Reducing Resource Intensity of Industrial Processes: Technology Trajectory and Drivers

1. Reducing Resource Intensity of Industrial Processes: Technology Trajectory and Drivers C. Visvanathan Professor Environmental Engineering & Management Program Asian Institute of Technology Thailand visu@ait.ac.th http://www.faculty.ait.ac.th/visu/

2. Reduce choosing things and materials so as to decrease the volume of waste generated Recycle Reuse structured and systematic use of waste itself as raw material / resource Consumption, Use putting things back into the system, repeated use of materials Material Cycle Control Natural Resource Consumption Focus of this Presentation & Future CP Trends Natural Resource Input Production Discard Treatment Thermal / Energy recovery Final Disposal

3. Limitation of Current CP Promotion Activites in Asia: Pricing of Resources • Cleaner Production – often looked as waste reduction at source – true to some extent • Cannot be driven by “Profit” approach alone • Resources are not priced fully • Water price • Raw material • Energy price • Subsidies play a role and shadow the real cost

4. Subsidy… Water Price = THB 12-18 / m3 Real cost Water: THB 24-28 /m3 Real cost not thrown on consumers Reduction in water consumption through CP  only on the Water price; not on the subsidy If the entire cost is transferred to the consumer, the higher cost will mean a lot. Escalation on water and energy price …relatively fixed in a year!!! Low motivation for CP to reduce consumption Price of other raw materials …fluctuating, often increasing !!! High motivation for CP to reduce consumption A regulatory mechanism for “Resource Limitation” needs to be addressed by national bodies

5. Moon Cake Experience!!!!!!!!!! M☺☺n Cake What is left over…………..

6. Technological Change Options: EQUIPMENT MODIFICATION GHG Emission CO2 emission = 396 kg/Batch) GHG Emission CO2 emission = 264 kg/Batch) Advanced Conventional Jet Dyeing Jet Dyeing Rapid Water for dyeing = 67 m3/batch Water for dyeing = 30.4 m3/batch Steam = 1,480 kg/Batch Steam = 980 kg/Batch (Energy Input = 4,191 MJ/Batch) (Energy Input = 2,794 MJ/Batch) STEAM REQUIREMENTS Simple "Jet Dyeing" machines : 1,480 kg /batch: 396 t CO2 per/batch "Advanced Jet dyeing" units: only 980 kg/batch 33% reduction in GHG emission or air pollutants (CO2 emission = 264 tons per batch). 55 % reduction in water consumption

7. Technological Options: NEW TECHNOLOGY Technology Development Trajectory of Tea Drying In tea processing, drying (firing ) is the most energy consuming operation requiring about 4.5 kWh/ kg of made tea (thermal energy). This depends on the type of dryer used, state of withering, moisture content of atmospheric air and type of tea produced. The technology development trajectory of tea dryer from 1930 to present shows that there has been a 40% improvement in energy efficiency. Source:Gupta (1983); Millin (1993). Note: a,b There are two different brands of VFBD 9 9 8 7 Efficiency 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

8. ? 10kg 770g 236g 137g 79g -99.3% -69% 100% -42% -42% Percentages show decreasing of weight between older and newer models

9. Nokia in the future…… 7.9 g

10. Clean Technology Trajectories Gains in productive efficiciency Environmental Performance Solvent-free paradigm T2 Radically new clean processes Solvent paradigm Control, prevention and internal recycling technologies T1 Productive Efficiency M. -C’. Belis-Begouignan a at /Ecological Economic 48 (2004) 201 220

11. Clean Technology Trajectories for Metal Surface Treatments Gains in productive efficiciency Environmental Performance Low temperature plasma T2 Ultra-sounds Lasers Water-based technologies Media-projection Solvent paradigm T1 Carbon adsorption and on-site regeneration of solvents Energy recovering of VOCs Productive Efficiency M. -C’. Belis-Begouignan et al. /Ecological Economics 48 (2004) 201-220

12. UK Cement Sector…major success factors • 12 million tonnes of cement manufactured in the UK in 2005 • Approx 856,000 tonnes of waste-derived products replaced virgin raw material – Reuse / Recycle • About 270,000 tonnes of waste-derived fuels replaced fossil fuels – Reuse / Recycle • Between 1998 and 2005, the volumes of cement kiln dust going to landfill has been reduced by 75% - Reuse • Production of factory-made composite cements, which encourages the use of secondary constituents as alternatives to clinker - Reuse Reuse and Recycle have played important roles

13. UK Cement Sector…major success factors Process change • Carbonation of concrete – ability of concrete to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere over its life cycle. • concrete could absorb around 19% of the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of cement. • This uptake of CO2 acts as a carbon offset. • Capital investment in energy efficient technology • Fossil fuel replacement Classical CP approaches Classical CP options have been implemented and achieved good results…and reached peak. Have to look at innovative technologies, categorically to further reduce resource intensity.

