Opportunities to Reduce 

Via Energy Efficiency: L

from Abroad

Ned Helme, Stacey Dav

Mark Houdeshelt, Haibing 

Center for Clean Air Polic

Clean Air Act Advisory Comm

May 26, 2010
Center for Clean Air P

(CCAP)

 Washington, CA, NY, Beijing and 

based environmental think tank

 Committed to advancing pragmati

effective climate and air quality poanalysis, dialogue, and education

 CCAP’s 30-country climate policy 

produced agreements on emissiodesign of Clean Development Mecnow focused on new climate treat
Center for Clean Air P

(CCAP)

 Working with key developing countries 

Brazil, Mexico) and U.S. states to desigpolicies

» Sectors: electricity, cement, iron & steel, alu

 Completing major study for EC on secto

approaches to reducing emissions from 

 Original consultant on design of EU CO

trading program and MRV system

 Running multi-stakeholder dialogues in 

the EU to build agreement on elements climate policy package and EU strategy

 Help Members of Congress and govern

worldwide consider and design policies
Presentation Overv

 Review mitigation actions identif

energy intensive industry sectors and China and discuss applicabiUS BACT context.

 Review carbon intensity benchm

developed in Europe and applicaUS BACT context.

 Draw preliminary lessons and ide

next steps.
Context for Mitigation Actions Id

through Developing Country Secto

 Development of baselines & mitigation 

inform future commitments in key indus

» Not source-specific

 Seeking to inform how many reductions 

unilaterally, which ones might qualify fosupport, and which ones might earn offs

 Also informing development of National

Mitigation Actions, including design of c

policy approaches.

 Bottom-up analyses looked at specific t
Caveats on Sectoral S

(Cement)

China study  Contains “off-the-shelf” efficiency measures, bu

the envelope on innovative technologies.

 Study does not reflect differences within industr

number of SMEs with much lower technology ledrag down the sector-wide energy efficiency.

 Data quality not verified; data collection method

to capacity limits. 

Mexico study

 Cement study is based on data from CEMEX, w

relatively clean installations. 

» Actual reduction potential could be greater than i

 For energy/electricity use and blending, had dat

installations for one year. All Mx kilns are dry k
Relative Efficiency of Ce

Industry in Select Coun

4.4 4.6 4.5

3.5 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

World Average US China Mexico 

2004 Energy Consumption per Tonne of Clin

Source: IEA. 2008. Worldwide Trends in Energy Use 

US cement sector is on par with China, less effic
Cement Sector: CCAP Ana

Mitigation Options (China

No. Measures

c

1 Process control systems 2 Use of waste fuels(d) 3 Blended cement 4 Kiln shell heat loss reduction(d) 5 Kiln shell heat loss reduction(w) 6 Optimize heat recovery(grate cooler)(d) 7 Optimize heat recovery(grate cooler)(w) 8 High-efficiency motors 9 Conversion to grate cooler(w) 

10 Conversion to semi-wet process(w) 
Cement Sector: CCAP Ana

Mitigation Options (China

No. Measures

c

11 Conversion to grate cooler(d) 12 Kiln combustion systems(w) 13 Kiln combustion systems(d) 14 Conversion to PH/PC-kiln(d) 15 Conversion to pre-calciner kiln(d) 16 Conversion to multi-stage preheating(d) 17 Conversion to precalciner kiln(w) 18 Roller press/Horomill 

19 Variable speed drives 20 Low pressure-drop cyclones(d) 
Cement Sector: CCAP Ana

Mitigation Options (China

No. Measures

c

21 Heat recovery for power generation(d) 22 High efficiency roller mills(d) 23 High-pressure roller press 24 Improved grinding media 25 High efficiency classifiers(final) 26 High efficiency classifiers(d) 27 Mechanical transport systems(w) 28 Mechanical transport system(d) 29 Raw meal blending system(d) 30 Use of waste fuels(w) 
China Cement Cost Curv
Cement Sector: CCAP An

Mitigation Options (M

Emissions

Reduction Potentials Emissions Redux 

No.

