 1,189,000 63,200 244.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage inthe furnace $8,831,000 1,169,000 1,064,000 65,500 461.6 - Use of process or exhaust air forcombustion $7,765,000807,000 806,800 42,800 106.1 - Other - Measures not directly related toprocess heating $7,017,000 887,000 -311,000 53,700 221.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energysource $6,660,000 2,401,000 1,042,000 194,000 81.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons $6,337,000 811,000 811,000 43,000 72.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven $5,427,000 713,000 380,300 39,700 153.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling,steam generation $5,095,000 1,014,000 206,200 58,300 62.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes $2,181,000282,000 203,000 11,000 85.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens $2,179,000 252,100 266,600 13,000 131.16 - Improve Insulation $1,919,000 237,000 222,800 12,000 74.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling $1,296,000 193,000 144,500 7,700 85.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots possible $180,600 25,000 24,600 1,400 31.3 - Change boiler efficiency $175,800 18,000 18,000 950 81.1 - Reduce steam demand by changingthe process steam$80,600 7,700 8,000 400 35.2 - Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc.$60,290 6,200 6,200 350 21.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air $32,600 4,000 4,000 200 21.20 - Multiple boiler optimization $12,400 1,600 1,600 100 1Total $257,494,000 36,149,000 25,915,000 2,088,000 67936Table 10. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions fromidentified pumpingopportunities in pick-list categoriesYear 2007 pump savings opportunity recommendationsCost savings($/year)Energy savings(MMBtu/year)Electricity savings(MWh/year)CO2savings(metric tons/year)Number oftimes theopportunityapplied1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all ofthe time $3,121,000703,000 210,000 41,000 491.7 - Less than optimal equipment for theapplication $1,038,000194,000 57,000 11,400 351.9 - Other $838,000131,000 38,000 7,200 131.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements $318,000 61,000 18,000 3,600 121.3 - Excessive recirculation $215,000 37,000 11,000 2,200 91.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part ofthe time $202,00049,000 14,000 2,900 131.11 - System specs exceed system requirements $151,00023,000 7,000 1,400 21.10 - Excessive friction loss due tosystem design $58,000 13,000 4,000 800 21.12 - Change time ofuse $56,000 8,700 2,600 500 21.8 - Degraded equipment performance $32,000 6,000 2,000 300 61.4 - Unneeded flow path $19,000 4,000 1,100 250 21.6 - Suction-related problems $15,000 2,300 700 150 11.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive $9,800 1,700 500 100 2Total$6,073,000 1,233,000 362,000 72,000 14837Table 11. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions fromidentified compressed airopportunities in pick-list categoriesYear 2007 compressed air savings opportunityrecommendationsCost savings($/year)Energy savings(MMBtu/year)Electricity savings(MWh/year)CO2savings(metric tons/year)Number oftimes theopportunityapplied1.2 - Improve end use efficiency$3,039,000 308,000 90,000 18,000 471.6 - Multiple compressor control (install/ improve) $1,550,000249,000 73,000 14,000 221.1 - Reduce air leaks $1,270,000 246,000 72,000 14,000 404.1 - Other $983,000186,000 55,000 10,000 191.3 - Reduce system air pressure $696,000 128,000 38,000 7,400 251.7 - Reduce run time $472,000 96,000 28,000 5,600 153.12 - Sparging $337,000 5,400 1,600 300 21.5 - Adjust cascading set points $290,000 41,000 12,000 2,400 83.1 - Aspirating $194,000 34,000 10,000 2,000 13.8 - Open blowing $148,000 34,000 10,000 2,000 53.6 - Diaphragm pumps $145,000 27,000 8,000 1,600 52.2 - Reduce supply side pressure $112,000 24,000 7,000 1,400 53.5 - Dense phase transport $62,000 11,000 3,200 600 11.4 - Improve trim compressor partload efficiency $39,000 10,000 3,000 600 42.3 - Install flow pressure control $33,900 7,000 2,000 400 23.4 - Condensate drain $29,900 2,000 600 100 21.8 - Add primary receivervolume $24,300 4,300 1,300 200 32.7 - Reduce distribution piping pressure gradient $18,300 4,100 1,200 200 22.4 - Reduce demand side pressure $15,900 5,300 1,600 300 12.8 - Reduce component pressure drop $10,300 2,000 600 100 22.6 - Install secondarystorage $9,070 2,000 600 100 13.3 - Cabinet cooling $8,700 2,200 650 100 22.5 - Install primary storage for peak air demand $8,690 1,000 300 0 13.13 - Vacuum generation $6,600 1,300 400 0 13.7 - Dilute phase transport $3,700 700 200 0 13.9 - Open hand held blow guns or lances $2,800 200 60 0 1Total$9,509,000 1,438,000 420,000 84,000 21838Table 12. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2emissions fromidentified fanopportunities in pick-list categoriesYear 2007 fan savings opportunity recommendationsCost savings($/year)Energy savings(MMBtu/year)Electricity savings(MWh/year)CO2savings(metric tons/year)Number oftimes theopportunityapplied1.14 - Other $7,200,000872,000 260,000 46,000 71.