CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA For more information or to recei...
25 downloads 4 Views 5MB Size
CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING SUMMARY REPORT

IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

For more information or to receive additional copies of this publication, contact Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation c/o Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street, 12th floor Ottawa ON K1A 0E4 Tel.: 613-995-6839 Fax: 613-992-3161 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/cipec or Cement Association of Canada 502–350 Sparks Street Ottawa ON K1R 7S8 Tel.: 613-236-9471 Fax: 613-563-4498 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.cement.ca Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Energy Performance Benchmarking and Best Practices in Canadian Cement Manufacturing Sector Text in English and French on inverted pages. Title added t.p.: Analyse comparative de la consommation d’ énergie dans l’industrie canadienne du ciment. Issued by the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation. Cat. No. M144-213/2009 (Print) Cat. No. M144-213/2009E-PDF (On-line) ISBN 978-1-100-50372-1 ISBN 978-1-100-14036-0 1. New hotdisc reactor, the Ecofurnace, at the Ciment Québec Saint-Basile plant, Quebec. Photo courtesy of the Cement Association of Canada 2. Concrete components. Photo courtesy of the Cement Association of Canada. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2009

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency Leading Canadians to Energy Efficiency at Home, at Work and on the Road

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1



1.1

About the Canadian Cement Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2



1.2

About Energy Benchmarking and This Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2



1.3

Study Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4



2. Energy Use in Cement Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7



3. Energy Management Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11



3.1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12



3.2

Study Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12



3.3

Energy Management Practices Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13



4. Technical Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17



4.1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



4.2

Study Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



4.3

Technical Practices Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



5. Energy Efficiency Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21



5.1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22



5.2

Study Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22



5.3

Overall Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22



5.4

Electricity Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24



6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendix A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Critical Areas Influencing Overall Energy Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 1-2 Cement Manufacturing Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2-1 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Process Step, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2-2 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Energy Source, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3-1 Energy Management Best Practice Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 3-2 Median Energy Management Best Practice Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 4-1 Penetration of Applicable Technical Best Practices by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 4-2 Median Technical Best Practice Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 5-1 Total EEI and Total Energy Intensity by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 5-2 Median Energy Efficiency Scores by Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 5-3 Electricity EEI and Energy Intensity by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results Figure A-1 Implementation of MBPs – Commitment by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure A-2 Implementation of MBPs – Planning by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure A-3 Implementation of MBPs – Organization by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure A-4 Implementation of MBPs – Project Development by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure A-5 Implementation of MBPs – Financing by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure A-6 Implementation of MBPs – Measurement and Reporting by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure A-7 Implementation of MBPs – Communication by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results Figure B-1 Implementation of TBPs – Raw Materials and Fuel Preparation by Plant. . . . . . . . . 34 Figure B-2 Implementation of TBPs – Clinker Production by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure B-3 Implementation of TBPs – Finish Grinding by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure B-4 Implementation of TBPs – Cement and Feedstock by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure B-5 Implementation of TBPs – General Measures by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results Figure C-1 Raw Meal Preparation EEI by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure C-2 Kiln EEI by Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure C-3 Finish Grinding EEI by Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

List of Tables Table 1-1 Participating Cement Manufacturing Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 3-1 Energy Management Best Practice Elements by Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

