Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Author's personal copy

Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

International comparisons of energy efciency in power, steel, and cement industries


Junichiro Oda a,n, Keigo Akimoto a,b, Toshimasa Tomoda a, Miyuki Nagashima a, Kenichi Wada a, Fuminori Sano a
a b

Systems Analysis Group, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE), 9-2 Kizugawadai, Kizugawa-Shi, Kyoto 619-0292, Japan Graduate School of Arts and Sciences The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 5 August 2011 Accepted 12 January 2012 Available online 11 February 2012 Keywords: Specic energy consumption Steel sector Cement sector

a b s t r a c t
Industrial energy efciency is of paramount importance both for conserving energy resources and reducing CO2 emissions. In this paper, we compare specic energy consumption among countries in fossil power generation, steel, and cement sectors. The evaluations were conducted using common system boundaries, allocation, and calculation methods. In addition, we disaggregate within sectors, such as with blast furnacebasic oxygen furnace (BFBOF) steel and scrap-based electric arc furnace (Scrap-EAF) steel. The results reveal that characteristics vary by sub-sector. Regional differences in specic energy consumption are relatively large in the power, BFBOF steel, and cement sectors. For coal power generation and BFBOF steel production, continual maintenance and rehabilitation are of key importance. We conrm these key factors identied in the previous work on our estimated numerical values. In BFBOF steel production, corrections for hot metal ratios (pig iron production per unit of BOF crude steel production) and quality of raw materials have a large effect on the apparent specic energy consumption. Available data is not yet sufcient for straightforward evaluation of the steel and cement sectors. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Industrial energy efciency is of paramount importance for conserving energy resources, decreasing production costs, and increasing economic competitiveness as well as for international climate negotiations. In many countries, there is a great deal of interest in improving energy efciency. For a fossil fuel importing country, energy efciency improvement eases energy insecurity of the country. For a fossil fuel exporting country, energy efciency improvement enhances export capacity and conservation of domestic reserves. However, it seems that there are some obstacles to the improvement of energy efciency arising from technical, social, and nancial barriers. Lack of sufcient data and data reliability could be one such barrier (e.g., IEA, 2010c). There is need for an overview of comparable energy efciency by sector and country. Several analyses for international comparisons of energy efciency have been conducted. A project titled International Comparisons of Energy Efciency was initiated by Utrecht University and LBNL in cooperation with ADEME and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft in 1994. The project revealed the importance of considering structural differencesi.e., product (quality) mix

Corresponding author. Tel.: 81 774 75 2304; fax: 81 774 75 2317. E-mail address: jun-oda@rite.or.jp (J. Oda).

and import/export streamsfor appropriate physical energy efciency (Phylipsen et al., 1997). Worrell et al. (1997) and the Asia Pacic Energy Research Center (2000) presented information on economic and physical intensity trends in the steel sectors of several countries. Kim and Worrell (2002) indicated CO2 emissions trends in the steel sectors of seven major steel producing countries. However, the results in the three analyses depended on structural differences (e.g., ratio of EAF steel) rather than specic energy consumption) (SEC, as noted by Phylipsen et al. (1997). IEA (2007) discussed issues relating to the estimation of comparable SEC, such as system boundaries, allocation, and calculation methods. Tanaka (2008) calculated numerical values under different boundaries in Japans steel sector and also pointed out the importance of system boundaries. IEA (2008b) indicated regional CO2 emission reduction potentials in both the steel and cement sectors. IEA (2009, 2010c) indicated regional energy saving potentials. However, they did not indicate any SEC results for the steel sectors of the different countries. For the cement sector, Battelle (2002) indicated SEC by country/ region in 1990 and 2000. IEA (2007, 2009) also presented information on trends for several countries. There was a difference between the results of their analyses. IEA analyses noted the possibility of different system boundaries and measurement methods. The rst purpose of this paper is to compare SEC in the fossil power generation, steel, and cement sectors. The second purpose is to discuss sector-specic situations over the estimated SEC.

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.024

Author's personal copy


J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129 119

The point is empirical evaluation rather than methodology development. For a comparison that allows explicit consideration of structural differences, we focus on disaggregated physical indicators such as coal and gas power generation, blast furnace basic oxygen furnace (BFBOF) steel and scrap-based electric arc furnace (Scrap-EAF) steel production, and clinker production. Previous studies did not disaggregate BFBOF steel and ScrapEAF steel. The originality of this paper is to estimate SEC in iron and steel sector by distinguishing between BFBOF steel and Scrap-EAF under common system boundaries, allocation, and calculation methods. Graus et al. (2007) and Borkent (2010) have conducted in-depth analyses of energy efciency trends in fossil power generation, based on IEA Energy Balances, including a comparison of IEA statistics and national statistics. They focused on power generation by main activity producers. In this paper, both main activity producers and autoproducers are taken into account. The estimated energy efciencies in the power sector are compared among countries in Section 2, and the characteristics of energy efciencies will be compared among these three sectors in Section 5. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 focuses on energy efciency in fossil power generation. Section 3 gives methodology used and the results for the iron and steel sector. Section 4 provides information on methodology and the results for the cement sector. We summarize these results in Section 5. Finally, policy implications are discussed in Section 6.

main business; however, autoproducers generate the same for their own consumption as a primary propose. Although worldwide power output by autoproducers accounted for 6% of total fossil power generation in 2008, in some countries the power output from fossil power generation by autoproducers accounts for a relatively large share, such as 34% in Brazil, 28% in Austria, and 16% in Spain in 2008 (IEA, 2010b). The data used for the estimates is based on IEA Energy Balances (IEA, 2010b). In the statistics, energy input for power and CHP plants is given in lower heating value (LHV). The energy output is measured as gross production. Gross production is electricity production without subtracting electricity consumption for auxiliary equipment in a plant. Looking at fuel categorization, we distinguish three types of fossil fuels: (i) coal and coal products, (ii) crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas liquid, and (iii) natural gas. We call these three types of fossil fuels coal, oil, and gas, respectively. Peat-red power generation is excluded from this analysis.

2.2. Results for energy efciency in fossil power generation Fig. 1 shows the estimated energy efciency trend for coal power generation for the period from 1990 to 2008. The listed countries are sorted by average volume of coal power generation for the last three years (20062008), as described in the explanatory notes. In addition to the country data, EU (27) and world averages are listed for comparison. Energy efciencies in coal power generation have been improving in countries such as Japan, Germany, Poland, and China over these periods; however, the trends in other regions are unclear. World average energy efciency has improved slightly, from 34% to 35%. Worldwide power output for coal power generation steadily increased from 4420 TWh/yr in 1990 to 8072 TWh/yr in the period average (20062008). Regional differences in energy efciency are relatively large. Compared to the world average heat rate (coal consumption per kWh), the value for the most efcient region was 85% in 2008. The value for the least energy efcient region shown in Fig. 1 is 135%. The least efcient region consumed 1.59 times as much coal as the most efcient region in 2008. Regional differences are driven by differences in steam conditions, fuel types used, cooling methods applied, coolant temperature, operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, and capacity factor (Graus and Worrell, 2009). The average

2. Fossil power generation 2.1. Overview The methodology for estimating the energy efciency in fossil power generation is based on Graus et al. (2007), Graus and Worrell (2009), and Borkent (2010). The energy efciency in power generation is dened as the produced energy (electricity and heat) divided by fuel input measured by lower heating value (LHV). Heat produced by CHP plant should be converted because heat extraction causes decreased energy efciency in electricity generation. Similar to the previous works, we also use a value of 0.175 as the correction factor between heat and electricity. In this study, we take into account not only main activity producers but also autoproducers as previously mentioned. Main activity producers generate electricity and/or heat for sale as their
43

China (2,590TWh)

41 39 37 Efficiency (%)

US (2,126TWh) India (543TWh) Germany (301TWh) Japan (298TWh)

35 33 31

South Africa (242TWh) Australia (197TWh) Russia (181TWh) Korea (172TWh)

29 27 25 1990

Poland (147TWh) EU27 (985TWh) World (8,072TWh)

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Fig. 1. Energy efciency in coal power generation (LHV). Note: The values in brackets in the explanatory note denote power output for coal-red power generation in the period average (20062008).

