trends in global energy efficiency 2013

8/11/2019 Trends in Global Energy Efficiency 2013

1/16

The state of global energy efficiency

Global and sectorial energy efficiencytrends

Researched and written by Enerdata


2/16 The state of global energy efficiency | 2


3/16

Contents

1. Global and sectoral energy efficiency trends 4 1.1 Global trends 4 1.2 Sectoral trends 6

2. Energy efficiency performance in power generation 7 2.1 Global power generation efficiency 7 2.2 Thermal power generation efficiency 8 2.3 Power grid efficiency 9 3. Industry 10 3.1 Global trends 10

3.2 Steel industry 12 3.3 Chemical industry 13 3.4 Cement industry 14 3.5 Paper industry 14

3.6 Aluminum industry 14

4. Conclusion 15


4/164 | The state of global energy efficiency

1. Global and sectoral energy efficiency trends1.1 Global trendsIn 2011, the most recent year for which comparable annualdata are available, total energy consumption per unit of GDP(primary energy intensity 1 ), measured at purchasing powerparity, ranged from 1.9 times the world average (world = 1) inthe CIS 2 to 0.6 times the world average in Europe (Figure 1 ):energy use per unit of GDP in the CIS is three times higherthan in European countries. Levels in OECD Asia and Latin

America exceed the European level by about 20 percent ,while North America stands 40 percent higher but remains

below the world average. India and Other Asia are on a parwith the world average, with energy intensity levels 60 percenthigher than in Europe. The high energy intensity in the CIS,China and the Middle East is explained by various factors,including the predominance of energy-intensive industries andlow energy prices.

Total energy intensity decreased by 1.3 percent/year between1990 and 2011 (Figure 2) , and fell in all regions except theMiddle East. That trend is explained by the combined effectof high energy prices, energy efficiency programs and, morerecently, CO 2 abatement policies in OECD countries, as wellas other economic factors, such as the move by economiestowards tertiary activities.

The largest reductions were seen in countries or regions withthe highest intensity in 1990 (China, CIS, India). The largestdrop in energy intensity since 1990 was achieved in China (-4.8

percent/year), while in the CIS countries and India the reduc-tion was about twice as slow. The sharp reduction seen inChina was mainly driven by the rapid growth in machinery andtransport equipment, ie the branch with the lowest energyintensity, in industrial value added. It can also be attributed to amore efficient use of coal and higher energy prices. Above-average reductions were also achieved in North America andEurope (-1.7/year and -1.6 percent/year, respectively). Com-pared with the world average, energy productivity in otherworld regions improved to a lesser extent over the period. Inthe Middle East, energy consumption has been growing at afaster pace than GDP; consequently, energy intensity has

increased by 1.1 percent/year since 1990. The main reasonsfor the trend observed in the Middle East are the fast growth inenergy-intensive industries driven by low energy prices, andthe widespread diffusion of air conditioning; this has led to arapid increase in electricity consumption, and since the elec-tricity is produced in thermal power plants, to significantlosses.

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

% / y e a r

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

E a s t

A f r i c a

I n d i a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

N o r t h

A m e r i c a

O E C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

Source: Enerdata

Figure 2: Trends in primary energy intensity to GDP

(1990-2011, global period)

Global report

1 P rimary energy intensity measures the total amount of energy required to generate one unit of GDP. GDP is expressed at constant exchange rate or purchasing power parity (ppp) to remove the impact of in ation and changes in

currency rates. Using purchasing power parity rates instead of exchange rates to convert GDP in the same currency (ie $) makes it possible to account for differences in general price levels: it increases the value of GDP in regions with

a low cost of living (case of developing countries) and, therefore, decreases their energy intensities (Figure 1). De nitions of indicators are available in Sources and methodology at the end of the report.

2 De nitions of regions are available in Sources and methodology at the end of the report.

3 Energy productivity increase is another way to refer to energy intensity decrease by analogy with labor productivity increase.

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

N o r m a l

i z e d a g a i n s

t t h e W o r

l d =

1

at exchange rate

at ppp

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

- E a s

t

A f r i c a

I n d i a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

N o r

t h

A m e r i c a

O E C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

Source: Enerdata

Figure 1: Primary energy intensities by world region (2011)



The surge in oil prices over the 2004-2007 period acceleratedreductions in energy intensity in all regions except China(Figure 3) . The global economic crisis in 2008-2009 induced anet slowdown in the energy intensity reduction in all regions.

This poor performance was mainly caused by industry, a sectorin which energy consumption did not decrease at the samepace as the value added due to the fact that part of the con-sumption is independent of the production volume and thatindustrial equipment operates with lower efficiency duringperiods of recession.