14. Cement Sector…Asia 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 High in developing countries, Low in Japan MJ/kg of Cement Small-scale cement factories in developing countries… China Philippines Japan Specific energy consumption of cement industry 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1000 ‘000 Tons of Clinker/yr Need to promote economies of scale and make CP attractive for small industries as well Policy initiatives can give the push 240 90 China Philippines Japan Average capacity of rotary kilns

15. 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.39 0.25 Specific savings potential (t CO2 per tonne of cement) 0.22 0.20 0.19 Emissions savings (Mit CO2) 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.09 0.06 World Russia Canada US China Korea Brazil India OECD Japan Other Europe Fossil fuel savings Electricity savings Alternative fuels BF slag clinker substitution Other clinker substitutes Specific saving potential Source: IEA analysis CO2 Reduction Potentials in Cement in 2005, Based on Best Available Technology

16. Cement Factory Cement factory in China Cement factory in Japan

17. Cement Sector Specific thermal and electrical energy consumption • Why? • Stringent regulations • Economies of scale • Better Technologies

18. Material Eco-efficiency Indicator, Nepal $/T 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 • Eco-efficiency in S/T Eco-efficiency Trend Line in S/T $ or T Material Eco-efficiency Indicator of Iron Pipe Industry 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 698 $/T 23771 T 646 $/T 23086 T 19021 T 18000 T 396 $/T 475 $/T 375 $/T Material Utilized (T) and Production Value ($) 11834 T $11631 $9416 $9048 $8661 $8263 Material Eco-efficiency Indicator and Trend Line of Iron Pipe Industry in Terms of Economic Value in US$

19. Water Eco-efficiency Indicator, Nepal Water Eco-efficiency Indicator of Iron Pipe Industry • Eco-efficiency in S/m3Eco-efficiency Trend Line in S/m3 $ or m3 $/m3 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 13509 $/m3 $11631 10434 $/m3 $9416 $9048 $8661 $8263 6628$/m3 Water Utilized (m3) and Production (US$) 5188 $/m3 1365 m3 4532 $/m3 1815 m3 861 m3 1911 m3 792 m3 Water Eco-efficiency Indicator and Trend Line of Iron Pipe Industry in Terms of Economic Value in US$

20. Water Eco-efficiency Indicator, Nepal • Eco-efficiency in S/TEco-efficiency Trend Line in S/T $ or T $/T Water Eco-efficiency Indicator of Iron Pipe Industry 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 28108 $/T 27550 $/T $11631 18168 $/T 13941 $/T $9416 $9048 $8661 $8263 10889 $/T Waste Generation (T) and Production ($) 795.4 T 675.4 T 498 T 422.18 T 294 T Waste Eco-efficiency Indicator and Trend Line of Iron Pipe Industry in Terms of Economic Value in US$

21. Industrial processes are mostly optimized “Cost” driver has forced optimization Further optimization; prohibitively expensive Costs outweigh the benefits in most cases Cost 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Efficiency improvement Resource Efficiency Vs Cost Theoretical resource efficiencies are difficult to be achieved cost-effectively

22. Process A 150 kg of raw material 140 kg of product Resource Efficiency and Intensity Resource efficiency and intensity are mutually dependent 10 kg losses + waste Resource Efficiency = 93% Constraint!!! Improving this is not cost-effective Resource intensity = 107 kg of raw material/100 kg of product Reducing this is the issue Where can we perform better?

23. Efficiency and Intensity… • Resource efficiency improvements are now constrained – cannot move beyond a certain range • Resources are getting scarcer – not all are renewable • Sources of feedstock have to be re-looked • Only way out is alternative sources of feedstock • Reuse and Recycling have to be promoted • X% of virgin material + Y % of recycled materials • Gradually increase “recycled” portion • By reuse and recycling – volume of virgin raw material required is reduced • Recycling in some sectors is perceived to be expensive – need to develop cost-effective technologies in these sectors

24. Way out… • Improving resource efficiency and reducing resource intensity is like “swine flu” • There is no single vaccine • Requires a combination of interventions to treat victims • Identify victims and improve their immunity • Simultaneously develop vaccine • Promoting reuse and recycling is not a panacea for improving resource efficiency and reducing resource intensity • Need to identify priority areas of action and develop relevant technologies

25. Take-home Message • Cleaner Production has largely favored reduction in resource intensity • Hard approaches where the industry takes the initiative have peaked • Soft approaches through Policy interventions are essential to take CP further • GHG reduction has been the key driver for CP in the past 2 decades…Kyoto Protocol??? • Resource depletion and scarcity have to be taken into account : Resource Limitation will be a Major Driver