Energy and Carbon* Use in
Manufacturing
* and the other 91 naturally occurring element too!
Outline
1. Scale and Boundaries
2. Strategies
3. The other 91
Outline
1. Scale and Boundaries
2. Strategies
3. The other 91
Planet
NationSectorFirm
Product
Process
There are Many Scales to this Problem
1.5% 0.25% 1.25% 2% 1% Carbon
ÄCarbon
Energy
Carbon
GDP
Energy
Pop
GDPPopulationCarbon
+=++=
=
Global emissions
for 2005 = 7.56 GtC
“Stabilization Wedges”,
Pacala and Socolow,
Science, Vol 305 2004
= dtrateTotal
if goal is500±50ppm CO2
max,
then we need to
hold at 7GtC/yr for
50 years then reduce
Weight of Nations 2000
National Level
tonne = metric ton
(source: European Environment Agency, 2006)
• Direct Mfg Carbon is about 25 – 40%
• Direct and Indirect ~ 45 – 50%
• Of ~ 7GtC, Industry is about 2 to 3.5 GtC
Total Energy-Related Carbon Emissions
for Selected Manufacturing Industries
Source: Energy Information Administration, 1994
0 10 20 4030 50 60 70 80 90
All others (69.5)
Stone, Clay, and Glass Products (21.6)
Food and Kindred Products (24.4)
Paper and Allied Products (31.6)
Primary Metal Industries (64.5)
Chemical and Allied Products (78.3)
Petroleum and Coal Products (81.9)
Million Metric Tons
Manufacturing accountsfor about 80% of allindustrial energyconsumption, and80% of energy relatedcarbon emissions
Sullivan 1998
Energy Use by First 2 Lifecycle Stages
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Material
Production
Manufacturing Use Maintenance
and Repair
End of Life
Lifecycle Stage
To
tal
En
erg
y U
se
Pe
r C
ar
(GJ
)
Automobile Manufacturing
Sullivan 1998
Total Energy Use by Lifecycle Stage
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Material
Production
Manufacturing Use Maintenance
and Repair
End of Life
Lifecycle Stage
To
tal
En
erg
y U
se
Pe
r C
ar
(GJ
)
Automobile
Sullivan 1998
Total Energy Use by Lifecycle Stage
0
Material
Production
Manufacturing Use Maintenance
and Repair
End of Life
Lifecycle Stage
To
tal
En
erg
y U
se
(G
J)
Computer
Electrical Energy Requirements
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
EAF Steel Aluminum Poly Si wafer Si Nano-tube
Material
Lo
g1
0 (
MJ
/kg
)
Data from Toyota, in Gutowski et al JCP 13 (2005) 1-17
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+08
1.E+09
1.E+10
1.E+11
1.E+12
1.E-07 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03
Process Rate [cm3/s]
Injection Molding Machining Finish Machining
CVD Sputtering Grinding
Abrasive Waterjet Wire EDM Drill EDM
Laser DMD Oxidation Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Ele
ctr
icity R
eq
uir
em
en
ts [
J/c
m3
]
Conventional
Processes
Advanced
Processes
Micro/Nano
8 o
rders
of
magnitude
Gutowski, et al
IEEE, 2007
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+08
1.E+09
1.E+10
1.E+11
1.E+12
1.E+13
1.E+14
1.E-06 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04
Process Rate [kg/hr]
Ele
ctr
icity R
equirem
ents
[J/k
g]
Outline
1. Scale and Boundaries
2. Strategies
3. The other 91
1. Changing Fuels/Renewables
2. Improved Efficiency
3. “Stabilization Wedges”
15Natural Gas (methane)
18.5Gasoline (octane)
18U.S. electrical grid
20Oil (0.856 g C/g Oil)
30Coal (carbon)
Carbon Intensity
gC/MJ
Energy Source
Energy-ROI, (EROEI)
Cleveland, Energy, 30, 5, pp769-782 (2005)
Energy
Investment
En
erg
y o
r C
arb
on
Time
Payback
Time
Lifetime
Payback/EROI w/o storage
18~ 1 yr = 0.35
10~ 2 yr = 0.19
(20yrs)
6 - 102 – 4 yrsDetroit = 0.16
12-211 – 2 yrsPhoenix = 0.16
(25yrs)
Worldwide Energy
Efficiency of Pig Iron Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Year
Eff
icie
nc
y o
f P
ig I
ron
Pro
du
cti
on
.