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

% / y e a r

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

E a s t

A f r i c a

I n d i a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

N o r t h

A m e r i c a

O E C D A s i

a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

Source: Enerdata

1990-2004 2004-2007 2007-2011

Figure 3: Trends in primary energy intensity to GDP

(1990-2011, breakdown for relevant period)

Figure 4: Trends in primary energy intensity by country (1990-2011)

About 80 percent of countries in the world have decreasedtheir energy intensity since 1990 (Figure 4) . Productivity gainsin about 30 percent of countries were moderate, since theirenergy intensity decreased by less than 1 percent/year,whereas the reduction in about 15 percent of countries (mainly

Asian and East European) took place at the rapid pace of over3 percent/year. On the contrary, in more than 20 percent ofcountries energy productivity is decreasing (mainly in theMiddle East, Africa and Latin America).

Source: Enerdata

Unit: %/year

Less than -3.0

-3.0 to -2.0

-2.0 to -1.0

-1.0 to 0.0

More than 0.0

No data



E a s t

A f r i c a

I n d i a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

N

o r h

A m e r i c a

O E

C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

k o e / $ 2 0 0 5 p p p

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

-

E a s t

A f r i c a

Source: Enerdata

Figure 5: Primary energy

I n d i a

N

o r h

A m e r i c a

O E

C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

1.2 Sectoral trends At world level, the household-services 4 and industry 5 sectorsled the fall in energy intensity between 1990 and 2011,accounting for 45 percent and 30 percent of the overalldecrease, respectively (Figure 5) . In developed countries,industry is the driving force behind the fall in primary energyintensity; in OECD Asia it accounted for almost the entirereduction. In the Middle East the increase in primary energy

intensity is mainly due to the surge in the consumption of thetransformation sector, which is linked to the rapid developmentof electricity use, which is almost entirely generated fromthermal sources, ie with conversion losses.

Final energy intensity is a better indicator for the assessment ofenergy efficiency at end-use level, since it corresponds to theenergy consumed per unit of GDP by final consumers forenergy uses, excluding consumption and losses in energyconversion (power plants, refineries, etc.) and non-energyuses.

At world level, primary energy intensity has decreased moreslowly than final energy intensity since 1990 (-1.3 percent/yearvs. -1.6 percent/year) (Figure 6) . This trend is explained by arise in energy conversion losses, mainly in the power sector.Globally, the share of energy conversion losses in primaryenergy intensity increased from 27 percent in 1990 to 31percent in 2011. In India, conversion losses represented 35percent of energy intensity in 2011, compared with 20 percentin 1990.

On the one hand, the growth in conversion losses can beexplained by the rapid development of electricity end uses and,on the other hand, by the fact that electricity is mainly gener-ated from thermal sources, with 60-70 percent of losses. Atworld level, around 20 percent of energy productivity gains arecounterbalanced by increasing losses in energy conversion. InIndia and China that percentage is even higher: the soaringelectricity demand led to a sharp rise in conversion losses

since most power is generated from coal. In North America andEurope, primary energy intensity decreased at the samerhythm as final intensity due to the fact that energy conversionlosses decreased over the period. The drop in conversionlosses is related to the reduction in thermal power generation,led by the development of renewables in the power mix (pri-marily wind energy), the growing efficiency of thermal powerplants (mainly boosted by the spread of gas combined-cycletechnologies) and the increasing use of cogeneration facilities.

Electricity consumption per capita varies greatly among thedifferent regions (Figure 7) . In North America, it is five times

higher than the world average (and 20 times higher than inIndia).

Globally, electricity consumption per capita has increased by40 percent since 1990. With the exception of the CIS, it rose inall world regions or countries between 1990 and 2010. Itincreased sharply in most emerging countries and regions. InChina, electricity consumption per capita has increased fivefoldsince 1990, while in the Middle East and India it was twice ashigh in 2011 as in 1990. In developed countries, which alreadyhad very high levels, electricity consumption per capitaincreased to a lesser extent: by just over 10 percent in North

America and around 20 percent in Europe.

Global report

4 Including agriculture.

5 Including non-energy uses.

6 Non-energy uses are not included in the nal energy intensity.

Source: Enerdata

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

C h i n a

% / y e a r

I n d i a

C I S

N o r t

h

A m e r

i c a

E u r o p e

W o r l d

O t h e r

A s i a

A f r i c a

L a t i n

A m e r

i c a

O E C

D

A s i a

M i d d l e

-

E a s t

Primary intensity Final intensity

Figure 6: Energy and CO 2 intensity trends (1990-2011) (% / year) 6

Transformation Transport

Households-services Non energy use

Industry



Source: Enerdata

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

North America

OECD Asia

Europe World

k W h / c a p

Other

Industry

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

E a s t

W o r

l d

L a t i n

A m e r

i c a

O t h e r

A s i a

I n d i a

A f r i c a

k W h / c a p

Other

Industry

Source: Enerdata

Unit: %

Less than 30

30 to 40

40 to 50

50 to 60

More than 60

No data

At world level, industria l electricity consumption exceeded 40percent in 2011. China had the largest share, with industryaccounting for more than 60 percent of total electricity con-sumption. In emerging countries that share is generally higherthan the world average (>40-60 percent), with the exception ofthe Middle East where it is just 20 percent due to the large

share of air conditioning. In OECD Asia and Europe, industryaccounted for close to 40 percent of electricity consumption in2011, while it accounted for just 25 percent, approximately, inNorth America.