Author's personal copy


120 J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129

heat rate with the use of brown coal/lignite was relatively inferior to that with the use of black coal, with gures such as 7% in the U.S., 12% in Korea, 14% in India, and 35% in Australia (APP, 2007a). Smouse (2011) indicated that energy efciency in India is affected by the use of high-ash coal and ambient temperature. APP (2007b) conducted a site survey in India and emphasized the importance of continual maintenance and rehabilitation for energy efciency. In this analysis of fossil power generation, no corrections have been made for these factors. Fig. 2 shows the estimated energy efciency trend for gas power generation for the period from 1990 to 2008. Energy efciency in gas power generation has shown clear improvement during the period in most countries. The world average improvement was 6% points. The improvement mainly resulted from the new installation of combined-cycle gas turbines (Graus et al., 2007; Graus and Worrell, 2009). Based on IEA (2010a), new implementation of combined-cycle technology during the period was extensive, such as 176 GW in the U.S., 37 GW in Italy, 29 GW in the UK, 16 GW in Mexico, and 14 GW in Turkey. Although single-cycle gas turbines are widely used for peak load units, the combined-cycle share in 2008 was over 90% in Italy, the UK, and Turkey. The shares in Mexico and the U.S. were 80% and 59%, respectively.

Regional differences in energy efciency are relatively large. Compared to the world average heat rate (gas consumption per kWh), the value for the most efcient region was 73% in 2008. The value for the least energy efcient region shown in Fig. 2 is 128%. The least efcient region consumed 1.74 times as much gas as most efcient region in 2008. It should be noted that Spains estimated efciency excludes autoproducers and only takes into account main activity producers. This is because the IEA statistics did not provide the CHP plant heat output by autoproducers although the power output share for CHP plants by autoproducers is not negligible in Spain (IEA, 2010b). For oil power generation, some results suffer from defective statistical data and some calculated energy efciency results exceed the range of technological feasibility. Such difculties could be partly related to dual-fuel-red power generation, such as oil and gas. IEA (2010a) indicated that there was a certain scale of capacity for liquid/gas dual-fuel-red power generation in 2008, such as 21 GW in Italy and 11 GW in Mexico. The power output share for oil power generation in fossil power generation was relatively small; i.e., 8.4%, in the period average (20062008). Fig. 3 shows energy efciency in average fossil power generation for the period from 2006 to 2008. In Fig. 3, countries are sorted by energy efciency. For the 27 listed countries, fossil power generation

60 58 56 54 52 50 Efficiency (%) 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32
World (4,095TWh) Thailand (98TWh) Turkey (91TWh) EU27 (734TWh) UK (161TWh) Iran (158TWh) Mexico (123TWh) Spain (102TWh) US (890TWh) Russia (480TWh) Japan (279TWh) Italy (168TWh)

30 1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Fig. 2. Energy efciency in gas power generation (LHV). Note: The values in brackets in the explanatory notes denote power output for gas power generation in the period average (20062008). Spains estimated efciency excludes the activities of autoproducers.
50 45 40 35 30 25 20
Spain Canada Saudi Arabia Netherlands Italy Mexico Egypt Iran Taiwan Malaysia Turkey US South Africa EU (27) Korea World Germany Japan Argentina Australia Poland Thailand Indonesia Ukraine Russia China India UAE UK

Fig. 3. Energy efciency in average fossil power generation for the period from 20062008 (LHV). Note: In the 27 listed countries, fossil power generation accounts for more than 70 TWh/yr for the period average (20062008).

Averaged energy efficiency [2006-2008] (%)

Author's personal copy


J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129 121

accounts for more than 70 TWh/yr in the period average (2006 2008). Energy efciency in average fossil power generation could overcome the difculty posed by dual-fuel-red power generation. The world average energy efciencies were 34.7% for coal, 37.0% for oil, and 41.4% for gas in 2008. The energy efciency possible with best available combined-cycle gas turbine technology is nearly 60% (e.g., IEA, 2010c). Such technology was mainly implemented after 1990 (Graus and Worrell, 2009; IEA, 2010a). Due to overall differences between energy efciencies based on fuel and technology type (single-cycle gas turbine or combinedcycle gas turbine), the aforementioned shares strongly affect energy efciencies in average fossil power generation. For an overview, the relationship between energy efciency in average fossil power generation and shares by fuel, Fig. 4 illustrates the power output share by fuel for the period average (20062008). The share of gas is divided into two parts: power output in 1990; and increment of power output from 1990 to 2008. In Spain, the UK, Taiwan, and Indonesia, almost all gas power generators have been installed after 1990. The share of increment is relevant information that may imply the new implementation of combined-cycle gas turbine technology. In the context of worldwide fossil power generation, coal accounted for 60.8% in the period average (20062008). However, in the top ve countries in terms of the energy efciency shown in Fig. 3, gas accounted for over 50% of total fossil power generation. The results also indicate that the gas power generation increment basically affects energy efciency in fossil power generation. In the cases of several gas-exporting countries, the relationship is not clear. This is partly because the local inexpensive gas decreases their incentive to improve energy efciency. Compared to the world average heat rate, the value for the most efcient region was 77% in the period average (20062008). The value for the least energy efcient region shown in Fig. 3 was 151%. The least efcient region consumed 1.97 times as much fossil fuel as the most efcient region in the period average (20062008). Energy efciencies, structure of power generation, and vintages vary by region as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Regional variation between coal and gas shown in Fig. 4 also depends on local fuel price and fuel property, e.g., coal rank. In order to achieve energy saving and global CO2 emission reductions through energy efciency improvement, it is necessary to focus not only on major emitting countries but also on other countries in Asia, the Middle East, the CIS, and elsewhere. 3. Iron and steel sector 3.1. Overview The blast furnacebasic oxygen furnace (BFBOF) route is physically different from the scrap based electric arc furnace
100%
Averaged share by fuel [2006-2008] (%)

