United States
Environmental Protection
Industrial Environmental
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/7-78-084
May 1978
Rsseardi and Development
Energy Requirements of
Present Pollution Control
Technology
interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Off ice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
I. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. 'Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of. and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-084
May 1978
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF PRESENT POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
by
R. W. Serth and R. S. Hockett
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract 68-02-1320
Project Officer
C. C. Lee
Power Technology and Conservation Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
XI
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our en-
vironment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly efficient pollution control methods be used. The
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati (lERL-Ci)
assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved method-
ologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economi-
cally.
Recent fuel shortages have given rise to questions concerning
the compatibility of national goals for a clean environment with
goals for energy self-sufficiency. These questions have in turn
given rise to a growing number of studies related to the energy
cost of pollution control.
This report attempts to summarize and integrate the available
results of these studies to obtain the broadest, most accurate
perspective possible on how the problem relates to stationary
sources of environmental pollution. The results will be used by
the Office of Research and Development of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency to identify areas where improvements in the
energy efficiency of present methods of pollution control are
most important and the alternatives that are available for effec-
ting such improvements. The information contained in this report
will also be of interest as background material to researchers
and administrators involved with environmental control. The
Power Technology and Conservation Branch of the Energy Systems
Environmental Control Division should be contacted for additional
information.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The results of a 500-staff-hr, quick-response, task-order study
are presented here. The objectives were 1) to summarize and eval-
uate available information on the energy required for stationary
source pollution control and 2) to identify potential areas and
methods for reducing these energy requirements.
The following stationary sources were considered on a multimedia
(air, water, and land) basis: electric power plants, industrial
sources, municipal wastewater treatment plants, and municipal
solid waste disposal systems.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract 68-02-1331,
Task 22 by Monsanto Research Corp. under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period
from March 4, 1976, to June 30, 1976, and work was completed as
of December 31, 1977.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
English to Metric Conversion Factors ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Results 2
3. Conclusions 6
4. Summary and Evaluation of Previous Work 7
Operating energy for pollution control 7
Capitalization energy requirements 23
Unit energy requirements of pollution control
strategies 24
5. Distribution of Energy Requirements for Pollution
Control 35
Distribution among sectors 35
Distribution among pollutants 38
Distribution within the industrial sector 40
6. Alternative Pollution Control Strategies 50
Powerplants 50
The iron and steel industry 55
Nitric acid plants 61
Industrial process modifications 62
Nonutility combustion sources 65
Wastewater treatment 66
Energy recovery from Municipal solid waste 70
References 71
Appendices
A. Overview of previous work 78
B. • Ranking of industrial sector by four-digit SIC
categories 87
v
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Energy requirements for gas absorption equipment. . .29
2 Energy requirements for particulate control devices . 29
3 Energy requirements for particulate control 30
4 Thermodynamic effectiveness of particulate control
devices 31
5 Electrical energy requirements for municipal
wastewater treatment plants 32
6 Electrical energy requirements for tertiary
wastewater treatment trains 33
7 Relative energy consumption per unit capacity of
wastewater treatment strategies 67
8 Relative energy consumption per unit capacity of
sludge disposal options 67
vx
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Less Energy-Intensive Pollution Control Alternatives. .3
2 Operating Energy Requirements for Thermal Pollution
Control at Electric Powerplants ........... 9
3 Operating Energy Requirements for Air Pollution
Control at Electric Powerplants .......... 12
4 Operating Energy Requirements for Industrial
Pollution Control ................. 16
5 Operating Energy Requirements for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants ............ 19
6 Energy Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Disposal ...................... 22
7 Capitalization Energy Requirements for Pollution
Control ...................... 24
8 Unit Energy Requirements for Powerplant Pollution
Control ...................... 25
9 Energy Requirements for Nonregenerable Flue-Gas
Desulfurization Systems .............. 26
10 Energy Requirements for Lime and Limestone Flue-
Gas Desulfurization Systems ............ 27
11 Operating Energy Requirements for Flue-Gas
Desulfurization Processes ....... ...... 27
12 Energy Requirements for Mechanical, Forced-Draft
Cooling Towers for Powerplant Thermal Pollution
Control ...................... 28
13 Thermodynamic Effectiveness of S02 Control
Techniques ..................... 31
14 Estimated Electrical Power Consumption for
Alternative Tertiary Treatment Trains after
Secondary Treatment ................ 32
15 Energy Requirements for Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Techniques ................ 34
16 Energy Required for 1977 Pollution Control, by
Sector ....................... 35
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
17 Energy Required for 1985 Pollution Control, by
Sector 38
18 Energy Required for 1977 Pollution Control, by
Pollutant 39
19 Ranked Listing of DSI Data 40
20 Ranked Listing of EEI Data 41
21 Industrial Categories in Top Five of Both DSI and
EEI Rankings 41
22 Industrial Categories in Top Ten of Both DSI and
EEI Rankings 42
23 Industrial Sources of SOX Emissions 44
24 Industrial Sources of Particulate Emissions 45
25 Industrial Water Intake 49
26 Energy Requirements of Powerplant S02 Control
System Scenarios 52
27 Projected Efficiencies of Fluidized-Bed Powerplants . 53
28 Annual Pollution Control Energy Requirement for the
Iron and Steel Industry 56
29 Summary of Air and Water Pollution Control Energy
Savings from Selected Alternatives 57
30 Some Potential Energy-Conserving Process
Modifications in the Iron and Steel Industry. ... 60
31 Direct Energy Requirements in NOX Abatement Systems
for a 300-Ton/Day Nitric Acid Plant 62
32 Energy Savings Obtainable by Process Modifications. . 63
33 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Strategies Studied
in Reference 65 68
34 Summary of Sludge Options Studied in Reference 65 . . 68
35 Energy Recovery Efficiencies of Solid Waste Energy
Recovery Processes 70
Vlll
-------
ENGLISH TO METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from
Barrel (42 gallons)
British thermal unit
Degree Fahrenheit
Foot
Foot3
Foot3 /minute
Gallon (U.S. liquid)
Horsepower
Ki Iowa tt-hour
Pound mass
Quad
Ton (short, 2,000-pound mass)
To
Meter3
Joule
Kelvin
Meter
Meter3
Meter3 /second
Meter3
Watt
Joule
Kilogram
Joule
Kilogram
Multiply by
0.1589
1,055
t = 273.15 + (t - 32J/1.8
0.3048
0.02831
4.719 x I0~k
0.003785
746.0
3.60 x 106
0.4536
1.06 x 1018
907.1
Standard for Metric Practice. ANSI/ASTM Designation:
E 380-76 , IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976.
37 pp.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The present and projected shortages of domestic, environmentally
clean fossil fuels coupled with the cost and uncertainty of
importing foreign fossil fuels have provided economic and politi-
cal incentives to conserve energy at all levels of the U.S.
economy.
This report is concerned with the energy required for pollution
control at the following stationary sources: electric power-
plants, industrial sources, municipal wastewater treatment plants,
and municipal solid waste disposal sites.
The report is divided into three major parts. First, in
Section 4, data on energy requirements for pollution control
obtained from a literature survey are summarized and critically
reviewed. Energy requirements are given both on a nationwide
basis and on a process or unit basis. In Section 5, the avail-
able data are analyzed to determine the distribution of pollution
control energy requirements among stationary source sectors, pol-
lutant types, and industrial source categories. Potential
methods for reducing pollution control energy requirements while
still meeting environmental regulations are considered in
Section 6. The results of this study are summarized in Section 2.
Generally speaking, the energy requirements for pollution control
given in this report can be interpreted as energy required to
meet all currently enacted Federal regulations after the legal
granting of exemptions has been taken into account. However,
studies reported in the literature are not entirely consistent as
to which regulations are assumed to be met.
The energy requirements given in Sections 4 and 5 are also based
on the use of presently available control technology. The term
"presently available" generally refers to current practice and/or
extrapolations of current trends; it does not mean the most
energy-efficient control possible with today's technology. Thus
alternatives to presently available methods do not necessarily
involve new technology.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The total energy required to meet government regulations for pol-
lution control at stationary sources in the United States in 1977
is 1.7 quad3, with estimated error bounds of 0.8 quad to 3.4 quad.
This emount of energy represents approximately 2% of total U.S.
energy consumption, with a range of approximately 1% to 4%.
These values represent operating energy only; an additional
0.2 quad would be required for fabrication and installation of
pollution control equipment. Projections for the mid-1980's indi-
cate that the percentage energy requirement for stationary source
pollution control will increase only slightly to between 2.5% and
3% of total U.S. energy consumption in 1985.
The 1977 energy requirements for pollution control are distributed
among stationary source sectors as follows: industry, 58%; power-
plants, 20%; municipal wastewater treatment plants, 16%; and
municipal solid waste disposal, 6%. Of the energy required for
pollution control in the industrial sector, approximately 80% is
concentrated in the following industrial categories:
• Primary metals
• Chemicals and allied products
• Paper and allied products
• Petroleum and coal products
• Fabricated metal products
• Stone, clay, and glass products
• Food and kindred products
The primary metals category alone accounts for 36% of the indus-
trial total. The iron and steel industry accounts for approxi-
mately 70% of the total pollution control energy requirement in
the primary metals category; this represents 25% of the energy
requirement in the industrial sector and 15% of the energy
requirement for pollution control at all stationary sources.
One quad = 1015 Btu = 1.06 x 1018 J. The energy values quoted
in this section represent primary thermal energy (see Section 4).
Because of the pervasive use of Engligh units to express energy
values in the United States, these units are used in this report
to facilitate interpretation of data. An English-Metric conver-
sion table is given on Page v.
-------
The 1977 energy requirements for stationary source pollution con-
trol are distributed among pollutant types as follows: water
(chemical and biological), 36%; sulfur oxides (SOX), 33%; particu-
late matter, 10%; thermal pollution, 9%; other air pollutants
[nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO)], 6%;
municipal solid waste, 6%. Thus, chemical and biological water
pollution control and control of SOX emissions account for about
70% of the total pollution cntrol energy requirement.
A number of potentially less energy-intensive alternatives to
present pollution control practices are summarized in Table 1.
Consideration is restricted to those methods that could have a
significant impact in the period 1985 to 1990.
TABLE 1. LESS ENERGY-INTENSIVE POLLUTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Pollutant controlled
Alternative
Sulfur oxides
Thermal pollution
Municipal and/or
industrial wastewater
Municipal solid waste
Industrial air and
water pollution
Fluidized-bed combustion of coal.
Intermittent control systems (fuel switching, load
shifting, tall stacks).
Coal blending.
More energy-efficient scrubbers.
Spray ponds and cooling ponds as opposed to cooling
towers.
Waste heat utilization (for space heating or waste-
water treatment, for example).
Recovery of sludge digester gas.
Trickling filter as opposed to activated sludge for
secondary treatment.
Solvent regeneration of activated carbon.
Reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and vapor compres-
sion evaporation for concentration of wastewater
streams.
Energy recovery via pyrolysis or incineration.
Recycling of metals, glass, paper.
Improved packaging techniques.
Process modifications to reduce number and size of
streams requiring end-of-pipe treatment.
Intermittent systems for SOX control at combustion sources are
designed to meet ambient air quality standards and are not
-------
capable of meeting all regulations. Other methods of SOX control,
such as oil desulfurization, coal cleaning, and substitution of
low-sulfur western coal, are at least as energy intensive as flue
gas scrubbing. Thus fluidized-bed combustion (FBC), coal blend-
ing, and more energy-efficient scrubbers represent the main
opportunities for near-term reduction of energy requirements for
SOx control.
First-generation, fluidized-bed powerplants (now in the demonstra-
tion phase) are expected to have overall thermal efficiencies com-
parable to conventional plants equipped with scrubbers. However,
later-generation FBC systems are projected to have significantly
higher efficiencies. The greatest potential energy savings are
in electric powerplants and large industrial boilers, for which
pressurized FBC (as opposed to atmospheric FBC) is likely to be
economical. Another advantage of FBC is that NOX emissions are
also controlled, so future NOX standards would be met without an
additional energy penalty.
The blending of low-sulfur western coal with high-sulfur coal to
meet SOX emission standards requires about one-fourth the energy
required for flue-gas scrubbing. By comparison, complete substi-
tution of low-sulfur western coal for high-sulfur eastern coal
requires approximately the same amount of energy as does flue-gas
scrubbing.
Spray ponds and cooling ponds are about one-half as energy inten-
sive as forced-draft cooling towers for thermal pollution control.
Natural-draft cooling towers are a less energy-intensive alterna-
tive for industrial sources, but they would save only about one-
sixth of the energy saved by installing spray ponds or cooling
ponds. These methods have the drawbacks of large land require-
ments and capital investment costs.
The waste heat rejected from electric powerplants and industrial
processes represents a substantial energy resource. It is esti-
mated that use of waste heat from electric powerplants for space
heating could save up to 5 quads annually in the United States.
Thus integrated systems for the utilization of waste heat in
space heating, agriculture, aquaculture, sewage treatment, etc.,
represent the least energy-intensive method of thermal pollution
control.
The energy required for municipal or industrial wastewater treat-
ment could be reduced through utilization of the gas produced by
anaerobic digestion of organic sludge. Sludge digester gas can
be used to fuel internal combustion engines, which can be
directly coupled to air blowers and water pumps; or the gas can
be used to drive electrical generators. It is estimated that all
of the electrical energy requirements for primary treatment
plants, or approximately two-thirds of electrical energy require-
ments for activated sludge plants, could be supplied in this
-------
manner. For secondary wastewater treatment, trickling filter
plants require up to 50% less energy than activated sludge plants,
Solvent regeneration of activated carbon used for advanced waste-
water treatment may require only one-tenth the energy required
for thermal regeneration. Reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and
vapor compression evaporation are less energy-intensive alterna-
tives to standard multieffect evaporation for the concentration
of wastewater streams.
Energy recovery via incineration or pyrolysis of municipal solid
waste constitutes a much less energy-intensive alternative to
landfilling. Most processes for energy recovery are in the
development or demonstration stages. However, waterwall incinera-
tors constitute a proven technology with a high energy recovery
efficiency-
Recovery and recycling of scrap metals, paper, and glass in solid
waste is also less energy intensive than landfilling these
materials.
Reduction of per capita consumption of packaging materials
through improved packaging techniques would save energy by reduc-
ing the solid waste load and by reducing the amount of packaging
material produced. Potential total energy savings are estimated
to be 0.6 quad/yr, approximately six times the energy required
for landfilling municipal solid waste in the United States.
One method of reducing energy requirements for industrial pollu-
tion control is process modification to reduce the number and
size of streams requiring end-of-pipe treatment. This technique
is difficult to deal with in general terms since modifications
are usually process-specific and often plant-specific. However,
process modifications could result in substantially lower pollu-
tion control energy requirements than those projected for the
industrial sector based on end-of-pipe treatment alone.
-------
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of data obtained from the literature leads to the follow-
ing conclusions:
• The energy required to meet government regulations for
pollution control at stationary sources in 1977 amounts
to about 2% of total U.S. energy consumption, with a
range of approximately 1% to 4%. Projections for the
mid-1980's indicate that this figure will increase only
slightly to between 2.5% and 3% of projected total
national energy consumption.
• Pollution control in the industrial sector accounts for
approximately 60% of energy requirements for control at
stationary sources. Energy requirements are concen-
trated in the following industrial categories: primary
metals, chemicals, paper and paper products, and petro-
leum and coal products.
• Industrial and municipal wastewater treatment and con-
trol of SOx, primarily from industrial and utility
boilers, account for approximately 70% of the energy
required for control at stationary sources. Hence
efforts to reduce energy requirements for stationary
source pollution control should be directed most heavily
toward these two areas.
