reducing resource intensity of industrial processes ...gcpcenvis.nic.in/videos/technology trajectory...

Visu 1Reducing Resource Intensity of Industrial Processes

Reducing Resource Intensity of

Industrial Processes: Technology

Trajectory and Drivers

C. VisvanathanProfessor

Environmental Engineering & Management ProgramAsian Institute of Technology

[email protected]

http://www.faculty.ait.ac.th/visu/


Material Cycle

Production

Natural Resource Input

Final Disposal

Treatment

Discard

Consumption, Use

choosing things and materials so as to

decrease the volume of waste

generated

Reduce

putting things back

into the system,

repeated use of materials

Reuse

structured and systematic use of waste itself as raw material / resource

Recycle

Thermal / Energy recovery

Control Natural Resource Consumption

Focus of this Presentation& Future CP Trends


COST

TechnologyChange

MaterialSubstitution

Process Modification

Recycle & Reuse

House Keeping

Rational Use of Resources

POLLUTION PREVENTION IDEAS

Future Driver of CP


Limitation of Current CP Promotion Activites

in Asia: Pricing of Resources

• Cleaner Production – often looked as waste

reduction at source – true to some extent

• Cannot be driven by “Profit” approach alone

• Resources are not priced fully

– Water price

– Raw material

– Energy price

• Subsidies play a role and shadow the real cost


Subsidy…

Water Price = THB 12-18 / m3

Real cost Water: THB 24-28 /m3

Escalation on water and energy price

…relatively fixed in a year!!!

Price of other raw materials

…fluctuating, often increasing !!!

Real cost not thrown

on consumers

Reduction in water consumption through CP ��

only on the Water price; not on the subsidy

If the entire cost is transferred to the

consumer, the higher cost will mean a lot.

Low motivation for CP

to reduce consumption

High motivation for CP

to reduce consumption

A regulatory mechanism for “Resource Limitation” needs

to be addressed by national bodies

A regulatory mechanism for “Resource Limitation” needs

to be addressed by national bodies


6

Moon Cake Experience!!!!!!!!!!

What is left over…………..

M☺☺n Cake


EQUIPMENT MODIFICATION

"Advanced Jet dyeing" units: only 980 kg/batch

STEAM REQUIREMENTS

33% reduction in GHG emission or air pollutants (CO2 emission = 264 tons per batch).

55 % reduction in water consumption

Simple "Jet Dyeing" machines : 1,480 kg /batch: 396 t CO2 per/batch

Conventional

Jet Dyeing

Steam = 1,480 kg/Batch

(Energy Input = 4,191 MJ/Batch)

GHG Emission

CO2 emission = 396 kg/Batch)

Water for dyeing = 67 m3/batch

AdvancedJet Dyeing

Steam = 980 kg/Batch

(Energy Input = 2,794 MJ/Batch)

GHG Emission

CO2 emission = 264 kg/Batch)

Water for dyeing = 30.4 m3/batch

Rapid

Technological Change Options:


Technology Development Trajectory of Tea Drying

In tea processing, drying (firing ) is the most energy consuming operation requiring about 4.5 kWh/ kg of made tea (thermal energy). This depends on the type of dryer used, state of withering, moisture content of atmospheric air and type of tea produced.

The technology development trajectory of tea dryer from 1930 to present shows that there has been a 40% improvement in energy efficiency.

Source:Gupta (1983); Millin (1993).Note: a,b There are two different brands of VFBD

NEW TECHNOLOGY

Dryer type and efficiency%

1 Static Tray < 20.02 2 –Stage Dryer 21.33 4’ Tray Dryer 26.84 Endless Chain Pressure

Dryer (ECP)32.0

5 Fluidised Bed Dryer(FBD)

38.5

6 Vibratory Fluidised BedDryer ( VFBD) a

38.9

7 FBD Modified 49.08 VFBDb 54.09 Combined Tempest > 60.0

12

345

67

89

1

9

Efficiency

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Technological Options:


9

10kg 770g 236g 137g 79g

100% -99.3% -69% -42% -42%

Percentages show decreasing of weight between older and newer models

?