(Scrap-EAF) route. Scrap-EAF has the advantage of energy intensity; however, volume is limited by scrap availability on a global scale. Direct reduced iron (DRI) is also used in EAFs as an iron source. The crude steel production derived from DRI accounts for 5% of total world crude steel production (worldsteel, 2010a). This paper treats the activity of the iron and steel sector in terms of three routes: BFBOF, Scrap-EAF and DRI-EAF. The results are provided in terms of specic energy consumption (SEC) and in units of GJ/ton of crude steel or GJ/tcs. The iron and steel sector is one of the most difcult sectors for estimating regional specic energy consumption (SEC) at an international scale due to the limited availability of data and issues relating to system boundaries, allocation, and calculation methods (IEA, 2007; Tanaka, 2008). Various kinds of energy and semi-nished products are traded across sectors and among countries. Thus, appropriate system boundary adjustments are required. Fig. 5 illustrates the assumed system boundary for the iron and steel sector in this study. It is important to note that two axes in Fig. 5 specify the boundary: (i) process ow along the vertical axis and (ii) energy ow along the horizontal axis. For the process ow, processes from coke making to hot rolling are included within the boundary. For the energy ow, net energy consumption is dened as a summation of primary and secondary energy inputs minus energy output. Secondary energy carriers (e.g., electricity, coke, by-product gases, and steam) are measured in terms of primary energy base. 3.2. BFBOF route estimate We conducted specic energy consumption (SEC) estimates for BFBOF by region based on the following approaches, as shown in Table 1. These approaches are categorized into two types: macroand micro-approaches. The macro-statistics approach is based on IEA Energy Balances and basically covers all countries. The micro-data approach gives us solid and specic forms of information; however, regional coverage is limited. With both approaches, it is necessary to adjust the data to the assumed system boundary for comparable SEC among countries. 3.2.1. Macro-statistics approach In IEA Energy Balances, coke ovens and blast furnaces are categorized as belonging to the energy transformation sector, and the iron and steel sector is categorized as belonging to the energy demand sector. The energy balances show that coke is used not only for production in the iron and steel sector but also in other sectors, e.g., the non-metallic mineral and machinery

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%


Italy Malaysia Turkey Germany Japan

Share of gas increment from 1990

World

Mexico

EU (27)

South Africa

Poland

Egypt

Australia

Spain

Argentina

Taiwan

Ukraine

Indonesia

Thailand

Canada

Fig. 4. Power output share for fossil power generation during the period from 20062008 (LHV).

Saudi Arabia

Netherlands

Russia

Korea

China

India

UAE

UK

US

Iran

Author's personal copy


122 J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129

Coal mining, iron ore mining Scrap gathering, cutting and compression processes Transportation of materials to steel plants

Upstream

Assumed system boundary


Primary energy
(Coal, natural gas, etc)

Secondary energy
(Primary energy base) (Electricity, etc)

Coke making, sintering and pellet production processes Direct reduced iron production processes Blast furnace pig iron production processes Onsite power generation, oxygen production processes Converter steel and electric arc furnace steel production processes Secondary refining process Casting and cutting processes Heating machine and hot rolling process Cold rolling, plating, special steel production processes

Energy output
(By-product gases, electricity, etc)

Downstream

Fig. 5. Assumed system boundary for iron and steel sector used in this paper. Table 1 Approaches for estimation of BF-BOF SEC. Macro-statistics approach Micro-data approach

 IEA Energy Balances of OECD/Non-OECD Countries 


(IEA, 2008a) Crude steel production by worldsteel (2010a)

 SEC or CO2 intensity reported by company or country (association) levels  Results of site survey by New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan  Diffusion ratio for energy saving/production equipment (Kawatetsu Techno-Research Corporation, 2002;
Oda et al., 2007)

 Estimates based on the energy efciency in 2000 by Oda and Akimoto (2009)  Reducing agent consumption in blast furnace by region (Ameling, 2008)  IEA estimates of emission reduction potentials in 2005 by region (IEA, 2008b)

sectors. By-product gases are also used in other sectors. Therefore, allocation of these energy carriers is essential. Table 2 shows the estimated net energy consumption within the assumed boundary based on IEAs Extended Energy Balances (IEA, 2008a). In Table 2, we also convert secondary energy to primary energy. Electricity is converted at a rate of 1 MWh10.8 GJ for all regions. Domestic steam and coke are converted based on country average. Imported coke is counted as primary energy at the ratio of 1.17 that is the assumed world average for 2005 (IEA, 2008a). Table 3 shows crude steel production divided into three routes based on worldsteel (2010a, 2010b). DRI-EAF steel is assumed to be produced from 1.031 t of DRI per 1 t of crude steel (with the remainder source being home scrap). DRI-EAF steel is counted as belonging to the region in which DRI is produced. Scrap-EAF is dened as a process in which 100% of the iron source is scrap. For simplicity, BOF steel production volume includes open hearth furnace (OHF) steel in this study. Since BFBOF, Scrap-EAF, and DRI-EAF have different SEC, regional share for these three routes should be reected. We set representative SEC by route as shown in Table 4. The assumed steel plant employs no major energy saving technologies. Based on Tables 24, we estimate SEC in BOF steel by region as shown in Table 5. The values in Table 5 are conceptually based on primary energy use in IEA statistics divided by total crude steel production. The regional shares for BFBOF, Scrap-EAF, and DRI-EAF routes and common system boundaries are explicitly reected. In addition, corrections for regional differences in hot metal ratio

Table 2 Primary energy consumption in BOF and EAF steel production in 2005. (PJ/yr) U.S. UK France Germany EU (27) Japan Korea China India Russia Rest of the world World total Non-electricity 1064 241 277 583 2446 1587 668 7676 1152 1978 3751 20,322 Electricity 869 54 169 303 1492 748 467 2748 0 1612 1940 9876 Total 1933 296 446 887 3938 2335 1135 10,424 1152 3591 5690 30,198

Note: Our estimations are based on IEA Extended Energy Balances (IEA, 2008a).

(pig iron production per unit of BOF crude steel production) are presented in Table 5. These points make this paper different from previous works, such as Worrell et al. (1997) and Kim and Worrell (2002). The hot metal ratio varies by region, e.g., 0.892 in the U.S., 0.935 in Germany, 0.993 in Japan, 1.098 in China, 1.292 in India, and 1.025 as a world average for 2005. The hot metal ratio is converted into 1.025 at a ratio of 20.64 GJ/(ton of pig iron/ton of BOF crude steel) in all regions (NEDO, 2008c). It should be noted that the estimates in Table 5 present some difculties. IEA Energy Balances (IEA, 2008a) did not provide electricity consumption in the steel sector of India. Coal-based

Author's personal copy


J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129 123

Table 3 Crude steel production categorized by route in 2005. (Mt/yr) U.S. Canada UK France Germany Italy Spain, Portugal EU (27) Japan Australia, NZ Korea China India Turkey Mexico Brazil Russia Ukraine Rest of the world World total BOF steel 41.7 9.0 10.6 12.2 30.9 11.7 4.4 120.5 83.6 6.4 26.7 314.0 21.0 6.1 4.5 24.7 55.3 34.8 33.3 781.6 Scrap-EAF steel 52.0 5.8 2.7 7.3 13.2 17.7 14.9 74.5 28.8 1.4 21.1 41.5 12.4 14.8 5.4 6.5 7.4 3.8 30.3 305.7 DRI-EAF steel 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 12.4 0.0 6.3 9.2 3.4 0.0 25.5 59.5

Note: Our estimations are based on worldsteel (2010a, 2010b).

