ENERGY-EFFICIENT

MANUFACTURING

30 
Win the Race to an
Energy-Efficient Future
31 
Better Plants: Working with
Manufacturers to Save Energy
36 
A Ten-Step Process for
Energy Analysis
Special
SpecialSection:
Section:Energy
EnergyEfficiency
Efficiency
Win the Race to
an Energy-Efficient Future
Elizabeth Pavone
CEP
S
hopping for an appliance, for instance, a microwave,
is a familiar task. How you shop for that microwave,
however, is distinctly different in 2018 than it was in,
say, 1998. In 1998, you would have visited your local appli-
ance retailer and purchased the model that fit your needs and
budget. Perhaps you would have visited a few other loca-
tions to compare prices and features. In 2018, your first stop
is probably your internet browser, where you toggle between
practically innumerable tabs in your pursuit of the best deal.
Why pay more for the same thing? You want the lowest pos-
sible price, using the least effort, to get the best microwave.
Your goal is efficiency — doing more with less.
The same is true of an industrial process. The goal is to
produce product at a designated quality, safely, for the least
amount of money — i.e., efficiently. Energy efficiency plays
a key role in this effort. If you consider energy a raw mate-
rial, it would be prudent to manage this resource — using
less raw material to make the same amount of product at the
same quality.
The first step in managing anything — finances, health,
emissions, etc. — is to measure it. Energy intensity is a use-
ful metric for quantifying energy efficiency, because it not
only accounts for the amount of energy consumed but also
the amount of product produced. Michael Stowe touches
on energy intensity in his article on pp. 36–41, where he
provides a ten-step process for measuring and analyzing the
energy efficiency of your plant.
To get to the last step of his plan, which is to implement
energy efficiency solutions, it is necessary to communicate
and raise awareness of the ongoing energy efficiency pro-
gram. While many facilities pursuing an energy efficiency
program have an energy manager who is accountable for
the energy use of the facility, everyone in the facility makes
energy use decisions. No matter how efficient the new
pump you install is, it won’t be very efficient if it is left run-
ning unnecessarily.
30  www.aiche.org/cep  November 2018  CEP
Energy Star — a joint effort by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE)
— provides a framework for building an energy program
communication plan, which includes defining your goal,
identifying your audience, tailoring your message, selecting
a way to reach your audience, and scheduling the commu-
nication activities. Reaching your audience requires tools
that will engage employees in the energy-efficiency efforts.
For example, you could use posters and other placards that
communicate energy savings and cost reduction opportuni-
ties, suggests Greg Baker of the Vermont Energy Investment
Corp. in a paper he presented at the 2017 American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) Summer Study
on Energy Efficiency in Industry. You can also use talk cards
at shift turnover meetings to highlight the need for attention
to energy in the same venue as safety, quality, and produc-
tion issues, he adds.
The ultimate goal of a communication plan is to make
energy efficiency a core operating principle of your business.
This could be as simple as converting to energy-efficient
lighting in an office space to send a message that minimizing
energy use is a priority. You might also look into the numer-
ous local, state, and national programs available to help
industry improve energy efficiency. The DOE’s Better Plants
program is one such initiative. In his article on pp. 31–34,
Robert Lung describes the program and its benefits, writ-
ing, “The voluntary program provides participants with a
broad range of tools and resources to overcome barriers
and identify opportunities to save energy and improve their
competitiveness.”
Competitiveness is one of the ultimate goals in business.
ACEEE provides a biannual scorecard of energy efficiency
that compares 25 different countries. In the industrial sector,
the U.S. ranks 14th based on ACEEE’s metrics. The U.S.
has room to sharpen its resolve to beat the competition to an
energy-efficient future. CEP
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Better Plants:
Working with Manufacturers
to Save Energy
Robert Lung The U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Better Plants program
Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education (ORISE) Fellow provides technical assistance, training, software,
on assignment to the and tools to help manufactures improve
U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE)
their energy performance.