FOREWORD With support from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the Cement Association of Canada (CAC) commissioned an energy benchmarking study of Canada’s Portland grey cement industry in 2007. The study builds on other sector benchmarking initiatives undertaken by NRCan’s Office of Energy Efficiency. This report summarizes the outcomes of the CAC study and is based on a more comprehensive consultant’s report that includes detailed recommendations prepared for the CAC.1 This analysis of energy efficiency performance in the cement sector represents a broad and comprehensive review of energy management practices, technical practices and overall energy efficiency performance. Through this study, the CAC developed benchmarks and sophisticated tools that provide a comprehensive roadmap for facilities and companies to improve energy management practices and performance. The benchmarking tools will allow the industry to conduct regular self-assessments of energy performance in a manner consistent with internationally recognized quality management principles and best practices. The study determined that the overall energy efficiency of the cement sector was relatively good, with a median energy efficiency index (EEI) value of 76, compared with a theoretical best practices plant with a value of 100. The relatively high level of overall energy efficiency is attributed to facilities and organizations that are already actively engaged in energy management programs. However, despite overall high EEI, many facilities have a low electricity EEI, and significant potential for improved electricity use efficiency exists. Benchmarks for EEI, management best practices (MBPs) and technical best practices (TBPs) that were developed for individual facilities identified opportunity areas. Even in facilities with an overall high benchmark, opportunities exist for more energy efficiency improvements and cost savings. The benchmarking results show that the most significant potential for increased implementation of energy MBPs is in project planning and development and in measurement and reporting. The assessment of both the TBPs and energy use efficiency identifies that the fuel and raw materials preparation and cement and feedstock process steps have significant potential to yield important energy efficiency benefits for the sector. The kiln process consumes approximately 90 percent of the energy used in the cement manufacturing sector. This includes 99 percent of the thermal energy use and more than a third of total electricity consumed in the manufacturing process. Even a small improvement in kiln performance will yield substantial energy and cost savings for the individual facility and the entire industry. Cement manufacturing facilities showed significant differences in electric energy efficiency. Electric energy accounts for a substantial portion of energy cost in the cement manufacturing sector, and improved electric energy efficiency may result in notable cost savings.

1

Canadian Cement Industry Benchmarking – Final Report, Report prepared for Cement Association of Canada by Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. in association with Ecofys and Cement Etc., Inc., 2008.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

The energy use is dominated by coal and petroleum coke consumption, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the purchased energy. Increasing the proportion of alternative, renewable and low-carbon energy sources can contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cement manufacturing. The study demonstrates that relationships exist between a facility’s implementation of energy MBPs and TBPs and the energy efficiency of its operations. Operations that implemented the most energy MBPs also implemented the most TBPs. These facilities consume less energy per unit of production than their peers.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

1

INTRODUCTION

Lafarge Saint-Constant plant, Quebec

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1 introduction 1.1 About the Canadian Cement Industry The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) comprises eight companies that operate 1 white2 and 15 Portland grey cement manufacturing facilities across Canada. The members of the association produce 98 percent of the cement manufactured in Canada. Regionally, cement production is concentrated in central Canada. Ontario (50 percent) and Quebec (17 percent) have more than 65 percent of the industry’s capacity. The CAC is allied with the United States-based Portland Cement Association (PCA) and all CAC members are also members of the PCA. The cement industry is a key contributor to Canada’s economic and social development. In 2006, the industry produced more than 14.3 million tonnes (t) of cement with a value of more than $1.7 billion and provided more than 2000 jobs.3 The industry’s total production is more than 16.7 million t when supplementary cementing materials such as fly ash and slag are included. The cement manufacturing industry realized an 11 percent increase in energy efficiency per tonne of cement produced between 1990 and 2006 and a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of 6.4 percent.4 However, the industry recognizes that further energy efficiency improvements are required to • •

reduce energy costs and maintain industry competitiveness in a period of ever-increasing international competition make further progress in reducing the industry’s environmental footprint

1.2 About Energy Benchmarking and This Summary Report Energy benchmarking provides a means through which an industry and facilities within that industry can assess their performance against • • • •

recognized best practices the performance of their sector peers external competitors in the same industry energy consumers in other industrial sectors

The Federal White Cement plant in Woodstock, Ontario, is excluded from the benchmarks due to major differences in raw materials and fuels usage between the manufacturing of Portland white cement and Portland grey cement, which is produced at the balance of the manufacturing sites in Canada. 3 Cement Association of Canada (2008), Canadian Cement Industry 2008 Sustainability Report 4 Ibid. 2

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Energy benchmarking can play an important role in supporting improved energy practices by • • •

identifying and communicating best practices motivating plants that operate below the benchmark to improve to the level of their peers identifying areas that need improvement in all facilities, including facilities that are the best performers

3

The study involved all 15 Portland grey cement manufacturing facilities operated by CAC member companies (see Table 1.1). Table 1-1 Participating Cement Manufacturing Facilities Company

Facility

Ciment Québec Inc.

Saint-Basile, Quebec

Essroc (Italcementi Group)

Picton, Ontario

Lafarge Canada Ltd.