-------
SECTION 4
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF PREVIOUS WORK
Results obtained from the literature survey are summarized and
evaluated in this section. The results are divided into three
categories: 1) operating energy required for pollution control
on a national basis, 2) energy required for fabrication and
installation of pollution control equipment on a national basis,
and 3) energy required for pollution control on a process or unit
basis. An overview of the literature survey is presented in
Appendix A, where each study is briefly reviewed and placed in
perspective with other studies.
OPERATING ENERGY FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
Estimates of nationwide energy requirements for pollution control,
as compiled from the literature, are presented for electric power-
plants, industry, municipal wastewater teratment plants, and
municipal solid waste disposal. All energy values have been con-
verted to primary thermal energy equivalents using the following
conversion factors:
Electricity. . .10,666 Btu primary/kWh electrical,
corresponding to a conversion
efficiency of 32%
Oil 6 x 106 Btu primary/barrel oil,
corresponding to residual fuel oil
Coal 24 x 106 Btu primary/ton coal
Comparison of energy estimates from different literature sources
is complicated by the following factors:
• The estimates are for different years.
• Compliance with different sets of regulations is assumed
in different studies.
• Some estimates are for total energy required for control,
and others are for incremental energy required for com-
pliance with specific regulations.
-------
• Energy accounting is incomplete in most studies; that is,
not all types of energy are taken into consideration
(for example, electricity, fuels, energy for production
of treatment chemicals, energy for maintenance of equip-
ment, etc.).
• Methods of calculation range from gross, cursory esti-
mates to detailed computer simulations. The assumptions
involved are often numerous, and the manner in which
they affect the results is difficult to determine unless
a sensitivity analysis is performed in the study.
• In some cases, insufficient information is given to
permit proper interpretation of the results.
For these reasons, an attempt has been made to outline the
methods and assumptions used to arrive at each result. These
descriptions are intended to facilitate interpretation of the
results and are necessarily incomplete in some cases. The origi-
nal references should be consulted for complete details.
Electric Powerplants
Thermal Pollution Control—
Closed-cycle cooling systems for controlling thermal pollution
require energy beyond that required for once-through cooling sys-
tems. In a closed system, the cooling water from the condenser
is passed through a cooling device (such as a cooling tower) in
which heat is transferred to the atmosphere, and is then returned
to the condenser. Additional energy is required to operate pumps
and blowers in forced-draft cooling towers and to compensate for
the loss in thermal efficiency of the powerplant. The loss in
thermal efficiency is due to an increase in condenser temperature,
which results in an increased turbine backpressure.
Estimates of energy requirements for thermal pollution control
are presented in Table 2. For comparison, the estimated total
U.S. energy requirement is also given for each year (1) . The
individual estimates are discussed in the following sections.
DSI (Development Sciences, Inc.)(2)—The calculation can be
described by the following general equation:
/ Energy \ _ / Capacity \/Energy required per\
\required/ \controlled/\ unit of capacity / '
The capacity requiring control to meet Federal regulations is
obtained from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) esti-
mates (11, 12) and is given as a function of plant type (fossil
fuel or nuclear) and size. Implicit in these estimates are
assumptions concerning the number of plants that will install
closed-cycle cooling systems for reasons other than pollution
8
-------
TABLE 2. OPERATING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THERMAL
POLLUTION CONTROL AT ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
Primary energy required,
10 15 Btu/yr
Reference
Source number
DSI
DSI
ERT
Michigan
Michigan
RPA
Cywin
Temple, Barker & Sloane
Temple, Barker & Sloane
Hirst
Economics of Clean Water
Economics of Clean Water
NCWQ
#
4?
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
£
Year
1977
1983
1983
1983
1985
1980
1980
1980
1985
1970
1977
1983
1983
Thermal
pollution control
0.086
0.20
0.22
0.17
0.2
0.27
0.13
0.0d
0.2
0.16
0.43
0.79
0.045 to 0.29
Total U.S.
consumption
78
95
95
95
101
86
86
86
101
-
78
95
95
U.S. Government estimates (1). Draft report subject to revision.
C
Includes fossil-fueled steam electric plants only. If nuclear plants are
assumed to make approximately the same contribution, the total energy
requirement is roughly 0.4 x 1015 Btu.
d
Indicates value is less than 0.1.
control regulations, and the number of plants that will receive
exemptions under Section 316 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. Section 316(a) permits either the Federal
or State environmental protection agencies to grant exemptions to
effluent limitations for thermal discharges when it can be demon-
strated "to the satisfaction of the Administrator" that the efflu-
ent limitations are more stringent than necessary for the protec-
tion of fish and other wildlife in the receiving body of water.
The energy required per unit of capacity is also given as a func-
tion of plant type and size. The values range from 1.7% to 3.2%
of plant capacity for fossil-fueled plants, and from 2.3% to 4.2%
for nuclear plants. The source of these figures is not discussed
except to say that they are based on an analysis of forced-draft
cooling towers. No distinction is made between new and retrofit
systems.
ERT (Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.)(3)—Murphy,
Mahoney, et al., of Environmental Research and Technology also
use Equation 1. An energy penalty for thermal pollution control
is assumed—2% for new plants and 3% for existing plants. These
values are averages of data for forced-draft cooling towers
-------
culled from the literature. The capacity requiring control is
calculated based on data from Reference 11. The incremental
energy required for pollution control is calculated for each of
three time periods: the baseline year, 1974; the period 1975 to
1978; and the period 1979 to 1984. Ah industry growth rate of
4.16%/yr is assumed in the calculations for the latter two
periods. An additional assumption is made that 65% of the plants
that employed closed-cycle cooling in 1974 did so for nonenviron-
mental reasons. The energy requirement of 0.22 quad for 1983 is
obtained by adding together the values for the three time periods
listed.
The result obtained in the ERT study applies to only fossil-
fueled steam powerplants. It was found in the DSI study (2) that
the energy required for thermal pollution control at nuclear
powerplants is approximately the same as that required at fossil-
fueled plants. If this result is combined with the ERT result, a
value of approximately 0.4 quad is obtained for thermal pollution
control at all powerplants in 1983. This value is a factor of 2
greater than the one obtained by DSI, despite the fact that the
two studies used essentially the same methodology and the same
data sources. One factor that tends to make the ERT value higher
is the use of an average energy penalty. For example, applying
the values of 2% for new units and 3% for retrofit units to the
DSI capacity data increases the DSI energy estimates by 29% for
1977 and 26% for 1983. The remaining discrepancy between the two
studies reflects the large effect exercised by the uncertainties
concerning Section 316 exemptions under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972.
Michigan (University of Michigan study performed by Davidson/
Ross/ et al.)(4)—The value for 1983 is quoted from Reference 11.
A 15% increase in energy consumption from 1983 to 1985 is assumed
to obtain the value for 1985.
RPA (Resource Planning Associates)(5)—Bailly, Cushman, and Stein-
berg of Resource Planning Associates estimate the energy require-
ment to be 125,000 barrels/day (bpd) of oil. The source of the
estimate is not discussed, but it presumably represents an inter-
polation between EPA's estimates (11) of 375,000 bpd before exemp-
tions and 80,000 bpd after exemptions.
Cywin (6)—Equation 1 is used with an EPA estimate of 70,000 Mw
requiring control in 1980 and an assumed fuel penalty of 3% for
closed-cycle cooling.
Temple, Barker & Sloane (7)—No details of the calculations are
available.
Hirst (8)—Equation 1 is used, with 50% of the 1970 generating
capacity (arbitrarily) assumed to be controlled, and an average
energy penalty of 2% assumed for closed-cycle cooling.
10
-------
Economics of Clean Water (9)—No details of the calculations are
given.
NCWQ (National Commission on Water Quality (10)—A simulation
model is used to calculate the energy requirement for 21 alterna-
tive scenarios. Included are alternative assumptions concerning
the number of plants receiving exemptions, the number of plants
affected by State regulations, alternative age and size criteria
for subcategorizing the industry, and alternative financial
assumptions. An average annual growth rate of 6% is assumed for
industry capacity and 2.2% for sales. Two of the scenarios are
employed to establish upper and lower bounds on the energy
required. In the lower-bound scenario, the number of Section 316
exemptions is assumed to be high (about 80% of affected capacity),
and no additional units are assumed to be affected by State-level
standards. In the upper-bound scenario, about 40% of capacity is
assumed to receive exemptions, and State standards are assumed to
require closed-cycle cooling at all unexempted plants of greater
than 25 Mw capacity. No further details of the calculations are
presented.
The values listed in Table 2 for 1983 agree to within a factor of
about 4, excluding the lower NCWQ estimate. Extrapolation of the
RPA and Cywin values from 1980 to 1983 would bring them within
the range of the other values. Excluding the Economics of Clean
Water estimate, the agreement is within a factor of approximately
2.5. This amount of variation in the results is quite reason-
able considering the effect that the granting of variances can
have on the actual energy required. For example, EPA estimates
for energy required before and after exemptions differ by a
factor of 4.7 for 1980 and a factor of 2 for 1977. The high and
low estimates obtained by NCWQ differ by a factor of 6.4, largely
because of different assumptions concerning the granting of
exemptions.
Air Pollution Control—
Energy requirements for air pollution control at electric power-
plants are associated primarily with the control of SOX and par-
ticulate matter. Present standards for NOx can be achieved by
combustion modification techniques, such as low excess air firing
and staged combustion, which incur little or no energy penalty
and may in fact increase boiler efficiency by up to 2% (13-15)
Hence energy requirements for NOX control can be considered negli-
gible at present. This situation could change in the future if,
IB anticipated by LaChapelle, et al. (14), stricter NOx s^ndards
for stationary sources are adopted because of growth in station-
ary sources, delays in achieving automotive standards, and the
need to improve ambient air quality. If separate NOX flue gas
treatment systems are eventually required, it is possible that
the energy requirement for NOX control could become comparable to
that for SOX control (15).
11
-------
Estimates obtained from the literature on the energy requirements
for air pollution control at electric powerplants are presented in
in Table 3. The methodology employed in each of the studies is
discussed briefly in the following sections.
TABLE 3. OPERATING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL AT ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS
Primary energy required, 10 >5 Btu/yr
Source
DSI
DSI
ERT
Michigan
RPA
MacDonald
Cywin
Temple, Barker & Sloane
Temple, Barker & Sloane
Hirst
Bendixen & Huffman
Reference
number
2b
2b
3
4
5
16
6
7
7
8
17
Year
1977
1983
1983
1985
1980
1975
1980
1980
1985
1970
1974
SOX
scrubbers
0.065
0.211
0.77C
0.51
0.21
0.32
-
0.2
0.3
-
0.062
Fuel oil
desulfurization ESP's
0.118 0.009
0.104 0.008
-d 0.064
0.15 0.01
-
-f
o.o;
0.0
Total U.S.
Total consumption
0.19
0.32
0.83.
0.80e
0.21
0.32
0.32
0.2
°'3 a
0.849
78
95
95
101
86
75
86
86
101
73
U.S. Government estimates (1). Draft report subject to revision.
cTotal for SOx scrubbing and fuel oil desulfurization. Dashes indicate data not presented in source.
Includes 0.13 x 10ls Btu/yr for transportation of low-sulfur western coal.
Indicates value is less than 0.1. ^Total for powerplants and industry.
DSI (2)—Energy requirements are calculated by Equation 1. The
capacity requiring scrubbers for SOX control is an unpublished
EPA estimate based on full compliance with Federal regulations
(excluding State Implementation Plans) furnished by the Office of
Planning and Evaluation. An energy penalty of 3.6% of plant
capacity is used for limestone scrubbing, which includes energy
for producing limestone and for sludge disposal. It is assumed
that all oil- and coal-burning plants that do not require scrub-
bers will install electrostatic precipitators for control of par-
ticulate matter. An energy penalty of 0.194% of capacity is used
for precipitators. All fuel oil burned by utilities is assumed
to be desulfurized in the United States if its sulfur content
exceeds 0.5%. The energy penalty used for desulfurization ranges
from 1.2% to 8.6% of the energy content of the oil, depending on
the sulfur content of the oil. These values are given without
derivation. The amount of residual oil used by powerplants,
together with its sulfur content, is obtained from U.S. Bureau of
Mines data. The energy required for desulfurization is computed
as the product of the amount of oil used (converted to Btu's)
times the appropriate energy penalty for the sulfur content of
the oil. Three sulfur ranges are considered: 0.5% to 1.5%, 1.0%
to 2.0%, and greater than 2.0%.
ERT (3)—The values listed in Table 3 correspond to compliance
through use of low-sulfur fuel and scrubbers only (Scenario 1 in
Reference 3), and compliance with primary and secondary air qual-
ity standards and New Source Performance Standards (air quality
goal 3a in Reference 3). Equation 1 is used with energy penal-
ties of 7.0% for SOX scrubbers [taken from the Michigan study (4)]
12
-------
0.2% for electrostatic precipitators, and 3% to 6% for fuel oil
desulfurization [from the Michigan study (4)]. The capacity
requiring control by each technique is based on extrapolation to
1983 of 1974 survey data on the distribution of generating
capacity by size, region, and fuel type. An annual growth rate
of 4.16% is assumed, and dispersion modeling is employed to deter-
mine compliance with ambient air quality standards.
The energy requirement for control of sulfur oxides can vary con-
siderably depending on assumptions made for growth rate and reg-
ulations met. For example, assumption of a 6.73% annual growth
rate increases the energy requirement from 0.77 quad to 1.07 quad
(3). Compliance with State Implementation Plans and nondeteriora-
tion regulations (in addition to the above-mentioned regulations)
increases the energy requirement from 0.77 quad to 1.05 quads (3).
The higher growth rate and stricter regulations together result
in an energy requirement of 1.4 quads (3). The higher growth
rate and use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) yield an
energy requirement of 2.0 quads in 1983 (3).
On the other hand, conversion of existing oil- and gas-fired
plants to coal firing (where possible) results in only a small
increase (about 5% or less) in the energy required for control of
sulfur oxides (3). The range of energy requirements obtained in
the ERT study is considered further in Section 6. The values
listed in Table 3 were selected as representing the most plaus-
ible set of assumptions. They correspond essentially to the
"average" case for Scenario 1 in Table 26 (Section 6).
Michigan (4)—An energy penalty of 7.0% for SOX scrubbers is
assumed, based on data from installations on four large power-
plants. A penalty of 0.12% is used for electrostatic precipita-
tors, of which 0.02% is for capital equipment. A penalty for
fuel oil desulfurization of 3.5% to 5.8% was calculated from
available data on a single desulfurization process. A penalty of
3.4% is estimated for transport of low-sulfur western coal. The
capacities controlled by each method in 1985 are calculated from
the following assumptions:
• The total energy required to produce electricity is 30%
of the national energy total of 115 x 1015 Btu.
• The ratio of low-sulfur coal to coal used in plants
equipped with scrubbers is 1:1. The ratio of low-sulfur
oil to desulfurized oil is 1:1.
• One-half of low-sulfur coal production is Western coal
subject to the transportation energy penalty.
RPA (5)—The calculation is based on the following assumptions:
• 90,000 Mw controlled (from EPA sources) with a load
factor of 65%.
13
-------
• Energy penalty of 5% of plant output for SOX scrubbing.
• Scrubber stream factor of 95%.
MacDonald (16)—A unique method is used based on the Federal
Energy Office estimate of the 1975 fuel deficit (225 million tons
of coal) that would have resulted from enforcement of existing
State Implementation Plans (SIP's) with no switching to gas or
oil. Assuming limestone scrubbers are used to control SOx emis-
sions, SIP's would thus require installation of scrubbers at
powerplants consuming a total of 225 million tons/yr of coal. An
energy penalty of 6% for scrubbing is assumed, which results in
an energy requirement of 13.5 million tons of coal (6% of
225 million tons), or 0.32 quad. Calculations are also made
assuming energy penalties of 4%, 5%, and 7% for scrubbing; the
resulting energy requirements range from 0.21 quad to 0.37 quad.