2. Energy efficiency performance in power generation2.1 Global power generation efficiencyIn over half of the countries in the world, the energy efficiencyof electricity generation is above 40 percent (world average),while in about 30 percent of countries energy efficiency isabove 50 percent (Figure 8) . In countries with a large share of

hydroelectricity in their power generation mix (Canada, Braziland Norway) the energy efficiency of electricity generationexceeds 60 percent.

Figure 8: Energy efficiency of total electricity generation (2011) (%)

Figure 7: Variation of per capita electricity consumption by sector (1990/2011)

Source: Enerdata



2.2 Thermal power generation efficiency At world level, the energy efficiency of thermal power plantshas improved by 4 percentage points since 1990, from 32percent in 1990 to 36 percent in 2010 (Figure 9). This level islower than the averages in North America or Europe (37 and 39percent, respectively), or the level of the worlds best performer(Spain, with 48 percent). High energy efficiency levels are alsoseen in OECD Asia -especially in Japan- and Latin America,mainly thanks to gas combined-cycle power plants. On thecontrary, the efficiency level in most developing countriesstands below the world average. In China the doubling of

installed capacities between 2005 and 2011 combined withthe closure of small and inefficient plants led to a large increasein the average efficiency over the period, which stood on a parwith the world level. In India the decline in efficiency isexplained by aging coal power plants, although it is counterbal-anced by a rise in gas combined-cycle capacities (around 12percent in 2011). In the CIS, the efficiency of thermal powerplants is around 20 percent lower than the world average.

The energy savings potential is high: if a ll regions had an effi-ciency of 45 percent (average of the top 10 countries), fossilfuel consumption for power generation would be reduced by

about 30 percent (ie 700 Mtoe).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%

1990 2000 2011

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

- E a s t

A f r i c a

I n d i a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

N o r t h

A m e r i c a

O E C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

Source: Enerdata

Figure 9: Efficiency of thermal power plants

World

India

Latin America

OECD AsiaNorth America

20

25

30

35

40

45

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

% combined cycle

Africa

E f f i c i e n c y o

f t h e r m a l p o w e r p

l a n

t s %

Europe

Middle East

Source: Enerdata

Other Asia

Figure 10: Penetration of gas combined cycle technology and

efficiency of thermal power generation 8 (2011)

The energy efficiency improvement in thermal power genera-tion is closely linked to the spread of gas combined-cycleplants since the 2000s 7 (Figure 10) . In fact, Europe, North

America, OECD Asia and Latin America, which have the high-est thermal power plant energy efficiency in the world, are alsothe regions with the largest penetration of combined-cycle

technologies (about 30 percent of the thermal capacity). More-over, those regions also showed the largest increase in theenergy efficiency of thermal power generation over the period1990-2011. At world level, in 2011 gas combined-cycle plantsmade up 18 percent, on average, of the thermal installedcapacities, ie a rise of 10 percentage point compared with2000.

The spread of efficient coal production technologies has alsocontributed to the improvement in the efficiency of thermalpower generation, although to a lesser extent. Supercriticaltechnology, which has an efficiency of 37-45 percent, repre-

sented more than 15 percent of installed capacities in 2011,and ultra-supercritical power plants represented around 3percent (Figure 11) . A few power plants equipped with inte-grated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) are also operational.

Global report

7 The ef ciency of gas combined cycle plants lies within a range of 50-60 percent, compared with 30-40 percent for conventional steam thermal power plants.

8 Penetrati on of gas combined-cycle plants in terms of their share in the thermal power capacity.

Figure 11: Efficiency of coal-based generating technologies

Technology Efficiency Share in coal-based globalinstalled capacity (2011)

Subcritical 25-37% 81%

Supercritical 37-45% 16%

45-50% 3%

Integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC)

40-45% 0.1%

Ultra-supercritical

Source: Enerdata



The United States and China are the countries with the highestinstalled capacities with efficient technologies (Figure 12 ). Inthe United States, where the commissioning of efficient powerplants began during the 50s, capacities have been installedregularly and the diffusion took place at a moderate pace. InChina the installed capacity of efficient technologies skyrock-eted between 2006 and 2012 (+200 GW). This large diffusion ismainly the result of the policy implemented in 2008 requiring allnew coal-fired power plants to be state-of-the-art commer-cially available or better technology. Moreover, other countriestoo have recently implemented these technologies, with the

largest capacities found in South Korea, Germany, Japan andPoland.