(kg
pro
du
ce
d p
er
GJ
of
en
erg
y u
se
d)
.
Efficiency
Worldwide Pig Iron Production and the
Efficiency of Pig Iron Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Year
Eff
icie
ncy o
f P
ig Iro
n P
rod
ucti
on
.
(kg
pro
du
ced
per
GJ o
f en
erg
y u
sed
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Wo
rld
wid
e P
ig Iro
n P
rod
ucti
on
(b
illio
n k
g)
.
Efficiency
Production
Impact of Worldwide Pig Iron Production (Energy)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Year
Imp
ac
t (G
J o
f e
ne
rgy
us
ed
)
P
P
e
e
Worldwide Pig Iron Production versus
the Efficiency of Pig Iron Production
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Efficiency of Pig Iron Production (kg produced per kJ of energy used)
Wo
rld
wid
e P
ig I
ron
Pro
du
cti
on
(b
illi
on
kg
)
Worldwide Primary Aluminum Production versus the Efficiency
of Aluminum Oxide Reduction (Hall-Heroult Process)
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Efficiency of Aluminum Oxide Reduction (kg produced per GJ of energy used)
Wo
rld
wid
e P
rim
ary
Alu
min
um
Pro
du
cti
on
(b
illi
on
kg
)
Worldwide Nitrogen Fertilizer Production versus
the Efficiency of Ammonia Synthesis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Efficiency of Ammonia Synthesis (kg produced per GJ of energy used)
Wo
rld
wid
e N
itro
ge
n F
ert
iliz
er
Pro
du
cti
on
(th
ou
sa
nd
kg
)
Revenue Passenger Kilometer (RPK) Production versus the
Efficiency of Aircraft Travel (US data)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Efficiency of Aircraft Travel (RPK produced per MJ of energy used)
To
tal
RP
K P
rod
uc
tio
n (
mil
lio
n R
PK
)
Pig Iron Aluminum
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
U.S. Air Travel
Impact of Worldwide Pig Iron Production (Energy)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Year
Imp
ac
t (G
J o
f e
ne
rgy
us
ed
)
Impact of Worldwide Primary Aluminum Production
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
Imp
ac
t (m
illi
on
GJ
of
en
erg
y u
se
d)
Impact of Worldwide Nitrogen Fertilizer Production
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
Imp
ac
t (G
J o
f e
ne
rgy
us
ed
)
Impact of Aircraft Travel (US data)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Imp
ac
t (m
illi
on
GJ
of
en
erg
y u
se
d)
Pig IronAluminum
Nitrogen
Fertilizer
U.S. Air Travel
Time PeriodAverage
Annual _e/e
Average
Annual _P/P
Average _P/P /
Average _e/e
Pig Iron 1800-1984 1.1% 4.1% 3.7
Aluminum 1900-1987 1.0% 11.1% 11.4
Nitrogen Fertilizer 1915-2000 0.9% 9.6% 10.2
from Coal 1920-2005 1.3% 5.8% 4.5
from Oil 1920-2005 1.5% 6.9% 4.5
from Natural Gas 1920-2005 1.8% 9.6% 5.4
Freight Rail Travel 1960-2005 2.0% 2.5% 1.2
Passenger Air Travel 1960-2005 1.3% 6.5% 4.9
Motor Vehicle Travel 1936-2005 0.3% 3.9% 13.0
Refrigeration 1960-2000 -0.9% 2.5% ---
Electricity
Industrial Activity
Refrigeration
Motor Vehicle Travel
Passenger Air Travel
Freight Rail Travel
Electricity - natural gas
Electricity - oil
Electricity - coal
Nitrogen Fertilizer
Aluminum