M
anufacturing accounts for almost 25% of all U.S. energy baselines. Manufacturing companies and organiza-
energy use. Industry spends almost $230 billion tions typically benefit most from the technical assistance
on energy each year, but these costs could be sig- resources and access to TAMs that help set a path to achiev-
nificantly reduced through energy-efficiency efforts. More ing energy goals.
than $40 billion could go back into company pockets each Better Plants also offers technical assistance in water
year by leveraging proven energy-efficiency technologies efficiency, industrial supply chains, and energy manage-
and practices. ment. In addition, the program serves as a conduit to other
The U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE’s) Better Plants technical assistance offered by DOE’s Advanced Manufac-
program has been partnering with U.S.-based manufactur- turing Office (AMO), such as the 50001 Ready and Superior
ers and industrial-scale energy users to improve energy Energy Performance (SEP) programs, the Industrial Assess-
performance since 2011. The voluntary program provides ment Centers, and the Combined Heat and Power Technical
participants with a broad range of tools and resources to Assistance Partnerships.
overcome barriers and identify opportunities to save energy
and improve their competitiveness. More than 200 organi- Table 1. A snapshot of the Better Plants program to date.
zations are Better Plants partners, including 22 companies Better Plants CPI
in the chemical process industries (CPI). These partners Program Better Plants
have saved more than 1 quadrillion Btu of energy in total, Number of Partners 202 22
which translates to $5.3 billion in energy cost savings Number of Plants 3,000 296
(Table 1). U.S. Manufacturing
12% 3%
Energy Footprint
Better Plants technical assistance
Cumulative Energy Savings 1,059 TBtu 128 TBtu
Each Better Plants partner is assigned a technical account
Cumulative Cost Savings $5.3 billion $660 million
manager (TAM). TAMs are engineers with experience in
industrial energy efficiency who support partners in iden- Average Annual Energy
2.8% 2.6%
Intensity Improvement Rate
tifying energy productivity opportunities and establishing

CEP  November 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  31

Special Section: Energy Efficiency
Become 50001 Ready
T he International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
created ISO 50001 as a voluntary energy manage-
ment standard to help organizations use energy efficiently
and cut costs. The U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) devel-
oped the 50001 Ready recognition program as a way to
guide organizations in setting up an energy management
system using the ISO 50001 structure. 50001 Ready
allows organization to self-attest to these efforts, and can
be a useful first step in pursuing ISO 50001 certification.
Achieving 50001 Ready recognition involves three steps:
1. Complete the 25 tasks of the 50001 Ready Naviga-
tor, a free online tool that helps guide and track progress.
2. Self-attest to the completion of the 25 Navigator
tool tasks.
3. Measure and improve site energy performance
over time.
Partners are invited to DOE national laboratories, such
as Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) in Tennessee, to learn
about new technologies, materials, and processes that can
enhance energy efficiency. Partners have the opportunity to
access technology research and development and network
with laboratory researchers and other manufacturers.
These visits allow partners to communicate industry research
and development (R&D) needs to DOE and lab personnel.
Training. In-plant trainings (INPLTs) are 3–4-day
hands-on sessions that are held at partner facilities and
focus on energy system optimization or energy management
(Figure 1). Partners apply to host INPLTs at one of their
facilities where plant staff and other invited guests learn
to identify, implement, and replicate energy-saving proj-
ects. Instructors are experts in the focus area of the training
p Figure 1. More than 110 in-plant trainings (INPLTs) have been con-
ducted at partner sites for approximately 1,600 employees since 2011.
32  www.aiche.org/cep  November 2018  CEP
and help uncover energy-saving opportunities. Trainings
cover industrial systems and topics such as compressed air,
pumping, steam, process heating, fans, energy treasure hunt
exchanges, water and wastewater treatment, industrial refrig-
eration, and the DOE’s 50001 Ready program.
Software tools and diagnostic equipment. DOE provides
system-level software tools that enable users to assess and
monitor the performance of major industrial systems, such
as steam, process heating, compressed air, pumping, and
fan systems. TAMs also help partners use the latest software
tools and access energy management best practices.
For example, the Energy Performance Indicator Tool
(EnPI) is an important element of the program. It enables
partners to model and monitor facility and enterprise-wide
energy intensity and can be used to validate energy perfor-
mance improvements.
Partners can also take advantage of the diagnostic
equipment and field validation program, which provides
free access to instruments that enable more accurate energy
assessments and validate technology upgrades (Figure 2).
Nineteen different instruments are available, including
a combustion analyzer, digital manometer, infrared (IR)
camera, and ultrasonic leak detector (Table 2). One early
user of Better Plants’ diagnostic equipment used a flowmeter
to analyze cooling water flows, and found that installing a
variable-frequency drive on the main pump serving the cool-
ing system could save approximately $20,000 per year.
Better Plants in action
Better Plants partners make a public commitment to
energy efficiency, hold regular calls with their TAM, and
submit a one-page annual report to DOE, all of which
requires, on average, only about 8–12 hours per partner
p Figure 2. A fluegas analyzer can be used to measure the oxygen levels
and temperature of a furnace.
per year. The time commitment may be higher for partners
that host or attend trainings or participate in events, but
the technical assistance gained from these events is often
worth the time investment.
CPI partners have benefited from the program. For
example, Eastman Chemical Co. used the EnPI tool to help
validate the methodology of its energy performance soft-
ware tool. The increased rigor of this methodology led to
additional corporate buy-in for Eastman’s energy program.
They hosted two INPLTs on steam systems that investigated
several projects, including a new absorption chiller operation
strategy, a backpressure turbine loading strategy, and a proj-
ect to replace the fan drive of a turbine motor. “Eastman val-
ues the importance of collaboration with partners like DOE to
drive innovation and continual improvement both at Eastman
and along the value chain,” says Sharon Nolen, manager of
Global Natural Resource Management at Eastman.
Another partner, Celanese, hosted its first global energy
summit in conjunction with an INPLT on steam systems at
its engineered materials plant in Bishop, TX. This event was
an opportunity for Celanese personnel to learn about new
research from DOE’s AMO Director. Dave Reid, Global
Energy and Productivity Manager at Celanese, explains:
“The Celanese Energy Summit was an opportunity for us
to bring together our key site energy leaders for the in-plant
training and to meet face to face to collaborate on energy
initiatives within Celanese.”
Better Plants Technology Days
On March 15–16, 2017, more than 45 Better Plants
partners gathered at ORNL for the first Better Plants Tech-
nology Days. The gathering focused on how manufacturers
can boost productivity through adoption of technologies
researched and developed at ORNL, including ORNL’s
3D printing technology, ultrasonic dryers, advanced sensors,
and 3D immersion software platforms.
Throughout the event, lab researchers, industry leaders,
and partners were able to network and learn from each other.
Additionally, partners were able to tour several facilities at
the lab, including the Manufacturing Demonstration Facility,
National Transportation Research Center, Building Tech-
nologies Research and Integration Center, Advanced Sensor
and Drone Lab, and Visualization Lab. They also learned
about innovative projects, such as bio-derived materials and
advanced materials and coatings, as well as high-performing
supercomputing.
In addition to the hands-on technology demonstrations,
two partners, United Technologies and Cummins, led a