10

Nokia in the future…… 7.9 g


Clean Technology Trajectories

Gains in productive efficiciency

Environmental Performance

Solvent-free paradigm

Solvent paradigm

Productive Efficiency

Control, prevention and internal recycling

technologies

Radically new clean processes

T2

T1

M. -C’. Belis-Begouignan a at /Ecological Economic 48 (2004) 201 220


M. -C’. Belis-Begouignan et al. /Ecological Economics 48 (2004) 201-220

Gains in productive efficiciency Environmental Performance

Solvent paradigm

Productive Efficiency

T2

T1Carbon adsorption and on-site regeneration

of solvents

Energy recovering of VOCs

Water-based technologies Media-projection

Ultra-sounds Lasers

Low temperature plasma

Clean Technology Trajectories for Metal

Surface Treatments


UK Cement Sector…major success factors

• 12 million tonnes of cement manufactured in the UK in

2005

• Approx 856,000 tonnes of waste-derived products

replaced virgin raw material – Reuse / Recycle

• About 270,000 tonnes of waste-derived fuels replaced

fossil fuels – Reuse / Recycle

• Between 1998 and 2005, the volumes of cement kiln dust

going to landfill has been reduced by 75% - Reuse

• Production of factory-made composite cements, which

encourages the use of secondary constituents as

alternatives to clinker - Reuse

Reuse and Recycle have played important roles


UK Cement Sector…major success factors

• Carbonation of concrete – ability of concrete to

absorb CO2 from the atmosphere over its life cycle.

– concrete could absorb around 19% of the CO2

emitted in the manufacture of cement.

– This uptake of CO2 acts as a carbon offset.

• Capital investment in energy efficient technology

• Fossil fuel replacement

Process change

Classical CP approaches

Classical CP options have been implemented and achieved

good results…and reached peak.

Have to look at innovative technologies, categorically to

further reduce resource intensity.


Cement Sector…Asia

Average capacity of rotary kilns

Specific energy consumption of cement industry

Small-scale cement factories in developing countries…

High in developing countries, Low in Japan

Need to promote economies of scale and make CP attractive for small industries as well

Policy initiatives can give the push

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

MJ/kg o

f Cem

ent

China Philippines Japan

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

‘000 T

ons o

f Clinker/yr

China Philippines Japan

1000

90

240


CO2 Reduction Potentials in Cement in 2005,

Based on Best Available Technology500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Em

issio

ns s

avin

gs (

Mit C

O2)

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Specific

savin

gs p

ote

ntial (t CO

2per

tonne o

f cem

ent)

Source: IEA analysis

Fossil fuel savings Electricity savings Alternative fuels BF slag clinker substitution

Other clinker substitutes Specific saving potential

World Russia Canada US China Korea Brazil India OECD Japan Other

Europe

0.18

0.25

0.39

0.22

0.200.20

0.19

0.14

0.09

0.06

0.16


Cement Factory

Cement factory in China

Cement factory in Japan


Cement Sector Specific thermal and electrical energy consumption

China India Philippines Sri Lanka Japan

Thermal Energy (MJ/kg Clinker)

Dry Process 4.85 3.8-4.4 4.2 4.35 3.0

Wet Process 6.04 5.9-6.8 7.5 - -

Mechanized Shaft Kiln Process 490 n.a - - -

Electricity (kWh/ton cement) 110 120-130 130 130 96

Why?