Table 4 Assumed SEC by route for representative value. (GJ/ton of crude steel) BOF steel Scrap-EAF steel DRI-EAF steel Non-electricity 26.2 2.9 18.1 Electricity 6.7 7.3 8.6 Total 32.9 10.2 26.7

3.2.2. Micro-data approach The micro-data approach is based on a wide variety of data, such as company reports, association reports, and results of site survey, etc., as shown in Table 1. The extent of regional coverage is limited; however, this approach gives us solid data. The collected literature is large, and we describe the selected literature in this paper below. Regarding literature from companies, ThyssenKrupp Steel (ThyssenKrupp Steel, 2005a, 2005b), Corus Group (Corus, 2006), POSCO (POSCO, 2007), and ve Japanese integrated steel mills (Nippon Steel, JFE Steel, Sumitomo Metal Industries, Kobe Steel, and Japan Steel Works) provide useful data. In India, SAIL, Vizag Steel, and Tata Steel reported their own SEC (Tata Steel, 2007a, 2007b; NEDO, 2008d). The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) released useful data for estimating SEC in BF-BOF and EAF routes (IEA, 2007). For estimates of SEC in Russia and Ukraine, we combined results of site surveys (NEDO, 1999, 2000a, 2000b) and data on open-hearth furnace steel production in 2005 (worldsteel, 2010a). For estimates of SEC in China, we conducted more detailed analysis (see Appendix A). It is noted SEC and CO2 intensity are calculated based on individual system boundary and conversion factor rather than with a common calculation method. Most of the reports provide limited information about calculation methods. For comparable SEC, it is necessary to adjust such factors. We convert electricity consumption into primary energy base at the ratio of 10.8 GJ/MWh, convert the hot metal ratio to 1.025, and adjust system boundaries both for process and energy ows (e.g., adding imported coke). As a result, estimated SEC based on a micro-data approach is shown in Table 6. 3.2.3. Correction for quality of raw materials A variety of iron ores and coking coals are utilized for ironmaking around the world. Regarding iron ore, grade (percentage of Fe content) and the presence of trace elements (e.g., silica and alumina) affect the reducing agent consumption in iron-making in blast furnaces (Nippon Steel, 2004; IEA, 2007). Australian iron ore has relatively high silica and alumina content compared to Brazilian iron ore in general (Nippon Steel, 2004). Such silica and alumina content has a negative impact on reducing agent consumption (Nomura et al., 2006). To correct for quality of raw materials in this paper, we add three percentage points to energy
Table 6 Estimated SEC in BOF steel in 2005 based on a micro-data approach. (GJ/ton of crude steel) U.S. UK France Germany Belgium, Netherlands Japan Korea India Russia Estimated SEC 28.9 27.6 24.4 23.6 23.8 23.1 23.2 33.3 30.3

Note: Our estimations are based on IEA (2007, 2008b), and Oda et al. (2007). The value is measured with primary energy base (LHV). Assumed value of DRI-EAF steel is based on gas-based shaft furnace.

Table 5 Estimated SEC in BFBOF steel in 2005 based on a macro-statistics approach. (GJ/ton of BOF crude steel) U.S. UK France Germany EU (27) Japan Korea China India Russia Worldwide total Estimate based on nonelectricity consumption 30.9 29.3 26.4 24.0 25.5 23.5 28.9 28.6 40.9 47.8 29.8 Estimate based on total consumption 35.5 26.9 30.6 26.4 28.8 25.7 34.2 30.5 30.0 65.0 32.7

Note: The estimations are calculated based on Tables 2, 3, and 4. The values are measured with primary energy base (LHV). The hot metal ratio was converted to 1.025. There was no correction for raw material quality.

DRI is widely utilized in India. In Russia and China, several steel plants play a role in district heating. In some non-OECD countries (especially in the Middle East), energy consumption in the steel sector could be reported in the gures for other industries (e.g., IEA, 2007). In spite of these difculties, the SEC in Table 5 is useful, because the macro-statistics approach basically covers all countries consistently in terms of time trend. In addition, the macrostatistics approach requires fewer arbitrary parameters than the micro-data approach described in the next section.

Note: Our estimations are based on a large amount of literature (AISI, 2007; Corus, 2006; IEA, 2007; Kawatetsu Techno-Research Corporation, 2002; NEDO, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2008c, 2008d; POSCO, 2007; Tata Steel, 2007a, 2007b; ThyssenKrupp Steel, 2005a, 2005b; worldsteel, 2010a, 2010b). The values are measured in terms of primary energy base (LHV). The hot metal ratio was converted to 1.025. There was no correction for raw material quality.

Author's personal copy


124 J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129

consumption in Europe, North America, and Brazil, where Brazilian iron ore is (mainly) utilized. Regarding coking coal, IEA (2007) stated: Especially in India, use of high ash coal may have a detrimental impact on energy efciency. In this paper, we withhold eight percentage points from energy consumption in India to correct for quality of raw materials. These corrections have two roles: (i) reecting energy-saving measures implemented; and (ii) ensuring consistency between the estimates in macro-statistics and micro-data approaches.

energy efcient region in Fig. 6 is 121%. The least efcient region consumed 1.49 times as much primary energy as the most efcient region in 2005. Fig. 6 also shows SEC for 2000. In OECD countries, the improvement of SEC over ve years seems to be due to continual maintenance and refurbishment in view of the blast furnace condition of OECD countries (Japan Iron and Steel Federation, 2008). The diffusion ratio for energy saving technologies in Chinas existing plants sharply increased (NEDO, 2008c). In Russia and Ukraine the pace of rehabilitation seems to be slow in terms of open hearth furnace activities (worldsteel, 2010a). 3.2.5. Importance of corrections and discussion for BFBOF route As seen in Fig. 6, corrections for both hot metal ratios and quality of raw material have been conducted for appropriate comparison of SEC. However, there is no theoretically determined unique method because the process and energy ows for the BFBOF route vary by region (e.g., Alliance for American Manufacturing, 2009). Table 7 illustrates correction effects in three regions. These corrections have a large impact on the apparent SEC. It should be noted that there was no correction conducted for other factors, such as capacity factor or air temperature. Results of site surveys in Russia imply that the possible increment resulting from lower air temperature is from 1 to 1.5 GJ/tcs as a yearly average (NEDO, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). 3.3. Scrap-EAF route estimate Compared with the BFBOF steel sector, the number of electric arc furnaces (EAF) and companies owning EAFs is very large (e.g., AIST, 2010). Thus, data availability is a more critical issue for

3.2.4. Results for SEC in BFBOF route Based on the interim estimates from the macro-statistics and micro-data approaches, we nally estimate SEC for BOF steel in 2005 as shown in Fig. 6. These interim estimates have a number of advantages and weaknesses, such as in terms of regional coverage, consistency of time trend, technological background (results of site survey, diffusion ratio for energy saving technology), reliability of information, defectiveness of statistics, etc. Considering these advantages and weaknesses, we conducted the nal estimates shown in Fig. 6 as the most appropriate and reliable. For a comparable SEC, corrections both for hot metal ratios and quality of raw materials have been conducted. Fig. 6 indicates that SEC in Japan, Korea, and Germany was relatively low and that in Russia and Ukraine it was relatively high in 2005. The major factors behind regional differences are diffusion ratio for energy saving technology, production capacity, and vintage of facility (Oda et al., 2007). Operation practice and continual maintenance are also important (NEDO, 2008c). Compared to the world average, the value for the most efcient region in Fig. 6 is 81% for 2005. The value for the least
40

Primary energy consumption of BOF steel (GJ/ton of crude steel)

2000

2005

35
31.1 30.0 30.3 28.1 29.9 28.8 27.7 25.9 31.0 27.9 26.3 24.9 23.1 23.5 31.7 28.3 32.7

34.8 34.5 33.4 33.1 30.9

30

28.9

28.4

25

20

15

10

Fig. 6. Final estimates of SEC for BOF steel in 2000 and 2005. Note: SEC is measured in terms of primary energy base (LHV). Corrections for both hot metal ratios and quality of raw materials were conducted. Table 7 BFBOF route correction effects in three regions in 2005. U.S. Net (shown in Fig. 6) Estimates of SEC [GJ/ton of BOF crude steel] Gross (no corrections for hot metal ratio or quality of raw materials) Hot metal ratio [Ton of pig iron/ton of BOF crude steel] 26.3 0.892 29.8 1.098 36.6 1.292 30.0 China 28.3 India 28.9

Note: SEC is measured in terms of primary energy base (LHV). Correction for hot metal ratios means that the hot metal ratio is converted to 1.025.