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan $1,986,000 367,000 110,000 21,000 181.1 - Use variable speed drive$1,587,000 314,00092,000 18,000 351.13 - Shut off unneeded fans $1,135,000 269,000 79,000 14,000 91.6 - Install new appropriately sizedimpeller $300,000 56,000 16,500 3,200 51.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake $121,000 16,000 5,000 900 41.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge $91,000 10,000 3,000 500 11.2 - Change belt drive ratio $90,900 16,000 5,000 900 121.10 - Use factory designed inlet box $39,600 5,900 2,000 300 11.3 - De-tip fan blades $20,600 4,100 1,200 200 21.4 - Convert to belt drive $15,000 2,400 700 100 1Total$12,588,000 1,937,000 600,000 108,000 9539Table 13. Estimated payback periods for energy savings opportunities identified in the 2006 and 2007Save Energy NowassessmentsPayback categoryNumber of identifiedopportunitiesPotential cost savings($/year)Potential total source energy savings(MMBtu/year)Potential total CO2emission reduction(metric tons/year)Payback data summary for all assessment completed in 2006 - 070 - 9 months 928 $264,643,000 38,589,000 2,477,0009 months - 2 years 782 $250,798,000 30,312,000 1,754,0002 - 4 years 484 $163,236,000 15,342,000 1,498,0004+ years 246 $52,154,000 5,782,000 634,000spinoff 40 $31,461,000 3,000,000 160,000Totals 2480 $761,295,000 93,026,000 6,524,000Payback data summary for steam assessment completed in 2006 - 070 - 9 months 534 $177,821,000 25,804,000 1,703,0009 months - 2 years 432 $141,708,000 15,016,000 895,0002 - 4 years 250 $109,154,000 7,497,000 1,050,0004+ years 120 $36,032,000 3,049,000 476,000spinoff 14 $12,313,000 907,000 49,000Totals 1350 $476,030,000 52,273,000 4,172,000Payback data summary for process heating assessment completed in 2006 - 070 - 9 months 239 $79,114,000 11,199,000 683,0009 months - 2 years 227 $99,602,000 13,933,000 783,0002 - 4 years 139 $47,531,000 6,698,000 382,0004+ years 54 $13,466,000 2,279,000 133,000spinoff 10 $17,379,000 2,035,000 108,000Totals 669 $257,092,00036,143,000 2,088,000Payback data summary for fan assessment completed in 20070 - 9 months 24 $1,335,000 282,000 16,0009 months - 2 years 24$5,607,000 752,000 41,0002 - 4 years 31 $4,536,000 709,000 40,000404+ years 16 $1,112,000 194,000 11,000spinoff 0 0 0 0Totals95$12,589,000 1,937,000 108,000Payback data summary for compressed air assessment completed in 20070 - 9 months98 $3,613,000 655,000 38,0009 months - 2 years58 $2,645,000 411,000 24,0002 - 4 years27 $1,018,000 239,000 14,0004+ years29 $660,000 114,000 7,000spinoff6 $1,573,000 20,000 1,000Totals218$9,509,000 1,438,000 84,000Payback data summary for pump assessment completed in 20070 - 9 months33 $2,761,000 649,000 38,0009 months - 2 years41 $1,236,000 199,000 11,7002 - 4 years37 $997,000 201,000 11,7504+ years27 $884,000 145,000 8,000spinoff10 $196,000 38,200 2,250Totals148 $6,073,000 1,233,000 72,00041Table 14. Steam assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energy usefrom all identified opportunities, by pick-list categoryPick-list category of identified savings opportunities FrequencyAverage energy costsavings (%)Average source-energy savings(%)1.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel32 12.5* 1.41.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements 183 2.9 2.31.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization 14 2.8 1.42.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes 1 2.6 2.51.7 - Add or Modify Operation ofBackpressure Steam Turbine 85 2.2 1.01.17 - Other95 1.9 1.11.18 - Feedwater Heat Recovery - General 18 1.6 1.51.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency 248 1.5 1.01.8 - Add or Modify Operation ofCondensing Steam Turbine (High Pressure to Condensing) 17 1.5 0.41.21 - Reduce or Recover Vented Steam 37 1.1 0.91.12 - Modify the Medium PressureCondensate Flash System 6 1.0 0.61.19 - Deaerator Heat Recovery - General 5 1.0 1.01.11 - Change Condensate Recovery Rates 96 0.9 0.71.1 - Reduce oxygen content offlue (exhaust) gases 2 0.8 0.81.13 - Modify Low Pressure Condensate Flash System 16 0.8 0.73.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling,steam generation or absorption cooling 2 0.7 0.51.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program 99 0.7 0.61.5 - Install Blowdown Flash toLow Pressure Steam 15 0.6 0.51.9 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using CondensateTank Vent 7 0.6 0.51.6 - Change Steam Generation Conditions 14 0.6 0.51.16 - Improve Insulation149 0.5 0.41.10 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Boiler Blowdown 80 0.5 0.41.4 - Change Boiler Blowdown Rate 66 0.4 0.31.15 - Implement Steam Leak Maintenance Program 71 0.4 0.33.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 2 0.4 0.35.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shutdown - avoiding delays, waits 1 0.4 0.06.2 - Other - Misc.1 0.2 0.1* Includes energy savings from switching to an opportunity fuel.42Table 15. Process heating assessments — potential percentagesavings in plant energy costs and source-energy usefrom all identified opportunities, by pick-list categoryPick-list category of identified savings opportunities FrequencyAverage energycost savings (%)Average source-energy savings(%)3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling,steam generation or absorption cooling 6 9.0 6.21.4 - Use of alternate fuel orenergy source 8 5.4* 6.23.