Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey Research Articles

Technical feasibility of powering U.S. manufacturing with rooftop solar PV

The use of renewable electricity is vital for the decarbonization of industry. Industrial firms source renewables through off-site power purchase agreements or on-site installations, though the latter currently supplies <0.1% of industrial electricity demand in the U.S. Manufacturing buildings typically have large, flat rooftops that are ideal for solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays. This study investigates the feasibility of using rooftop solar PV to cover the net annual electricity needs of industry across all U.S. states and manufacturing sectors. Modeled electricity supply intensity for solar PV arrays is compared with the electricity demand per unit of floorspace for average manufacturing buildings derived from the U.S. Department of Energy Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. Results show that, depending on geographical location, rooftop solar PV can completely fulfill the electricity requirements of 5%–35% of manufacturing sectors considered on a net annual basis (assuming net metering). Furniture, textiles, and apparel manufacturing can be powered through on-site means in nearly every location, representing 2% of U.S. manufacturing electricity use and 6% of floorspace. Considering seasonal potential during summer months expands the list of feasible sites, particularly in the U.S. Southwest. Compared to off-site sourcing of renewable energy, pursuing on-site PV installations can also enable manufacturers to maintain limited operations during periods of grid disruption, especially when coupled with on-site energy storage. Overall, the results indicate a substantial physical opportunity for industrial firms to expand rooftop solar PV from currently low levels to help meet decarbonization goals.

Energy‐water efficiency and U.S. industrial steam

S team systems are a ubiquitous element in nearly every type of manufacturing plant. In the United States, steam systems are the single largest consumer of energy in the industrial sector, where they account for 37% of annual onsite energy use. Steam use is particularly prominent in the chemicals, paper, petroleum refining, and food and beverage industries, where it is used in a wide range of processes, including reforming, distillation, concentration, cooking, and drying. Together, these four industries comprise nearly 90% of U.S. industrial steam demand, with chemicals manufacturing (30%) and paper manufacturing (30%) holding the largest shares. At the national level, industrial steam systems account for around 6% of U.S. total primary energy use, or 5,900 trillion British thermal units (TBtu). As such, much attention has been paid to steam system energy efficiency improvements as part of corporate, utility, and government energy and air pollution initiatives. Key incentives include local utility rebates, tax incentives, and lowor no-cost steam system energy efficiency audits. Steam system energy efficiency not only makes sense from an environmental perspective, but also from an economic perspective. As of 2006, U.S. manufacturers spent $21 billion on externally purchased boiler fuels. The actual price tag of industrial steam is likely much higher; nearly one-half of U.S. boiler fuels are self-generated within plants in the form of waste gas, black liquor, wood wastes, and other byproducts. These byproduct fuels are not free, as they are generated from purchased materials and typically require further processing for efficient combustion. Reducing demand for boiler fuels can, therefore, help reduce operating costs and improve profit margins. While clearly justified, the historical focus on reducing energy use has overlooked an increasingly compelling benefit of steam system efficiency: namely, reduced water use. Compared to the many public and private incentives for industrial energy efficiency, there are surprisingly few external incentives for industrial water efficiency. One key barrier to such incentives is the lack of credible data on industrial water use, which, unlike data on energy use, are not compiled at the manufacturing industry or process level in regular national surveys. This dearth of data contributes to a general lack of awareness of the sources and scale of industrial water use within the engineering and policy communities, which limits broader attention to water efficiency beyond the plant floor. Another barrier to steam system water efficiency is that the cost of boiler water—and the associated chemicals required for its treatment—typically only represents a small fraction of boiler operating costs, which are dominated by the costs of fuel. However, as we discuss in this Perspective, U.S. industrial steam systems consume copious amount of water. It follows that steam systems are worth a closer look as a manufacturing water efficiency target. Several current trends suggest that water efficiency will play an increasingly prominent role in the financial and sustainability plans of U.S. manufacturers. Recent water stress due to droughts and rising water infrastructure costs have led to increased public water rates around the country. These conditions may worsen with a changing climate. An increasing number of manufacturers are reporting water use as an important environmental indicator in annual corporate sustainability reports, which raises both public awareness of and accountability for water efficiency. Many manufacturers are also being asked by their corporate customers for environmental “footprint” data as part of large-scale sustainable Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to E. Masanet at eric.masanet@northwestern.edu; M.E. Walker at mwalker9@hawk.iit.edu.