Table 2. These 19 instruments available through the Better Plants program enhance energy efficiency efforts.
Instrument Application
Anemometer Measure airflow and help quantify leakage around seals
Combustion Analyzer Quantify the amount of excess oxygen in boiler/combustion process exhaust
Conductivity Meter Quantify the amount of undissolved solids in boiler blowdown
Current Transformer Help quantify an actual change in the electrical consumption of a component or system
Digital Manometer Used with pitot tubes to help determine airflow rates in fan systems or ductwork
Digital Multimeter Measure voltage, current, and resistance
Digital Thermometer Determine process temperature (requires a thermocouple)
Data Logger Determine trends in nonsteady-state systems when combined with the appropriate transducer
Infrared Camera Evaluate structures, door seals, insulation, oven hot spots, etc.
Infrared Thermometer Conduct noncontact temperature measurement
Manometer (Hydronic) Measure pressure drop across components in fluid systems
Pitot Tube Measure fluid flow velocity based on the difference between the total and static pressures
Power Logger Log power in low-voltage (<600 V) one-phase and three-phase electrical components, such as pumps, fans,
and compressors
Pressure Transducer Sense pressure in compressed air and pumping systems
Strobe Tachometer Determine the rotational speed of a shaft without contact
Thermocouple Measure temperature for various applications
Time-of-Use Logger Log starts and stops of equipment with intermittent duty cycles, such as sump pumps, vent fans, and
refrigeration units
Ultrasonic Flowmeter Measure the flowrate in fluid systems without breaking the pressure boundary
Ultrasonic Leak Detector Identify leaks in compressed air or steam systems