The corresponding energy requirement for using low-sulfur western
coal to make up the fuel deficit is also computed. Transporta-
tion of western coal to eastern powerplants is found to result in
an energy penalty of 35 million barrels/yr of oil, or 0.21 quad.
Cywin (6)—No details of the calculations are given.
Temple, Barker & Sloane (7)—No details of the calculations are
given.
Hirst (8)—Estimates are obtained from the literature on energy
requirements for 90% particulate removal and 70% SOX removal at
powerplants, furnaces, cement plants, incinerators, and fossil-
fuel cleaning facilities. The sum of these values is arbitrarily
increased by 50% because of increasingly strict air quality
standards and because several industrial air pollution sources
were not considered (8).
Bendixen and Huffman (17)—It is assumed that total 1974 generat-
ing capacity (1.1 x 109 Mwh) is fed 3.5% sulfur fuel and control-
led with limestone scrubbers. The resulting energy requirement
of 62 trillion Btu represents an energy penalty of 0.53% of power-
plant fuel input, which is an order of magnitude too low. This
value is based on data from a conceptual design and cost analysis
of the limestone wet scrubbing process published in 1969 (18).
The power requirement obtained in that study is much lower than
values reported later from large-scale field demonstration units
(4, 19). In addition, the energy penalty for stack-gas reheat is
not included in Bendixen and Huffman's calculation, since the
need for reheat was considered debatable at that time.
From this discussion, it is apparent that the first three studies
listed in Table 3 represent the most thorough analyses of the
problem. The ERT and Michigan results are in close agreement on
total energy, although the estimates for individual control
14
-------
methods display somewhat greater differences. Part of the dis-
crepancy between these estimates and the DSI value for 1983 is
due to the difference in unit energy consumption values used for
scrubbers; that is, 3.6% in the DSI study, and 7.0% in the other
two studies3- Applying a 7% energy penalty to the DSI data
yields a total energy requirement of 0.25 x 1015 Btu in 1977 and
0.52 x 1015 in 1983. The three estimates for the mid-1980's are
than in agreement to within 40%. Considering the number of
assumptions required in the analyses and the uncertainties in the
data employed, this degree of agreement is regarded as excellent.
Wastewater Treatment—
According to Reference 12, energy requirements for wastewater
treatment at electric powerplants are negligible compared with
those for air and thermal pollution control. To achieve no dis-
charge of pollutants by treating all wastewater streams in a
central facility, the energy penalty is estimated to be less than
0.01% of plant fuel input (12).
Industry
Much less relevant information is available for the industrial
sector than for powerplants. Hence, generally less sophisticated
methods have been used to estimate the energy rquirements for pol-
lution control. The various estimates obtained from the litera-
ture survey are listed in Table 4. Each of these estimates is
discussed briefly in the following sections.
DSI (2) —
The calculation is based on incremental (as a result of Federal
regulations) capital investment in pollution control equipment
estimated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). This
schedule assumes an increasing baseline value; that is, it is
assumed that an increasing amount of pollution control equipment
would be installed over the time period involved, regardless of
Federal legislation (as a result of State and local regulations,
pressure from citizens groups, etc.). This baseline value is sub-
tracted from the total cumulative investment to obtain the incre-
mental investment resulting from Federal regulations. As a
result, the investment schedule exhibits a maximum in 1978 (air)
3The total energy penalty for scrubbing consists of preplant
(mining, transportation, and preparation of limestone), inplant
(scrubber operation and flue-gas reheat), and postplant (sludge
disposal) energy usage. The inplant energy penalties used were
3.5% in the DSI study and 5% in the other two studies. Recent
EPA publications (20, 21), which reflect experience gained with
demonstration-scale scrubbing systems, use inplant energy penal-
ties of 3.4% to 5%. Thus the range of values used in the
studies listed in Table 3 is consistent with presently available
data on energy requirements for flue-gas scrubbing.
15
-------
TABLE 4. OPERATING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Primary energy required, 10 *5 Btu/yr
Source
DSI
DSI
Michigan
EEI
NCWQ
NCWQ
Cywin
RPA
Reference
number
2b
2b
4
22b
10b
10°
6
5
Year
1977
1983
1985
1977
1977
1983
1980
1980
Air
0.50
0.51
0.40
_c
-
-
0.27
^™
Water
0.23
0.28
0.55
-
0.38
0.82
0.09
0.09
Total
0.73
0.78
0.95
0.88
—
—
0.36
^
Total U.S.
consumption
78
95
101
78
78
95
86
86
U.S. Government estimates (1). Draft report subject to revision.
Dashes indicate data not presented in source.
or 1980 (water) that is reflected in the resulting energy values.
For water pollution control, the following relationship is used:
/ Energy \ _ /
\required/ '
Energy consumed \
Cumulative incremental \/
, investment in water ]( , , n . . ,,
\ .... . . n . . Aper dollar invested/
\pollution control equipment/ \ /
(2)
The incremental investment schedule is broken down by two-digit
SIC numbers as given by CEQ. All calculations are made with 1973
dollars. Energy consumption coefficients are derived from data
on 81 industrial sectors, with three plant sizes included in each
sector.
Energy required for production of chemicals used in treatment is
estimated in an analogous manner and found to be negligible (0.6%)
by comparison with the direct operating energy.
The calculation for air pollution control is based on CEQ's incre-
mental investment schedule together with a breakdown of invest-
ment by control device, supplied to EPA by Batelle Columbus
Laboratories (23). The relationship used is:
/Energy required\ _ / Incremental capital
\ for device i / \investment in device
Energy consumption \ . _.
coefficient for device i/
Energy consumption coefficients (i.e., energy consumed per dollar
of capital cost) are given for each control device without
derivation.
Michigan (4)—
The calculation of energy for water pollution control is similar
16
-------
to the method used by DSI, except that CEQ-estimated operating
and maintenance costs are used rather than capital costs. An
average energy consumption coefficient of 0.2 x 106 Btu/dollar of
operating and maintenance cost is derived from data on several
selected industries. This value includes energy for capital con-
struction and indirect operating energy for chemicals, as well as
direct operating energy in the form of fuel and electricity.
Air pollution control is divided into combustion and noncombus-
tion processes. For combustion processes, energy penalties of
7.0% for SOX control and 0.12% for particulate control are
assumed, as in the calculation for powerplants. In addition to
the assumptions made in the latter calculation, the following
assumptions are made for the industrial sector:
• The ratio of industrial consumption of coal and oil to
electrical powerplant consumption is the same as it was
in 1972.
• Industrial coal consumption is primarily low-sulfur coal.
• Of the industrial oil used, the ratio of low-sulfur oil
to desulfurized oil is 1:1.
A very crude approximation is made for the energy requirement for
noncombustion air pollution control. Only particulate control
using electrostatic precipitators, cyclones, and baghouses is con-
sidered. The calculation is made using the following assumptions:
• Total particulate emissions of 13.3 x 106 tons/yr
(1970 value).
• Average loading of 5 grains/standard cubic foot (scf).
• Average energy requirement of 1.3 hp/cubic foot per
minute (cfm), based on Reference 24.
EEI (Edison Electric Institute) (22) —
The value listed in Table 4 represents projected electrical
energy consumption for pollution control and is based on a 1972
survey of electric utilities made by Edison Electric Institute.
The value of 0.88 x 1015 Btu was obtained from the total esti-
mated 'consumption for the period 1973 to 1977, excluding the
values for sewage treatment, waste disposal, and waste recycling
given in Reference 22. This value of 16.56 x 109 kWh was con-
verted to primary energy using the conversion factor 10,666 Btu/
kWh to yield 0.177 x I01s Btu. The final value was obtained by
dividing by 0.20 to account for the fact that the survey covered
onlv 20% of total electric utility sales to industry (personal
comLn?ca?ion w?th S B. Baruch, Edison Electric Institute, New
York, NY, April 23, 1976).
17
-------
NCWQ (10) —
Total energy requirements for wastewater treatment to meet
Federal regulations were determined by detailed studies of nine
industrial categories:
• Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables
• Inorganic chemicals
• Iron and steel
• Metal finishing
• Organic chemicals
• Petroleum refining
• Plastics and synthetics
• Pulp and paper
• Textiles
Details of the individual studies are not given. The energy
requirement for all other industries is calculated from the total
of the above industries using the ratio of total operating and
maintenance costs of the two groups. The energy required by
industries in the "all other" category is 21% of the total for
1977 and 9% of the total for 1983. The energy values are incre-
mental above the 1973 base year consumption and are based on 1973
production capacity.
Cywin (6)—
The value for air pollution control is given without explanation.
The value for water pollution control is based on flow rates and
the treatment level required for each of the industries for which
effluent limitations have been promulgated. This represents some
50% of the pending permit applications for industrial point
sources, but most of the major discharges are included (6).
RPA (5)—
The estimate is given, without explanation, as 40,000 barrels/day
of oil.
The most credible estimates are those of DSI, Michigan, NCWQ, and
EEI. The agreement between the DSI and EEI values for 1977 is
remarkable in that they were obtained by entirely different
methods. It should be noted, however, that the results of the
two studies represent different quantities. The EEI value
includes electrical energy only, and the DSI value includes fuels
and energy for production of chemicals, although the latter makes
a negligible contribution to the total. Furthermore, the DSI
value represents incremental energy consumption resulting from
Federal regulations. The EEI value represents anticipated actual
consumption for pollution control, which is different than both
the total energy required to meet all Federal regulations and the
incremental energy required to meet Federal regulations.
18
-------
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Results of the literature survey are summarized in Table 5. Each
value is noted as being either incremental energy required for
compliance with Federal regulations or total energy required for
wastewater treatment. The studies are discussed in the following
sections.
TABLE 5. OPERATING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Source
DSI
DSI
Michigan
EEI
EEI
RPA
RPA
Cywin
Cywin
Cywin
Bendixen S Huffman
Bendixen & Huffman
Hirst
NCWQ
NCWQ
Reference
number
2b
2b
4
22
22
5
5
6
6
6
17
17
8b
10b
10°
Year
1977
1983
1981
1971
1977
1980
1980
1974
1977
1980
1968
1974
1970
1973
1990
Primary
energy
required,
10 *5 Btu
0.036
0.25
0.26
0.053
0.19
0.055
0.084
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.029
0.18
0.29
0.15
0.35
Total U.S. a
consumption ,
Comment 1015 Btu
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Total, electrical energy only
Total, electrical energy only
Incremental above 1968 baseline
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total, from 1968 inventory of municipal plants
Total, tertiary treatment of all wastewater
Total, secondary treatment of all wastewater
Total, excluding chemicals production
Total, excluding chemicals production
78
95
89
C
78
86
86
73
78
86
-
73
-
D.S. Government estimates (1). Draft report subject to revision. Dashes indicate data not presented in source.
DSI (2) —
The calculation is based on the incremental investment schedule
estimated by CEQ and plant operating and capital cost data from
Reference 25. A hypothetical mix of plant type and size is
assumed and combined with capital cost data to determine the
number of plants of each type and size that can be built accord-
ing to the incremental investment schedule. Plant operating data
are then used to determine direct and indirect (for chemicals and
sludge disposal) operating energy as a function of plant type and
size. Multiplying these energy values by the number of incre-
mental plants in each category yields the total incremental
energy requirement.
Michigan (4)—
The calculation uses the CEQ investment schedule together with an
energy coefficient of 0.117 x 106 Btu/1963 dollar, which is
devalued to 0.089 x 106 Btu/1972 dollar. The energy coefficient
is obtained from energy input/output analysis (26, 27). The
accuracy of this method is checked by making the calculation for
1971 and comparing the result with a more detailed analysis made
with data available for that year. The latter estimate is based
on unit operating data from Smith (28), unpublished EPA data, an
original survey of 80 treatment plants in Michigan, and the 1968
inventory of municipal treatment plants (29). Agreement to
within 40% is obtained.
19
-------
EEI (22)—The survey data for 1971 and the estimated data for
1977 were divided by 0.20 to account for the 20% coverage of the
survey previously noted. The values correspond to the data for
SIC 49, "Sewage Treatment." Although SIC 49 also includes utili-
ties, such data were excluded from the survey (22) . As noted in
Table 5, the survey data represent electrical energy only; fuel
and energy to produce treatment chemicals are not included.
The value of 0.053 x 1015 Btu for 1971 agrees exactly with the
detailed estimate of electrical energy for 1971 obtained in the
Michigan study (4). Fuels and treatment chemicals account for
29% of the total energy requirement in the latter study. If this
ratio is applied to the EEI data, the total operating energy is
found to be 0.075 x 1015 Btu for 1971 and 0.27 x 10lS Btu for 1977,
RPA (5) —
The calculation assumes that the fuel penalty resulting from
Federal regulations is equal to the incremental energy consump-
tion above the 1968 level, which is taken from the 1968 inventory
of municipal treatment plants (29). Adding the value of
0.029 x 1015 Btu for 1968 yields the total value for 1980. No
additional details of the calculation are given.
Cywin (6)—
The estimates include electrical energy and fuels but exclude
energy for production of chemicals. The 1968 inventory of munici-
pal treatment plants serves as the basis for the estimates. The
following assumptions are used to extrapolate the 1968 data:
• Secondary treatment will be required at all plants by
1980.
• No more than 10% of all sludge is incinerated. The
balance is land-filled or used for fertilizer.
• Activated sludge treatment is utilized to attain
secondary standards.
• Advanced waste treatment is required for about one-half
of the plants (those on heavily polluted streams or lakes).
The 1974 estimate is obtained by adding all new projects to the
1968 inventory. For 1977, the 1974 value is increased by 11% to
account for growth in sewered population, and the impact of
secondary treatment requirements is added. The difference
between the 1977 and 1980 values is almost entirely a result of
energy required for advanced wastewater treatment.
In addition to energy associated with production of treatment
chemicals, the analysis specifically excludes energy required for
space heating of plant buildings and collection system pumping
requirements. Energy recovery by collection of methane is also
excluded from consideration.
20
-------
Bendixen & Huffman (17)—
The 1974 value is obtained as the product of the 1974 U.S. popula-
tion and the electrical energy requirement for tertiary treatment
of 0.22 kWh/person-day quoted by Smith (28) from the 1968 inven-
tory of municipal treatment plants. The latter value is based on
tertiary treatment plants serving a total of 325,000 people.
Fuel and energy for production of chemicals are not considered.
Hirst (6)—
The calculation employs data on electricity consumption by munici-
pal treatment plants as a function of plant size. The total elec-
trical energy consumption is obtained by means of the following
arbitrary assumptions:
• The average plant size is 30,000 population equivalents
(PE).
• The average PE/population ratio is 3.
• Total 1970 wastewater, municipal and industrial, is
treated to the secondary level.
Fuel and energy for production of chemicals are not considered.
NCWQ (10)—
The result is based on the 1974 U.S. EPA Needs Survey (see Refer-
ence 10 for details) and represents the total net energy required
for operation and maintenance, including wastewater collection
but excluding energy for chemicals. The net energy requirement
is that in excess of the energy that would be supplied by methane
produced from sludge digestion. This is the only study that
takes methane production into account. The estimate for 1980 is
based on a projection of the population that would be served by
municipal treatment plants in 1990.
The EEI and NCWQ results, which are based on more recent survey
data, are significantly higher than the values given by RPA and
Cywin, which are based on 1968 survey data. The 1977 estimate of
Cywin is a factor of 4 smaller than the EEI value of 0.27 x 1015
Btu (corrected for fuel and chemical energy). The 1977 DSI esti-
mate is even lower, but this is due to the fact that it is incre-
mental energy only- If the 1973 NCWQ value is taken as the base-
line for the DSI value, the total value for 1977 is 0.19 x 10lb
Btu—in good agreement with the EEI value of 0.27 x 10*s Btu.