Consequently, at the world level, about 20 percent of coal-based generation capacities used efficient technologies in2011.

itamex

pol

usa

cor

twn

jpn

nde

chn

canaus

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

rus

rfa

nld

Supercritical

Ultra-supercritical

GWSource: Enerdata

Figure 12: Supercritical and Ultra-supercritical installed capacity

(2011)

2.3 Power grid efficiency At world level, the rate of transmission and distribution losses

(T&D) was around 9 percent of the distributed volumes in 2011,or 1,900 TWh (Figure 13) . The regions with the most efficientgrids are developed regions and Asia -excluding India- sincetheir losses are below or close to the world level. Other regionssuffer losses of more than 10 percent and, in the case of Latin

America and India, over 15 percent and 20 percent, respec-tively. However, in those regions a substantial part of the lossesare in fact non-technical losses due to unpaid electricity (inIndia electricity theft and unpaid bills account for up to 20percent of losses). If all grids were to perform as well as OECD

Asias grid, 4 percent of electric ity consumption would besaved (ie, 800 TWh).

Globally, the rates of losses are almost stable, but that stabilityis the result of two opposite trends. On the one hand, theyhave been decreasing since 1990 in developed countries dueto power grid efficiency improvements achieved in severalways: the use of low-loss conductors and t ransformers, thestandardization and upgrading of transmission and distributionvoltages, and reactive power control. In North America, thelosses amounted to 7 percent of the distributed volumes in2011, compared with about 10 percent in 1990. In OECD Asiaand the EU, the reduction in T&D losses was smaller. On theother hand, losses have been increasing in developing coun-

tries. In the CIS and the Middle East, they rose from 9 percentto 13 percent in 2011, while they exceeded 20 percent in India.Latin America also faces a high and growing rate of T&D losses(16 percent in 2011).

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

1990

2011

O E C D

A s i a

C h i n a

E u r o p e

N o r

t h

A m e r

i c a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r

l d C I S

A f r i c a

M i d d l e

E a s

t

L a t i n

A m e r

i c a

I n d i a

30

Source: Enerdata

Figure 13: Evolution of T&D losses



3. Industry3.1 Global trends

At world level, the share of electricity in industrial energy con-sumption increased from 19 percent in 1990 to about 25percent in 2011 (Figure 14) . That share is higher in developedcountries: in 2011 it was above 30 percent in Europe andabove 25 percent in North America and OECD Asia. In theMiddle East, electricity represented just 11 percent of industrialenergy consumption in 2011, showing a slight increase since1990.

Industrial electricity use is on the rise in all world regions. Thelargest increases were seen in emerging Asian countries, andprimarily in China, where the share of electricity in industrialenergy consumption soared from 11 percent in 1990 to 25percent in 2011. Over the period that share also grew substan-tially in Europe, Latin America and Other Asia (+6-8 points),while in other regions it rose slowly. At the world level, theshare of electricity in industrial consumption has increased by 5points since 1990. This rising trend is the result of severalfactors: the faster development of branches with high electric-ity needs such as equipment manufacturing, the increasedmechanization and automation of industrial processes and, in

some countries, the substitution of fossil fuels by electricity.

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

1990 2011

O E C D

A s i a

C h i n a

E u r o p e

N o r t h

A m e r i c a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

C I S

A f r i c a

M i d d l e

E a s t

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

I n d i a

Source: Enerdata

30

35

Figure 14: Share of electricity in industrial consumption

The energy required per unit of value added (industrial intensity)has decreased in all regions except the Middle East since1990. As a result of the globalization of industrial activities,energy intensity levels are converging. At world level, it fell by1.5 percent/year between 1990 and 2011 (0.7 percent/yearbetween 2000 and 2011).

Industrial energy intensity is lowest in Europe, OECD Asia and Africa, where it stands around 35 percent below the worldaverage (Figure 15) . Energy intensity in North America is closeto the world level, which means it is much higher than inEurope and OECD Asia.

The sharpest decreases over the period 1990-2011 were seenin countries with the highest levels of industrial energy intensity(Figure 16) . In China, India, the CIS and the United Statesindustrial energy intensity was reduced by more than 2 per-cent/year between 1990 and 2011. However, despite largereductions over the period, China and India still have above-average industrial energy intensity levels: 20 percent higher inthe case of India and 50 percent in the case of China. In theMiddle East, industrial energy intensity remains among the

highest in the world and has increased moderately since 1990(0.2 percent/year).