Brookfield, Nova Scotia Saint-Constant, Quebec Bath, Ontario Woodstock, Ontario Exshaw, Alberta Kamloops, British Columbia Richmond, British Columbia

Lehigh Hanson Canada

Edmonton, Alberta Delta, British Columbia

Holcim (Canada) Inc.

Joliette, Quebec Mississauga, Ontario

St Marys Cement Inc.

Bowmanville, Ontario St. Marys, Ontario

The study analyzed the industry’s performance in three critical areas that influence overall energy use: • • •

management practices technical practices energy efficiency performance

The assessment of these three areas presents a broad and holistic view of energy practices in the cement manufacturing sector.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

1

1

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1 Critical areas influencing overall energy use

4

Energy Use and Efficiency Benchmarking

Technical Best Practices

EE

TBP

Energy Managment Practices Benchmarking

MBP In addition to this summary report, reports have been produced that document the performance of each of the 15 facilities against the benchmarks developed as part of the study. The CAC views this important study as the first step in developing and implementing a comprehensive action plan to improve energy performance in the sector. Now that benchmarks exist and current performance has been assessed against those benchmarks, future studies can assess and report progress in improving energy performance within the Canadian Portland grey cement sector.

1.3 Study Methodology The study was initiated by developing individual analytical models to assess performance in each of the three aspects of energy performance: • • •

energy management practices technical practices energy efficiency performance

The models were developed by reviewing recognized analytical models for energy management and technical practices broadly, and for cement manufacturing more specifically. These externally referenced models were developed by international bodies, standard setting organizations and government agencies that have responsibilities for energy and energy efficiency in the manufacturing sectors. Within each model, energy practices were further assessed across each of the key processes and activities associated with cement manufacturing (see Figure 1-2): • •

on-site raw materials preparation and transport on-site fuel preparation and transport

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

INTRODUCTION

• • • • •

clinker production (kiln operation) storage fi nish grinding packing and on-site transport to loading terminals operation of plant-wide support systems (e.g. compressed air systems, heat, lighting)

1

5

Source: Holcim (Canada)

Figure 1-2 cement manufacturing process

Quarrying

Raw Materials Preparation

Clinker Production

Cement Grinding and Distribution

Limestone and small amounts of sand and clay are extracted, usually from a quarry located near the cement manufacturing plant.

The extracted materials are analyzed, blended with additional mineral components depending on the type of limestone available, and finely ground for futher processing.

The materials are heated in a kiln reaching a temperature of 1,470˚C. The heat transforms the materials into a molten product called clinker, which is then rapidly cooled.

The clinker is stored and then finely ground. Gypsum is added to control setting time, along with supplementary cementing materials, such as fly ash or slag, to obtain a fine powder called cement, with the desired properties of strength and chemical resistance.

More than 70 aspects of energy performance in the cement manufacturing sector were analyzed, including all energy inputs to the cement manufacturing process: electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, coal, petroleum coke and other alternative fuels.5 Survey instruments were developed to gather the information to assess performance within each of the three models. The survey instruments and models were tested at two cement manufacturing facilities. After revisions, the survey instruments were distributed to all 15 cement manufacturing facilities. Then supervised data collection, review and analysis proceeded. Performance benchmarks were developed for each indicator, and each facility’s performance was assessed against the benchmarks. The performance benchmarks were set at the 75th percentile, which means that for each performance indicator, 25 percent of the sector’s facilities met or exceeded the benchmark. This approach is consistent with the approach taken by Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency benchmarking studies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR for Cement Manufacturing initiative. Draft facility reports were submitted to the facility operators for review and validation. After data error corrections were made, final performance benchmarks and the final facility and sector-wide reports were prepared.