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste represents a considerable energy resource. It is
estimated by Huffman (30) that the total fuel value of all the
municipal, industrial, mineral, and agricultural waste produced
in the United States in 1970 is 8.5 x 10" Btu, or 12% of the
total national energy consumption. Of this total, it is esti-
mated that 1 x 1015 to 2 x 1015 Btu are economically recoverable
21
-------
(30). It is estimated by Franklin, et al (31) that an additional
0.4 x 1015 Btu can be saved annually by recovering and recycling
scrap metals in solid waste.
Because solid waste disposal is potentially an energy-producing
operation, it should not strictly be included in the present con-
text. However, if energy recovery is not practiced (typically
the present situation in the United States), then energy is
required for collection, transportation, landfilling, and inciner-
ation of solid waste. Hence, solid waste disposal is included in
this report for completeness.
Estimates of energy requirements for collection, transportation,
landfilling, and incineration of municipal solid waste are given
in Table 6. The potential energy recovery from solid waste
incineration and from recycling materials is also listed. Each
of the estimates is discussed in the following sections.
TABLE 6. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Primary energy required, 10 15 Btu/yr
Source
Hirst
RPA
RPA
Cywin
Reference
number
8
5
5
6
Year
1970
1973
1980
1980
Collection,
transportation ,
and landfilling
0.075
0.087
Negligiblec
Electricity
for
incineration
0.027
_b
Electricity
production
from
incineration
(0.27)
(0.28)
(0.44)
Recycling
(0.44)
Negligible
(0.15)
(0.077)
Values in parentheses represent energy credits.
Dashes indicate data not presented in source.
cIncremental energy requirement above the 1973 value because of Federal standards. It
is assumed that improved collection practices will offset any additional energy
demand because of stricter standards for municipal waste management.
Hirst (8)—
The energy requirement for collection, transportation, and land-
filling is based on an average value of 300,000 Btu/ton obtained
from data on three cities: Oak Ridge, TN; Los Angeles, CA; and
New York, NY. This value is multiplied by the estimated 250
million tons of solid waste generated in the United States in
1969 to yield the value of 0.075 quad listed in the table.
The electricity requirement for solid waste incineration is based
on an average requirement of 10 kWh/ton and the assumption that
all 250 million tons of municipal waste generated in 1969 were
incinerated.
For the calculation of electricity production from solid waste
incineration, it is assumed that energy is recovered from 10% of
the solid waste generated in 1969 at a rate of 1,000 kWh/ton.
22
-------
The energy savings from recycling materials is based on energy
data for existing production methods and production from recycled
materials. The data cover three materials: steel, aluminum, and
paper. The value of 0.44 quacl in the table is obtained by assum-
ing that one-third of the 1970 U.S. production of these materials
is manufactured from recycled material.
RPA (5) —
The value for collection, transportation, and landfilling is
obtained as the sum of the 1968 baseline value (0.074 quad) and
an incremental value of 0.013 quad resulting from Federal
standards.
The 1980 estimate of 0.15 quad for recycling materials is based
on an EPA estimate of approximately 0.075 quad for recycling alu-
minum, ferrous metals, and glass. RPA assumes an equal savings
(0.075 quad) for recycling paper to obtain the total of 0.15 quad.
A similar "calculation" is employed to obtain the value for
energy recovered from solid waste incineration in 1980.
Estimates of energy savings resulting from changes in packaging
practices are also given. Reduction of per capita consumption of
packaging from the 1972 level to the 1958 level would result in
an estimated savings of 0.58 quad/yr. Exclusive use of refill-
able bottles for beverages would save an estimated 0.25 quad/yr-
These values are based on unpublished EPA estimates; they include
energy saved because of the manufacture of smaller amounts of
packaging materials as well as energy saved by reduction of solid
waste loads.
Cywin (6)—
The values are given without explanation.
CAPITALIZATION ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
A complete accounting of the energy required for pollution con-
trol must include the energy expended in the fabrication and
installation of pollution control equipment. A nationwide esti-
mate of the capitalization energy required to meet Federal regula-
tions, taken from the DSI study (2), is given in Table 7. The
values in the table represent averages for the 11-yr period 1972
to 1982. The calculation utilizes an energy coefficient of
50,000 Btu/dollar of capital investment in pollution control
equipment obtained from energy input-output analysis (26, 27).
This coefficient is combined with the CEQ incremental investment
schedule for pollution control equipment to obtain the results.
Equipment replacement is not accounted for in the calculation.
Although no statement concerning accuracy is given in Reference 2,
the values listed in Table 7 should probably be interpreted as
order-of-magnitude estimates. As an indication of the reliabil-
ity of the results, the Michigan study (4) reported values of
capitalization energy for municipal treatment plants of
23
-------
TABLE 7- CAPITALIZATION ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
Primary energy required,
Sector controlled 10l 5 Btu/yr"
Powerplants:
Thermal 0.01
Air 0.04
Industry:
Air
Water
Municipal treatment plants
Total
0.05
0.05
O.OJ
0.22
Data from Reference 2; draft report subject to
revision.
Average for the 11-yr period 1972 to 1982.
0.16 x 1015 Btu in 1971 and 0.29 x 1015 Btu in 1981. These esti-
mates were obtained using the same methodology as in the DSI study,
UNIT ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES
National energy estimates for pollution control are important for
making policy decisions and in determining the areas where signif-
icant energy savings may be possible. But from the standpoint of
energy conservation through the use of less energy-intensive con-
trol systems, the energy requirements of individual pollution con-
trol methods are of fundamental importance. Unit energy consump-
tion data obtained from the literature survey are summarized in
this section.
The ERT report (3) contains a large amount of information on
energy requirements for pollution control methods related to
powerplants. Many of these data should be applicable to combus-
tion processes in general. Table 8 presents unit energy require-
ments in terms of preplant, inplant, postplant, and capital-
related consumption. The energy requirements are given as
percentages of plant fuel input and represent averages of data
obtained from the literature.
The inplant energy penalty of 3% to 5.5% for flue-gas desulfuriza-
tion is in agreement with the range of recent EPA estimates (20,
21) (which is 3.4% to 5%, as previously noted). However, data
from various sources span a considerably wider range (Table 9)-
24
-------
TABLE 8. UNIT ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR.
POWERPLANT POLLUTION CONTROLe
Area
Energy requirement,
percent of
plant fuel input
Preplant:
Limestone mining
Transport:
Western coal
Control chemicals
Pretreatment:
Oil desulfurization
Coal cleaning, physical
Coal cleaning, chemical
Coal liquefaction and gasification
Coal blending
Lime calcining and preparation
Inplant:
Sulfur dioxide control: Flue-gas desulfurization
Particulate control:
Multiple cyclones
Electrostatic precipitators
Nitrogen oxides control: Combustion modifications
Thermal pollution control:
Cooling ponds
Spray ponds
Mechanical draft towers
Natural draft towers
Wastewater control:
Unit conversions:
Chemical treatment
Substitution of western coal
Coal conversion
Supplemental fuel, solid waste
Fluidized bed combustion
Noise control
Intermittent control strategies:
Fuel switching
Load shifting
Tall stacks
Postplant:
Coal ash disposal
Sludge disposal
Capital energy requirements (included in preplant):
Sulfur oxide control:
• Transport of western coal trains or pipelines
Limestone scrubbing systems
Oil desulfurization facility
Particulate control: Electristatic precipitator
Nitrogen oxide control: Combustion modifications
Thermal pollution control: Closed-cycle cooling system
Coal gasification or liquefaction plant
Coal preparation facility
0.06
4.0
0.2
3 to 6
4 to 10
35 to 40
15 to 40
0.5 to 2.0
1.98
3.0 to 5.5
M).0
0.1 to 0.3
0 to 0.6
1.0
1.3
1.0 to 4.0
2.0 to 4.5
<0.04 to 0.2
0.5
0.0
5
0.1
Small.
Small.
0
0.0 to 1.1
0.77 to 1.26
0.2 to 0.5
0.15
0.02C
Negligible.
Negligible.
b
Data from Reference 3.
bA value was not determined, but the process cannot be assumed to be unimportant.
°This value is incorrectly listed as 0.2 in Reference 3.
25
-------
TABLE 9. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR NONREGENERABLE
FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS9
System
Plant
Energy requirement,
percent of
plant fuel input
Reheat
Process
Total
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Nonregenerable
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Molten carbonate
Nonregenerable
Will County
Unidentified
Unidentified
Will County
Detroit Edison
Widows Creek
New unit
Existing unit
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
New unit
Existing unit
Unidentified
Unidentified
1
1
3
2
5
3
1
1
.5
.6
.9
.5
.4
.2
_b
-
-
.5
.6
-
-
-
-
4
2
4
4
4
1
3
1
<1
.0
.3
.7
.0
.1
.7
-
-
-
.5
.9
-
-
-
5
3
8
6
9
4
3
3
1.5
5
3
3
4
3
.5
.9
.6
.5
.5
.9
.4
.9
to
.0
.5
.3
.0
-
to
4
6
Data from Reference 3.
Dashes indicate reference listed only total percentages.
A detailed breakdown of the energy required for both lime and
limestone scrubbing [as compiled in the ERT study (3)] is pre-
sented in Table 10. In addition to the somewhat high values for
inplant energy noted above, the values for preparation of fix-
ating agent appear to be high. The value for lime scrubbing is
about one-third of the energy required for preparation of the
control chemical. It has been suggested that 10% of the energy
for control chemical preparation is a more appropriate value for
preparation of fixating agent (personal communication from
E. L. Plyler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, January 14, 1977).
Regenerable scrubbing processes are an alternative to the throw-
away or nonregenerable processes. The inplant energy require-
ments of a number of different regenerable and throwaway proc-
esses are compared in Table 11. This table is based on data
given by Rochelle (19) and a recent study performed by Radian
Corp. for the Electric Power Research Institute (32) . Regener-
able processes require additional inplant energy for operation of
sulfur recovery units. On the other hand, nonregenerable proc-
esses require more preplant and postplant energy for production
26
-------
TABLE 10. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR LIME AND LIMESTONE
FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS
Energy requirement,
percent of
plant fuel input
Component
Preplant:
Control chemical:
Extraction
Preparation
Transport
Inplant :
Reheat
Equipment
Postplant :
Fixating agent:
Extraction
Preparation
Transport
Fixated sludge: Transport
Total
Lime
0.054
1.98
0.085
1.5
3.5
0.017
0.64
0.027
0.082
7.9
Limestone
0.063
0.0
0.195
1.5
4.0
0.029
1.09
0.046
0.093
7.0
a
Data from Reference 3.
TABLE 11. OPERATING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR
FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION PROCESSES
Energy requirement,
percent of plant fuel input
Process
Throwaway scrubbing:
Limestone scrubbing
Lime scrubbing
Double alkali
Chigoda (dilute sulfuric acid)
Regenerable scrubbing (to sulfur) :
Wellman-Lord (sodium sulfite)
Magnesium oxide
Ammonia-ammonium bisulfate
Citrate
Stone & Webster/Ionics (sodium hydroxide)
Catalytic/IFP (ammonia)
Atomics International (aqueous carbonate)
Sulfoxel
Dry processes:
Catalytic oxidation
Copper adsorbtion
Westvaco (activated carbon)
Bergbau-Forschung/Foster Wheeler (char)
From
Power
2.2
1.9
2.2
2.2
4.5
2.2
1.9
2.0
7.6
-
2.0
2.0
2.0
Reference 19
Fuel
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
5.6
5.1
3.1
3.1
-
3.1
3.2
5.5
Total
inplant
3.8
3.5
3.8
3.8
7.6
7.8
7.0
5.1
10.7
-
5.1
5.2
7.5
From
Power
2.2
2.2
—
—
2.4
1.8
5.4
1.6
7.0
1.8
2.0
2.6
1.2
2.6
1.6
Reference 32
Fuel
1.5
1.4
—
—
5.5
7.9
4.3
4.7
3.9
6.3
4.3
0.1
12.1
6.3
6.8
Total
inplant
3.7
3.6
—
—
7.9
9.7
9.7
6.3
10.9
8.1
6.3
2.7
13.3
8.9
8.4
NOTE.—Dashes indicate data not presented in source
27
-------
of chemicals and sludge disposal. In addition, the regenerable
processes should receive an energy credit for the product pro-
duced (either sulfur or sulfuric acid), provided there is a
market for it. Otherwise, energy is required for disposal. It
appears that several of the regenerable and dry processes
(citrate, aqueous carbonate, sulfoxel, and catalytic oxidation)
may be competitive with the throwaway processes in terms of total
energy requirements.
Unit energy requirements for powerplant thermal pollution control
using mechanical forced-draft cooling towers are given in
Table 12 as a function of plant type and plant size. These
values were obtained from the DSI study (2).
TABLE 12. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL,
FORCED-DRAFT COOLING TOWERS FOR
POWERPLANT THERMAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Energy requirement,
Plant size, percent of plant output
MW Fossil-fueled plants Nuclear plants
50
150
500
900
1,500
3,000
3.2
3.1
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.7
4.2
4.1
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.3
Data from Reference 2; draft report subject to
revision.
Energy requirements of gas absorption equipment for general scrub-
bing applications have been published by Teller (24) and are
reproduced in Figure 1. These data are based on 90°F scrubbing
liquid and emission levels not less than 1 part per million (ppm).
Data on energy requirements for particulate control devices have
been assembled by Teller (24) and by Stukel and Rigo (33) . Their
data are reproduced in Figures 2 and 3.
Stukel and Rigo also calculated the theoretical minimum (reversi-
ble) energy required to separate particulate matter and SO2 from
stack gases. They defined the thermodynamic effectiveness of the
control process to be the ratio of the reversible work required
to the actual work required; that is,
Effectiveness = "reversible (4)
actual
28
-------
LOW
SOLUBILITY
GASES
HIGH
SOLUBILITY
GASES
C02
CI2
CI02
S02
HF
SiF4
HCI
§O_
_i~ ~
£3 f= £
fV 1 C t/1
^35 5
LU :T; LU
£g ^ Si—
n
cc:
LU
1 —
^
"
o:
.
£
i
cc
o:
(_j
LU
ACKED COUN
°-
t/i
i —
DC
O -^
UJ
I —
|
O
LU
O
£
Qi
UJ
j
I—
o:
| 1
Od
t~
S
2
ct:
^_j
a:
O
o
U-I
£
U-I
s
] SPRAYT(
(S) SADDLES
(T) TELLERETTES
(P) PROPRIETARY
—
UJ
>
5
POWER REQUIREMENTS, HP/1000 dm
10
20
Figure 1. Energy requirements for gas absorption equipment (24)
0.01
0.1
10-
100
o^ ,
E'
-
t
UJ
ce
ce
|
1
'"
P CAPABLE OF GAS ABSORPTION
(S) SADDLES
(T) TELLERETTES
0.5
20
POWER REQUIREMENTS, HP/l£KX)cfm
Figure 2. Energy requirements for particulate
control devices (24).
29
-------
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY,
10
75
90 95
0.1
T
98
T"
99
—r~
99.5
—I—
99.95
—I—
99.99
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
FABRIC FILTER
DINGLE CYCLONE //ELECTROSTATIC
,// PERCIPITATOR
_L
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
100-7;
Figure 3. Energy requirements for particulate control (33).
The principal contributions to the reversible work are the
kinetic energy of the species being separated and the work of
unmixing, which is equal to the product of process temperature
and the entropy of unmixing. The thermodynamic effectiveness of
all flue-gas treatment techniques is extremely low, as shown in
Figure 4 for particulate matter and in Table 13 for SO2- The
latter values correspond to S02 removal efficiencies of 90%
(lower value) to 95% (higher value). A value of 2.9% for the
effectiveness of limestone scrubbers was calculated in the Michi-
gan study (4), which is in good agreement with the values listed
in Table 13.