The slowdown caused by the global economic crisis in 2009had a strong impact on industrial energy intensity trends. Inalmost all regions the reduction in industrial energy intensityslowed down significantly: the drop in energy consumptionwas lower than the reduction in industrial production. InEurope, for instance, it fell by 2 percent/year between 1990and 2008 but was stable over 2008-2011. OECD Asia, North

America, Latin America and India even posted a reverse trend(for instance, -0.9 percent/year between 1990 and 2008 for

OECD Asia, compared with 2.1 percent/year over 2008-2011). This phenomenon is due to the fact that part of the industrialenergy consumption is not correlated with GDP and remainsstable despite the drop in production.

Russia is by far the largest user of cogeneration (CHP) in indus-try: almost all the electricity consumed by the countrys indus-tries is produced from CHP. This large diffusion leads to a shareof CHP in industrial electricity consumption of around 80percent at the regional level, ie far greater than the share in theother regions (Figure 17) . Between 1990 and 2011 there was awide dissemination of cogeneration (CHP). In Europe, the

share of cogeneration increased by 9 points between 1990 and2011, when it reached 30 percent. This rapid developmenttook place following the implementation of several EU direc-tives encouraging the adoption of policies on cogeneration(feed-in tariffs, subsidies). The share in Europe is now larger

Global report

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

k o e /

$ 2 0 0 5 p p p

1990 2000 20110.6

C I S

C h i n a

M i d d l e

E a s

t

A f r i c a

I n d i a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r

l d

N o r

t h

A m e r

i c a

O E C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r

i c a

E u r o p e

Source: Enerdata

Figure 15: Industrial energy intensity



than in North America, where CHP accounted for 28 percent ofindustrial consumption in 2011, whereas it was on a par withthe European level in 1990. Even in the CIS, were CHP isalready used extensively, the share of CHP in industrial electric-ity consumption rose strongly (from 68 percent in 1990 to 80percent in 2011). In OECD Asia, CHP represents just 7 percent,approximately, of industrial consumption, up slightly since1990.

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

% / Y e a r

1990-2008 2008-2011

C h i n a

I n d i a

N o r

t h

A m e r

i c a

E u r o p e

O t h e r

A s i a

A f r i c a

W o r

l d C I S

L a t i n

A m e r

i c a

O E C D A s i a

M i d d l e e a s t

Source: Enerdata

Figure 16: Industrial energy intensity trends

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

1990

2011

Source: Enerdata

EuropeCIS North America

Other Asia

OECD Asia

Latin America

Figure 17: Share of CHP in industrial electricity consumption 9

At world level, energy-intensive industries accounted for 55percent of industrial consumption in 2010, up from 50 percentin 1990 (Figure 18) . Steel absorbs about one-quarter of indus-trial consumption while the non-metallic minerals (cement,glass, ceramics, etc.) and chemical industries consume around15 percent each and the paper industry 5 percent.

The share of energy-intensive industries in industrial consump-tion is highest in OECD countries, the CIS and China, andstands below the world average in other developing countries.

The large share of energy-intensive industries in China and theCIS partly explains the previously observed high industrialenergy intensity. However, thanks to the use of more efficienttechnologies, that is not the case in developed regions, whichinclude the countries with the lowest industrial energy intensity.

Industrial energy intensity trends are influenced by energyproductivity improvements in each individual branch (ie steel,

chemicals, non-metallic minerals), but also by changes in thestructure of the industrial value added. Industrial activities havemoved toward less energy-intensive branches (equipment,textiles, etc.), which lowers energy intensity. In India, adecrease in the share of energy-intensive industries in

industrial value added (from over 38 percent in 1990 to about33 percent in 2011) contributed to the increase in the countrysindustrial energy productivity, in addition to energy efficiency

improvements. In turn, an increasing share of energy-intensiveindustries in the CIS between 1990 and 2010 played its part inlimiting the improvements in energy productivity over theperiod.

3.2 Steel industry The steel industry is the main industria l energy consumer andthe largest source of industrial CO2 emissions: it representsabout 25 percent of global industrial energy consumption and15 percent of industrial CO2 emissions from fuel combustion.More than half of the worlds crude steel production is suppliedby China, Japan and the United States.

Other Paper Non metal li c mineral s Chemicals S teel

Source: Enerdata

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

70%80%90%

100%

C h i n a

A f r i c a

O t h e r

A s i a

W o r l d

N o r t h

A m e r i c a

O E C D

A s i a

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

E u r o p e

C I S

I n d i a

Figure 18: Share of energy-intensive industries in industrial

consumption (1990/2010)

9 Data not available for China. Own-production and public cogeneratio n used in industry.



The countr ies that showed the greatest reductions in theirspecific consumption between 1990 and 2010 were also thecountries that made the greatest use of the electric process,since on average this process uses only half the energyrequired by the most widespread process, ie the oxygen/blastfurnace process 10 (Figure 19) .