Author's personal copy


J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129 125

estimates of specic energy consumption (SEC) in the Scrap-EAF route. Upstream energy consumption in the Scrap-EAF route is lower than that for the BFBOF route. This means that total energy consumption is more sensitive to downstream processes, such as shape forming, nishing processes, and special steel and/ or value-added steel production. Therefore, it is important to distinguish energy consumption within the assumed system boundary, as shown in Fig. 5, from energy consumption outside such boundary. Taking into account these issues in relation to the Scrap-EAF route, we conducted estimates of SEC in the Scrap-EAF by region based on the following approaches, as shown in Table 8. Data of AIST (2010) includes company/location, tap-to-tap time, charge materials (percent of scrap), power, oxygen and natural gas consumption of each EAF, etc. In this analysis, oxygen consumption is converted into primary energy at the ratio of 6.48 MJ/Nm3O2 in all regions based on actual electricity consumption using pressure swing adsorption (Miyake, 2010). The data of AIST (2010) is very useful because it is based on reported (actual) performance at each EAF plant. AIST (2010) focuses only on EAF processes and we had to add energy consumption in other process, such as secondary rening, casting, and hot rolling processes. Based on the assumed basic energy consumption by process (Worrell et al., 1999; NEDO, 2001, 2003; IEA, 2007) and reported SEC in the EAF steelmaking route in the U.S. (IEA, 2007), a volume of 3.23 GJ/tcs is taken for additional energy consumption. This methodology is designated [A] in this paper. Regional coverage of AIST (2010) is limited to seven countries. Another method is required to cover other steel producing countries. As shown in Table 8, we apply the improvement ratio for the period (20002005) to SEC for 2000. This method is designated [B]. The SEC for 2000 is derived from Oda and Akimoto (2009), which are based on the vintage of EAFs and the IEA Extended Energy Balances (IEA, 2005). The method designated [B1] refers to relative change of SEC calculated by the macrostatistics approach as shown in Section 3.2.1. Method [B1] is more useful where the share for the Scrap-EAF route is relatively high. The results from method [B1] indicated that the improvement ratio of SEC was 9% in Turkey and 8% in Italy. Even with the above methods, sufcient data for estimating SEC has not yet been obtained for several regions. In addition, the share for new EAF installed capacity during the period (2000 2005) was relatively high, such as 70% in India, 56% in China, 46% in Turkey, 24% in Spain, and 22% in the U.S. (under the assumption of a 40 yr lifetime). In the method designated [B2], assumed SEC given the new capacity is applied to the SEC for 2000. In this paper, we assume three levels of SEC for new installation as follows. For OECD countries, a value of 8.0 GJ/tcs is used based on AIST (2010) and Toulouevski and Zinurov (2010). For Non-OECD countries except India, a value of 8.5 GJ/tcs is used based on NEDO (2003) and AIST (2010). For India, a value of 9.5 GJ/tcs is used due to the high share of small-scale induction furnaces (Kawatetsu Techno-Research Corporation, 2002). Table 9 summarizes the aforementioned. Weight coefcients of method [A] are directly given along with regional coverage of production capacity share (AIST, 2010). Weight coefcients of
Table 8 SEC estimate method for Scrap-EAF route. [A] Based on AIST (2010)

method [B1] are based on regional Scrap-EAF route share. The rest are allocated to weight coefcients of method [B2]. Final estimates shown in Table 9 indicate that regional differences are relatively small. Compared to the estimated world average, the value for the most efcient region was 95% in 2005. The value for the least energy efcient region shown in Table 9 was 115%. The least efcient region consumed 1.21 times as much primary energy as the most efcient region in 2005. This is partly because the Scrap-EAF route involves relatively similar technological processes compared to the BFBOF route. 4. Cement sector 4.1. Overview Cement production consists of raw material grinding, clinker production, and cement nishing processes. Thermal energy is consumed in the clinker production process. Electricity is consumed in these three processes. Based on the coverage of WBCSD (2005), global weighted average thermal energy accounted for 3.7 GJ/ton-clinker in 2006. Electricity consumption accounted for 111 kWh/t-cement. Thermal energy accounted for more than two thirds of total primary energy consumed for cement production. In this study, we focus on thermal energy consumption in clinker production (GJ/ton-clinker). The assumed system boundary and fuel classication for this analysis of the cement sector are based on the WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative CO2 Protocol (WBCSD, 2005).

Table 9 Summary of Scrap-EAF SEC estimates for 2005. Interim estimates by approach (GJ/ton of EAF crude steel) [A] U.S. Canada UK France Germany Italy Spain, Portugal EU (27) Japan Australia, NZ Korea China India Turkey Mexico Brazil Russia World 8.41 8.82 [B1] 8.56 9.23 8.19 9.12 8.77 8.58 8.98 8.84 8.12 8.96 8.43 7.68 9.37 9.03 7.54 9.00 10.21 8.56 [B2] 8.44 9.08 9.39 9.12 8.66 9.03 8.71 8.97 8.41 8.56 8.33 8.75 9.64 9.01 9.47 8.91 10.13 8.83 Weight coefcients (%) Final estimates (GJ/ton of EAF crude steel)

[A] 100 100

[B1] 0 0 10 25 19 45 45 19 6 26 9 3 49 18 13 2

[B2] 0 0 90 75 81 55 55 81 3 74 91 97 51 6 57 98 8.41 8.82 9.27 9.12 8.68 8.83 8.83 8.93 8.36 8.42 8.36 8.66 9.64 9.02 8.85 9.00 10.14 8.78

8.38

91

9.11 9.16 8.51

76 30

Note: SEC is measured in terms of primary energy base (LHV). Figures out to the second decimal place are provided only as reference information; however, the second decimal place is insignicant because the estimates were conducted under conditions of limited data availability.

[B] Based on improvement ratio, 20002005

 Estimates based on data for each EAF plant reported by


AIST (2010)

 [B1] Estimates of improvement ratio from 2000 to 2005 based on Macro-statistics approach shown
in Section 3.2.1.

 [B2] Estimates based on new EAF installations and their assumed SEC
Note: The coverage of AIST (2010) is limited to seven countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, and the U.S.