5

®

Quarrying activities and/or any of the above activities that take place at locations other than the main cement production site were excluded from the analysis. Also, analysis of only on-site electricity consumption was considered, rather than the total primary energy consumption associated with off-site electricity generation.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

2

ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING

Holcim Mississauga plant, Ontario

2

ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING

8

2

ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING

Cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process that consumed more than 61 000 terajoules of energy in Canada in 2006, of which 95 percent was thermal energy and 5 percent was electric energy. The kiln process consumes more than 90 percent of the cement manufacturing energy. The remaining 10 percent is consumed in almost equal amounts by activities related to fuel and raw materials preparation, grinding of clinker and the blending of materials to prepare the finished cement product. Figure 2-1 provides a breakdown of the energy use. Figure 2-1 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Process Step, 2006

Kiln fuel 86.0%

Kiln electricity 4.0% Finish grinding 5.0% Raw materials preparation 4.0%

Other 1.0%

Fuel handling 0.4%

The sum of these energy inputs is about 39 percent of the annual operating costs of a cement manufacturing facility, making energy the largest cost component. It is important to note that although electricity accounts for only 13 percent of the energy inputs, it is almost 50 percent of the energy costs of a typical cement plant.6 The cement industry relies heavily on carbon-intensive fossil fuels. Coal (53 percent)7 and petroleum coke products (29 percent) account for more than 82 percent of energy consumption (Figure 2-2). Natural gas (used mostly as a start-up fuel), liquid petroleum products and waste oil products contribute 4 percent of total energy requirements, while tire-derived fuels and other alternative energy sources contribute about 2 percent.



6

7

Statistics Canada, Annual Survey of Manufacturers (2004). A comparison of Canadian energy costs on a per-unit basis demonstrated that coal continues to be significantly less expensive than the other forms of energy used by the cement industry. Natural Resources Canada (2006), Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006. Ottawa, Ont.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

ENERGY USE IN CEMENT MANUFACTURING

Figure 2-2 Total Energy for Cement Manufacturing Sector by Energy Source, 2006

9 Petroleum (delayed) coke 21.0%

Coal 53.0%

Electricity 13.0%

Sponge coke 8.0% Natural gas 2.0% Gasoline, middle distillates, residual oil and waste oil 2.0%

Biomass 0.1% LPG and other 0.2% Solvents 0.2%

Tire derived 1.0% Fluid coke 0.3%

Key findings from this high-level overview of energy inputs to the cement manufacturing sector include the following: •

• •

Due to the significant quantity of energy consumed by the kiln process, energy efficiency opportunities in the kiln process have, in theory, the greatest potential to translate into real energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) and cost savings for the industry. Even minor improvements in the kiln process can potentially deliver significant energy and cost savings over an annual operating cycle. Energy efficiency opportunities in electrically driven systems have the potential to achieve substantial cost savings for the industry. Canada’s contribution of alternative and renewable energy sources to cement manufacturing lags behind that of other nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Many countries in the European Union substitute from 30 percent to 83 percent of the energy sources for cement manufacturing.8 Increasing the proportion of alternative, renewable and low-carbon energy sources can contribute significantly to reducing GHG emissions from cement manufacturing.

Cement Association of Canada (2008), Canadian Cement Industry 2008 Sustainability Report. European countries included in this range are Netherlands (83 percent), Switzerland (48 percent), Austria (46 percent), Germany (42 percent), Norway (35 percent), France (34 percent) and Belgium (30 percent).

8

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

2

3

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Vertical roller mill, Mississauga, Ontario reduces Holcim (Canada) Inc. greenhouse gas intensity

3

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

12

3

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

3.1 INTRODUCTION Energy management – the process and practice of treating energy as a strategic resource – is an influential determinant of a plant’s energy performance. Best practices in energy management have a high level of commitment, awareness, organization and action. Typically, plants that exhibit energy management best practices (MPBs) • • • • •

have broad awareness of the benefits of energy efficiency collect and use information to manage energy use integrate energy management into their overall management structure provide leadership on energy management through dedicated staff and a committed energy efficiency policy have an energy management plan for the short- and long-term

3.2 STUDY APPROACH The Cement Association of Canada study reviewed and analysed existing energy management models9 and identified 28 MBP areas of relevance to the cement manufacturing sector (see Table 3-1). A survey was conducted at every cement manufacturing facility to ascertain the degree to which the identified best practices are currently employed in the sector. To gain multiple perspectives, three respondents at each facility were involved in the survey for their facility: • • •

a plant manager or process engineer a corporate lead on energy issues a representative of the corporate executive management team

The MBP score was calculated as an average of the three survey results.