Source: Enerdata

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

T u r k e y

C h i n a

U n i t e d

S t a t e s

R u s s i a

E u r o p e a n

U n i o n

T a i w a n

B r a z i l

J a p a n

U k r a i n e

S o u t h

K o r e a

% / y e a r

1990-2008 2000-2008 2008-2010

Figure 19: Trends in the specific energy consumption of the st eel

industry 11 for main crude steel producers

Source: Enerdata

Taiwan

Turkey

Brazil

Ukraine

JapanChina

Russia

United StatesSouth Korea

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

t o e

/ t

% electric steel

European Union

Figure 20: Specific energy consumption of the steel industry (2010)

The countr ies or regions with the largest share of electric steel(Europe, US, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey) have the lowestenergy consumption per ton of steel produced (Figure 20) .

However, the spread of the electric process is not the onlyfactor impacting energy efficiency in the steel industry. For thesame share of steel produced using the electric process,specific consumption is 1.5 to 2 times higher in Russia, China,

Ukraine and Brazil than in Japan. This lower energy perfor-

mance can be explained by several factors, such as the use ofoutdated processes like open-hearth furnaces in Russia andUkraine, or the use of small-sized plants and low quality ore inChina. Accordingly, the potential for further energy and CO 2savings is still high. The energy consumption of the steel indus-try could be reduced by 40 percent, or around 250 Mtoe, if themain producing countries were to have the same energy effi-ciency as that achieved by the worlds best performer throughits current mix of processes; about 60 percent of those energysavings would take place in China.

3.3 Chemical industry The chemical industry is the second largest industria l energyconsumer, accounting for just about 15 percent of total indus-trial energy consumption 12. In the United States the chemicalindustry is even the largest energy-intensive branch, with 25percent of industrial consumption in 2010.

In 2010 China had the highest energy consumption per unit ofvalue added among the worlds main producers of chemicalproducts (Figure 21) . Its energy intensity is high, since coal-based production in China requires much more energy thannatural gas-based production in other countries. Energy inten-

sity in the United States caught up with Chinas level in 2008. This is explained by the fact that the decrease in energy con-sumption was slower than the drop in the value added.

The largest decrease in the energy intensity of chemicals since1990 (-5 percent/year) was seen in Mexico. Other countriessuch as France, South Korea, Italy and the UK also saw sub-stantial decreases in their energy intensity, whereas Iran, Braziland the United States posted a growth. Since the chemicalindustry is highly diverse it is difficult to link these energy inten-sity reductions to the spread of more efficient processes, inparticular, and to genuine energy efficiency improvements;

indeed, part of the energy intensity reduction may be explainedby a change in the product mix, for instance from heavy chemi-cals to light chemicals.

Global report

10 According to the Inter national Steel Indust ry Institute, two times less energy is required to produc e one ton of steel using the electric process than when using the oxygen / blast furnace process

(0.2-0.3 tep / t compared with 0.5-0.7 tep / t).

11 1992-2009 for Ukraine. No data for India.12 Excluding chemical feedstocks



Source: Enerdata

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

C h i n a

U S A

G e r m a n y

J a p a n

K o r e a

I r a n

B r a z i l

M e x i c o

F r a n c e U

K

S p a i n

I t a l y

1990

2000

2010 k o e /

$ 2 0 0 5 p p p

Figure 21: Energy intensity of the chemical industry 13

3.4 Cement industry The non-metallic minerals industry (cement, glass, ceramics,etc.) is the third largest industrial energy user, accounting forabout 12 percent of industrial energy consumption. Thecement industry absorbs most of the energy consumption ofthe non-metallic minerals industry (around 70-80 percent).China alone accounts for half of the energy consumption forcement production.

The energy efficiency of cement production strongly dependson the process used to produce the clinker, the main compo-nent in cement manufacturing 14 (dry or wet), and the type ofkiln. Indeed, the dry process avoids the need for water evapo-ration and is much less energy intensive than the wet process;whereas vertical shaft kilns are the most energy intensive, drykilns with pre-heaters and pre-calciners are the most efficient(Figure 22) .