Author's personal copy


126 J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129

4.2. Methodology for estimates of thermal energy consumption in clinker production In order to estimate thermal energy consumption in clinker production, we mainly refer to three sources: (i) WBCSD (2009), (ii) IEA (2009), and (iii) CEMBUREAU (2003). WBCSD (2009) gathers energy consumption data for each plant in a common format. Therefore, the data of WBCSD (2009) is most reliable and useful without any additional adjustment. On the other hand, regional coverage is limited, especially in Asian and CIS countries (e.g., the coverage in is 45% in India, 14% in the CIS, and 5% in China). In addition, due to condentiality issues, only regionally aggregated data has been released to the public. IEA (2009) summarized time-series thermal energy consumption trends in major countries with notes on the possibility of different system boundaries and measurement methods. We set a high priority on referring to the data of WBCSD (2009) and IEA (2009) because these references reect actual thermal energy consumption. CEMBUREAU (2003) tabulated individual kiln data, i.e., company, site name, capacity, type of kiln, and presence/absence of pre-heater and pre-calciner up to the year 2002. Although CEMBUREAU (2003) did not mention actual energy consumption, it is very useful because both the regional coverage and regional resolution are high around the world. We apply data for each kiln shown in CEMBUREAU (2003) to the basic thermal energy consumption shown in Fig. 7. The assumed thermal energy in Fig. 7 is based on empirically derived thermal energy rather than on theoretically evaluated thermal energy. This approach based on CEMBUREAU (2003) and Fig. 7 covers the data of WBCSD (2009) and IEA (2009). This approach also reects the presence/absence of pre-heater and pre-calciner. In addition to above three references, we also refer to more specic information. Table 10 shows interim estimates for China. For estimates for India, we also refer to the results of a site survey

(NEDO, 2008a) and the most recent report (e.g., Trudeau et al., 2011).

4.3. Thermal energy consumption results for the cement sector Considering the above interim estimates, we nally estimate thermal energy consumption in clinker production in 2005 as shown in Fig. 8. The thermal energy is divided into two groups: (i) fossil fuels and (ii) alternative fuels, and biomass. Alternative fuels and biomass are by-products, waste, biomass, and mixtures of these fuels (WBCSD, 2005). Fig. 8 indicates that total thermal energy consumption in Japan, India, and several European countries is relatively small. This is mainly due to technical reasons such as high diffusion rate for dry rotary kilns with 46-stage cyclone pre-heaters (and precalciners) and less usage of wet rotary kilns, and vertical kilns
Table 10 Estimates based on specic information by type of kiln for China in 2005. Share of clinker Weighted average production (%) of thermal energy consumption (GJ/tonclinker) Dry rotary kiln with 4- to 6-stage cyclone pre-heater (and precalciner) Wet rotary kiln Other rotary kiln Vertical kiln China total 40.0 3.2

2.6 5.8 51.6 100.0

5.7 3.4 5.1 4.3

Note: Our estimations are based on Cui (2006), Price (2007), NEDO (2008b), Tsinghua University of China (2008), Tonooka et al. (2009), and Zhang and Pushpalal (2010).

Wet (long) Wet (2 stage cyclone pre-heaters, pre-calciner) Semi-Wet (3,4 stage cyclone pre-heaters, pre-calciner) Semi-Dry (Lepol, travelling grate preheater) Dry (long), Dry (1,2 stage cyclone pre-heaters), Semi-Wet (Lepol, travelling grate preheater) Dry (4 to 6 stage cyclone preheaters), Dry (4 to 6 stage cyclone preheaters and precalciner) Vertical kiln

7.5 Thermal energy consumption (GJ/t-clinker) 7.0 6.5


y = -1.002ln(x) + 13.23

6.0 5.5 5.0


y = -0.545ln(x) + 9.14

4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0


y = -0.233ln(x) + 5.03 y = -0.396ln(x) + 6.75 y = -0.217ln(x) + 5.25 y = -0.145ln(x) + 4.32

2.5 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Capacity (t-clinker /day)


Fig. 7. Assumed basic energy efciency by capacity and type of kiln. Note: Our estimations are based on CEMBUREAU (1999), NEDO (2001), and IEA (2007). The thermal energy is measured in terms of lower heating value (LHV). The gure includes alternative fuels and biomass.

Author's personal copy


J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129 127

6
Thermal energy consumption for clinker production (GJ/ton clinker)
Alternative fuels and biomass

5.44

5
4.25

Fossil fuel

4 3 2 1 0

3.98 3.48 3.65 3.46

4.17 3.80 3.84 3.58 3.07 3.31 3.70

3.91

Fig. 8. Final estimates of thermal energy consumption in clinker production in 2005. Note: Total thermal energy consumption consists of values for fossil fuels, alternative fuels, and biomass. Thermal energy is measured in terms of low heat value (LHV) base. There is no correction for waste heat recovery power generation.

(CEMBUREAU, 2003). Other factors such as air temperature and moisture content of raw materials could affect thermal energy consumption. NEDO (2008a) provided the example of Japan, in which 8% of total thermal input is used for drying raw materials. Smaller-scale production also has a negative impact on thermal energy consumption as shown in Fig. 7. The cement industry also plays a role in natural resource conservation and waste management. They receive a large amount of by-products, waste, alternative fuel, and biomass. Fig. 8 indicates that share for fossil fuel consumption in Germany and France is low due to the use of alternative fuels and biomass. In many cases, the use of alternatives requires pre-preparation and chlorine bypass system technology, which results in additional electricity consumption. The availability and quality of these alternatives depend on social conditions at the site. Compared with other sectors, regional differences in specic thermal energy consumption are relatively large. In clinker production, the value for the most efcient region is 79%, compared with the estimated world average for thermal energy. The value for the least energy efcient region shown in Fig. 8 is 139%. The least efcient region consumed 1.77 times as much thermal energy as the most efcient region in 2005. Focusing on fossil fuels, the factor becomes 2.87. There is no correction for waste heat recovery power generation in Fig. 8. If the correction were to be conducted, the indicator would be smaller than that shown in Fig. 8. The technology penetrates those countries in which the price of grid power is relatively high, such as Japan and China (Japan Cement Association, 2009). In addition, no correction has been made for other factors, such as air temperature, humidity, and quality of raw materials. The effect of the use of high-ash coal is not clear, as shown in the results for India. These situations depend on site-specic conditions, and qualitative analysis is difcult due to lack of data on a global scale.

5. Conclusion In this paper, we evaluated specic energy consumption (SEC) in fossil power generation, steel, and cement sectors among countries under common system boundaries, allocation, and calculation methods. For a comparison that allows explicit consideration of structural differences, we focus on disaggregated physical indicators for coal

and gas power generation, BFBOF steel and Scrap-EAF steel, and clinker production. The results revealed that the situation varies by sub-sector in terms of: (i) data availability, (ii) regional differences in SEC, and (iii) correction effects. Regarding data availability, it is possible to conduct a relatively straightforward estimate for the fossil power sector based on IEA Statistics (IEA, 2010c). For the steel (for both BFBOF and Scrap-EAF routes) and cement sectors, we must combine several approaches and a great deal of referential information given the currently available statistics. Regional differences in estimated SEC vary by sector. The differences among countries are relatively large for the power, BF BOF steel, and cement sectors. In contrast, the difference is relatively small for the Scrap-EAF steel sector. The ratios of least/best SEC presented in this paper are 1.59 for coal power generation, 1.74 for gas power generation, 1.97 for average fossil power generation, 1.49 for the BFBOF route, 1.21 for the Scrap-EAF route, and 1.77 for clinker production. Factors causing differences in SEC among countries also vary by sector. Taking (qualitative) analyses of previous works into consideration, we summarize such factors as follows. For gas power generation and EAF steel production, new installation is a key factor for regional SEC. For coal power generation and BFBOF steel production, coal type and continual maintenance and rehabilitation have an impact on regional SEC. For clinker production, total thermal consumption mainly depends on technological factor of kiln type; however, the share for fossil fuel depends on social aspects relating to availability of alternative fuels and biomass. In this paper, we conrm these key factors described in previous work on our estimated numerical values. Regarding correction effects, the results for BFBOF steel indicate that the corrections for hot metal ratios and quality of raw materials have large effects on the apparent SEC. The presence of these corrections is requisite for a constructive discussion on international comparison of SEC in BFBOF steel production. In order to promote energy saving and global CO2 emission reductions, in-depth discussion on these comparable SEC and sector-specic situations is required. This paper provides indispensable basic information for discussion. In the steel and cement sectors, more straightforward estimates including information on the latest trends remain as future work. Further updated information and statistics will enable us to conduct such work.

