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 generally available free via the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. 

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

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

following source. 

 National Technical Information Service 

 5285 Port Royal Road 

 Springfield, VA 22161 

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

TDD 703-487-4639 

Fax 703-605-6900 

E-mail info@ntis.gov 

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

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

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

the following source. 

 Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

 P.O. Box 62 

 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

Telephone 865-576-8401 

Fax 865-576-5728 

E-mail reports@osti.gov 

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

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

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States 

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

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

liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process 

disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, 

process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or 

otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or 

any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed 

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

Government or any agency thereof.
 

ORNL/TM-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 Software 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 Survey 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 OPPORTUNITY 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 1st 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 half 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 process 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 paybacks of less than 2 years.............................................................. 17 

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

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

assessments had estimated paybacks of less than 2 years........................................................................... 18 

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

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

Figure 13. Many of the individual identified process 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 compressed 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 opportunities 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 CO2 emissions from identified steam

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

Table 9. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from identified process 

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

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

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

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

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

Table 12. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 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 savings in plant energy costs and source-energy use 

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category............................................................................... 41 

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

Table 16. Compressed air assessments — potential percentage 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 opportunities, by pick-list category ........................................................................ 44 

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

from all identified opportunities, 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-effective form of energy savings assessment. 

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

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

suite of respected software tools, proven assessment protocols, training curricula, certified energy experts, 

and strong partnerships for deployment. 

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

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

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

heating systems, which 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 heating. 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 assessment software tools. This approach has the 

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

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

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

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

implemented in the industrial plants. Plant 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 completed. The total identified potential cost savings from 

these 440 assessments is $763 million per year, including natural gas savings of about 75 TBtu per year. 
2 

These results, if fully implemented, could reduce CO2 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 total 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 CO2 reduction 

that has actually been achieved is about 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 the 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month implementation 

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

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

This report also provides detailed information on key 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 approach for conducting in-plant energy 

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

plant, identify potential savings opportunities, and write reports that are left with 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 industrial plant personnel specifically on how to use the 

DOE steam, process heating, pumping, compressed air, and fan software tools. Assessments are done in 

no more than three days, so, by necessity, they are very focused assessments. When making contact with 

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

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

in the assessment identify some “target” opportunities to investigate using the DOE software. The target 

opportunities chosen are often ones with the potential to achieve significant plant energy and cost savings. 

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

opportunity, obtain or measure data as necessary, and enter that data in the DOE software to quantify a 

specific energy savings opportunity. Often no more than three or four target opportunities are investigated 

during an assessment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

hands-on experience 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 likelihood 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 process and utility systems. These tools use analytical 

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

systems. There is also a Quick Plant Energy Profiler, or “Quick PEP,” online software tool that helps 

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

energy and reduce costs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

develop the fan tool. 

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

below, were used for 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 system pre-screening tool that allows plant personnel 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 with the fluid work (flow and head) required by the 

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

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

likely to offer the greatest savings. 
4 

2.2.4 AirMaster+ Compressed Air System Performance Software 

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

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

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

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

periods for implementing these measures. 

2.2.5 Fan System Assessment Tool (FSAT) 

The Fan System Assessment Tool helps users quantify energy consumption and energy savings 

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

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

FSAT estimates the work done by the fan system and compares that to the estimated energy input 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 software tools can be found at the following web link: 

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

2.3 Major Changes to the Save Energy 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 expansion 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 TBtu, lowered from 1 TBtu for the assessments 

conducted in calendar year 2006. Lowering this threshold 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 were 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 were 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 improved 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 the 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 OPPORTUNITY 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 assessments, 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 prepared, final results for 440 assessments — 200 assessments 

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

2007 assessment reports is for 203 steam assessments, 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 that 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), Wisconsin (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 metals, and non-metallic mineral product plants. The 

industries in which the most assessments 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 savings from the 2007 assessments were about 60% 

of those from the 2006 assessments. 

A major difference between the 2006 and 2007 assessments 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 there 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 difference between 2006 and 2007 assessment results is 
6 

attributable to the greater identified savings opportunities in steam and process heating assessments than 

in pumping, compressed air, and fan system assessments. 

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

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

opportunity data could be analyzed using these pick-list categories. Tables 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 information on potential cost, energy, and CO2 emissions reductions 

for all available 2006 and 2007 assessment results. Figures 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 majority 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 estimate the payback period. Savings payback period is 

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

will not consider implementing savings opportunities 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 shown 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 all identified opportunities have estimated paybacks 

of 2 years or less. 