2020 Scenario MtCO2 MtCO2 

0 Baseline (BAU) 41.63 0.00 

1 Max. EE = 3 GJ/t clinker 39.54 2.09 2 Blending = 72.3% 37.87 3.76 

3 Buy RE electricity/offsets 38.15 3.48 

4 Alt fuels (tires) = 30% 41.05 0.58 

5 Alt fuels (MSW) = 30% 39.17 2.46 

6 Alt fuels (sludge) = 30% 36.97 4.66 

7

Electricity Intensity = 80 

KWh/t cement 40.52 1.11 
Feedback from CANA

 Energy Efficiency:

» Can’t physically retrofit to this efficiency» Specific conditions prevent some upgrades» Implementation cost is very high ($1.9 billion)

 Blending:

» Inexpensive way to reduce emissions» Need new NOMs for cement and market support » Slag/fly ash supplies limited but pozzolans preva» Cost may be underestimated and implementation 

 Purchase of Renewable Electricity:

» Cement sector shouldn’t be responsible for indire

 Alternative Fuels:

» Very promising option (MSW and sludge have hi» barriers are significant 

 Electricity intensity:

» Mitigation scenario is infeasible
Promising Cement Sector M

Options – Conclusions (M

 Cement blending

 Barriers include market limits (supply of blendin Full implementation cost could be much higher 

(more than $600 million (2012 USD) over 20 ye

 Use of alternative fuels

 Primary barriers are legal/regulatory + fuel proc Full implementation cost depends upon choice 

relative prices of alternative fuel vs. petcoke

 Replacement of fossil-fuel electricity with renewabl

cement industry (expanded cement sector boundar

 Depends on how the power sector is included i
Thoughts on Applicability of 

Sector Analysis for the Unite

 Many specific efficiency measures have been id

a low cost per ton. 

» This is particularly the case for China, which has 

closer to the U.S.

 Focusing on just efficiency leaves a lot on the ta Efficiency measures at existing plants may requ

investment (and for cement, long paybacks).

» How is payback considered in BACT cost analys

 Efficiency improvements can be applied more e

units than to existing units.

 Cement blending a good option in Mexico/China

reduce emissions from cement plants in the U.Soccurs closer to point of use.
Context for Europe

Benchmarking

 Under Phase III of EUETS, allowance allocation

intensive, trade-exposed industries/products are benchmarks.

» Benchmarks set at the average of the top 10% fo

category, regardless of the process type or fuel.

» Benchmarks reflect the combination of processe

measures in place at top-performing units, withou

 Sources may purchase allowances or offsets to 

emissions in excess of their annual allocations – not set binding unit-specific standards

 Limited detail available on specific technologies 

measures at top performing units – competitive 

 Based on unit-specific emissions and output da
Sector Definition – Proposed 

Sector Benchmark Based on 

 Practical difficulties in setting a ce

benchmark, in particular:

» Cement benchmarking cannot be ap

individual installations due to the tradbetween installations including trade stations.

» With cement benchmarking, it becom

to account for the differentiated availclinker substitutes and quality differeblended cements.
European Benchmarkin

Cement Industry

}

Approx. benchmark: 780 kg CO2/t clink

US average = 934 kg CO2/to
Benchmarking Implem

• Average performance of 10% most effici

installations in (sub)sector calculated for 

• 50-57 benchmarks under development fo

35-41 benchmarks being based on bencremainder based on best available technsamples.

• EU considering “innovation accelerator” 

laggards to make large EE improvement

• Benchmark curves cover ~80% of the em• Consultative and transparent process. F

benchmarks and related documents seehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emarking en htm
European Benchma

 Aluminum Cement Ceramics Chemicals Glass Gypsum Iron & Steel Iron Ore Lime

 Mineral W Non-ferrou Pulp & Pa Refining Heat prod

benchmar(for combusproduction owater/steam

 Fuel mix b

(where the hnot measure
Thoughts on Applicability of E

Benchmark for United States 

Europe No separate data on 

technologies used in top performing plants (competitive concerns).

» Benchmark factors in 

process, fuels & efficiency.

 One benchmark covers all 

facilities producing a given product.

» Costs and regional/sourcespecific issues not 

considered.

» Sources can always buy 

allowances/offsets.

United States  Data on indi

technologies to define BA

» Could dev

standardsreflecting technolog

 Standard is 

considering environmen

» NSPS, if » No prece

complianpossible?
Next Steps

 What is the boundary for BACT analysis

» Include blending?» Include indirect emissions?» For an existing source, include the whole so

narrow modification?

 Can benchmarks be used to define BAC

» Is there precedent for a broader performanc

Via NSPS floor?

» What are the pros/cons for new/existing sou

modifications?

» Legal justification for use of offsets?» Is there any opportunity for building in EE in