CEP  November 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  33

Special Section: Energy Efficiency
panel discussion offering their perspectives on lab-industry
partnerships. They relayed their success in partnering with
several of the national labs, and explained that these partner-
ships enabled them to leverage research and technologies.
“Working directly with our national labs has sparked innova-
tion that allows us to compete with companies like Weichai
that are directly funded by the government of China,” said
Roger England, Director of Materials Engineering and
Technology at Cummins, Inc. He continues, “There are a lot
of really smart people at [Oak Ridge], and when you hang
around smart people you only get smarter.”
This past spring, Better Plants partners and stake­holders
gathered at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) in Golden, CO, for the 2018 Technology Days. The
event began with several presentations by NREL research-
ers on R&D projects at the lab that could inform Better
Plants partners’ energy-efficiency efforts. Tours of several
of NREL’s state-of-the-art facilities, including the Research
Support Facility, Energy Systems Integration Facility,
and Integrated Biorefinery Research Facility, provided a
firsthand look at current research. Rob Jambor of Owens
34  www.aiche.org/cep  November 2018  CEP
Corning expressed his excitement for NREL’s Renewable
Energy Integration and Optimization (REopt) tool: “You
can basically provide the inputs —
­ what you’re making,
how you’re making it, what your process is, and how much
energy you use — and then it can spit out recommendations
on how to better reach some of the sustainability goals that
we have … I think that can be very useful for us to identify
onsite opportunities.” CEP
ROBERT LUNG is an Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education (ORISE) Fellow
with the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE’s)
Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO). He
provides technical assistance to the AMO,
particularly the Better Plants program, by
helping to expand industry participation
and ensuring that the program provides
value to participants. He has supported
energy efficiency and clean energy
programs through research and analysis
of best practices and technologies, as well
as outreach and policy analysis on behalf of federal, private sector, and
non-governmental organizations for almost 20 years. Lung earned a BS
in foreign service from Georgetown Univ. and an MS in economics from
Virginia Polytechnic and State Univ.
Special Section: Energy Efficiency
A Ten-Step Process
for Energy Analysis
Michael L. Stowe, P.E. Understand the energy used to transform
Advanced Energy
raw material into finished product
to enhance energy efficiency.
T
he industrial sector accounts for about 34% of
total U.S. energy consumption (1). This energy is
consumed as electricity that is purchased or self-­
generated and as fossil fuels, such as natural gas, propane,
fuel oils, and coal. Understanding these energy sources
and their associated uses, equipment, efficiencies, costs,
availabilities, and waste streams is critical to developing a
sustainable energy-efficiency program.
Every manufacturing plant has raw materials that come
into the receiving dock and finished products that leave
Energy In
from the shipping dock. Between the receiv-
ing and shipping docks transformation occurs.
Transformation adds value to the materials in
Ein a step-by-step process, and energy is required
q Figure 1. Consider the analogy of water flowing
through a pipe — water represents the energy and
Process the pipe represents the process. Any leaks in the pipe
are akin to steam, heat, and other losses that degrade
energy efficiency.
Loss
Energy Out Eout
36  www.aiche.org/cep  November 2018  CEP
along the way. Evaluating the transformation steps and
energy inputs provides clues about where to look for energy
savings. Although transformation processes vary widely by
industry, detailing them from dock to dock is essential to
finding energy-efficiency opportunities.
Energy audits typically examine facility support systems,
such as compressed air, lights, and chillers, to find opportu-
nities for energy savings. Manufacturing processes and the
transformation steps that involve mixing, reacting, distill-
ing, drying, and curing, however, are ripe with potential for
savings as well. Understanding these processes and their
associated equipment, technologies, and support systems is
key to finding energy-efficient solutions.
This article discusses energy efficiency, energy inten-
sity, and transformation, and presents a ten-step method for
conducting an industrial process energy analysis. The tech-
nique focuses on a process block diagram that shows energy
inputs, energy wastes, energy recovery, and possible energy
improvements. Some blocks may have multiple energy
inputs, including electricity, natural gas, steam, and chilled