Figure 22: Unit consumption of clinker by technology/process used

Technology/process Unit consumption

Vertical shaft kilns 5 GJ / t (0.119 toe / t)

Wet kilns5.8-6.7 GJ / t (0.139-0.160 toe / t)

Long dry process 4.5 GJ / t (0.107 toe / t)

Dry kiln (four stages pre-heater) 3.2 GJ / t (0.076 toe / t)

Dry kiln (six stages pre-heater and pre-calciner) 2.8 GJ / t (0.067 toe / t)

The most efficient technologies used to produce cement arefound in Japan, Mexico and in European countries, whereasthe technologies used in Asian and North American countriesare less efficient. Vertical shaft kilns are used for almost half ofthe cement production in China since, while being more energyintensive, that technology is better suited to the smaller facto-ries found in the country.

Between 2000 and 2007, the average energy consumption perton of cement produced decreased in the main producing

countries, except in Mexico, Germany and the US (Figure 23) . This can mainly be explained by the shift from wet- to dry-pro-cess cement kilns and the replacement of older dry kilns bynew ones using pre-heaters and pre-calciners. The largestdrop in the specific energy consumption of the cement industrywas seen in China, where the replacement of small cementplants by larger facilities has led to a 6 percent/year decreasesince 1990. Although significant progress has been recorded inChina, the country continues to have the highest energy sav-

13 1990-2008 data for China, 1991-2010 for Germany, 1996-2010 for Brazil, 1994-2010 for Iran and Mexico.

14 Cement is produced by grinding clinker and additives such as ashes; on average, cement is made of between 80-90 percent of clinker.

15 Energy intensity trends for India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and the United States. 1993-2007 for India.

Figure 23: Unit consumption trends in the cement industry for the main

producers 15

Source: International Energy Agency

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

% / Y e a r

C h i n a

I n d i a

B r a z i l

S p a i n

U K

I t a l y

J a p a n

K o r e a

R u s s i a

F r a n c e

M e x i c o

T u r k e y

Source: Enerdata

U S A

G e r m a n y

1990-2007 2000-2007 2007-2010



ings potential. Indeed, if the main producing countries were tohave the same energy efficiency as the worlds best performerthrough the same clinker-to-cement ratio, the energy con-sumption of the cement industry would drop by 20 percent, orabout 50 Mtoe, with China accounting for about 80 percent ofthose savings. For almost all countries hit by the economicrecession, energy consumption per ton of cement producedincreased strongly in 2008 and/or 2009 since part of the ener-gy is consumed independently of the quantity of cement pro-duced, and the kilns are not operating efficiently due to the lowutilization rate.

3.5 Paper industry The paper industry accounts for about 5 percent of globalindustrial energy consumption, mainly to produce steam. Theworlds largest producers are China, the United States, Japan,the European Union and Canada.

The eff iciency of the paper industry is primarily related to thetechnical age of production facilities. In the United States,aging pulp and paper mills lead to a high specific consumptionthat exceeds the average level of the main producers. Otherfactors are the share of imported pulp, the process used to

manufacture the pulp and the share of recycled paper. Thespecific energy consumption is higher in pulp exporting coun-tries. In Canada, the widespread use of mechanical pulping, iethe process with the highest specific energy consumption perton produced, combined with aging facilities, leads to a highratio. The mechanical process is used for less than 10 percentof the worlds pulp production. A high use of recycled papercan also improve the industrys specific consumption. Japan,Germany and South Korea, all three of which produce paperfrom recycled pulp (recycling rate of around 65 percent inJapan and Germany and around 80 percent in South Korea),are among the main producers with the lowest energy con-

sumption per ton of paper.

The low Chinese unit consumption, which is in line with theresults of the best performing countries, is surprising given thesmall average plant size and technology used to producepaper. Although some of the largest and most modern mills arelocated in China, the vast majority are very small and low-effi-cient mills, which leads one to expect Chinas industry to beamong the least efficient.

Between 1990 and 2010 the energy consumption per ton ofpaper decreased in all the worlds main producing countries

except Brazil, Canada and Finland (Figure 24) . The largest

reductions were seen in South Korea and Germany, wherespecific consumption has decreased by about 1.7 percent/ year and 1.3 percent/year, respectively, since 1990.

3.6 Aluminum industry Aluminum production is made up of primary aluminum produc-tion and recycling. Primary aluminum production is 20 t imesmore energy intensive than recycling. The worlds main produc-ers are China, Russia, North America, Australia and India,which together account for about 70 percent of globalproduction.

