Industrial Recommendations
CEMENT MANUFACTURING
Process and Energy Use
Utah produces about 1.5 million tons of cement each
year. Cement is a very energy-intensive industry which
consumes over one percent of primary energy use in the
U.S. Raw materials for cement making, limestone or chalk
and clay, are usually mined close to plants then are
sifted, crushed, and ground, a process that uses about
23-32 kWh/short ton of material. Around 70% of cement
plants use a dry process for preparing raw material for
firing, the remainder a wet process, which uses
substantially more energy. After initial preparation,
the material is heated in large kilns with flames that
are at 1800 to 2000 degrees C (3272 to 3632 degrees F)
to produce clinkers, a process that is typically fueled
by coal. Clinkers are then ground along with small
quantities of such materials as gypsum and anhydrite to
produce the final product, a process that uses 29 to 45
kWh/short ton of cement depending on the technology used
for grinding and the hardness of additives used in the
process.
The energy consumed in kilns to produce clinkers
represents about 90 percent of the total for
manufacturing cement, while the processing of raw
materials and grinding of the final product account for
most of the rest.
There are two general approaches to lowering energy
use in the cement manufacturing process. The first, in
widespread use in Europe, involves blending other
materials such as fly ash and slag from blast furnaces
into the clinker-grinding process. The result is a
strong cement whose embodied energy per unit volume is
about seven percent lower than that of unblended cement.
Blending has the advantage of recycling waste products
of other processes, thereby lightening the load on
landfills and diminishing both energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions from the process of cement production.
The second approach to diminishing energy use
involves a number of energy efficiency and maintenance
measures undertaken at various stages of the cement
production process. It is estimated that cost-effective
measures can lower the energy consumption of the process
of producing cement by 11%. Combined with blending,
overall savings of about 18% are possible with
cost-effective, off-the-shelf technologies.1
Measures whose payback periods are routinely well
less than three years include the following:
- Undertake a preventative maintenance program. This requires
systematic maintenance measures undertaken by personnel trained to be
attentive to energy consumption and efficiency.
- Reduce kiln heat loss by using pre-heaters, installing
better-quality, high-temperature insulation, and possibly shortening the
length of the kiln.
- Use waste fuels such as tires to supplement conventional fuel used
to fire the kiln. This measure is employed by about 2% of the cement producers
in the U.S.
- Convert wet kilns to semi-wet. This involves a major retrofit of
the more wasteful wet kiln process but paybacks are quite short.
- Install a clinker cooler grate. There are at least four
technologies used to rapidly cool clinkers, which is necessary in order for
the cement to retain important hardening properties. Grate technology is more
energy-efficient than the others in current use.
- Use high-efficiency motors. It is almost always cost-effective to
use premium-efficiency motors since energy costs far outweigh the initial
investments.
- Upgrade the kiln combustion system. Modern equipment and controls
can optimize burning parameters to achieve good throughput while maximizing
efficiency.
In addition, substantial heat is released from the kiln which may be used in
preheating material or in cogeneration of electricity to power motors in other
operations in the cement plant. More details on these energy efficiency measures
and others may be found in Martin et al, 1999.2
Benchmarking
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Department of Energy through the ENERGY STAR® Program
have developed an energy performance benchmarking
tool. The tool enables building owners to evaluate
the energy performance of their buildings on a scale of
1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide. The
rating system accounts for the impacts of year-to-year
weather variations, as well as building size, location,
and several operating characteristics. Buildings rating
75 or greater qualify for the ENERGY STAR label.
Eligible space types, representing over 50% of U.S.
commercial floor space, include:
- Offices (general offices, financial centers, bank
branches, and courthouses)
- K-12 Schools
- Hospitals (acute care and children's)
- Hotels and Motels
- Medical Offices
- Supermarkets
- Residence Halls
- Warehouses (refrigerated and non-refrigerated)
For further information or to download the
performance benchmarking tool, see
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_announcing.
Assistance
Utah Power has a host of programs targeted to
meeting its customer’s energy efficiency needs. Visit
the
Utah Power profile page by
clicking here. Learn more about CHP on the
CHP Energy
Efficiency Measures page, or by visiting the website
of the
Intermountain CHP Center. The Center works in the
areas of project support and facilitation, education and
outreach, market assessment, policy review, and
coalition building. Visit the
Intermountain CHP Buyer’s Guide website to access
information about vendors, contractors, and distributors
who can turn your project idea into reality.
Learn more on the
Motors
and Motor Systems Energy Efficiency Measures page.
| Utah Power has organized a Motor Energy
Efficiency Alliance, whose members are vendors,
contractors, or distributors involved in promoting
energy-efficient motors and motor systems. The link
below will connect you to Utah Power’s motor vendor
list on the Utah Power website. This vendor list is
updated on a regular basis.
|
1 “Efficiency Opportunities for the U.S. Cement
Industry,” Nathan Martin, Ernst Worrell, and Lynn Price, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Proceedings of the 2001 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Industry.
2 “Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction
Opportunities in the U.S. Cement Industry,” Nathan Martin, Ernst Worrell, and
Lynn Price, LBNL Report 44182, September 1999. |