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

air opportunities had estimated paybacks of 2 years or less. 

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

opportunities had estimated paybacks of 2 years or less. 

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

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

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

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

fired systems at these large plants. 

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

opportunities can potentially save, if implemented, more than 1% of the plant source-energy use. 
7 

● A number of the compressed air and fan opportunities 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 other 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 tables 14 through 18 are based on plant source-energy used, 

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

4. REFERENCES 

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

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

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

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

the U.S. DOE 2006 Save Energy Now Assessment Initiative. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM2007/138. 
8 

Figure 1. More than 20 Save Energy Now assessments were completed in Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and in 2006 and 2007. (Based on 458 completed assessments (200 SENAs in year 2006 and 258 in year 2007). As of July 1

reports 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 PRODUCTS

INDUSTRY TYPE (NAIC)

NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS 

YEAR 2006 - 07 (440 SENA's)
10 

Figure 3. The total recommended energy cost savings from 240 Save Energy Now assessments completed in 2007 was $

is about half of the recommended cost savings from the 2006 assessments. 

RECOMMENDED ENERGY COST SAVINGS 

$109.6 $106.5

$12.6 

$367.6

$151.4

$9.5

$0

$50

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

2006 2007

YEAR 

ENERGY COST SAVINGS (Million

$/Year)

SteamProcesFansCompPumps

114 SENAs 86 SENAs 89 SENAs 56 SENAs 15 SENAs 46 SENAs 3
11 

Figure 4. The total recommended source-energy savings from 240 Save Energy Now assessments completed in 2007 wa

about 60% of the recommended source energy savings from the 2006 assessments. 

RECOMMENDED SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS 

16.0 15.3

1.9 

36.3

20.8

1.4

05

10152025303540

2006 2007

YEAR 

SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS

(Tbtu/Year)

SteamProcesFansComprPumps

114 SENAs 86 SENAs 89 SENAs 56 SENAs 15 SENAs 46 SENAs 34 
12 

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. 

$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 Rate

TOP "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 furnace

TOP "10" PROCESS HEATING 

OPPORTUNITIES

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 path

TOP "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 million 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 Pumps

TOP "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 drive

TOP "10" FAN OPPORTUNITIES

TOTAL ENERGY COST SAVINGS IDENTIFIED (Million $/Year)
17 

Figure 10. For all opportunities identified in 2006 and 2007 Save Energy Now assessments, approximately 70% had 

less than 2 years.

ALL SYSTEM TYPES

2%

36%

32%

10%

20%

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

STEAM ASSESSMENTS

1%

9%

39%

32%

19%

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

PROCESS HEATING ASSESS

1%

36%

34%

21%

8%
18 

Figure 11. About 72% of the opportunities identified in compressed air assessments had estimated paybacks of less 

50% of the opportunities identified in the pumping and fan assessments had estimated paybacks of less than 2 years

PUMP ASSESSMENTS

7%

22%

25% 28%

18%

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

COMPRESSED AIR ASSESSMENTS

3%

45%

27%

12%

13% 0 - 9 months

9 months - 2 years2 - 4 years4+ yearsspinoff

FAN ASSESSMENT

33%

25%

25%

17% 
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 Steam

TOP "10" STEAM OPPORTUNITIES

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)

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

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

Figure 13. Many of the individual identified process heating 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

preheating

TOP "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 least 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 Time

TOP "10" COMPRESSED AIR OPPORTUNITIES

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)
22 

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. 

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 Drive

TOP "10" PUMP OPPORTUNITIES

AVERAGE PERCENT SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS (%)
23 

Figure 16. Each of the individual identified fan opportunities 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 drive

TOP "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 34 440 
26 

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

Steam assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description 

1.1 - Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam requirements 

Eliminating or optimizing the operation of steam-using process equipment 

generation rates which in turn reduces boiler fuel (and energy) consumptio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 - Add or modify operation of backpressure steam turbine 

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

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

If the isentropic efficiency of a utilized condensing turbine is improved (e.gsteam flow is required to drive the turbine load. This in turn reduces boiler consumption rates. If a condensing turbine is taken out-of-service, steam decreases and boiler fuel (and energy) consumption is lowered. 