The energy management models that contributed significantly to the definition of the competencies were developed by Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency, United Kingdom’s Carbon Trust, United States’ ENERGY STAR® and Australia’s EPA Victoria and Sustainable Victoria.

9

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Table 3-1 Energy Management Best Practice Elements by Category

13 MBP Categories

MBPs

Commitment

Promotion Policy Guidelines and Procedures

Planning

Formal Planning Support for Planning Implementation

Organization

Energy champion Responsibility and accountability Energy Leader Energy Team

Project Development

Capacity building Identification of Opportunities Energy Management Best Practices

Financing

Commitment Planning Integrating energy management with project approval

Measurement and Reporting

Monitoring System Reporting Use of Monitoring Results

Communication

Extent Frequency Awareness and Participation

3.3 ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES RESULTS The review of MBPs identified a benchmark value of 65 percent for the cement manufacturing sector. This means that 25 percent of cement facilities employ at least 65 percent of the identified energy MBPs, and the remaining facilities employ less than 65 percent of the MBPs (see Figure 3-1). The results showed that significant potential exists in the cement sector to improve management practices in support of improving energy efficiency, especially because only two facilities received a rating greater than 75 percent for management practices implementation.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

3

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

14

The study showed a strong relationship between the implementation of MBPs and the overall energy efficiency at the cement facilities. The four plants that ranked the highest in overall energy efficiency (see Chapter 5) are among the five plants that rated highest in MBP implementation. Figure 3-1 Energy Management Best Practices Scores

100 90

85

80 MBP implemented (%)

82 71

70

65

65

62

61

60

60

65 57

57

55

50

53

51

51 42

40 30 20 10

P15

P14

Benchmark

Plant

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

3

The survey of MBPs exhibited a fairly narrow range of implementation scores because 70 percent of the facilities scored between 50 and 65 percent. MBP scores from plants that belong to the same organizations also tended to cluster together. This fact suggests that corporate-specific policies and guidelines generally direct the implementation of practices in cement sector facilities. Benchmarking studies in other industrial sectors have shown that this situation is not always the case, and that in some cases, overall MBP scores of plants within the same organization differ significantly. For individual MBP categories, the analysis of the survey results showed that the cement sector emphasizes the financing and communication performance aspects of energy management (Figure 3-2). Consistent with other Canadian industry studies,10 the analysis showed that the cement sector has the largest improvement potential in energy management practices areas related to project development, planning and measurement and reporting.

Nova Scotia industry data from Energy Management Potential Analysis and Best Practices Benchmarking in the Nova Scotia Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Report by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters in association with Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Neill & Gunter Limited (Stantec), 2007.

10



New Brunswick industry data from Energy Performance Benchmarking and Best Practices in the New Brunswick Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Report by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters in association with Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Neill & Gunter Limited (Stantec), 2006.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Figure 3-2 Median Energy Management Best Practices Scores

15 100

MBP implemented (%)

90 80 70

67 59

60

60

57 53

50

48

44

40

37

30

Overall MBP

Project development

Measurement and reporting

Planning

Organization

Commitment

Communication

0

Financing

20 10

For more details, see Appendix A, page 30.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

3

SOFTWOOD LUMBER MANUFACTURE

4

TECHNICAL PRACTICES

St Marys Cement Bowmanville plant from the West Side Creek Marsh Conservation Area, Ontario

3

4

TECHNICAL PRACTICES

18

4 TECHNICAL PRACTICES 4.1 INTRODUCTION The second aspect of energy performance that was analyzed is the implementation of technical best practices (TBPs) in cement manufacturing facilities. TBPs are production processes, systems, activities and equipment that can contribute to improvements in plant energy efficiency (e.g. using adjustable speed drives on kiln and/or roller mill fans).

4.2 STUDY APPROACH The Cement Association of Canada study included an extensive review of Canadian and international literature to identify TBPs applicable to the cement manufacturing sector. The review identified 39 TBPs that were categorized across the five main cement manufacturing subprocesses: • • • • •

fuel and raw materials preparation clinker production finish grinding cement and feedstock general measures

A survey instrument was developed at each facility to assess the applicability of the identified practices and the degree of implementation (i.e. full, partial or not implemented).