water. Understanding the type and magnitude of these inputs
helps to prioritize processes for energy improvements and
can uncover new technology recommendations.
Energy efficiency and intensity
Energy efficiency. The total energy into a system is Ein,
which is the amount that appears on your utility bill. The
total energy out of the system is Eout, which represents the
useful energy that adds value to the product during the pro-
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
cess. The difference between Ein and Eout is the loss. Loss is The same approach of evaluating each transformation
wasted energy that is not useful to the process and degrades step can be applied to complex manufacturing systems using
efficiency. For energy efficiency to be sustainable, energy the following ten steps. Consider the process to manufacture
losses must be identified, documented, tracked, corrected, formaldehyde (Figure 3) to illustrate the methodology.
and prevented from recurring. If the loss were zero, the
system would be 100% efficient — but this does not occur in Step 1. Identify the raw materials
the real world. Some industrial processes have one main raw material,
A simple way to envision energy efficiency is to think while others have dozens or even hundreds. Raw materials
about water flowing through a pipe — the water represents can come into the process at many places along the transfor-
the energy and the pipe is the process. Ein would be the mation journey. To determine the type and amount of energy
water into the system in gallons per minute (gpm), and a loss required in the system, first consider these aspects of the
could be a leak in the pipe that reduces the amount of water raw materials:
available to add value to the product (Figure 1). • type of material, e.g., metal, chemical, mineral, textile,
Using the water pipe example, we can calculate energy vegetable, finished goods
efficiency. If Ein is 100 gpm and the loss due to leaks is 10 • physical state, e.g., solid, liquid, gas, subassembly
gpm, Eout is 90 gpm, and the energy efficiency of the system • delivery method, e.g., tanker ship, tanker truck, com-
is 90% (Eout/Ein). mon carrier, railcar
While water leaking from a pipe is a useful visualization, • storage methods, e.g., dry bulk, tank farm, warehouse,
a process heated by natural gas is more realistic. In this case,
Ein is 1,000,000 Btu/hr of natural gas, and the fuel combus-
tion loss is 100,000 Btu/hr, stack loss is 250,000 Btu/hr,
stored heat loss is 75,000 Btu/hr, furnace wall loss is
50,000 Btu/hr, opening loss is 25,000 Btu/hr, and conveyor
loss is 20,000 Btu/hr — for a total loss of 520,000 Btu/hr.
Eout is the difference between Ein and the total loss, which is
480,000 Btu/hr, making the energy efficiency of the system
48%. Over half of the original natural gas energy input is
lost and does not provide useful work in the process.
Energy intensity. The energy intensity of a manufacturing
process is the amount of energy that is required to produce
one logical unit of product (e.g., kWh/ton metal melted at a
foundry, MMBtu/bbl of oil refined at refinery, MMBtu/lb of p Figure 2. Modeling produces a useful shape from a lump of raw clay
but requires energy inputs from human labor and an electric motor.
polymer produced at a chemical plant).
Energy intensity provides an order-of-magnitude esti- Table 1. Each step in the process to transform a lump of
mate of the significance of energy in the production process, clay into a finished vase requires energy inputs.
and it varies widely from industry to industry. Process Step Energy Input Value Added
Storing the clay Storage warehouse None
Transformation utilities, e.g., lights,
Each step of the transformation process should add value heating/cooling,
with minimal waste. Every step requires some type and ventilation
amount of energy to carry out the transformation. Certain Modeling the Human labor Create a useful
steps require a large amount of energy, while others require clay vase Electric motor shape
very little. Outlining each step and the required energy Firing the clay Electric Strength
inputs is useful for planning and prioritizing energy projects. vase in a kiln resistance heat Durability
To understand transformation, consider the process that Painting a glaze Human labor Aesthetics
produces a vase from a lump of clay. Figure 2 depicts a step on the vase
in the process with energy inputs from manual human labor Refiring the glazed Electic Aesthetics
and possibly an electric motor to turn the wheel. This step vase in a kiln resistance heat Protective coating
adds value by transforming the clay into a useful shape. Storing the finished Storage warehouse None
Table 1 presents the details of this transformation. The steps clay vase utilities, e.g., lights,
that require a kiln are the obvious big energy users and heating/cooling,
ventilation
would be logical candidates to evaluate for energy savings.

Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  November 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  37
Special Section: Energy Efficiency
sacks, pallets, cardboard boxes.
Defining the raw materials and their details is an initial
step in creating a process block diagram. We will follow
these materials on their journey to their final destination,
while evaluating the energy use at each point along the way.
Step 2. Characterize the final product(s)
The final product is the destination of the transformation
journey. Manufacturing plants are in the business of making
money, so raw materials are brought in, transformed into
something useful, and then sold for a profit. The manufactur-
ing plant adds value, hopefully very efficiently, to the raw
materials and produces a final product of a designated design
and quality. Answer these questions to characterize the final
product(s):
• Is the final product a completed consumer good that is
ready for sale, such as a car, computer, or box of cereal?
• Is the final product an intermediate finished item that
will become the raw material at another manufacturing site,
such as steel slabs, methanol, or polyvinyl chloride plastic
pellets?
• How is the final product packaged?
• How is the final product shipped?
Step 3. Tour the plant
There are many possible ways to get from Point A — the
raw materials — to Point B — the final product. Touring the
manufacturing site with process operators and maintenance
personnel as guides is essential to defining the transforma-
tion steps and developing the process block diagram. The
walk-through should ideally be conducted chronologically,
from raw materials to finished products. During the plant
tour, take good notes and include:
• major transformation steps
• specific process parameters for each step (e.g., tempera-
ture, flowrate, pressure, material characteristics)
• energy inputs into each step (e.g., electricity, natural
gas, steam, chilled water, compressed air)
• equipment used to complete the steps
• facility equipment used to support the steps (e.g., air
compressors, boilers, chillers, cooling towers)
• waste streams (e.g., combustion stack gases, waste­
water, metal shavings, sawdust).
When you tour the plant, bring a blank process block
diagram template that indicates the raw material starting
point and final product end point and has empty boxes in
between to take notes. The tour may last anywhere from a
couple of hours to a couple of days, depending on the size
and complexity of the plant. Ask your tour guides questions
and get their contact information for follow-up requests.
Record or photograph nameplate data for large pieces of
equipment that you know consume a lot of energy.
38  www.aiche.org/cep  November 2018  CEP
Step 4. Develop the process block diagram
You have done your homework and completed a
detailed tour of the manufacturing site. Now, you are ready
to flesh out the process block diagram. Use your notes, con-
versations, utility data, and possibly some online research
to document the transformation steps in the process. The
product of your work should look something like Figure 3,
which shows the basic steps necessary to transform metha-
nol and air into formaldehyde. Next, evaluate each block to
identify the energy components, including energy inputs,
energy wastes, energy recovery possibilities, energy effi-
ciency opportunities, and new technology opportunities
(Steps 5–9).
Step 5. Catalog energy inputs
Each step of the process block diagram must be reviewed
to identify the primary energy inputs required to perform the
transformation. Energy inputs may be direct energy, such
as electricity, natural gas, propane, and fuel oil, or derived
energy, such as compressed air, steam, and chilled water.
Repeating this analysis for every step helps to produce an
overall qualitative energy usage model. From Figure 3, we
can observe that:
• electric-driven motors account for a large portion of the
energy load used by pumps, blowers, and fans
• the chemical reaction in the silver catalyst bed is exo-
thermic, so the process has its own internal heat source that
is used to generate process steam
• several heat exchangers are required for process cool-
ing and use electrically driven chillers as the cooling source.
Completing an energy input analysis for each block in
the diagram creates an overall picture of the process energy
consumption. If available, information to help quantify
the energy input is valuable, including motor horsepower,
actual metered cubic feet of natural gas, electric process
sub­metering, etc.
Step 6. Identify energy wastes
Energy is wasted to some degree in every step of the
manufacturing process. Major wastes should be identified
when you are analyzing the process block diagram. Identify-
ing process waste streams is the first step to minimize them,
recover valuable energy from them, and reduce their envi-
ronmental impact. Figure 3 includes several waste streams:
• tail gas — a combustible gas (primarily hydrogen) —
produced by the scrubbers and used in a boiler to produce
steam for site use
• fluegas exhaust from the combustion of the tail gas
• blowdown from the tail gas boiler
• wastewater from the scrubbers, which requires addi-
tional energy input for downstream processing in a waste­
water treatment plant.
Article continues on p. 40
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Process Energy Energy Waste Facility
K In and Out
Step Loads Sources Stream System
E
Y Chilled Water Tail gas Steam Condensate City Water