Preliminary Analysis of the Distributions of Carbon and Energy Intensity for 27 Energy Intensive Trade Exposed Industrial Sectors

It is well documented that different manufacturing sectors require different amounts of energy. Primary materials conversion, e.g., iron ore and scrap into steel, limestone and sand into cement and glass, or wood and other fibers into paper, tend to be the most energy-intensive in the production process, while final consumer products like electronics and clothing require the least energy. This leads to something like the 80-20 rule, where a large portion of energy use is in a small number of industries. For example, the 2006 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) reported that 75 percent of fuel use arises from only five of the 21 three-digit industries, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These five sectors are a small share of the total U.S. economy. The energy intensity for different industrial sectors is easily measured using published government statistics, but the plants within these industries are not homogeneous entities. This report measures the differences in energy use and associated CO2 emissions as a first step to understanding the within-sector heterogeneity of energy use.

Energy and exergy utilizations of the U.S. manufacturing sector

The energy and exergy utilizations in the U.S. manufacturing sector are analyzed by considering the energy and exergy flows for the year 2002. Detailed end-use models for fourteen intensive industries are established using scattered data from the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). Since the MECS data exhibit many gaps, data from other sources are used, as well as a number of assumptions are made to complete the models. The methodology applied and the assumptions made are clearly described so that the methods can be readily modified to fit different needs. The end-use models provide a starting point to estimate the site and embodied energy and exergy efficiencies. The average site energy and exergy efficiencies of the manufacturing sector are estimated as 63.5% and 38.8% respectively, while the embodied energy and exergy efficiencies are estimated as 52.7% and 32.1% respectively. The low efficiency values suggest that many opportunities for better industrial energy utilization still exist.

Utilization of Heat, Power, and Recovered Waste Heat for Industrial Processes in the U.S. Chemical Industry

This paper presents energy end-use model of the U.S. Chemical Industry. The model allocates combustible fuel and renewable energy inputs among generic end-uses including intermediate conversions through on-site power and steam generation. The results of this model provide the basis to scale energy process-step models. The main federal database to construct energy end-use models is Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This database provides information on how much energy is used for each end-use on a national scale in each industry. The secondary federal database to construct the energy end-use models is the Energy Information Administration’s “EIA-860B: Annual Electric Generator Report.” This database provides information about fuel consumed, gross generation, and recovered waste heat at the prime mover level of detail. The results of the model show that the majority of the fuel input is used directly for the end-uses. Although the rest of the fuel is used to generate steam and power, most of this energy contributes to the end-uses as steam. Therefore, the purpose of fuel consumption at nonutility plants is to run their end-uses. During the course of this study, the most recent U.S. federal energy database available was for the year 1998. Currently, the most recent available U.S. federal energy database is given for the year 2002 based on the data collected from 15,500 establishments.

Flexible versus designated technologies and interfuel substitution

Zero demands for some types of energy are frequently observed in firm level data sets. To deal with this problem, two alternative solutions are retained in the literature: firstly, it can be assumed that the consumption of some kinds of energy is not allowed by the existing technology; secondly one can suppose that firms decide to use only some of the different kinds of energy allowed by the technology. In this paper we estimate the interfuel substitutions resulting from these two different situations. We take into account that increasing the price of an energy form possibly modifies the number of energy used by the firm. We show that even in this case an estimation of the elasticity of substitution can be obtained. The empirical results are based on a French manufacturing energy consumption survey.

Energy and material flow models for the US steel industry

We develop calibrated models of energy and material consumption patterns in the US steel industry, starting with an energy end-use model based on 1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) data. Then process-step models of material and energy use are developed and calibrated against the energy end-use model and data from the US Commerce Department and the American Iron and Steel Institute. These models can serve as benchmarks for current steelmaking operations and as base cases for simulating changes in steelmaking energy utilization and waste streams spurred by economics, regulations, or technology innovations.

An energy process-step model for manufacturing paper and paperboard

A process-step energy-consumption model for the production of paper and paperboard is presented. The model is consistent with data published by the U.S. Department of Energy's 1991 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). The applicability of the framework to other industries is discussed.

Energy end-use models for pulp, paper, and paperboard mills

This paper deals with energy end-use models for pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. The models are consistent with data published in the U.S. Department of Energy's 1991 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). A graphical framework for depicting these energy flows is presented. Development of these models is a key step in creating energy process-step models for pulp, paper, and paperboard production. The applicability of the modeling approach and framework to other industries is discussed.

The role of focus groups in the identification of user needs and data availability

Federal agencies with survey responsibilities often face competing demands. On the one hand, data users frequently require additional information or more detailed information in order to address current issues. On the other hand, data providers, citing increased respondent burden and, possibly, a lack of specific data, often resist changes to existing survey forms. This article describes how the EIA simplified the development of an expanded version of the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) through the use of focus groups. These focus groups defined user needs and examined the feasibility of collecting these data.