A large number of data, obtained by Smith (38) on electrical
energy consumption by municipal wastewater treatment plants, are
summarized in Figure 5. The data show that the electrical energy
required for primary treatment is 0.2 to 0.4 kWh/1,000 gal. For
secondary treatment, the requirement is 0.4 to 0.7 kWh/1,000 gal
for trickling filter plants, and 0.9 to 1.1 kWh/1,000 gal for
activated sludge plants.
Similar data for a number of tertiary treatment trains, also from
Smith (28) , are given in Table 14 and Figure 6. The energy
30
-------
75
0.1
o
o
a
0.01
0.001
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, ij
90 95 98 99 99.5 99.98
T
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
T
T
SINGLE
CYCLONE
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
10
100
1,000
100-7?
99.99
FILTER
10,000
100,000
Figure 4. Thermodynamic effectiveness of
particulate control devices (33).
TABLE 13. THERMODYNAMIC EFFECTIVENESS OF SO2 CONTROL TECHNIQUES*
Effectiveness,
Control method
Throwaway processes:
Limestone scrubbing 2.2 to 2.4
Lime scrubbing 2.4 to 2.6
Sulfuric acid scrubbing 2.2 to 2.4
Regenerable processes:
Sodium bisulfate/bisulfite
Magnesium oxide
Electrochemical sodium hydroxide regeneration
NH3—bisulfate
Dry processes:
Catalytic oxidation
Copper adsorption
1.1 to 1.2
1.1 to 1.2
0.8 to 0.9
1.7 to 1.8
1.6 to 1.8
1.1 to 1.2
a
Data from Reference 33.
31
-------
100.000
PLANT DESIGN CAPACITY, million gallons/day
Figure 5. Electrical energy requirements for municipal
wastewater treatment plants (28).
TABLE 14. ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL POWER CONSUMPTION FOR ALTERNATIVE
TERTIARY TREATMENT TRAINS AFTER SECONDARY TREATMENT3
Treatment train
Advanced processes used
Microscreening
Alum addition and extra sludge handling
Lime clarification
Lime sludge dewatering
Lime recalcination
Recarbonation
Ammonia stripping
Nitrification
Denitrification
Multimedia filtration
Granular carbon adsorption
Carbon regeneration
Blectrodialysis
Reverse osmosis
Total power consumption, kWh/day
I
115
—
—
-
-
—
-
=-
-
-
-
-
-
-
115
II
_b
101
—
-
-
—
-
638
10
-
-
-
-
749
III
_
101
—
-
-
—
-
638
10
100
-
-
-
-
849
XV
_
—
52
64
254
—
-
—
-
100
-
-
-
-
470
V
_
—
52
64
254
—
-
—
_
100
371
20
-
-
861
VI
_
—
52
64
254
—
-
—
_
100
371
20
1,341
-
2,202
VII
_
—
—
-
-
—
-
_
_
100
_
_
_
5,903
6,003
VIII
_
—
52
64
254
94
437
_
_
100
371
20
_
-
1,302
aData from Reference 28.
Dashes indicate that the treatment train does not include the given processes.
32
-------
100.000
g
£
o
2
10,000 -
NOTE: I. II. III.IV. &VIII
REFER TO SPECIFIC TREATMENT TRAINS
. . . . I
PLANT DESIGN CAPACITY, million gallons/day
Figure 6. Electrical energy requirements for tertiary
wastewater treatment trains (28). NOTE.—I,
II, III, IV, and VIII refer to specific
treatment trains defined in Table 13.
required is highly dependent, on the particular train of processes
employed. The electrical energy requirements range from about
0.11 kWh/1,000 gal for Train I (microscreening) to 6 kWh/1,000
gal for Train VII (multimedia filtration and reverse osmosis).
These values are in addition to the energy required for primary
and secondary treatment. Additional data taken from the NCWQ
study (10) on advanced treatment techniques are summarized in
Table 15.
33
-------
TABLE 15. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNIQUES'
Technology
Technology capability
Energy and other
requirements
State of development
Membrane technologies:
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Electrodialysis
(including other elec-
tromembrane processes)
Adsorption
(mainly ion exchange)
co Evaporation
•^ (including vapor
compression)
High gradient magnetic
separation
Filter-coalescence
Wet oxidation
Ozonation
Land treatment
Removes dissolved materials of all sorts. ^8 kWh/1,000 gal.
Removes large dissolved molecules,
colloidal and suspended solids.
Removes only dissolved ionic species.
Removes dissolved salts and other
dissolved compounds.
Removes nonvolatile contaminants.
Removes suspended material, preferably
magnetic material.
Removes oil.
Destroys COD, phenols, cyanides, etc.
Destroys COD, disinfects.
Removes biodegradable solids, BOD,
and nutrients.
•x-8 kWh/1,000 gal.
VLO kWh/1,000 gal.
Approximately one-third of
the cost is chemicals.
400 to 1,700 Btu/gal .
62 to 87 kWh/1,000 gal
(for vapor compression).
MJ.7 kWh/1,000 gal
(depends on size).
M).l kWh/1,000 gal.
Depends on COD removal,
M).34 kWh/lb COD.
•x-9 kWh/1,000 gal.
Large land areas. 0.5 to
0.8 kWh/1,000 gal .
Demonstration, semi-commercial.
Demonstration, semi-commercial.
Commercial for potable water,
demonstration for wastewater.
Commercial for potable water
and boiler feed;
demonstration for wastewater.
Commercial.
Laboratory.
Demonstration.
Commercial.
Commercial for potable water,
demonstration for wastewater.
Full scale, very site specific.
Data from Reference 10; draft report subject to revision.
This amount of energy would, at 40% efficiency, be used to generate 47 to 200 kWh/1,000 gal.
For spray irrigation; other methods have lower requirements.
-------
SECTION 5
DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
The various relationships that exist among the data presented in
the previous section are obscured by the scatter in the estimated
energy requirements and by the diversity of assumptions on which
the estimates are based. Hence, a single set of relatively con-
sistent data was extracted from the information given in
Section 3. A combination of the DSI (2) data for 1977 and the
EEI (22) data was selected as representing the best combination
of consistency and accuracy. In the following sections, these
data are used to determine the distribution of pollution control
energy requirements among pollution control sectors and pollut-
ants. The distribution within the industrial sector is then
determined on the basis of 1) estimates of energy required for
pollution contol and 2) pollutant emissions.
DISTRIBUTION AMONG SECTORS
Estimates of the energy required for pollution control in 1977 are
listed by sector in Table 16. Each of the given values requires
some explanation.
TABLE 16. ENERGY REQUIRED FOR 1977 POLLUTION CONTROL, BY SECTOR3
Energy required,
1015 Btu e
Sector
Industry
Air
Water
Total
Power plants*
Air
Thermal
Total
Municipal wastewater treatment
Municipal solid waste disposal
Total
Nominal
value
_b
0.65
0.35
1.0
-
0.19
0.15
0.34
0.27
0.1
1.7
Estimated for
error bounds at
-
-
0.5 to 2.0
-
0.10 to 0.38
0.07 to 0.29
0.17 to 0.68
0.09 to 0.54
0.05 to 0.15
0.8 to 3.4
Percent of total
nergy requirement
pollution control
stationary sources
58
=
~
-
20
~
16
6
100
Percent of total
U.S. energy
requirement in 1977
1.3
-
0.4
-
-
0.4
0.1
2.2
revision.
bDashes indicate that a value was not determined or does not apply.
35
-------
The value of 1.0 quad for the industrial sector was obtained by
rounding the EEI value of 0.88 quad. The value was rounded
upward to take into account forms of energy other than electrical,
since the EEI estimate includes only electrical energy. Few data
are available on the fraction of industrial pollution control
energy supplied by electricity. Data on water pollution control
from six major industries given in Reference 10 yield values
ranging from 80% to 100%, with the exception of petroleum refin-
ing. The value for the latter industry is 42% because of large
fossil fuel use for sour water stripping. Values for air pollu-
tion control may be somewhat lower since about 30% of the energy
required for flue-gas desulfurization may be nonelectrical energy
used for flue-gas reheating. On the other hand, the ERT study
(3) states that electrical energy accounts for 88% of the total
energy consumption for flue-gas scrubbing. Using this value
together with a breakdown of energy requirement by air pollutant
type (see following subsection), a value of 81% was estimated for
the fraction of industrial air pollution control energy supplied
by electricity. Using this value for air pollution control and
assuming an electrical fraction of 90% for water pollution con-
trol, an estimate of 84% for the fraction of total industrial
pollution control energy supplied by electricity was obtained.
This rather crude estimate agrees well with the value of 88%
which results from rounding the EEI energy requirement to 1.0
quad.
The error bounds given for the industrial sector were obtained by
assigning a factor of 2 accuracy to the EEI data. That these
bounds are reasonable, and probably conservative, can be seen as
follows. The EEI (22) survey data for 1971 yield a value of 0.41
quad, which should be a very conservative lower bound. Hence,
the lower bound of 0.5 quad appears to be reasonable. According
to the 1971 EEI data, 6.5% of all industrial electrical consump-
tion is for pollution control. Assuming, as above, that approxi-
mately 90% of industrial pollution control energy is electrical,
the total energy consumed for industrial pollution control is
7.2% of industrial electricity consumption. This value was
increased to 10% to allow for increased pollution control activ-
ity from 1971 to 1977.
Electricity accounts for less than one-half the total energy
consumed by industry (34) . Therefore, industrial energy consump-
tion for pollution control should be less than 5% (1/2 x 10%) of
total industrial energy consumption. The fraction of total U.S.
energy consumption used by the industrial sector is generally
quoted as 30% to 40% (1, 35). Assuming a value of 78 quads for
total U.S. consumption in 1977 yields a total industrial energy
consumption of 23 to 30 quads. Taking 5% of this consumption
yields an upper bound of 1.2 to 1.5 quads for industrial pollu-
tion control energy consumption. Thus the upper bound of 2.0
quads for the industrial pollution control energy requirement
appears to be reasonable and conservative.
36
-------
The values in Table 16 for industrial air and water pollution
control were obtained by apportioning the total of 1.0 quad to
agree with the air/water ratio corresponding to the DSI data (2)
and (approximately) with the NCWQ (10) value for water pollution
control (see Table 3, Section 4).
The value given in Table 16 for air pollution control at power
plants was taken from the DSI study (2). A factor of two was
used to obtain the error bounds. These are believed to be con-
servative in view of the good agreement among the estimates for
the mid-1980's displayed in Table 3 and the fact that estimates
for 1977 should be more accurate than those for the 1980's.
For powerplant thermal pollution control, the DSI (2) incremental
(above the baseline) value of 0.086 quad in 1977 was used. The
baseline value was estimated using the ERT (3) estimate of 0.03
quad for fossil-fueled plants in 1974. It was assumed that
nuclear plants contribute the same amount, 0.03 quad, to the
baseline value. This yielded an estimate of 0.06 quad for the
baseline value, and a total (incremental plus baseline) energy
requirement of 0.146 quad, which was rounded to 0.15 quad. A
factor of two accuracy was assumed to obtain the error bounds.
This factor for the error bounds is based on the agreement of the
various estimates for 1983 listed in Table 2. The variation in
estimates for 1977 should be much less, since there is less
uncertainty about the capacity requiring control. However, this
improvement is offset by the uncertainty in the baseline value.
The value listed for municipal wastewater treatment plants is
based on the EEI (22) figure of 0.19 quad in 1977 and the ratio
of electrical energy to total energy of 71% obtained in the
Michigan study (4). It was shown previously that a factor of 2
yields reasonable error bounds for the EEI data. This factor was
used to obtain the upper bound of 0.54 quad, and a factor of 3
was used for the lower bound. A higher factor was used for the
lower bound because the EEI estimate is the highest of the values
given in Table 5. The lower bound of 0.09 quad is then in the
range of the lower estimates in Table 5.
The value of 0.1 quad for municipal solid waste disposal was
obtained'by rounding the values for landfilling listed in Table 6.
The values were rounded upward as an extrapolation from 1970-73
to 1977. The error bounds were estimated based on the range of
unit energy requirements for landfilling solid waste given by
Hirst (8).
The total energy required for pollution control in all sectors is
found to be 1.7 quad, with estimated error bounds of 0.8 quad to
3.4 quad. The nominal value of 1.7 quad represents approximately
2% of total U.S. energy consumption, with a range of 1% to about
4%. These values represent operating energy requirements only.
Energy required for fabrication and installation of pollution
37
-------
control equipment (both new and replacement parts) is not
included. According to data in Table 7, capitalization energy
requirements, exclusive of replacement parts, would add an
additional 0.2 quad to the total.
A comparison of pollution control energy requirements for 1985 is
presented in Table 17. These data are less consistent and less
reliable than the corresponding data in Table 16. In particular,
no satisfactory estimate of energy required for industrial air
pollution control is available. The value of 1.0 quad was
obtained by extrapolation from the 1977 value of 0.65 quad
(Table 16), assuming an annual growth rate of 5%. The very
speculative nature of these estimates notwithstanding, the data
indicate that energy requirements for pollution control at
stationary sources in 1985 will amount to between 2% and 3% of
total U.S. energy consumption in 1985.
DISTRIBUTION AMONG POLLUTANTS
The 1977 data from the previous section are regrouped according
to pollutant type in Table 18. An additional calculation was
required to apportion the energy for industrial air pollution
control among the various pollutants. The DSI (2) breakdown of
energy requirement by control device was used to obtain the
following split: SOX, 58%; particulate matter, 26%; others (NOX,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide), 16%.
TABLE 17. ENERGY REQUIRED FOR 1985 POLLUTION CONTROL, BY SECTOR3
Energy Percent of total energy Percent of total
required, requirement for pollution U.S. energy
Sector 10rs Btu control at stationary sources requirement in 1985
Industry
Air
Hater
Total
Powerplants
Air
Thermal
Total
Municipal wastewater treatment
Municipal solid waste disposal
Total
-b 65
1.0
0.8
1.8
22
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.35 13.
o.oc oc
2.8 100
1.8
_
-
0.6
_
_
0.4
0
2.7
aPart of the information contained in this table is based on draft reports, which are subject
to revision. J
Dashes indicate that a value was not determined or does not apply.
clt is assumed that energy recovery from incineration and recycling will offset the enerov
required for collection, transportation, and landfilling.
38
-------
TABLE 18. ENERGY REQUIRED FOR 1977 POLLUTION
CONTROL, BY POLLUTANT9
Pollutant type
Energy required,
1015 Btu
Percent of total energy
requirement for pollution
control at stationary sources
Water (chemical and biological) -
Industry 0.35
Municipal treatment plants 0.27
Power plants Negligible
Total 0.62
Sulfur oxides
Industry 0.38
Power plants 0.18
Total 0.56
Particulate matter
Industry 0.17
Power plants 0.01
Total 0.18
Thermal
Power plants 0.15
Industry Negligible
Total 0.15
Other air pollutants
Industry 0.10
Power plants Negligible
Total 0.10
Municipal solid waste 0.10
Total 1•7
36
33
10
6
100
aPart of the information contained in this table is based on draft reports which
are subject to revision.
bDashes indicate that a value was not determined or does not apply.
From Table 18, the major energy requirements are for chemical and
biological water pollution control and control of sulfur oxides,
each of which accounts for about 35% of the total for pollution
control at stationary sources.
Note that these results are based on the use of combustion modi-
fication techniques for the control of NOX from combustion
sources. Essentially no energy penalty is associated with these
methods. However, if flue-gas treatment techniques for NOX are
required by future NOX standards, a significant energy penalty
could be incurred. For example, cost data on a sodium hypo-
chlorite scrubbing process developed by Stanford Research Insti-
tute (36), indicate an energy penalty of 2.3% to 3.5% of fuel
input. On the other hand, it is possible that such control
methods will be capable of controlling both NOX and SOx. In this
case, the additional energy penalty tor NOX control could be
relatively small.