1.9 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using condensate tank vent 

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

1.10 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using boiler blowdown 

When superheated blowdown water undergoes a pressure reduction after water flashes to steam and a hot water fraction remains. This hot water mexchanger to heat feedwater or process fluids thereby reducing steam use 
27 

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

boiler feedwater system, lowering feedwater heating requirements and feeneeds. 

1.12 - Modify the medium pressure condensate flash system 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and insulating uninsulated components will reduce energy loss from hot s

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

save energy by reducing the use of process energy or by improving the efenergy to process heating (e.g. steam) energy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

downstream process needs. Steam is also vented from some plant procesIf steam venting is reduced or vented steam is recovered (for process heafuel (and energy) consumption rates are reduced. 
28 

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

Process Heating assessment "pick-list" savings 

projects Description 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gases, increasing available heat and efficiency. Flame temperatures will aenhance radiation heat transfer to the furnace and its load. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

slowing the process and lowering efficiency. 

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

This is one of the most effective ways to recycle waste heat. Incoming am

through a heat exchanger and preheated with energy extracted from the oEvery unit of energy transferred to the air is one less that must be provide

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

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

amount of energy need to support the process. 
29 

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

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

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

Products are often removed from ovens or furnaces at elevated temperatuthe open air. Cooling them with forced air in an enclosure will heat the air, heating another process. 

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

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

4.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure or parts 

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

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

excessive amounts of cooling media aren't used. 

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

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

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

Heating equipment efficiency is highest at 100% of design capacity. Undeequipment will consume more energy per unit of production. 

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

they contribute to wasted heat. Lowering their mass causes a correspondenergy they extract from the process. 

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

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

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

Flame curtains and door pilots insure burnoff of flammable prepared atmo

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

these ignition sources are no longer necessary. 
30 

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

Pump assessment "pick-list" savings projects Description 

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

reduced. 

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

geometry, etc. 

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

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

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

of day when the cost of electricity is lower. 

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

undersized motor has been used. 

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

throttling flow. 

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

parallel pumps necessarily. Usually used with multiple parallel pum

oversized pump. 

1.6 - Suction-related problems Inadequate suction head, poor suction geometry, or obstructions. 1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application Installed pump is the wrong size or type for current operating requir1.8 – Degraded equipment performance Equipment wear/degradation (impeller damage, erosion, corrosion, 

that prevents operation at design conditions. 
31 

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

Compressed Air assessment "pick-list" 

savings projects Description 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reduced at lower working pressure. Also at reduced pressure unregulated air demands 

compressed air. See also items 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 for individual pressure reduction of sup

1.4 - Improve trim compressor part load efficiency 

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

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

compressors. 

1.6 - Multiple compressor control (install / improve) 

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

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

shut off during certain periods of time. 

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

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

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

treatment equipment, system pressure might be reduced with the associated energy sapresently being treated to a greater level of contaminate removal than necessary, reduc

treatment can reduce system energy use. For example changing from regenerative styldryers. 

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

compressor efficiency. 

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

power consumption of positive displacement compressors. 

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

maintaining a recoverable pressure differential storage of compressed air energy can b

that artificial demand is reduced, or stored energy prevents the start-up of an air compredemand, system energy reduction is possible. 

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

less compressed air at reduced demand side operating pressure. 
32 

2.5 - Install primary storage for peak air demand 

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

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

control, or other energy reduction measures made possible through the used of Seconddemand events. 

2.7 - Reduce distribution piping pressure gradient 

Excessive piping resistance in distribution piping can lead to irrecoverable pressure loss

decay during peak airflow events. Eliminating piping pressure gradient can allow reduceassociated energy savings. 

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

through treatment", etc. 

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

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

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

fan or blower can provide a net energy reduction. 

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

source, a net energy reduction is possible. 

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

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

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

reduction. 

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

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

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

be accomplished with ventilation fans, heat tubes, or small mechanical refrigeration unitprovide a net energy reduction. 

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

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

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

material handling methods can reduce energy use. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

energy reduction. 

4.1 – Other 
33 

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

Fan assessment "pick-list" savings 

projects Description 

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

drive varies the speed of the motor to change the capacity of the fan in order to match t

adjustable speed, variable frequency, or adjustable frequency drives. 

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

those losses. 

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

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

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

changing the pulley ratio to slow the fan down. 