Pig Iron
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
-1% 0% 1% 2%
Average Annual _e/e
Avera
ge A
nn
ual
_P
/P
• Rebound effect
Time PeriodAverage
Annual _e/e
Average
Annual _P/P
1960-2000 2.0% 2.5%
1960-1969 1.7% 3.0%
1970-1979 1.3% 1.8%
1980-1989 3.7% 1.4%
1990-1999 1.9% 3.6%
2000-2005 1.2% 2.9%
Passenger Air Travel 1960-2005 1.3% 6.5%
1960-1969 -1.6% 15.6%
1970-1979 4.7% 5.3%
1980-1989 1.4% 5.2%
1990-1999 0.6% 3.0%
2000-2005 1.8% 1.6%
Industrial Activity
Freight Rail Travel
Time PeriodAverage
Annual _e/e
Average
Annual _P/P
1960-2000 -0.9% 2.5%
1960-1969 -5.9% 3.6%
1970-1979 -4.9% 2.8%
1980-1989 1.9% 2.2%
1990-1999 4.6% 1.7%
Motor Vehicle Travel 1936-2005 0.3% 3.9%
1940-1949 -0.5% 5.3%
1950-1959 -0.5% 5.2%
1960-1969 -0.3% 4.3%
1970-1979 0.4% 3.8%
1980-1989 2.4% 3.2%
1990-1999 0.5% 2.5%
2000-2005 0.5% 1.8%
Industrial Activity
Refrigeration
FIGURE 12: Average Annual _ P/P versus
Average Annual _ e/e for Freight Rail Travel (US Class I railroads)e
2000-2005
1990-1999
1980-1989
1970-1979
1960-1969
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Average Annual _e/e
Avera
ge A
nn
ual
_P
/P
1960-2005
FIGURE 13: Average Annual _ P/P versus
Average Annual _ e/e for Passenger Air Travel (US airlines) f
2000-2005
1990-1999
1980-1989
1970-1979
1960-1969
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
-2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Average Annual _e/e
Avera
ge A
nn
ual
_P
/P
1960-2005
FIGURE 14: Historical Jet Fuel Prices f
0
50
100
150
200
250
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Avera
ge J
et
Fu
el
Pri
ce P
aid
by U
S A
irlin
es
(2006 c
en
ts p
er
gallo
n)
1990-1999
1980-1989
1970-1979
1960-1969
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Average Annual _e/e
Avera
ge A
nn
ual
_P/P
FIGURE 15: Average Annual _P/P versus
Average Annual _e/e for Refrigeration (US data) h
1960-2000
• Deregulation
• Fuel price/Taxes
• Efficiency Regulation
• Rebound effect
“Sta
bili
zation W
edges,
Pacala
and S
ocolo
w,
Scie
nce
, V
ol 3
05
20
04
Strategies
1. cars – fuel efficiency
2. less driving
3. efficient buildings
4. efficient coal
5. gas for coal
6. capture from coal
7. capture at H2
1. capture at synfuel
2. nuclear for coal
3. wind for coal
4. PV for coal
5. wind – H2
6. biomass for fossil
7. reduce deforest
8. alter tillage
Strategies
1. cars – fuel efficiency
2. less driving
3. efficient buildings
4. efficient coal
5. gas for coal
6. capture from coal
7. capture at H2
1. capture at synfuel
2. nuclear for coal
3. wind for coal
4. PV for coal
5. wind – H2
6. biomass for fossil
7. reduce deforest
8. alter tillage
Outline
1. Scale and Boundaries
2. Strategies
3. The other 91
Klee & Graedel look at the
mobilization (fluxes) of the elements
• Natural flows
– weathering and
erosion
– sea spray
– primary plant
productivity
• Anthropogenic flow
– mining
– fossil fuels
– biomass burning
Adapted from Klee and Graedel, 2004
54/77 = 0.7 red or orange
Thank YouThank Youhttp://http://web.mit.edu/ebmweb.mit.edu/ebm//