The primary production of aluminum requires large amounts ofelectricity for aluminum smelting, while alumina plants usesteam energy, with combined heat and power production inmodern facilities. Two main types of smelters are used: theHall-Hroult system with pre-baked anodes (10 percent of themarket), with a relatively high energy efficiency (electricityconsumption ranging between 1316.5 MWh/t); and the olderSderberg cell with in-situ baked electrodes (70 percent of themarket), with an electricity consumption ranging from 15MWh/t to 18 MWh/t.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

t o e / t

1990 2000 2010

B r a z i l

C a n a d a

U n i t e d

S t a t e s

E u r o p e a n

U n i o n

J a p a n

C h i n a

F i n l a n d

S o u t h

K o r e a

G e r m a n y

Source: Enerdata

S w e d e n

Figure 24: Trends in energy consumption per ton of paper fo r the main

producers 16

The specific electricity consumption for primary aluminumproduction varies on a narrow range among world regions,from 14 MWh/t to 16 MWh/t in 2011 (Figure 25) . In Africa andChina, where new facilities have been implemented, it is lower,at 6 percent below the world average. The highest rates areseen in Europe and South America. Accordingly, the electricitysavings potential in primary aluminum production is limited.

At world level, specif ic electricity consumption for primaryaluminum production has decreased by 4 percent since 1990.

That downward trend was seen in al l world regions exceptEurope, with sharp drops in China, North America and Africa.

Global report

16 2008 for China



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

M W h / t

P a c

i f i c

A f r i c a

A s i a

W o r

l d

N o r

t h

A m e r

i c a

S o u

t h

A m e r

i c a

E u r o p e

Source: International Aluminium Institute

C h i n a

1990 2000 2011

Figure 25: Specific electricity consumption for primary aluminum

According to the International Energy Agency, since the currentbest practice, ie that of Hall-Hroult electrolysis cells, is esti-mated at 12.913 MWh/t of aluminum, the global potential forelectricity efficiency improvements using the current technol-ogy is estimated at around 15 percent, or about 2 MWh/t. Overtime, electrolysis process designs using aluminum chloride orcarbothermic processes could become the most energy-effi-cient way to produce primary aluminum.

4. ConclusionOver the last 20 years significant progress has been recordedin terms of energy efficiency. At world level, the energy requiredper unit of GDP (the energy intensity) has been decreasing by1.3 percent per year since 1990. Improvements were achievedin all regions, with the largest reductions found in the regionswith the highest energy intensities (China, CIS and India).Industry and power generation accounted for almost half ofthat reduction (about 30 percent and 15 percent, respectively).

At world level, the energy eff iciency of thermal power plants

has improved by 3 percentage points since 1990 thanks to awidespread switch to gas combined-cycle technology and to alesser extent to the diffusion of (ultra-)supercritical technolo-gies. However, strong disparities still exist between developedcountries, where thermal power plants are very efficient (up to48 percent for Spain, the best performer), and developingcountries, where efficiency is low due to aging plants and thelarge share of coal in thermal generation (particularly in Chinaand India). Power grid efficiency improvements led to a reduc-tion in the rate of transmission and distribution losses in devel-oped countries thanks to the use of low-loss conductors andtransformers, the standardization and upgrading of transmis-

sion and distribution voltages, and reactive power control.However, those technologies are still poorly implemented indeveloping countries.

The energy required per unit of industrial value added has beendecreasing in all regions; as a result of the globalization ofindustrial activities, energy intensity levels are converging. Theglobal economic crisis in 2009 had a strong impact on indus-trial energy intensity trends, especially in developed countries,since energy-intensive industries were severely hit.

In the steel industry, which is the main industrial energy con-sumer, significant progress has been made over the last 20years thanks to the spread of the electric process. However,the main producers still use outdated processes like open-

hearth furnaces (Russia and Ukraine) or small-sized plants andlow quality ore (China).

In the chemical industry, the energy consumption per unit ofvalue added decreased in all main producing countries. How-ever, since the chemical industry is highly diverse, it is difficultto link these energy intensity reductions to the spread of moreefficient processes, in particular, and to genuine energy effi-ciency improvements.

The spread of dry processes and kilns using pre-heaters andpre-calciners led to reductions in the average energy con-sumption per ton of cement (specific energy consumption) in

several large producing countries. The sharpest drop in spe-cific energy consumption was achieved in China, thanks to thereplacement of small cement plants by larger facilities.

Nevertheless, a great deal still remains to be done, as shownby the significant energy savings potentials identified in thisstudy. In the power sector, the improvement of power genera-tion efficiency could reduce fossil fuel consumption for powergeneration by 30 percent, and power grid efficiency improve-ments could reduce global electricity consumption by 4 per-cent. In industry, the energy efficiency improvement potential is40 percent in the case of steel, 20 percent for cement and 15

percent for aluminum; potentials in the chemical and paperindustries are also high.


16/16

Contact us

C

o p y r i gh

t 2

0 1

3 A B B .A l l r i gh

t s r e

s e r v e

d .

ABB LtdCorporate CommunicationsP.O. Box 8131CH-8050 ZurichSwitzerlandPhone: +41 (0)43 317 71 11Fax: +41 (0)43 317 79 58

www.abb.com/energyefficiency

trends in global energy efficiency 2013

Documents