• Stringent regulations

• Economies of scale

• Better Technologies


Material Eco-efficiency Indicator, Nepal

Production in (US$,000) 8661 9416 9048 8263 11631

Material Utilized (T) 23086 23771 19021 11834 18000

Eco-efficiency in $/T 375 396 475 698 646

Material Eco-efficiency Indicator and Trend Line of Iron Pipe Industry in Terms of Economic Value in US$

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

$/T

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Eco-efficiency in S/T Eco-efficiency Trend Line in S/T

Material Eco-efficiency Indicator of Iron Pipe Industry M

ate

ria

l U

tilized (

T) a

nd

Production V

alu

e (

$)

$ or T

375 $/T

396 $/T475 $/T

698 $/T646 $/T


Water Eco-efficiency Indicator, Nepal

Water Eco-efficiency Indicator and Trend Line of Iron Pipe Industry in Terms of Economic Value in US$

Eco-efficiency in S/m3

Eco-efficiency Trend Line in S/m3

Water Eco-efficiency Indicator of Iron Pipe Industry

Wate

r U

tilized (

m3) a

nd

Production (

US$)

$ or m3

Production in (US$,000) 8661 9416 9048 8263 11631

Water Utilized (m3) 1911 1815 1365 792 861

Eco-efficiency in $/m3 4532 5188 6628 10434 13509

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

13509 $/m3

10434 $/m3

4532 $/m3

5188 $/m3

6628$/m3

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

$/m3

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0


Water Eco-efficiency Indicator, Nepal

Waste Eco-efficiency Indicator and Trend Line of Iron Pipe Industry in Terms of Economic Value in US$

Eco-efficiency in S/TEco-efficiency Trend Line in S/T

Water Eco-efficiency Indicator of Iron Pipe Industry W

aste

Generation (

T)

and P

roduction (

$)

Production in (US$,000) 8661 9416 9048 8263 11631

Waste Generation (T) 795.4 675.4 498 294 422.18

Eco-efficiency in $/T 10889 13941 18168 28108 27550

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

$ or T

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

$/T

10889 $/T

13941 $/T 18168 $/T

28108 $/T 27550 $/T


Resource Efficiency Vs Cost

• Industrial processes are

mostly optimized

• “Cost” driver has forced

optimization

• Further optimization;

prohibitively expensive

• Costs outweigh the

benefits in most cases

Efficiency improvement

Cost

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Theoretical resource efficiencies are difficult to be achieved

cost-effectively


Resource Efficiency and Intensity

Resource efficiency and intensity are mutually dependent

Process A150 kg of

raw material140 kg of product

Resource Efficiency= 93%

10 kglosses + waste

Resource intensity= 107 kg of raw material/100 kg of product

Constraint!!!

Improving this is

not cost-effective

Reducing this is the issueWhere can we perform better?


Efficiency and Intensity…

• Resource efficiency improvements are now constrained –

cannot move beyond a certain range

• Resources are getting scarcer – not all are renewable

• Sources of feedstock have to be re-looked

• Only way out is alternative sources of feedstock

• Reuse and Recycling have to be promoted

– X% of virgin material + Y % of recycled materials

– Gradually increase “recycled” portion

• By reuse and recycling – volume of virgin raw material

required is reduced

• Recycling in some sectors is perceived to be expensive –

need to develop cost-effective technologies in these

sectors


Way out…

• Improving resource efficiency and reducing resource

intensity is like “swine flu”

– There is no single vaccine

• Requires a combination of interventions to treat

victims

• Identify victims and improve their immunity

• Simultaneously develop vaccine

• Promoting reuse and recycling is not a panacea for

improving resource efficiency and reducing resource

intensity

• Need to identify priority areas of action and develop

relevant technologies


Take-home Message

• Cleaner Production has largely favored reduction

in resource intensity

• Hard approaches where the industry takes the

initiative have peaked

• Soft approaches through Policy interventions are

essential to take CP further

• GHG reduction has been the key driver for CP in

the past 2 decades…Kyoto Protocol???

• Resource depletion and scarcity have to be

taken into account : Resource Limitation will be

a Major Driver

reducing resource intensity of industrial processes ...gcpcenvis.nic.in/videos/technology trajectory...

Documents