Author's personal copy


128 J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129

6. Policy implications Even in terms of technological aspects, regional and individual facility situations are very diverse, with differences in factors such as raw material, fuel type, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. More specically, obsolete facilities, lower diffusion of energy-saving technologies, locally available fossil fuels, and smaller capacities have an impact on specic energy consumption (SEC). As a result, regional differences in SEC are substantial. Governments apply a wide range of policies to promoting energy saving. Policies and measures include regulations, agreements, taxes, emission trading, subsidies (for investment and/or R&D), and supportive measures. For accelerating SEC improvement in global scale, there are two principal approaches: (i) reducing regional differences in SEC using existing technologies, and (ii) developing breakthrough technologies. Regarding the rst approach, international information sharing about regional and sector-specic situations, knowhow, and good practices would be effective. Public support plays an important role for such information sharing. Regarding the second approach, private RD&D with public support is requisite for a breakthrough. Energy intensive industries and related engineering companies have been developing incremental improvements in terms of steam conditions, process controls, exhaust heat recovery, and effective utilization of byproducts/waste. These incremental efforts have been improving the SEC of the best available technology; however, RD&D for breakthrough technologies is requisite for moving to the next stage. This is because there are physical limits to the remaining incremental improvements that are possible.

Table A1 Estimated SEC by process and group in China for 2005 (micro-data approach). Energy consumption (GJ/ton of BOF crude steel) Coking Sintering Blast BOF Rolling Total furnace Large and mediumsized companies Small companies China total 4.1 1.9 13.5 0.8 2.7 22.9 BOF crude steel production (Mt/yr) 256

6.5 4.6

3.1 2.1

16.8 14.1

2.2 1.0

5.9 3.3

34.5 25.1

58 314

Note: Our estimations are based on CISA (2005, 2008), Price (2007) and NEDO (2008c). The unit is GJ/ton of BOF crude steel equivalent. The hot metal ratio was converted into 1.025. No correction was made for quality of raw materials. The system boundaries for Table A1 are different from those of Fig. 5.

Appendix A. SEC estimates for China (micro-data approach) Companies within Chinas iron and steel industry can be divided into two groups: (1) large and medium-sized companies and (2) small companies. Large and medium-sized companies provide energy consumption data to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA); however, small companies do not. It should be noted that the label small companies does not reect actual production capacity in recent years. For a micro-data approach for China, we estimate specic energy consumption (SEC) for each group separately due to data availability differences, as shown in Table A1. Based on the estimates, Chinas SEC (including that for small companies) was 25.1 GJ/tcs in 2005. If the same calculation method used for Table A1 is applied to Japanese data, the Japanese SEC is calculated as 21.2 GJ/tcs (NEDO, 2008c); however, it is 23.1 GJ/tcs taking into account the dened system boundaries of this paper (Fig. 5). Considering such difference, Chinas SEC based on the approach used in this paper is estimated to be 27.3 GJ/tcs. It should be noted that this study focuses on BOF steel rather than pig iron. This means that pig iron making for EAF and foundries is excluded. In China, approximately 30% of the pig iron produced by small companies is distributed to EAF and foundries. We discussed the correction effects of hot metal ratios in Section 3.2.4.

References
Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), 2009. An Assessment of Environmental Regulation of the Steel Industry in China, Washington, DC. /http://www. americanmanufacturing.org/les/chinaenvironmental-report-march-2009_0. pdfS. Ameling, D., 2008. ABMs 63rd Annual Congress, SantosSPBrazil, July 28August 1, 2008.

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), 2007. Fact Sheet: U.S. Steel Industry; World Leaders in Energy Efciency, 2007. /http://www.climatevision.gov/ sectors/steel/pdfs/AISI-Energy-Efciency-Fact-Sheet.pdf S. Asia Pacic Energy Research Centre, 2000. Energy Efciency IndicatorsA study of energy efciency indicators for industry in APEC economies, Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ)/Asia Pacic Energy Research Centre. /http:// www.ieej.or.jp/aperc/nal/efciency.pdfS. Asia-Pacic Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), 2007a. Action Plan, Power Generation and Transmission Task Force. /http://www.asiapaci cpartnership.org/english/tf_powergeneration_transmission.aspxS. Asia-Pacic Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), 2007b. Best Practices for Power Generation, PGT-06-01, Power Generation and Transmission Task Force, The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan Editorial. /http://www.fepc.or.jp/future/warming/torikumi/partnership/data2/__ics Files/aeldle/2008/10/20/all.pdfS. Association for Iron & Steel Technology (AIST), 2010 AIST Industry Roundups, EAF Roundup, 2010. Battelle, 2002. Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry, Substudy 8: Climate Change, Humphreys K., and Mahasenan, M., Battelle Memorial Institute. Borkent, B., 2010. International comparison of fossil power efciency and CO2 intensity, v.2.0, Ecofys, Utrecht, The Netherlands. CEMBUREAU, 1999. Best Available Techniques for the Cement Industry, Chapter 3: General description of the cement production process. CEMBUREAU, 2003. World Cement Directory 2002, Volume I and II, CEMBUREAUThe European Cement Association, Brussels. China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), 2005. China Steel Yearbook 2005, China Steel Yearbook Editorial Board. (in Chinese). China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), 2008. China Steel Yearbook 2008, China Steel Yearbook Editorial Board. Corus, 2006. Corporate Responsibility Report 2006, Striving to make a difference Value./http://www.tatasteeleurope.com/le_source/StaticFiles/Functions/ HSE/2006_CRR.pdfS. Cui, Y., 2006. Potential and major strategies for energy saving and CO2 emission reduction in Chinese cement industry, IEA Workshop: Energy Efciency and CO2 Emission Reduction Potentials and Policies in the Cement Industry, Paris, 4-5 September, 2006. /http://www.iea.org/work/2006/cement/Cui.pdfS. Graus, W., Voogt., M., Worrell, E., 2007. International comparison of energy efciency of fossil power generation. Energy Policy 35, 39363951. Graus, W., Worrell, E., 2009. Trend in efciency and capacity of fossil power generation in the EU. Energy Policy 37, 21472160. IEA, 2005. Energy Balances of OECD/Non-OECD countries, 2005 edition OECD/IEA, Paris. IEA, 2007. Tracking Industrial Energy Efciency and CO2 Emissions. OECD/IEA, Paris. IEA, 2008a. Energy Balances of OECD/Non-OECD countries, 2008 edition OECD/ IEA, Paris. IEA, 2008b. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008Scenarios & Strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris. IEA, 2009. Energy Technology Transitions for IndustryStrategies for the Next Industrial Revolution. OECD/IEA, Paris. IEA, 2010a. Electricity Information 2010. OECD/IEA, Paris. IEA, 2010b. Energy Balances of OECD/Non-OECD countries, 2010 Edition OECD/ IEA, Paris. IEA, 2010c. Energy Technology Perspectives 2010Scenarios & Strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris. Japan Cement Association, 2009. Cement Handbook FY2009. Japan Iron and Steel Federation, 2008. Handbook for Iron and Steel Statistics, Committee on Iron and Steel Statistics, Japan Iron and Steel Federation, 1997-2008. Kawatetsu Techno-Research Corporation, 2002. Current Status of Asian Iron and Steel industry and Latest Capital Investment Trend. (in Japanese). Kim, Y., Worrell, E., 2002. International comparison of CO2 emission trends in the iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 30, 827838.