39
-------
DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
The previous subsection showed (Table 16) that the industrial
sector accounts for approximately 60% of the energy required for
pollution control at stationary sources. In this section, the
distribution of pollution control energy requirements within the
industrial sector is given, and industries having a high prior-
ity in terms of reducing energy consumption for pollution control
are identified.
Distribution of Pollution Control Energy Requirements
Among SIC Categories
Energy requirements for industrial pollution control are given
according to the two-digit SIC [Standard Industrial Classifica-
tion (37)] scheme in both the DSI (2) and EEI (22) studies. The
1977 DSI data for water and air pollution control were combined
to obtain the total energy required for industrial pollution
control. The data are listed in order of decreasing energy
requirement in Table 19. A similar listing of the EEI data is
given in Table 20. Note that these two sets of data were
obtained by entirely different methods and are, therefore,
completely independent of each other.
TABLE 19. RANKED LISTING OF DSI DATA3
Percent of 1977 energy
requirement for pollution
SIC Name control in industrial sector Cumulative %
33
28
20
29
26
51
24
32
34
22
35
02
36
37
72
30
31
11/12
Primary metals
Chemicals and allied products
Food and kindred products
Petroleum and coal products
Paper and allied products
Grain handling
Lumber and products
Stone, clay, and glass products
Fabricated metal products
Textile mill products
Machinery, except electrical
Feedlots
Electrical machinery
Transportation equipment
Dry cleaning
Rubber and plastic products
Leather and leather products
Coal cleaning
36.0
15.4
11.3
7.2
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.4
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.1
36
51
63
70
75
80
85
89
91
93
95
96
97
98
99
100
100
100
a
Data from Reference 2; draft report subject to revision.
40
-------
TABLE 20. RANKED LISTING OF EEI DATA3
Percent of 1977 energy
requirement for pollution
SIC Name control in industrial sector Cumulative %
33
28
26
29
36
34
32
37
20
35
39
12
24
30
22
14
13
25
27
99
10
38
23
21
31
19
59
01
Primary metals
Chemicals and allied products
Paper and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Electrical equipment
Fabricated metal products
Stone, clay, and glass products
Transportation equipment
Food and kindred products
Machinery, except electrical
Miscellaneous manufactures
Coal and lignite mining
Lumber and products
Rubber and plastic products
Textile mill products
Mining, nonmetallic minerals
Oil and gas extraction
Furniture and fixtures
Printing and publishing
Nonclassifiable
Metal mining
Instruments and related products
Apparel and related products
Tobacco manufactures
Leather and leather products
Ordnances and accessories
Retail stores
Agriculture
36.5
15.0
12.6
8.7
7.0
4.3
3.6
3.5
2.1
1.6
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37
52
64
73
80
84
88
91
93
95
96
97
98
99
99
99
99
100
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
aData from Reference 22.
The four industrial categories shown in Table 21 appear in the
top five on both lists in Tables 19 and 20.
TABLE 21. INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES IN TOP FIVE
OF BOTH DSI AND EEI RANKINGS
SIC
33-
28
26
29
Name
Primary metals
Chemicals and allied products
Paper and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Total
Percent
DSI
36.0
15.4
5.1
7.2
63.7
Percent
EEI
36.5
15.0
12.6
8.7
72.8
The seven categories shown in Table 22 are in the top ten on both
lists in Tables 19 and 20.
41
-------
TABLE 22. INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES IN TOP TEN OF
BOTH DSI AND EEI RANKINGS
SIC
33
28
26
29
34
32
20
Name
Primary metals
Chemicals and allied products
Paper and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Fabricated metal products
Stone, clay, and glass products
Food and kindred products
Total
Percent
DSI
36.0
15.4
5.1
7.2
2.0
4.4
11.3
81.4
Percent
EEI
36.5
15.0
12.6
8.7
4.3
3.6
2.1
82.8
The conclusion can be drawn that the industries within these
seven categories account for approximately 80% of the total
energy required for pollution control within the industrial
sector. This amount is equivalent to approximately 50% of the
energy required for pollution control at all stationary sources.
The primary metals industry alone accounts for approximately 36%
of the industrial total. Assuming the total is 1.0 quad (see
Table 15), the value for primary metals is 0.36 quad. This is
essentially the same as the value for power plants listed in
Table 16 (0.34 quad).
In general, the two-digit SIC categories include a rather broad
range of industries. For this reason, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories (38) performed a resolution of the EEI data to four-
digit SIC categories. The pollution control energy in each two-
digit category was apportioned among the four-digit categories
according to the ratio of total energy consumption of the four-
digit category to that of the two-digit category. Clearly, this
method is not strictly valid, but it does provide additional
insight into the distribution of pollution control energy across
the industrial sector.
A ranked listing of the EEI data based on the Battelle resolution
is given in Appendix B. Since the Battelle study did not include
the primary metals industry (SIC 33), this category was added to
the Battelle listing, as were a number of other minor categories.
Values of total energy consumption obtained from the Census of
Manufactures (39) were used to apportion the pollution control
energy among the four-digit categories.
Some idea of the validity of the Battelle resolution can be
obtained from the following two examples. Assuming a total energy
requirement for industrial pollution control of 1.0 quad (see
Distribution Among Sectors), the Battelle method gives a value
42
-------
of 0.26 quad for the iron and steel industry. That is, the
latter industry alone accounts for 70% of the total 0.365 quad in
the primary metals category (SIC 33). The estimate given for the
iron and steel industry in Reference 40 is 0.32 quad, based on
1973 production and compliance with 1983 Federal regulations.
The two estimates agree to within 20%. On the other hand, the
primary aluminum industry is a very energy-intensive industry
that requires relatively little energy for pollution control. An
estimate based on data from a study by A. D. Little, Inc. (41)
gives a value of 5 x 1010 Btu/yr for pollution control in the
primary aluminum industry, while the Battelle method yields
2.3 x 1013 Btu/yr—about 500 times greater.
Finally, it is of interest to note that of the 13 industries
selected for in-depth studies by A. D. Little (41-53), only the
textile industry (7) does not belong to one of the top seven two-
digit SIC categories given above.
Other Indicators of Potential Energy Consumption for
Pollution Control
According to the data in Table 16, air pollution control accounts
for 65% of the energy required for industrial pollution control.
From Table 18, control of sulfur oxides and particulate matter
accounts for nearly 50% of the energy required for pollution
control at stationary sources. Thus an alternative method of
identifying industries that are potentially large consumers of
energy for pollution control is based on emissions of sulfur
oxides and particulate matter.
Ranked listings of industrial sources of sulfur oxides and parti-
culate emissions (including powerplants) are given in Tables 23
and 24. These listings were obtained from Monsanto Research
Corporation's computerized source assessment data base (54). The
data base contains emissions data on more than 600 stationary
sources and is periodically updated as part of the EPA source
assessment program. The listings given in Tables 23 and 24 were
terminated when the percentage of total mass emissions became
less than 10~5. In addition, certain open sources and residen-
tial sources were omitted from the listings. For this reason,
the totals* do not add to 100%. The May 1976 total mass of emis-
sions in the data base is 6.84 x 1010 kg/yr for sulfur oxides and
1.82 x 1010 kg/yr for particulate matter.
The source assessment data base is incomplete in the area of
metallurgical operations. For this reason, copper smelting (an
important source of SOX emissions) does not appear in Table 23.
Copper smelting is estimated to account for 8% to 9% of total
sSv emissions in the United States (personal communication from
E. L Plyie?? U?S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 14,
1977).
43
-------
TABLE 23. INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF SOX EMISSIONS
Source
Percent of total
SOX emissions in
data basea'°
Oil-fired industrial/commercial boilers
Coal-fired steam electric utilities
Coal-fired industrial/commercial boilers
Oil-fired steam electric utilities
Cement
Natural gas processing
Petroleum refining—catalytic cracking
Hood processing—sulfite process
Petroleum refining—crude distillation
Coke manufacture
Industrial/commercial space heating
Fuel burning engines—reciprocating
Brick kilns and driers
Petroleum refining—vacuum distillation
Wood processing—Kraft or sulfate process
Petroleum refining—flares
Sulfuric acid
Pig iron production
Primary lead smelting and refining
Petroleum refining—sulfur plant
Glass industry
Secondary lead smelting and refining
Barium carbonate
Municipal incineration
Mineral wool
Fuel burning engines—turbine
Asphalt paving—hot mix
Incineration of "Type 1" waste
Incineration of "Type 6" waste
Primary zinc smelting
Barium sulfate—pigment
Wood processing—Neutral sulfite semi-chemical
Petroleum refining—asphalt plant
Petroleum refining—catalytic reforming
Petroleum refining—catalytic hydroefining (HDS)
Gas-fired industrial/commercial boilers
Incineration of "Type 2" waste
Refuse incineration/pyrolysis—steam generation
Incineration of "Type 0" waste
Carbon disulfide
Phthalic anhydride—o-xylene
Sodium silicates
Sewage sludge incineration
Calcium carbide
Explosives burning
Polystyrene resin
Vitreous kaolin products
Gas-fired steam electric utilities
Open burning of industrial waste
Cyclohexane
Amino resins
Incineration of "Type 3" waste
Dimethyl terephthalate
Carbon black—furnace
Leather
Asphalt paving—dryer drum process
Coal cleaning plants—thermal drying
Sodium sulfite
Naphthalene—coal tar
Sodium chromate and sodium dichromate
Hospital waste incineration
Gas-fired air conditioning
M-xylene
Nitrocellulose
Polysulfide rubber
Petroleum refining—aromatics/isomerization
Petroleum refining--alkylation
Isocyanates
Chromium oxide—inorganic pigment
Electrical equipment winding reclamation
51.60000
27.00000
4.90000
4.07000
1.08000
0.83500
0.71500
0.59200
0.40700
0.23600
0.21500
0.21200
0.20700
0.14700
0.09610
0.09090
0.08270
0.08040
0.06140
0.04210
0.03860
0.03210
0.02970
0.02770
0.02470
0.01640
0.01490
0.01220
0.00879
0.00840
0.00720
0.00712
0.00695
0.00501
0.00368
0.00359
0.00336
0.00318
0.00293
0.00242
0.00218
0.00191
0.00166
0.00162
0.00157
0.00142
0.00131
0.00122
0.00120
0.00113
0.00113
0.00094
0.00082
0.00065
0.00064
0.00042
0.00035
0.00029
0.00029
0.00010
0.00009
0.00008
0.00005
0.00004
0.00003
0.00003
0.00002
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
The data base is incomplete in the area of metallurgical
operations, since these operations were originally outside the
scope of the data base.
Percentages are reproduced from computer printouts without
rounding; no inference regarding accuracy of the data should be
made on the basis of these listings.
44
-------
TABLE 24. INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Source
Percent of total
SO emissions in
xdata basea>b
Coal-fired steam electric utilities
Oil-fired industrial/commercial boilers
Coal-fired industrial/commercial boilers
Cement
Steel production
Lime kilns
Wood processing—kraft and sulfate process
Municipal incineration
Coke manufacture
Mineral wool
Primary aluminum production
Ferroalloy production
Refractories
Charcoal manufacture
Malt beverage production
Gypsum
Wood waste incineration
Oil-fired steam electric utilities
Gas-fired industrial/commercial boilers
Aluminum oxide—alumina
Incineration of "Type 1" waste
Industrial/commercial space heating
Asphalt paving—hot mix
Secondary aluminum production
Petroleum refining—catalytic cracking
Incineration of "Type 6" waste
Petroleum refining—crude distillation
Incineration of "Type 2" waste
Ammonium nitrate
Wood processing—sulfite process
Glass industry
Ammonium phosphates
Potash—potassium salts
Asphalt roofing
Polyvinyl chloride
Gas-fired steam electric utilities
Phosphate rock—drying, grinding, calcining
Vitreous kaolin products
Nylon 66
Soap and detergents
Fuel-burning engines—reciprocating
Fuel-burning engines—turbine
Sewage sludge incineration
Open burning of industrial waste
Wet corn milling
Petroleum refining—vacuum distillation
Refuse incineration/pyrolysis—steam generation
Calcium carbide
Incineration of "Type 0" waste
Ammonium sulfate
Nylon 6
Sodium carbonate—natural
Incineration of "Type 3" waste
Coal cleaning plants—thermal drying
Zinc oxide—pigment
Calcium chloride
Cotton gins
Vegetable oil milling
Superphosphate—normal
Cottonseed oil milling
Steel foundries
See footnotes at end of table, p. 47.
45
33.30000
19.90000
6.51000
4.82000
2.89000
1.71000
1.52000
1.25000
1.20000
0.91500
0.79400
0.75900
0.73400
0.62700
0.59600
0.54600
0.52600
0.46600
0.42700
0.30900
0.27500
0.26400
0.26300
0.24100
0.22800
0.19800
0.19100
0.15200
0.14400
0.13700
0.13600
0.13300
0.13000
0.12700
0.11900
0.11500
0.11300
0.11100
0.10500
0.10100
0.09830
0.09690
0.07470
0.07210
0.07190
0.06890
0.06690
0.06680
0.06610
0.06020
0.04990
0.04560
0.04260
0.03980
0.03890
0.03780
0.03760
0.03550
0.03530
0.03380
0.03280
(continued)
-------
TABLE 24 (continued)
Source
Percent of total
.SO emissions in
data basea'b
Petroleum refining—asphalt plant
Sodium tripolyphosphate
Primary copper smelting
Sugar processing
Carbon black—furnace
Titanium dioxide—pigment
Primary lead smelting and refining
Magnesium compounds—carbonate, chloride, oxide
and hydroxide
Distilled liquor
Abrasive products
Hydrofluoric acid
Brick kilns and dryers
Sodium sulfate—natural process only
Fertilizers—bulk blending plants
Boric acid and borax—sodium tetraborate
Urea
Perlite manufacturing
Fertilizer mixing—ammoniation—granulation
plants
Gas-fired air conditioning
Secondary lead smelting and refining
Petroleum refining—catalytic reforming
Phosphoric acid—thermal process
Incineration of "Type 5" waste
Sodium carbonate—synthetic
Solvent evaporation—surface coating—auto painting
Exfoliated vermiculite
Asphalt paving—dryer drum process
Aluminum sulfate
Petroleum refining—catalytic hydrorefining (HDS)
Covered wire incineration
Zinc galvanizing operations
Sodium silicates
Coal-cleaning plants—pneumatic
Calcium phosphate
Tobacco
Sodium sulfide
Dimethyl terephthalate
Polyethylene resin—low density
Amino resins
Cumene
Adipic acid
Fruit and vegetable canning
Food preparation
Asbestos products
Aluminum hydroxide
Drum incineration
Paint manufacturing
Leather
Fruit and vegetable freezing
Explosives burning
Potassium sulfate
Isocyanates
Electrical equipment winding reclamation
Calcium carbonate
Polystyrene resin
Autobody incineration
Printing ink
Incineration of "Type 4" waste
Sodium sulfite
See footnotes at end of table, p. 47.
46
0.03550
0.03130
0.03070
0.02990
0.02560
0.02350
0.01760
0.01670
0.01450
0.01420
0.01290
0.01280
0.01270
0.01210
0.01200
0.01150
0.01060
0.01030
0.01000
0.00945
0.00915
0.00839
0.00777
0.00776
0.00762
0.00749
0.00747
0.00661
0.00660
0.00598
0.00594
0.00527
0.00506
0.00443
0.00436
0.00430
0.00403
0.00329
0.00318
0.00315
0.00293
0.00284
0.00274
0.00267
0.00264
0.00261
0.00261
0.00242
0.00234
0.00204
0.00201
0.00198
0.00172
0.00165
0.00161
0.00143
0.00124
0.00122
0.00111
(continued)
-------
TABLE 24 (continued)
Source
Percent of total
SO emissions in
data basea>b
Fertilizer mixing — liquid mix plants
Sodium chlorate
Production of lead acid batteries
Sodium chromate and sodium dichromate
Cresol — synthetic
Phthalic anhydride — o-xylene
Carbon disulfide
Meat smokehouses
Miscellaneous sodium compounds
Styrene
Sodium hydrosulfite
Sodium thiosulfate — sodi.um hyposulfite
Cadmium pigments — cadmium sulfide, sulfoselenide,
lithopone
Lead oxide — red lead and litharge — pigments only
Iron chloride — ferric
Manganese sulfate
Copper sulfate — pentahydrate
Vinyl acetate — from acetylene
Zinc chloride — 50-degree Baume
Aluminum chloride — anhydrous
Lead carbonate and sulfate — white lead
Sulfated ethoxylates — AEOS
Potassium permanganate and manganese dioxide
Oxalic acid
Nickel sulfate
Arsenic trioxide
Cobalt compounds — acetate, carbonate, halides, etc.