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

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

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

the capacity to match process needs. 

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

improve performance 

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

option. 

1.8 - Replace outlet damper with variable inlet vanes 

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

1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge 

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

of the fan can adversely performance. 
34 

Table 8. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from identified steam opportunities 

Year 2006 - 07 steam savings opportunity recommendations 

Cost savings 

($/year) 

Energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Natural gas 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

CO2 s

1.1 - Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam requirements $116,987,000 21,329,000 10,910,000 1.2 - Use an alternate fuel $92,057,000 -82,000 16,898,000 1.3 - Change boiler efficiency $59,098,000 8,063,000 5,383,000 1.7 - Add or modify operation of backpressure steam turbine $42,609,000 5,892,000 -203,000 1.11 - Change condensate recovery rates $27,803,000 3,084,000 2,360,000 1.17 - Other $25,452,000 2,298,000 266,800 1.8 - Add or modify operation of condensing steam turbine $22,944,000 -34,000 2,323,000 1.14 - Implement steam trap maintenance program $18,984,000 2,579,000 2,324,000 1.16 - Improve Insulation $15,547,000 2,168,000 1,521,000 1.10 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger - boiler blowdown $10,467,000 1,368,000 1,276,000 1.4 - Change boiler blowdown rate $9,885,000 979,000 852,200 1.20 - Multiple boiler optimization $7,400,000 103,000 517,600 1.18 – Feedwater heat recovery – general $7,104,000 1,079,000 1,035,000 1.15 - Implement steam leak maintenance program $7,007,000 1,461,000 664,100 1.21 - Reduce or recover vented steam $4,752,000 682,000 469,400 1.13 - Modify low pressure condensate flash system $2,707,000 391,000 404,800 1.12 - Modify the medium pressure condensate flash system $1,517,000 184,000 184,500 1.6 - Change steam generation conditions $1,243,000 235,000 -530 1.5 - Install blowdown flash to low pressure steam $1,193,000 196,000 148,000 1.19 - Deaerator heat recovery - general $775,000 118,000 69,000 1.9 - Modify feedwater heat recovery exchanger using condensate tank $558,000 66,000 71,000 

3.1 - Use of flue or exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating $302,000 38,000 28,000 

2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater $233,000 33,000 33,000 3.5 - Use of waste heat for cooling, steam generation/absorption cooling $230,000 24,000 24,000 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases $202,000 28,000 28,000 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays $74,000 0 0 Totals $477,182,000 52,294,000 47,595,000 
35 

Table 9. Potential cost savings, energy savings, and reduction in CO2 emissions from 

identified process heating opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2006 - 07 process heating savings opportunity 

recommendations Cost savings 

($/year) 

Energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Natural gas 

savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

CO2 s

(metric to

3.1 - Use of flue/exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating $35,081,000 4,421,000 4,063,000 246.2 - Other - Misc. $30,923,000 3,742,000 3,351,000 201.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases $22,527,000 3,366,000 2,354,000 203.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat $21,083,000 2,972,000 1,603,000 153.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources $20,843,000 3,270,000 1,506,000 181.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion $16,201,000 2,452,000 1,890,000 151.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and uneconomical methods with economical/efficient system $15,918,000 1,829,000 1,746,000 104.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure $15,900,000 2,487,000 1,767,000 143.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue/exhaust gas $12,666,000 1,586,000 1,541,000 85.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down $11,092,000 1,190,000 1,189,000 64.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace $8,831,000 1,169,000 1,064,000 61.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion $7,765,000 807,000 806,800 46.1 - Other - Measures not directly related to process heating $7,017,000 887,000 -311,000 51.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source $6,660,000 2,401,000 1,042,000 191.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons $6,337,000 811,000 811,000 42.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven $5,427,000 713,000 380,300 33.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation $5,095,000 1,014,000 206,200 52.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes $2,181,000 282,000 203,000 15.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens $2,179,000 252,100 266,600 11.16 - Improve Insulation $1,919,000 237,000 222,800 14.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling $1,296,000 193,000 144,500 5.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots possible $180,600 25,000 24,600 1.3 - Change boiler efficiency $175,800 18,000 18,000 1.1 - Reduce steam demand by changing the process steam $80,600 7,700 8,000 5.2 - Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc. $60,290 6,200 6,200 1.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air $32,600 4,000 4,000 1.20 - Multiple boiler optimization $12,400 1,600 1,600 