4.3 TECHNICAL PRACTICES RESULTS The review of TBPs identified a benchmark value of 59 percent for the cement manufacturing sector. This means that 25 percent of cement facilities employ at least 59 percent of the identified TBPs, and the remaining facilities employ less than 59 percent of the TBPs (see Figure 4-1).

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

TECHNICAL PRACTICES

Figure 4-1 Penetration of Applicable Technical Best Practices by Plant

19 100 90

TBP implemented (%)

80

83

83 66

70

63

60

56

56

54

59

54 50

50

47 41

40

41

41 34 27

30 20

P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

Benchmark

Plant

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0

P1

10

The results showed that significant potential exists in the cement sector to improve technical practices in support of improving energy efficiency, especially because only two facilities received a good rating for technical practices implementation (a rate greater than 75 percent). The study showed a statistical correlation between the implementation of TBPs and overall energy efficiency. This means that the energy efficiency of a plant increases when the number of TBPs implemented at the plant increases. In contrast to the assessment of management practices, the assessment of technical practices showed a wide spread of implementation scores (70 percent of the plants have scores between 34 and 63 percent) and an insignificant relationship between TBP implementation scores among facilities from the same organization. The benchmarking process demonstrates that the cement sector emphasizes the energy efficiency practices in the finish grinding process – a process that consumes significant quantities of electrical energy. The study showed, however, that opportunities exist to improve energy efficiency by employing additional TBPs in process steps associated with fuel and raw materials preparation and in cement and feedstock composition and handling. The TBPs include improving the transportation and blending of cement and addressing the use of additives (see Figure 4-2).

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

4

TECHNICAL PRACTICES

Figure 4-2 Median Technical Best Practice Scores

20 100 90 80 MBP implemented (%)

70

70 59

60

58 54

50 36

40

33

30 20 10

Process

For more details, see Appendix B, page 34.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

All TBP

Cement and feedstock

Raw materials and fuel preparation

General measures

Clinker production

0 Finish grinding

4

5

ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

Lafarge Exshaw plant, Alberta

5

ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

22

5

ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

5.1 INTRODUCTION The third aspect of energy performance that was analyzed is the amount of energy used in cement manufacturing facilities. Assessing the amount of energy used, while considering production and structural influences, provides a performance indicator of energy efficiency.

5.2 STUDY APPROACH The Cement Association of Canada study included an extensive review of Canadian and international literature to identify potential metrics for measuring overall plant and process-specific energy efficiency. To provide capacity for ongoing in-depth analysis of energy efficiency in the cement manufacturing sector, an energy efficiency benchmarking tool was developed that evaluates energy performance at both the plant level and process level. The tool calculates such indicators as total energy intensity (gigajoule per tonne [GJ/t of cement); fuel intensity (GJ/t of cement or clinker); electricity intensity (kilowatt hour per tonne of cement); and an energy efficiency index. The Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) allows a meaningful direct comparison between plants with significant structural differences (e.g. wet kiln and dry kiln processes). A theoretical “best practice” plant was constructed, normalizing as much as possible for structural differences, and was given an EEI value of 100. The energy efficiency was analyzed for • • • •

the performance of the entire plant raw meal preparation process kiln process finish grinding process

Energy use and production data at each manufacturing facility were collected and compared with the theoretical best practices facility. Some facilities performed better than the theoretical best practices plant and attained an EEI value greater than 100 for some process steps.

5.3 OVERALL RESULTS Analysis of the results showed that the cement sector facilities are operating relatively efficiently, and the overall EEI benchmark was established at 82. This means that 25 percent of the plants achieved at least this relatively high rating. Nine of the 15 facilities achieved a “good practices rating” of at least 75 (see Figure 5-1).

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

Despite this relatively high performance, considerable opportunity exists for improving energy efficiency because there is a substantial difference between the performance of the lowest performers and the relatively high industry benchmarks within each process step.