Sodium nitrate
Sodium fluoride
Petroleum refining — aromatics/isomerization
Brake shoe debonding
Polyamide resins
Phthalic anhydride — naphthalene
Lindane
Barium sulfate — pigment
Acetic anhydride
Oxo-mixed linear alcohols
Oxo process
Lithium salts — lithium carbonate and lithium
hydroxide
Secondary magnesium smelting
Nickel compounds — except nickel sulfate
Sodium arsenite
Silver compounds — NO3, difluoride, f luoroborate ,
Tin compounds — halides, oxides, sulfates, others
Lead chromate — chrome yellow and orange
Petroleum refining — alkylation
Chromic acid
0.00099
0.00097
0.00085
0.00080
0.00072
0.00061
0.00061
0.00037
0.00031
0.00029
0.00023
0.00031
0.00020
0.00020
0.00019
0.00019
0.00019
0.00018
0.00018
0.00017
0.00015
0.00011
0.00010
0.00009
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
0.00004
0.00004
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00003
0.00002
0.00002
0.00002
0.00002
0.00002
0.00002
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
aThe data base is incomplete in the area of metallurgical opera-
tions, since these operations were originally outside the scope
of the data base.
bPercentages are reproduced from computer printouts without
rounding; no inference regarding accuracy of the data should be
made on the basis of these listings.
47
-------
The listings in Tables 23 and 24 represent estimates of actual
emissions; hence, no distinction is made between controlled and
uncontrolled emissions. In addition, the listings do not take
into account distributions of plant size and geographical
location.
However, the emissions are concentrated in so few sources that
these considerations are of minor importance. Thus industrial/
commercial boilers and steam electric utilities account for
nearly 90% of sulfur oxides emissions and over 60% of particulate
emissions. Industrial boilers account for approximately 68% of
sulfur oxides emissions and 85% of particulate emissions in the
industrial/commercial boiler category.
If it is assumed that the energy that will be required for control
of sulfur oxides is proportional to mass emissions of sulfur
oxides, the data in Table 23 can be used to show that 76% of the
energy required for industrial sulfur oxides control will be for
control of boiler emissions. The remaining 24% will be for con-
trol of nonboiler sources of sulfur oxides emissions. Thus, of
the 0.38 quad listed in Table 18 for control of sulfur oxides in
the industrial sector, 0.29 quad is associated with boiler emis-
sions and 0.09 quad is associated with control of other industrial
emission sources.
A similar estimate for particulate emissions indicates that 37%
of the industrial energy requirement for particulate control is
associated with boiler emissions. Thus, of the 0.17 quad listed
in Table 18 for control of particulate matter in the industrial
sector, 0.06 quad is associated with boiler emissions and 0.11
quad is associated with control of other industrial emission
sources.
The above value of 0.06 quad for control of particulate emissions
from industrial boilers can be compared with the value of 0.01
quad listed in Table 18 for control of particulate emissions from
electric power plants. Since the total annual mass of particulate
emissions from power plants is greater than that from industrial
boilers (according to Table 24), the above energy requirements
appear to be inconsistent. The discrepancy may simply be a
reflection of the rather crude approximations that were employed
to arrive at the value for industrial boilers. However,- there
are several factors that would tend to increase the energy
requirement for industrial boilers relative to utility boilers:
• The value of 0.01 quad for power plants is based on the DSI
(2) estimate which assumes that SO scrubbers will be used
for particulate control. Thus par£ of the energy required
for particulate control at power plants is charged against
SO control.
48
-------
• The DSI estimate assumes that powerplants not required
to use SOX scrubbers will employ electrostatic precipi-
tators for particulate control.. Precipitators have low
energy requirements relative to other particulate
control devices (see Figure 3). Smaller industrial
boilers, on the other hand, are more likely to employ
cyclones, bag filters, or wet scrubbers, which are more
energy intensive but less capital intensive than
precipitators.
• Industrial boilers tend to be operated less efficiently
than utility boilers. In particular, higher excess air
firing in industrial boilers may generate larger vol-
umes of flue gas to be treated and, hence, larger
energy requirements.
Total water intake can be used to estimate relative potential
energy requirements for water pollution control. A ranked listing
of total water intake by two-digit SIC categories is given in
Table 25. The good agreement with the rankings of the DSI and EEI
data (Tables 19 and 20) is evident. The primary metals industry
again tops the list. The iron and steel industry alone accounts
for 86% of the total water intake in the primary metals category
(10).
TABLE 25. INDUSTRIAL WATER INTAKE3
SIC
33
28
26
29
20
37
32
35
24
30
34
36
38
39
Percent of total
industrial
Name water intake
Primary metals
Chemicals and allied products
Paper and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Food and kindred products
Transportation equipment
Stone, clay, and glass products
Machinery, except electrical
Lumber and wood products
. Rubber and plastic products
Fabricated metal products
Electrical equipment supplies
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacture
32.9
27.8
16.1
8.6
5.4
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.1
Cumulative
percent
33
61
77
85
91
92
95
96
97
98
99
100
100
100
3Data from Reference 10; draft report subject to revision.
49
-------
SECTION 6
ALTERNATIVE POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES
The purpose of this section is to consider means by which pollu-
tion control objectives can be achieved while reducing the energy
required for control. The data contained in Figures 1, 2, and 3
provide some general guidelines for the selection of pollution
control equipment that will tend to minimize energy consumption.
However, the specification of less energy-intensive overall con-
trol strategies is highly dependent on the process to be control-
led. Hence this discussion is limited to those industries for
which in-depth analyses are available. Fortunately, this category
includes powerplants and the iron and steel industry, which
together account for approximately 40% of the energy required for
pollution control at stationary sources.
POWERPLANTS
Control of Sulfur Oxides
The ERT study (3) investigated the energy requirements for the
following seven S02 control scenarios:
1. Scrubber and low-sulfur fuel: Compliance through the use of
only low-sulfur fuel and scrubbers.
2. Coal washing; Coal washing used for high-sulfur coal wher-
ever it can replace scrubbers.
3. BACTt Pre-1975 units follow Scenario 1 and post-1974 units
apply "best available control technology," which is defined
as one-half of the oil desulfurized and one-half of the coal
washed, with all new units scrubbed.
4. SCS-LSA; Same as Scenario 1, except that supplementary con-
trol systems (SCS)a are permitted in low-sulfate areas (but
not in high-sulfate areas such as the East Coast).
Supplementary control systems are systems designed to temporar-
ily reduce pollutant emissions during periods of unfavorable
meteorological conditions to avoid exceeding ambient air quality
standards. In the case of SOX emissions from powerplants,
50
-------
5. SCS-E; Same as Scenario 1, but supplementary control sys-
tems are permitted everywhere.
6- Tall stacks-LSA; Same as Scenario 1, but post-1974 units
outside the East Coast and other high-sulfate States can
employ tall stacks.
7- Tall stacks-E: Same as Scenario 1, but post-1974 units can
employ tall stacks everywhere.
The effects of the following variables were studied:
• Type of control technology employed
• Air quality goal to be achieved
• Degree of plant conversion to coal
• Growth rate of the industry
The results of the calculations are shown in Table 26, with the
energy requirement expressed as percent of total 1983 fossil-fuel
energy input to all powerplants in the United States. The range
of values for Scenarios 3 through 7 results from varying the
latter two of the above variables (plant conversion and growth
rate). Compliance with primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards is assumed for the low-energy scenarios. For Sce-
narios 1 and 2, the latter three of the above variables are
responsible for the range of values in Table 26. The low values
are associated with compliance with primary air quality standards
only. The high values represent compliance with ambient air qual-
ity standards, new source performance standards, State implementa-
tion plans, and nondeterioration regulations.
The results in Table 26 indicate that significant energy savings
are possible through the use of supplementary control systems.
For example, the attainment of primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards by means of supplementary control systems
(Scenario 5) requires about one-half as much energy as is
required using scrubbers and low-sulfur fuel (Scenario 1). How-
ever, supplementary control systems are not capable of meeting
new source performance standards. In addition, they do not sig-
nificantly reduce atmospheric sulfate levels.
available techniques include switching from high-sulfur to low-
sulfur fuel (fuel switching) and importing electricity from
regions of the electric grid not affected by adverse meteoro-
logical conditions (load shifting).
51
-------
TABLE 26.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF POWERPLANT
S02 CONTROL SYSTEM SCENARIOS
Scenario
Energy requirements,
percent of total
fossil-fuel input
Low Average High
High-energy scenarios:
1.
2.
Scrubbers and low-sulfur fuel
Coal cleaning, some scrubbers, low-sulfur fuel
3. BACT
Low-energy scenarios :
4. SCS in low-sulfate areas
5. SCS everywhere
6. Tall stacks in low-sulfate areas
7. Tall stacks everywhere
2.2
3.2
6.7
2.2
1.4
2.2
1.8
3.8
4.8
7.1
2.4
1.6
2.4
1.9
5.5
6.4
7.5
2.5
1.8
2.4
2.1
Data from Reference 3.
Scenarios 1 and 2 energy requirement ranges based on attainment to varying
degrees of all air quality regulations.
C
Scenario 3 is based on BACT, which is defined for new units as ore-half of
all oil desulfurized, and scrubbers on new units. Old units comply with
Scenario 1.
d
Scenarios 4 through 7 based on attaining air quality standards but not new
source performance standards, State implementation plans, nondeterioration,
and BACT.
An examination of the unit energy requirements given in Section 4,
Unit Energy Requirements of Pollution Control Strategies, also
leads to the conclusion that there are few options for reducing
energy consumption for S02 control other than supplementary con-
trol systems. Coal cleaning (physical) has an energy penalty of
7%, compared with 3.5% to 10% for flue-gas scrubbing. Oil desul-
furization has an energy penalty of 3% to 6% according to the
Michigan (4) and ERT (3) studies, and 1.2% to 8.6% according to
the DSI study (2). The higher values correspond to higher-
sulfur-content oils. The average value for oil desulfurization
is about 5%. Hence, only for the lower-sulfur oils (less than
about 1.0% sulfur) is there a significant energy advantage in oil
desulfurization over flue-gas scrubbing. Similarly, use of west-
ern coal entails a penalty of 4.5% [mostly for transportation (3)],
which is in the same range as flue-gas scrubbing.
52
-------
One method identified in the ERT (3) study for reducing energy
consumption for S02 control is coal blending. This method
involves blending low-sulfur western coal and high-sulfur eastern
coal so that the average sulfur content of the blended coal (e.g.,
one-third western coal, two-thirds eastern coal) is low enough to'
meet environmental standards. Since this method uses less west-
ern coal than -does complete substitution of western coal for east-
ern coal, it entails a smaller energy penalty for transportation
of western coal. In addition, the heating value of the blended
coal is higher than that of western coal. The estimated energy
penalty for coal blending is 0.5% to 2.0% of powerplant fuel
input, which is significantly lower than the energy penalty for
flue-gas scrubbing (3).
A control method that holds promise of significant energy savings
in the future is fluidized-bed combustion. Although an energy
penalty of 5% is given for fluidized-bed combustion in the ERT
study (3) (see Table 8), the efficiency of this method is
expected to improve as the technology develops (55). The thermal
efficiencies projected for first-generation and later-generation
fluidized-bed boilers are compared with that of a conventional
boiler equipped with a scrubber in Table 27. The pressurized
fluidized-bed system appears to be very promising, indeed. How-
ever, such systems are not expected to be available for commer-
cial operation until the late 1980's, and then only for new units,
since retrofitting would require replacement of essentially the
entire boiler (56).
TABLE 27. PROJECTED EFFICIENCIES OF FLUIDIZED-BED POWERPLANTS3
Overall thermal efficiency, %
Boiler type First generation Ultimate
Atmospheric fluidized bed 36 40
Pressurized fluidized bed 38 47.
Conventional with flue-gas scrubbing 37 37
Data from Reference 55.
No improvement in the energy efficiency of flue gas scrubbing is
assumed. A 60% improvement in scrubber energy efficiency would be
required to equal the projected overall efficiency of atmospheric
fluidized-bed boilers.
The atmospheric fluidized-bed boiler appears to be much less
promising than the pressurized fluidized-bed boiler. In fact,
improvements in scrubber energy efficiency and conventional
boiler efficiency could conceivably offset the projected improve-
ment in atmospheric fluidized-bed powerplant efficiency. However,
an additional advantage of fluidized-bed combustion is its poten-
tial for controlling NOX as well as SOX.
53
-------
Significant improvement in the energy efficiency of flue-gas
desulfurization systems may be possible by improved engineering
design, since the importance of minimizing energy consumption in
the design of such systems has only recently become apparent.
The following suggestions for reducing scrubber energy consump-
tion have been made (personal communication from E. L. Plyler,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
January 14, 1977) :
• Use of a low-energy particulate control device, such as
an electrostatic precipitator, followed by a low-
pressure-drop scrubber, such as a spray tower.
• Determination of minimum stack gas reheat requirements;
in some cases, flue gas bypass can be used for reheat.
• Improvement of limestone utilization; this would reduce
both preplant and postplant energy requirements. It
could also reduce inplant energy requirements by lower-
ing power consumption for pumping.
The energy required for flue-gas desulfurization could also be
lowered by partial removal of sulfur from coal before combustion.
However, due to the 7% energy penalty for coal cleaning noted
above, there would be no overall energy savings with this strategy
Other aspects (economic, technical, environmental, etc.) of the
alternatives for SOX control are discussed at some length in
Reference 55.
Thermal Pollution Control^
Two methods of conserving energy in the control of thermal pollu-
tion are identified in the ERT study (3):
• Use of less energy-intensive, closed-cycle cooling
systems.
• Waste heat utilization.
The data in Table 8 indicate that cooling ponds and spray ponds
are significantly less energy intensive than mechanical forced-
draft cooling towers. The major drawback of cooling ponds is the
large amount of land required (a cooling pond is in reality an
artificial lake). Hence their applicability is limited to loca-
tions where sufficient land is available. Spray ponds require
more operating energy than cooling ponds to operate the sprayers.
However, they can reduce the land area required by a factor of up
to 10 (12) .
Approximately 65% of the energy input to electric powerplants is
rejected as low-temperature waste heat. Hence utilization of
54
-------
this heat would conserve energy as well as reduce the need for
thermal pollution control. Integrated systems have been proposed
(and in some cases constructed) that utilize powerplant waste
heat for agriculture and aquaculture (12, 57), sewage treatment
(58), industrial process steam (12) , and commercial and residen-
tial space heating and cooling (12, 59). Karkheck, et al. (59),
have estimated that use of powerplant waste heat for space heat-
ing could save up to 5 quad annually in the United States. Major
problems include powerplant location (plants must be located
close to waste heat users), large capital requirements, and the
fact that in many applications only a small fraction of the total
waste heat can be utilized (12) . Waste heat utilization is not
expected to have a significant impact on thermal pollution con-
trol in the period 1977 to 1985 (12).