Total $257,494,000 36,149,000 25,915,000 2,08
36 

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

identified pumping opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2007 pump savings opportunity recommendations 

Cost savings 

($/year) 

Energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Electricity savings 

(MWh/year) 

CO2 s

(metric to

1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time $3,121,000 703,000 210,000 41.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application $1,038,000 194,000 57,000 11.9 - Other $838,000 131,000 38,000 1.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements $318,000 61,000 18,000 1.3 - Excessive recirculation $215,000 37,000 11,000 1.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time $202,000 49,000 14,000 1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements $151,000 23,000 7,000 1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design $58,000 13,000 4,000 1.12 - Change time of use $56,000 8,700 2,600 1.8 - Degraded equipment performance $32,000 6,000 2,000 1.4 - Unneeded flow path $19,000 4,000 1,100 1.6 - Suction-related problems $15,000 2,300 700 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive $9,800 1,700 500 

Total $6,073,000 1,233,000 362,000 7
37 

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

identified compressed air opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2007 compressed air savings opportunity 

recommendations Cost savings 

($/year) 

Energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Electricity savings 

(MWh/year) 

CO2 s

(metric to

1.2 - Improve end use efficiency $3,039,000 308,000 90,000 181.6 - Multiple compressor control (install / improve) $1,550,000 249,000 73,000 141.1 - Reduce air leaks $1,270,000 246,000 72,000 144.1 - Other $983,000 186,000 55,000 101.3 - Reduce system air pressure $696,000 128,000 38,000 71.7 - Reduce run time $472,000 96,000 28,000 53.12 - Sparging $337,000 5,400 1,600 1.5 - Adjust cascading set points $290,000 41,000 12,000 23.1 - Aspirating $194,000 34,000 10,000 23.8 - Open blowing $148,000 34,000 10,000 23.6 - Diaphragm pumps $145,000 27,000 8,000 12.2 - Reduce supply side pressure $112,000 24,000 7,000 13.5 - Dense phase transport $62,000 11,000 3,200 1.4 - Improve trim compressor part load efficiency $39,000 10,000 3,000 2.3 - Install flow pressure control $33,900 7,000 2,000 3.4 - Condensate drain $29,900 2,000 600 1.8 - Add primary receiver volume $24,300 4,300 1,300 2.7 - Reduce distribution piping pressure gradient $18,300 4,100 1,200 2.4 - Reduce demand side pressure $15,900 5,300 1,600 2.8 - Reduce component pressure drop $10,300 2,000 600 2.6 - Install secondary storage $9,070 2,000 600 3.3 - Cabinet cooling $8,700 2,200 650 2.5 - Install primary storage for peak air demand $8,690 1,000 300 3.13 - Vacuum generation $6,600 1,300 400 3.7 - Dilute phase transport $3,700 700 200 3.9 - Open hand held blow guns or lances $2,800 200 60 

Total $9,509,000 1,438,000 420,000 84
38 

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

identified fan opportunities in pick-list categories 

Year 2007 fan savings opportunity recommendations Cost savings 

($/year) 

Energy savings 

(MMBtu/year) 

Electricity savings 

(MWh/year) 

CO2 s

(metric to

1.14 - Other $7,200,000 872,000 260,000 461.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan $1,986,000 367,000 110,000 211.1 - Use variable speed drive $1,587,000 314,000 92,000 181.13 - Shut off unneeded fans $1,135,000 269,000 79,000 141.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller $300,000 56,000 16,500 31.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake $121,000 16,000 5,000 1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge $91,000 10,000 3,000 1.2 - Change belt drive ratio $90,900 16,000 5,000 1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box $39,600 5,900 2,000 1.3 - De-tip fan blades $20,600 4,100 1,200 1.4 - Convert to belt drive $15,000 2,400 700 