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or otherheat sources from a furnace - oven 34 3.5 3.15.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down- avoiding delays, waits, cooling 24 3.5 2.61.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion 26 2.9 2.31.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and uneconomical methods 34 2.9 2.83.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from higher temp. process to supply heatto lower temperature processes44 2.8 2.55.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens tomeet the process safetyrequirements 13 2.6 2.36.1 - Other - Measures not directlyrelated to process heating 22 2.3 1.56.2 - Other - Misc.46 2.1 1.62.1 - Improving heat transferin a furnace-oven 15 2.1 2.33.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 66 1.9 1.63.2 - Load or charge preheating usingheat from flue/exhaust gas or othersource of waste heat 40 1.8 1.64.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace 46 1.3 1.01.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion 10 1.2 0.84.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance offurnace structure or parts 74 1.2 1.01.1 - Reduce oxygen content offlue (exhaust) gases 122 1.1 1.11.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO,H2, CH4, soot in the exhaust gases) 7 0.9 0.74.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling 8 0.8 0.51.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements 3 0.8 0.61.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency8 0.8 0.71.16 - Improve Insulation7 0.7 0.92.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes 8 0.7 0.95.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots where possible 3 0.3 0.35.2 - Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc. 2 0.3 0.31.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air 2 0.1 0.11.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization1 0.0 0.0* Includes energy savings from switching to an opportunity fuel.43Table 16. Compressed air assessments — potential percentagesavings in plant energy costs and source-energy usefrom all identified opportunities, by pick-list categoryPick-list category of identified savings opportunities FrequencyAverage energy costsavings (%)Average source-energy savings (%)3.1 - Aspirating 1 1.3 1.43.4 - Condensate Drain 2 1.1 1.11.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install / improve) 22 0.6 0.73.5 - Dense Phase Transport 1 0.6 0.31.2 - Improve End UseEfficiency 47 0.6 0.44.1 - Other 19 0.5 0.53.12 - Sparging 2 0.5 0.11.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points 8 0.5 0.41.4 - Improve Trim CompressorPart Load Efficiency 4 0.4 0.41.1 - Reduce Air Leaks 40 0.4 0.41.7 - Reduce Run Time 15 0.3 0.33.6 - Diaphragm Pumps 5 0.3 0.31.3 - Reduce System Air Pressure 25 0.3 0.32.6 - Install Secondary Storage 1 0.3 0.32.2 - Reduce Supply Side Pressure 5 0.2 0.22.8 - Reduce Component Pressure Drop 2 0.2 0.23.8 - Open Blowing 5 0.2 0.22.3 - Install Flow Pressure Control 2 0.2 0.12.7 - Reduce Distribution Piping Pressure Gradient 2 0.2 0.22.5 - Install Primary Storage for Peak Air Demand 1 0.1 0.13.3 - Cabinet Cooling 2 0.1 0.11.8 - Add Primary Receiver Volume 3 0.1 0.044Table 17. Pumping assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energy usefrom all identified opportunities, by pick-list categoryPick-list category of identified savings opportunities FrequencyAverage energy costsavings (%)Average source-energysavings (%)1.9 - Other 13 0.7 0.71.3 - Excessive recirculation 9 0.4 0.31.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements 12 0.3 0.31.10 - Excessive friction lossdue to system design 2 0.2 0.21.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time 49 0.2 0.21.7 - Less than optimal equipmentfor the application 35 0.2 0.21.12 - Change time of use 2 0.2 0.11.11 - System specs exceed system requirements 2 0.2 0.21.8 - Degraded equipment performance 6 0.1 0.11.1 - Excessive valve friction losspart of the time 13 0.1 0.11.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 2 0.1 0.11.4 - Unneeded flow path 2 0.1 0.01.6 - Suction-related problems 1 0.0 0.045Table 18. Fan assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energy usefrom all identified opportunities, by pick-list categoryPick-list category of identified savingsopportunitiesFrequencyAverage energy cost savings(%)Average source-energy savings(%)1.14 - Other 7 3.4 2.11.13 - Shut off unneeded fans 9 1.4 2.11.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan 18 0.8 0.91.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge 1 0.7 0.11.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller 5 0.4 0.31.10 - Use factory designed inlet box 1 0.3 0.21.2 - Change belt drive ratio 12 0.3 0.31.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 35 0.2 0.21.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake 4 0.1 0.11.3 - De-tip fan blades 2 0.1 0.1