23

When the adjustments for structural differences are ignored, the participating plants have average total energy intensities of 4.2 GJ/t of cement and 4.5 GJ/t of clinker. The most efficient plant required only 50 percent as much energy to produce each tonne of clinker as the least efficient plant. In the cement manufacturing sector, the kiln process uses 90 percent of the energy used and can be expected to have the largest impact on the plant-level EEI. Although cement plants have a high EEI benchmark (85) for the kiln process, it is important to prioritize efforts in this area because a small improvement in the kiln process can potentially result in a large reduction in energy use. The review of technical best practices (TBPs) showed that significant room for improvement remains in the kiln process. The benchmarking analysis indicated that the sector’s raw meal preparation processes have the lowest EEI benchmark, at 76 percent (see Figure 5-2). This process step was also identified as having a significant potential for increased TBPs implementation. Figure 5-1 Total EEI and Total Energy Intensity by Plant

100 89

86

82

81

81

9.0 77

Benchmark = 75th percentile 76

76

71

70

70

67

66

64

60

63

8.0 7.0 6.0

P15

P14

P13

0.0 P12

0 P11

1.0 P10

10 P9

2.0

P8

20

P7

3.0

P6

30

P5

4.0

P4

40

P3

5.0

P2

50

P1

Energy efficiency index

80

Energy intensity

90

10.0 90

Plant EEI

Intensity (GJ/t clinker)

Intensity (GJ/t cement)

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

5

ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

Figure 5-2 Median Energy Efficiency Scores by Process

24 120 103 100 Energy efficiency index

80

76

85

82

60 40 20

EEI

Finish grinding

Kiln

0 Raw meal preparation

5

Plant

5.4 ELECTRICITY RESULTS An assessment of electric energy use showed significant differences between facilities. While the best performing plant has an electricity EEI of 138 (against a best practice value of 100), the worst performing facility has an index of 36 (see Figure 5-3). Electric energy is almost 50 percent of energy costs, but only 13 percent of energy use in the cement manufacturing sector. Improved electricity management is likely to realize significant cost savings but have a limited impact on the already high overall energy efficiency indices of the plants. When the adjustments for structural differences are ignored, the analysis showed that the most efficient plant, in terms of electricity consumption, consumed only a third of the electricity per tonne of cement produced in comparison with the least efficient plant. At the process level, the assessment again identified that the sector’s fuel and raw materials preparation and the cement and feedstock process steps have the greatest opportunities for improvement.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX

Figure 5-3 Electricity EEI and Energy Intensity by Plant

25

Electricity energy efficiency index

140

Reported intensity

138

120

250

Index 200

100

91

90

85

Benchmark

82

80

64

75

74

73

68

66

150 65

60

57

54

53

100 36

40

50

20

Reported electricity energy intensity (kWh/t cement)

300

160

0 P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

0

Plant

For more details, see Appendix C, page 37.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

5

6

REFERENCES

Cement bags

6

REFERENCES

28

6

REFERENCES

Cement Association of Canada, Canadian Cement Industry 2008 Sustainability Report. 2008. Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Ecofys, Cement Etc., Inc., Canadian Cement Industry Benchmarking – Final Report, Cement Association of Canada. 2008. Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Neill and Gunter, Energy Management Potential Analysis and Best Practices Benchmarking in the Nova Scotia Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, 2007. Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd., Neill and Gunter, Energy Performance Benchmarking & Best Practices in New Brunswick Industrial and Manufacturing Sector, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, 2006. Natural Resources Canada, Canada’s Energy Outlook: The Reference Case 2006. Statistics Canada, Annual Survey of Manufacturers. 2004.

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

APPENDICES

Cement

APPENDICES

30

APPENDIX A: Energy Management Best Practices Detailed Results Figure A-1 Implementation of MBPs – Commitment by Plant

100 90

MBP implemented (%)

80

80

78 67

70

67

61

59

57

57

57

60

64 54

50

52

52

50

46

40

33

30 20 10

Plant

Benchmark

P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

0

MBP = management best practices

Figure A-2 Implementation of MBPs – Planning by Plant

93

89 81

80

67

70

56

60

61 52

50

50

48 30

30

26

26

26

26

P13

P14

P15

30

P12

41

40

P11

90

P10

100

MBP implemented (%)

20 10

Plant

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

Benchmark

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

A

APPENDICES

Figure A-3 Implementation of MBPs – Organization by Plant

31 100 86

90

81

80

69

MBP implemented (%)