Electricity

Electricity
Compressed Air

To Entire
Process Chiller
Process

Raw Material: Methanol Methanol Methanol t Figure 3. This

Storage Tank Condenser process block
diagram for the
production of
formaldehyde
Methanol Pumps shows the inputs
Methanol
and outputs of the
Ambient Air Purifier
Methanol process.
Condenser
Electricity

Blowers
Electricity

Distillation
Silver Catalyst Beds Column
Condensate Pumps

Exothermic Rxn Heat

Fluegas Process Steam
Generator

Boiler Combustion Distillation

Tail gas
Burner Column Bottom
Heat Exchanger

Blowdown
Combustion Air
Supply Fan Process Chiller
Motor Primary
Secondary
Scrubber Heat Exchanger
City Scrubber
Water Electricity
Electricity
Scrubber
Recirculation
Pumps
Electricity Raw
Formaldehyde Raw
Tank Formaldehyde
Electricity Wastewater Pumps
Transfer
Pump

Electricity
Final Product:
Finished
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Loading
Tank

Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP  November 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  39
Special Section: Energy Efficiency
Step 7. Identify energy recovery possibilities
The energy waste streams should be examined for their
potential for energy recovery. Observations of the waste
streams in Figure 3 might include:
• The waste tail gas from the scrubbers is already being
used to generate site steam, which is good.
• In the tail gas boiler, hot stack fluegas could be used
to preheat tail gas boiler combustion air and tail gas boiler
feedwater.
• In the tail gas boiler, hot blowdown could be used to
preheat tail gas boiler makeup water.
• There may be an economical way to extract valuable
methanol or formaldehyde from the scrubber wastewater.
Step 8. Pinpoint energy-efficiency opportunities
Each block in the process block diagram should be eval-
uated for energy-efficiency opportunities. Depending on the
energy input for the process operation, a variety of options
may be available to reduce energy consumption. The motors,
compressed air, chilled water supply, and boiler/steam
supply in Figure 3 have the potential for energy-efficiency
improvements.
Motors. Motors consume a significant amount of process
energy. The biggest cost over the life of a motor, by far, is
the electricity to turn it — typically accounting for 96%
of a motor’s total lifecycle costs. Maximizing the overall
efficiency of the plant’s motor population has energy-saving
benefits. This can be accomplished by implementing a motor
management program (2, 3), specifying National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Premium (4) efficient
motors wherever possible, and implementing a motor repair
and replacement policy.
Variable-frequency drives (VFDs). Where variable loads
and good feedback parameters exist, VFDs help save energy.
Conduct a detailed analysis of VFD/motor combinations and
implement where operationally and economically feasible.
Candidates for VFDs in the process in Figure 3 include
blowers, chiller cooling tower fans, chilled water pumps, and
air compressors.
Compressed air. Compressed air is a very expensive
and inefficient energy source. A 1/8-in.-dia. leak on a
100-psig compressed air system costs approximately $1,000
per year for the electricity to compress the air for just that
leak. Multiply this by 100 leaks across a large process
system, and a plant can spend up to $100,000 per year on
wasted electricity for compressed air alone.
In the formaldehyde process in Figure 3, compressed air
is used primarily for controls, valve operation, tank over-
pressure, air-driven mixer motors, and air-driven diaphragm
pumps. The process contains numerous air solenoid blocks,
air piping and tubing, air valves, and air-actuated devices
— all of which can develop costly leaks. Energy-efficiency
40  www.aiche.org/cep  November 2018  CEP
recommendations might include:
• establish and maintain a compressed air leak survey
and repair program, which is inexpensive and has immediate
payback
• where feasible, replace air-driven mixers and dia-
phragm pumps with electric-driven mixers and pumps
• use zero-loss condensate drains on the compressed air
system throughout the plant.
Chilled water supply. Several steps in the formaldehyde
process require chilled water. Ensure that cooling towers are
clean and properly maintained, and that chilled water equip-
ment and piping are properly insulated. Additionally, con-
sider installing a condenser on the water side of the stream
precipitator system. Typical savings are 10–15% in chiller
energy and 20–25% in makeup water. Energy-efficiency
opportunities for water-cooled chillers include:
• reset the condenser water
• clean the heat exchanger used for process cooling loads
• clean the condenser and evaporator tubing on the chiller
• to help avoid overcooling, operate at the highest chilled
water temperature that will still maintain process parameters.
Boilers, steam, and combustion. The process steps in
Figure 3 generate heat to make steam that is used for process
heating, as well as tail gas that is used in a process boiler.
Assuming a delivered cost for natural gas of $6 per deka­
therm (1 dth = 1 million Btu), exposed uninsulated steam
piping can cost $200 per foot per year in lost heat. Extrapo-
lating this over a large processing plant, 100 equivalent
linear feet of uninsulated steam piping would cost $20,000
per year in lost heat (5). Opportunities for energy-efficiency
improvements on these systems include:
• ensure combustion equipment and steam piping are
properly insulated
• monitor the oxygen content of the fluegas to ensure the
most efficient combustion and reduce nitrogen oxide and
sulfur oxide releases (6), which will also reduce the amount
of natural gas consumed, thereby lowering the amount of
carbon released
• conduct a proper steam trap survey using a thermo-
graphic camera or ultrasonic leak detector, and perform
maintenance to save energy on steam systems.
Step 9. Identify new technology opportunities