Total $12,588,000 1,937,000 600,000 108
39 

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

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

(m

Payback data summary for all assessment completed in 2006 - 07 

0 - 9 months 928 $264,643,000 38,589,000 

9 months - 2 years 782 $250,798,000 30,312,000 

2 - 4 years 484 $163,236,000 15,342,000 

4+ years 246 $52,154,000 5,782,000 

spinoff 40 $31,461,000 3,000,000 Totals 2480 $761,295,000 93,026,000 

Payback data summary for steam assessment completed in 2006 - 07 

0 - 9 months 534 $177,821,000 25,804,000 

9 months - 2 years 432 $141,708,000 15,016,000 

2 - 4 years 250 $109,154,000 7,497,000 

4+ years 120 $36,032,000 3,049,000 

spinoff 14 $12,313,000 907,000 Totals 1350 $476,030,000 52,273,000 

Payback data summary for process heating assessment completed in 2006 - 07 

0 - 9 months 239 $79,114,000 11,199,000 

9 months - 2 years 227 $99,602,000 13,933,000 

2 - 4 years 139 $47,531,000 6,698,000 

4+ years 54 $13,466,000 2,279,000 

spinoff 10 $17,379,000 2,035,000 Totals 669 $257,092,000 36,143,000 

Payback data summary for fan assessment completed in 2007 

0 - 9 months 24 $1,335,000 282,000 

9 months - 2 years 24 $5,607,000 752,000 

2 - 4 years 31 $4,536,000 709,000 
40 

4+ years 16 $1,112,000 194,000 

spinoff 0 0 0 Totals 95 $12,589,000 1,937,000 

Payback data summary for compressed air assessment completed in 2007 

0 - 9 months 98 $3,613,000 655,000 

9 months - 2 years 58 $2,645,000 411,000 

2 - 4 years 27 $1,018,000 239,000 

4+ years 29 $660,000 114,000 

spinoff 6 $1,573,000 20,000 Totals 218 $9,509,000 1,438,000 

Payback data summary for pump assessment completed in 2007 

0 - 9 months 33 $2,761,000 649,000 

9 months - 2 years 41 $1,236,000 199,000 

2 - 4 years 37 $997,000 201,000 

4+ years 27 $884,000 145,000 

spinoff 10 $196,000 38,200 Totals 148 $6,073,000 1,233,000 
41 

Table 14. Steam assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-energ

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

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

savings (%) 

1.2 - Use an Alternate Fuel 32 12.5* 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements 183 2.9 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization 14 2.8 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes 1 2.6 1.7 - Add or Modify Operation of Backpressure Steam Turbine 85 2.2 1.17 - Other 95 1.9 1.18 - Feedwater Heat Recovery - General 18 1.6 1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency 248 1.5 1.8 - Add or Modify Operation of Condensing Steam Turbine (High Pressure to Condensing) 17 1.5 1.21 - Reduce or Recover Vented Steam 37 1.1 1.12 - Modify the Medium Pressure Condensate Flash System 6 1.0 1.19 - Deaerator Heat Recovery - General 5 1.0 1.11 - Change Condensate Recovery Rates 96 0.9 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases 2 0.8 1.13 - Modify Low Pressure Condensate Flash System 16 0.8 3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling 2 0.7 1.14 - Implement Steam Trap Maintenance Program 99 0.7 1.5 - Install Blowdown Flash to Low Pressure Steam 15 0.6 1.9 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Condensate Tank Vent 7 0.6 1.6 - Change Steam Generation Conditions 14 0.6 1.16 - Improve Insulation 149 0.5 1.10 - Modify Feedwater Heat Recovery Exchanger using Boiler Blowdown 80 0.5 1.4 - Change Boiler Blowdown Rate 66 0.4 1.15 - Implement Steam Leak Maintenance Program 71 0.4 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 2 0.4 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits 1 0.4 6.2 - Other - Misc. 1 0.2 

* Includes energy savings from switching to an opportunity fuel. 
42 

Table 15. Process heating assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings opportunities Frequency Average ene