70

67

61

58

64

58

60

53

50

47 42

40

42

42

39

36 31

30 20 10

Plant

Benchmark

P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

0

Figure A-4 Implementation of MBPs – Project Development by Plant

100 90 80

83

78

74 56

60

52

50

54

48

33

30

30

26

P15

33

P14

33

P13

30

P12

37

P11

37

40

P10

50

20 10 Benchmark

Plant

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

MBP implemented (%)

70

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

A

APPENDICES

Figure A-5 Implementation of MBPs – Financing by Plant

32 100 90

89

89 78

80

78

78

78

MBP implemented (%)

78 70

70

67

67 63

60

59

59

56

56

50

44

40 30 20

Plant

Benchmark

P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0

P1

10

Benchmark

Figure A-6 Implementation of MBPs – Measurement and Reporting by Plant

93

89 81

80

74

70

70

72

70

44

44

40

41

37

37

37

37

P14

50

P13

61

60

P12

90

P11

100

MBP implemented (%)

33

30 20 10

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

Benchmark

Plant

P15

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

A

APPENDICES

Figure A-7 Implementation of MBPs – Communication by Plant

33 100

97

90

85

80

76 70

65

64

68

63 59

60

59

57

56

50

52

50

46

40

33

30 20 10

P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

Benchmark

Plant

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

MBP implemented (%)

70

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

A

APPENDICES

34

APPENDIX B: Technical Best Practices Detailed Results Figure B-1 Implementation of TBPs – Raw Materials and Fuel Preparation by Plant 100 90

83

80

75

67

60 50

42

40

42

42

41

36

42 27

30

25

25

25

20

17 8

10

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

Plant

Benchmark



-0

P15

TBP implemented (%)

70

TBP = technical best practices

Figure B-2 Implementation of TBPs – Clinker Production by Plant

100 90

90

85 77

80

68

70

68

64

68

64 59

60

57

54

32

32

32

29

P14

P15

36

40

P13

50

P12

TBP implemented (%)

30 20 10

Plant

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

Benchmark

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

- 0 P1

B

APPENDICES

Figure B-3 Implementation of TBPs – Finish Grinding by Plant

35 100 90 80

80

80

80

80 70

70 TBP implemented (%)

80 70

70 60

60

60 50

50

50

40

40

40

P15

90

P14

100

30 20 10

Plant

Benchmark

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

0

Figure B-4 Implementation of TBPs – Cement and Feedstock by Plant

100 90 80

83 67

67

67 58

60 50

50

50

40

33

30

33

33

33

33

33

33

33 17

20 10

P15

P14

P13

P12

P11

P10

Benchmark

Plant

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

TBP implemented (%)

70

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

B

APPENDICES

Figure B-5 Implementation of TBPs – General Measures by Plant

36 100 90 80

75 67

70 TBP implemented (%)

67

67

67

67 58

60

58

58 50

50

50 42

40

42

42

42

30 17

20 10

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

P15

P14

Benchmark

Plant

P13

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

B

APPENDICES

APPENDIX C: Energy Use and Efficiency Detailed Results Figure C-1 Raw Meal Preparation EEI by Plant

37

120 104 87 77

80

76

73

76 68

60

63

59

55

55 49

46

45

P14

94

P13

Energy efficiency index

100

40

35

20

Plant

Benchmark

P15

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

0

EEI = energy efficiency index

Figure C-2 Kiln EEI by Plant

100 86

86

85

83

77

85 75

74

70

70

69

69

60

63

61

59

50 40 30 20 10 P12

P11

P10

Benchmark

Plant

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

Energy efficiency index

80

P15

89

P14

90

P13

90

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

C

APPENDICES

Figure C-3 Finish Grinding EEI by Plant

38 160 140

142 128

120 Energy efficiency index

105 104 102 99

100

103 90

89

88

87

80

79

75

67

66

60 40 17

20

CANADIAN CEMENT INDUSTRY ENERGY BENCHMARKING — SUMMARY REPORT

P15

P14

P13

Benchmark

Plant

P12

P11

P10

P9

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

0 P1

C