Implementing new or existing process technologies can
provide energy savings in addition to those identified in
Step 8. A goal is to reduce energy intensity, and a different
technology may lower the energy required to transform one
logical unit of product.
For example, in Figure 3, the wastewater from the scrub-
bers could be handled differently. In the current process, the
wastewater is drained away to an onsite wastewater treat-
ment plant. Membrane filters or reverse osmosis systems
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
could clean the wastewater and extract valuable methanol
or formaldehyde from the stream. The energy and financials
would need to be evaluated to see if the idea is feasible, but
this type of new technology investigation can frequently
provide energy efficiency and energy intensity solutions.
Two different process examples take advantage of new
technology opportunities for energy improvements that
relate to product coatings.
Example 1. A water-based product coating is dried in
a natural gas convection oven. A possible new technol-
ogy opportunity would be to switch to a coating cured by
ultraviolet (UV) light. Making the change from natural gas
convection to UV curing has many potential advantages,
including instant curing, high coating quality, fast line speed,
low exhaust emissions, lower energy intensity, shorter oven
residence time, and smaller floor space requirements.
Example 2. A volatile organic compound (VOC)-based
product coating is cured in a natural gas convection oven.
A possible new technology opportunity would be to switch
to a powder-based coating system cured with infrared (IR)
heating. A powder coating and IR curing system could be
advantageous because it offers efficient heat transfer, rapid
heat-up, low emissions, fast line speeds, lower energy inten-
sity, shorter oven residence time, and smaller floor space
requirements.
Step 10. Implement solutions
After you perform the process energy analysis and
develop the process block diagram, the next and most impor-
tant step is to implement some of the energy-saving solu-
tions you have identified. Savings will not be realized until
the results are actually applied.
Your analysis will produce a detailed set of opportunities
for energy improvements. Compile the results in a table or
spreadsheet so they can be evaluated, prioritized, budgeted,
and tracked for implementation. Then, repeat the approach
periodically for continuous improvement (Figure 4).
Visit
the Plant
Implement Learn
Solutions the Process
Energy-Efficiency
Program
Review
Recommend
the Facility
Solutions
p Figure 4. Energy analysis should be an ongoing process.
Copyright © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Closing thoughts
Pursuing energy improvements often produces benefits in
other areas as well. These non-energy benefits may include
greater plant productivity, higher product quality, fewer pro-
cess bottlenecks, better worker safety, more available floor
space, and lower emissions and waste stream volumes.
When exploring new technologies, a combination may
produce the best energy-saving results and, depending on
the process, there may be numerous technology opportu-
nities available. Any idea must be subjected to rigorous
energy and financial analyses to prove its feasibility prior
to implementation. CEP
Literature Cited
1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Energy Consump-
tion Estimates by Sector,” www.eia.gov/consumption, EIA,
Washington, DC (2015).
2. Advanced Energy, “Motor Survey Program,” www.advanced­
energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MAD_motor_sur-
vey_2017.pdf, Advanced Energy, Raleigh, NC (2017).
3. Advanced Energy, “Advanced Energy’s Horsepower Bulletin,”
www.advancedenergy.org/portal/mad/images/pdf_documents/
MAD_Horsepower_bulletin_final.pdf, Advanced Energy,
Raleigh, NC (2015).
4. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association, “NEMA
Premium Program,” www.nema.org/Policy/Energy/Pages/
NEMA-Premium-Motors.aspx, NEMA, Arlington, VA
(accessed Sept. 21, 2018).
5. The Engineering Tool Box, “Heat Loss from Steel Pipes at
Various Temperature Difference between Pipes and Ambient
Air,” www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steel-pipes-heat-loss-d_53.
html (accessed Sept. 21, 2018).
6. The Engineering Tool Box, “Boiler Efficiency,” www.engi-
neeringtoolbox.com/boiler-efficiency-d_438.html (accessed
Sept. 21, 2018).
MICHAEL L. STOWE, P.E., CEM, PEM, is a senior
energy engineer with Advanced Energy in
Raleigh, NC (www.advancedenergy.org;
Email: mstowe@advancedenergy.org;
Phone: (919) 857-9043), where he works
with utilities, industrial equipment vendors,
and manufacturing plants to find the
best technical and most energy-efficient
solutions for industrial processes. He has
over 28 years of experience with industrial
manufacturing processes and plants,
including roles as production manager,
maintenance manager, and plant engineer.
He has developed and delivered numerous presentations on industrial
energy efficiency and related topics for utilities, industrial trade associa-
tions, and technical groups. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in
North Carolina, a Certified Energy Manager (CEM), a Professional Energy
Manager (PEM), a Certified Practitioner Energy Management Systems-
Industrial (CP EnMS-Industrial), and a Superior Energy Performance,
Performance Verifier (SEP PV). He is a member of several trade associa-
tions: American Foundry Society (AFS), ASM Heat Treating Society
(ASM-HTS), Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), Chemical Coaters
Association International (CCAI), Industrial Heating Equipment Associa-
tion (IHEA), and RadTech International. He holds a BS in mechanical
engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, and attended the U.S.
Navy Nuclear Power School and Submarine Officer Training.
CEP  November 2018  www.aiche.org/cep  41