Author's personal copy


J. Oda et al. / Energy Policy 44 (2012) 118129 129

Miyake, M., 2010. Oxygen separation from air by adsorption process. Journal of the Japan Institute of Energy 89, 868870. in Japanese. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), 1999. Basic survey on energy saving at the Magnitogorsk Steel of Russia, FY1998. International Joint Research Grant Program, Commissioned to Nippon Steel Corporation. in Japanese. NEDO, 2000a. Basic survey on energy saving at the Novolipetsk Steel of Russia, FY1999, International Joint Research Grant Program. Commissioned to Nissho Iwai. in Japanese. NEDO, 2000b. Basic survey on energy saving at the Severstal Steelworks of Russia, FY1999. International Joint Research Grant Program, Commissioned to Nippon Steel Corporation. in Japanese. NEDO, 2001. Research on Domestic Energy-Saving Technology, FY 2000. Commissioned to the Japan Consulting Institute. in Japanese. NEDO, 2003. Survey of energy saving in major industries in ASEAN countries, FY 2002. Commissioned to the Energy Conservation Center, Japan. in Japanese. NEDO, 2008a. Basic study on energy conservation and environmental protection measures targeting the cement industry in India, FY2007. Commissioned to Taiheiyo Engineering Corporation. in Japanese. NEDO, 2008b. Basic study on energy conservation and environmental protection measures targeting the cement industry in China, FY2008. Commissioned to Taiheiyo Engineering Corporation. in Japanese. NEDO, 2008c. Basic survey on energy conservation and environmental protection measures in the Chinese Iron and Steel Industry, FY2007, Conducted by the steel industry in China, Performed by Nippon Steel Corporation. JFE Steel Corporation, Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Kobe Steel Ltd., and the Japan Iron and Steel Federation under a contract from NEDO. in Japanese. NEDO, 2008d. Basic survey on energy conservation and environmental protection measures in the Indian iron and steel Industry, FY2007. Commissioned to the Japan Iron and Steel Federation. in Japanese. Nippon Steel, 2004. Iron-making from iron ore, Science World Vol. 9, Okuno, Y., Editorial, Nippon Steel Monthly, March 2004. /http://www.nsc.co.jp/science/ pdf/V9.pdfS (in Japanese). Nomura, S., Matsuzaki, S., Naito, M., Ayukawa, H., Koizumi, S., Abe, T., Kitaguchi, H., Tahara, T., 2006. Improvement in blast furnace reaction efciency through the use of catalyst-doped highly reactive coke, Nippon Steel Technical Report, 94, 109-114. /http://www.nsc.co.jp/en/tech/report/pdf/n9418.pdfS. Oda, J., Akimoto, K., Sano, F., Tomoda, T., 2007. Diffusion of energy efcient technologies and CO2 emission reductions in iron and steel sector. Energy Economics 29, 868888. Oda, J., Akimoto, K., 2009. An evaluation of energy efciency in iron and steel sector. Journal of Japan Institute of Energy 88, 10091016. in Japanese. Phylipsen, G.J.M., Blok, K., Worrell, E., 1997. International comparisons of energy efciencyMethodologies for the manufacturing industry. Energy Policy 25, 715725. POSCO, 2007. Sustainability Report 2007Creating Another Success Story./http:// www.posco.co.kr/homepage/docs/eng2/jsp/sustain/report/s91d7050020l.jspS. Price, L., 2007. Opportunities for improving energy efciency and increasing economic output in Chinese cement kilns, ACEEE Summer Study on Energy

Efciency in Industry, July 24-27, 2007. /http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ies/ppt/chinacement-kiln.pdfS. Smouse, S., 2011. How to improve the efciency of existing coal-red power plants, Asian Power, June, 2011. /http://asian-power.com/power-utility/com mentary/how-improve-efciency-existing-coal-red-power-plantsS. Tanaka, K., 2008. Assessment of energy efciency performance measures in industry and their application for policy. Energy Policy 36, 28872902. Tata Steel, 2007a. Corporate Sustainability Report 2006-07. /http://ecocitizen. tatasteel.com/images/CSR-06-07.pdfS. Tata Steel, 2007b. 3rd Social Audit 1991-2001. ThyssenKrupp Steel, 2005a. Sustainability Report 2004_2005. ThyssenKrupp Steel, 2005b. Supplement to the 2004_2005 Sustainability Report. Tonooka, Y., Ning, Y., Zhu, D., Li, H., Gao, W., 2009. A projected of energy consumption for iron steel and cement industry in China, Proceedings of the 25th conference on energy, economy, and environment, 22-5, Japan Society of Energy and Resources. (in Japanese). Toulouevski, Y.N., Zinurov, I.Y., 2010. Innovation in Electric Arc Furnaces: Scientic Basis for Selection. Springer, PA, USA. Trudeau, N., Tam, C., Graczyk, D., Taylor, P., 2011. Energy Transition for Industry: India and the Global Context, IEA Information Paper. /http://www.iea.org/ papers/2011/india_industry_transition.pdfS. Tsinghua University of China, 2008. Assisting developing country climate, negotiators through analysis and dialogue: Report of energy saving and CO2 emission reduction analysis in China Cement Industry, November 13, 2008. /http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/694/China Cement Sector Case Study. pdfS. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2005. CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, The Cement CO2 Protocol, Ver. 2.0, Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI)./http://www. gispri.or.jp/calculation/ghg/pdf/cement_protocol_v2-or.pdfS. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2009. Cement Industry Energy and CO2 Performance: Getting the Numbers Right, Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), 2009. /http://www.wbcsdcement.org/GNR-2009/S. worldsteel, 2010a. Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001-2010. World Steel Association, worldsteel Committee on Economic Studies, Brussels. worldsteel, 2010b. World Steel in Figures 2002-2010. World Steel Association, Brussels. Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Farla, J., 1997. Energy intensity in the iron and steel industry: A comparison of physical and economic indicators. Energy Policy 25, 727744. Worrell, E., Martin, N., Price, L., 1999. Energy Efciency and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Iron and Steel Sector, LBNL41724. Zhang W., Pushpalal, D., 2010. Analysis of CO2 emission reduction potential and technological effect in the cement industry of China, Proceedings of the 26th conference on energy, economy, and environment, 2-3, Japan Society of Energy and Resources. (in Japanese).