cost savings 

3.5 - Use of waste heat for water or air cooling, steam generation or absorption cooling 6 9.0 1.4 - Use of alternate fuel or energy source 8 5.4* 3.4 - Heat recovery from hot products or other heat sources from a furnace - oven 34 3.5 5.1 - Furnace scheduling, loading, shut down - avoiding delays, waits, cooling 24 3.5 1.5 - Use of oxygen for combustion 26 2.9 1.3 - Use of proper heating methods - replace inefficient and uneconomical methods 34 2.9 3.3 - Heat cascading - use of flue or Exhaust gas heat from higher temp. process to supply heat to lower temperature processes 44 2.8 5.3 - Control (reduce) make up air for ovens to meet the process safety requirements 13 2.6 6.1 - Other - Measures not directly related to process heating 22 2.3 6.2 - Other - Misc. 46 2.1 2.1 - Improving heat transfer in a furnace-oven 15 2.1 3.1 - Use of flue or Exhaust gas heat for combustion air preheating 66 1.9 3.2 - Load or charge preheating using heat from flue/exhaust gas or other source of waste heat 40 1.8 4.3 - Reduce-eliminate openings and air leakage in the furnace 46 1.3 1.6 - Use of process or exhaust air for combustion 10 1.2 4.1 - Proper insulation and maintenance of furnace structure or parts 74 1.2 1.1 - Reduce oxygen content of flue (exhaust) gases 122 1.1 1.2 - Eliminate excess unburned hydrocarbons (CO, H2, CH4, soot in the exhaust gases) 7 0.9 4.2 - Reduce-eliminate internal cooling 8 0.8 1.1 - Reduce Steam Demand by Changing the Process Steam Requirements 3 0.8 1.3 - Change Boiler Efficiency 8 0.8 1.16 - Improve Insulation 7 0.7 2.2 - Clean heat transfer surfaces - radiant tubes, heat exchangers, heater tubes 8 0.7 5.4 - Eliminate use of continuous flame curtains, pilots where possible 3 0.3 5.2 - Reducing weight of fixtures, trays, baskets etc. 2 0.3 1.7 - Use of outdoor air for combustion or make-up air 2 0.1 1.20 - Multiple Boiler Optimization 1 0.0 

* Includes energy savings from switching to an opportunity fuel.
43 

Table 16. Compressed air assessments — potential percentage savings in plant energy costs and source-

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

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

3.1 - Aspirating 1 1.3 3.4 - Condensate Drain 2 1.1 1.6 - Multiple Compressor Control (install / improve) 22 0.6 3.5 - Dense Phase Transport 1 0.6 1.2 - Improve End Use Efficiency 47 0.6 4.1 - Other 19 0.5 3.12 - Sparging 2 0.5 1.5 - Adjust Cascading Set Points 8 0.5 1.4 - Improve Trim Compressor Part Load Efficiency 4 0.4 1.1 - Reduce Air Leaks 40 0.4 1.7 - Reduce Run Time 15 0.3 3.6 - Diaphragm Pumps 5 0.3 1.3 - Reduce System Air Pressure 25 0.3 2.6 - Install Secondary Storage 1 0.3 2.2 - Reduce Supply Side Pressure 5 0.2 2.8 - Reduce Component Pressure Drop 2 0.2 3.8 - Open Blowing 5 0.2 2.3 - Install Flow Pressure Control 2 0.2 2.7 - Reduce Distribution Piping Pressure Gradient 2 0.2 2.5 - Install Primary Storage for Peak Air Demand 1 0.1 3.3 - Cabinet Cooling 2 0.1 1.8 - Add Primary Receiver Volume 3 0.1 
44 

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

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

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

1.9 - Other 13 0.7 1.3 - Excessive recirculation 9 0.4 1.5 - More flow than required to meet system requirements 12 0.3 1.10 - Excessive friction loss due to system design 2 0.2 1.2 - Excessive valve friction loss all of the time 49 0.2 1.7 - Less than optimal equipment for the application 35 0.2 1.12 - Change time of use 2 0.2 1.11 - System specs exceed system requirements 2 0.2 1.8 - Degraded equipment performance 6 0.1 1.1 - Excessive valve friction loss part of the time 13 0.1 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 2 0.1 1.4 - Unneeded flow path 2 0.1 1.6 - Suction-related problems 1 0.0 
45 

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

from all identified opportunities, by pick-list category 

Pick-list category of identified savings 

opportunities Frequency Average energy cost savings (%) Average so

1.14 - Other 7 3.4 1.13 - Shut off unneeded fans 9 1.4 1.7 - Install new appropriately sized fan 18 0.8 1.9 - Rearrange ductwork at fan inlet or discharge 1 0.7 1.6 - Install new appropriately sized impeller 5 0.4 1.10 - Use factory designed inlet box 1 0.3 1.2 - Change belt drive ratio 12 0.3 1.1 - Use Variable Speed Drive 35 0.2 1.11 - Improve arrangement of air intake 4 0.1 1.3 - De-tip fan blades 2 0.1