Particulate Control
No alternatives to electrostatic precipitators have been identi-
fied that will reduce the energy required for control of particu-
late emissions from powerplants. However, energy requirements
for this purpose are relatively small (0.2% of plant fuel input)
compared with the energy required for SOX and thermal pollution
control. One alternative to flue-gas treatment for particulate
(and SOx) control is combustion of solvent-refined coal (SRC).
SRC is to have a low enough ash content (less than 0.1% ash) to
eliminate the need for removal of particulate matter from flue
gases. The low sulfur content of SRC will likewise eliminate the
need for flue-gas desulfurization. However, it is estimated by
Schmid (60) that the thermal efficiency of the SRC process will
be 74%. The corresponding 26% energy penalty for particulate and
SOX control by SRC thus is about five times the energy penalty
for control of these pollutants by flue-gas treatment.
THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Energy requirements for pollution control in the iron and steel
industry were determined through an in-depth study by Resource
Planning Associates (RPA) (40)- The energy requirements, based
on 1972 production levels and compliance with all existing pollu-
tion control legislation, are summarized in Table 28.
Possible energy savings resulting from various alternatives were
also investigated by RPA. The study included process modifica-
tions as well as alternative control methods. The results are
summarized in Table 29.
The potential exists for improved efficiency of air pollution
control systems through the use of more efficient fan blades.
The overall mechanical efficiency of a motor/blower combination
is thought to be raised from 65% to 74% by changing the blades in
fabric filter and electrostatic precipitator centrifugal blowers
from radial tip to solid airfoil blades. It was also assumed (40)
55
-------
TABLE 28. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL ENERGY REQUIREMENT
FOR THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Pollution control energy requirement, 10. lz, sBtu
Unit process
Materials preparation:
Ore yard
Coal yard
Scrap yard
Limestone yard
Sintering
Coking
Iron and steel making:
Direct reduction
Blast furnace
Electric arc furnace
Open hearth furnace
Basic oxygen furnace
Vacuum degassing
Ingot casting
Continuous casting
Forming and finishing:
Soaking pits
Scarfing
Hot forming:
Primary
Section
Flat plate
Other flat
Mills:
Structural and rail
Pipe and tube
Bar
Wire rod
Strip
Cold drawing bars
Pickling
Cold rolling
Hot coating:
Galvanized
Terne and alumized
Cold coating:
Tin
Chrome
Zinc
Steam and electricity generation
Total
Air Water
_b
0.85
-
-
10.67 2.22
31.10 7.90
-
48.30 13.97
20.39 1.89
46.65 1.94
29.80 4.97
3.09
-
0.21 1.37
- -
1.70
-
12.32
7.73
0.91
23.29
-
3.54
-
1.35
-
-
0.15 0.97
3.00
-
0.27
-
-
0.18
0.07
-
6.60 8.16
196.5 99.1
Preplant
-
0.07
-
-
0.61
4.60
-
5.56
1.63
4.79
2.17
0.13
-
0.19
-
0.03
-
0.36
0.74
1.75
0.58
-
0.14
0.03
-
- .
-
0.91
0.68
0.06
-
-
0.06
-
-
-
0.06
25.2
Postplant
-
-
-
-
0.01
0.48
-
0.59
0.09
0.14
0.35
-
-
0.01
0.10
-
-
0.20
-
0.03
-
0.11
-
0.06
-
-
-
-
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.11
2.3
- Total
-
0.92
-
-
13.51
44.08
-
68.42
24.00
53.52
37.29
3.22
-
1.78
0.10
-
1.73
12.88
8.47
2.69
23.87
0.11
3.68
0.09
1.35
-
-
2.03
3.70
0.33
-
-
0.31
-
-
. -
14.93
C
323.0
Data from Reference 40.
Dashes indicate zero or negligible energy requirments or that no value is applicable.
56
-------
TABLE 29. SUMMARY OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ENERGY SAVINGS FROM SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
Selected alternatives for air and water pollution control
Savings from
base case,
trillions
of Btu's
Replace all open hearth furnaces with conventional basic
oxygen furnaces
Replace all open hearth furnaces with suppressed
combustion basic oxygen furnaces
Water pollution control (base case equals 99 trillion Btu's/yr):
Wastewater flow:
Dry air pollution control equipment (for electric arc, open
hearth, and basic oxygen furnaces)
Split recycle in hot-forming section
Alternative thermal control technology:
Cooling pond
Spray pond
Natural draft cooling tower
19.4
29.4
34.1
4.4
0.8
36.3
33.3
5.9
Percent of
pollution
control
energy
requirement
Air pollution control (base case equals 195 trillion Btu's/yr):
Control system efficiency: More efficient fan blades
Production process:
11
1.4
0.3
11
10
1.8
Data from Reference 40.
Each saving must be considered individually since they are not cumulative.
that radial tip blades could be used in high-energy scrubber
blowers to improve overall motor/blower efficiency to 69%.
Before such a change could be made, however, blade strength and
rigidity problems, which have resulted in damage to the fan
housing, must be resolved.
The industry trend toward the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) as
opposed to the. open-hearth furnace will further reduce the energy
required for pollution control. The conventional BOF furnace
(open-hood venting) requires about 37% of the energy/ton of pro-
If
-------
Closed-hood systems also allow recovery of carbon monoxide from
thfe exhaust gas (40, 42, 61). The CO recovered from two 250-ton
furnaces can be used as fuel to supply the equivalent of
17,600 hp continuously (61). Although CO recovery has been prac-
ticed in Japan and Europe for years, the exhaust gas is presently
flared in all U.S. plants (40, 61). The additional energy that
could be saved by CO recovery is not included in Table 29.
Additional savings (not included in Table 29) in the energy
required for air pollution control could be realized by replacing
high-energy scrubbers with fabric filters or electrostatic precip-
itators for control of particulate matter. Areas where such
replacements are possible include the following:
• Main exhaust from electric-arc, open-hearth, and basic-
oxygen furnaces.
• Main exhaust from sintering windbox.
• Main exhaust from scarfing operation.
• Coke-pushing operation.
There appears to be some question, however, as to whether current
air pollution regulations can be met with fabric filters and
electrostatic precipitators in these applications (40) (personal
communication with Howard Lacy, American Iron and Steel Institute,
20 January 1976).
Substitution of dry air pollution control methods for scrubbers
in the above applications would also reduce the volume of waste-
water requiring treatment. As indicated in Table 29, replacement
of scrubbers on furnace exhaust streams alone would reduce the
energy required for water pollution control by 4.4 x 109 Btu/yr.
Wastewater flow rates can also be reduced by appropriate process
modifications. For example, use of split recycling in the hot
forming operation would save an estimated 0.8 x 109 Btu/yr in the
energy required for wastewater treatment (40). In a split
recycle (as opposed to a once-through system), part of the waste-
water is recycled to the process with minimal or no treatment.
Effluent from one process step can also be recycled to another
process step that does not require high-quality water. For
example, hot rolling mill wastewater can be recycled to the cold
rolling mill without extensive treatment (40). [Although such
recycling has been successfully demonstrated in the industry,
accurate estimates of the potential energy savings cannot be cal-
culated because of the importance of individual plant configura-
tions to the quality of water required in downstream processes
and the possibilities for recycling (40)].
Other process modifications with the potential to reduce waste-
water flow rates have been identified, but estimates of potential
58
-------
energy savings are not available. These include the following
• Improved squeeze roll use
• Use of cascade rinsing
• Use of cold-rolling recirculation
The following alternative wastewater treatment strategies have
been suggested for reducing energy requirements (40):
• Substitution of a biological filter, followed by deep-
bed filtration for the aerated settling process in treat-
ing sinter plant wastewater.
• Combination of wastewater streams in a central facility
for terminal treatment.
• Substitution of dry well injection or neutralization,
aeration, and sedimentation for acid recovery in the
treatment of pickling wastes.
Estimates of the potential energy savings with the above methods
have not been reported (40).
The data in Table 29 indicate that cooling ponds, spray ponds,
and natural-draft cooling towers are less energy-intensive
methods of thermal pollution control than mechanical forced-draft
cooling towers, which were assumed for the base case. The reason
that natural-draft towers are less energy intensive than forced-
draft towers in this application (as opposed to powerplants,
where forced-draft towers are less energy intensive) is that
there is no energy penalty as a result of increased turbine back
pressure in this case. Natural-draft towers, however, require a
greater capital investment than do forced-draft towers.
If all the options listed in Table 29 were adopted, the total
energy savings would amount to about 20% of the total energy
required for pollution control in the iron and steel industry
(assuming natural-draft cooling towers were used for thermal pol-
lution control). As noted in the above discussion, a number of
other alternatives exists which, if adopted, could result in addi-
tional Savings in pollution control energy requirements.
A number of other process modifications designed to conserve
energy, but whose primary purpose is not to reduce pollution con-
trol energy requirements, have been reported in the literature
(61). These process modifications are summarized in Table 30.
In addition to these modifications, there are a number of high-
temSrature waste streams within the steel-making operation from
which thermal energy can be recovered. Examples of unit proc-
esses wi?hsuch walL streams are steel reheating furnaces, soak-
pits annealing furnaces, blast furnace stoves, coke ovens,
open^hearln fSrnaces (61). Regenerators, recuperators, and
59
-------
TABLE 30. SOME POTENTIAL ENERGY-CONSERVING PROCESS
MODIFICATIONS IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY*
Process modification
Environmental effects
Effect on process energy requirements
Formcoke cokemaking process.
Hot coal charging of coke
ovens.
Dry quenching of coke.
Pulverized coal injection
into blast furnace.
Conversion of blast furnace
top pressure to electricity.
Evaporative cooling of blast
furnace.
External desulfurlzation.
Continuous casting.
Direct rolling.
Induction slab heating.
HONOBEAM® slab reheating
furnace.
Evaporative cooling of reheat
furnace skid system.
Direct-fired batch annealing.
Direct reduction of iron ore.
Can be operated as a fully enclosed, continuous process,
thereby minimizing air and water pollution problems.
Data are not available to make an evaluation.
Hay increase participate control problems because of
very dry, dusty nature of the coke.
Particulate emissions from pulverizer controlled by
cyclones and bag filters. Reduced demand for coke
would reduce emissions from coke plant, which are
controlled with sheds or spot cars and high-energy
scrubbers. Net effect should be fewer emissions and
lower energy requirement for control.
No effect at steel plant; reduced emissions at power-
plant because of reduced demand.
Closed loop system eliminates thermal pollution and
decreases water consumption.
Small increase in air and water pollution control
requirements; decrease in solid waste generation
because of decreased slag production.
None reported.
None reported.
Eliminates pollution from combustion of gas or oil in
conventional slab reheat furnace.
Small decrease in pollutants from fuel combustion because
of lower energy requirement per unit weight of steel
produced.
None reported.
None reported.
Requires about 15* more energy for pollution control than
conventional blast furnace operation.
Hay require more or less energy, depending on circum-
stances. Principal advantage is use of lower-grade
coals.
Should require less energy, since moisture is removed
from coal at lower temperature. However, operating
data are not available for evaluation.
The thermal energy content of the hot coke (1.1 x 106
Btu/ton) can be recovered.
Energy input to blast furnace is increased; may save
energy at coke plant. Principal advantage is use of
nonmetallurgical grade coal.
Potential power recovery is 3 MW to 5 MW per 100,000
scfm flow.
Generates low-pressure steam that can be used for space
heating. Natural convection system eliminates pumping
requirements.
Main advantage is that high-sulfur metallurgical coal
can be used without incurring an energy penalty.
Requires about 50% less energy than conventional rolling
and 20% less liquid steel.
No reheating of intermediate product saves 2.3 million
Btu/ton steel.
Requires 35% more energy than conventional furnace.
Substitutes electricity for gas or oil.
Requires 5% less energy per unit weight of steel pro-
duced because of higher throughput.
Generates low-pressure steam that can be used for space
and process heating.
Requires 15% to 30% less energy than radiant tube batch
annealing,
Requires about 60% more energy than conventional blast
furnace. .Main advantage is use of nonmetallurgical
grade coal.
Data from References 42 and 61.
-------
waste heat boilers are commonly used for waste heat recovery in
the steel industry (61). As the cost of energy continues to
increase, additional opportunities for economical waste heat
recovery in the industry should become available.
NITRIC ACID PLANTS
Nitric acid manufacturing plants represent the only noncombustion
stationary source type for which new source performance standards
for nitrogen oxides emissions have been promulgated by EPA. The
tail gas from the adsorber in nitric acid plants typically con-
tains between 1,500 and 5,000 ppm NOX. A number of methods are
available for control of the NOX emissions, five of which were
studied in the A. D. Little report on the fertilizer industry (53)
• Catalytic reduction method
• Molecular sieve process
• Grande Paroisse process (extended water absorption)
• CDL/Vitok process
• Masar process
All of the above processes have been employed on commercial
installations, and all are reportedly capable of meeting the new
source performance standard of 3 Ib/ton of 100% acid (equivalent
to approximately 200 ppm NOX in the tail gas) for NOX emissions
from nitric acid plants.
In the catalytic reduction process, the tail gas from the nitric
acid absorber is heated and passed through a combustor where NOX
is catalytically reduced to N2 and 02• Natural gas is used as
the fuel in the combustor.
The molecular sieve method is based on the principles of adsorp-
tion, oxidation, and regeneration of the sieve. Heat for regener-
ation is supplied by an oil-fired heater. The process is highly
efficient for NOX removal, generally achieving outlet concentra-
tions below 50 ppm.
In the Grande Paroisse process, the absorber tail gas is sent to
a secondary absorber, where it is contacted countercurrently with
process water. The additional nitric acid produced in the second-
ary absorber (from NOX in the tail gas) is fed to the primary
absorber. The NOX removal in the secondary absorber is suffi-
cient to permit the tail gas to meet Federal standards.
The CDL/Vitok process is similar to the Grande Paroisse process,
but the former uses a higher liquid-to-gas ratio and a lower oper-
ating temperature. In addition, the nitric acid produced is
recycle! to the absorber, so that the tail gas is actually scrub-
bed with nitric acid. The tail gases are thus converted to
nitric ac?d at a concentration that can be commercially utilized.
61
-------
In the Masar process, the tail gas from the absorber is cooled
and then sent to a three-stage absorber. In the first stage, the
gas is contacted with chilled feedwater used in the nitric acid
absorber. In the second stage, the tail gas is scrubbed with a
circulating urea-water solution. In the third stage, the gas is
again scrubbed with the feedwater to the nitric acid absorber.
The direct operating energy requirements of the five processes
for a 300-ton/day nitric acid plant are presented in Table 31.
The catalytic reduction method is by far the most energy-intensive
process. The Grande Paroisse is the least energy intensive,
requiring 93% less energy than the catalytic reduction process.
However, the Grande Paroisse process is capital intensive. The
CDL/Vitok process has the lowest capital and operating costs (53).
TABLE 31. DIRECT ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IN NOx ABATEMENT
SYSTEMS FOR A 300-TON/DAY NITRIC ACID PLANT
(109 Btu/yr)
Catalytic Molecular Grande CDL/
Energy source reduction sieve Paroisse Vitok Masar
Steam (credit)
Electrical
Natural gas
Oil
Total
(129.20)
10.97
232.56
-
114.33
2.04
27.59
-
16.32
45.95
_b
7.71
-
-
7.71
5.83
22.71
-
-
28.54
10.69
1.71
-
-
12.40
Percent saving over catalytic
reduction method - 60 93 75 89
a b
Data from Reference 53. Dashes indicate that no value is applicable.
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
From an energy conservation standpoint, the extremely low thermo-
dynamic efficiencies of all flue-gas treatment techniques
(Table 13 and Figure 4) emphasize the desirability of reducing
pollutant emissions through process modifications rather than by
treatment of waste streams whenever possible. One difficulty in
dealing with process modifications is that they are highly spe-
cific to given processes and are not generally applicable.
The effects on energy requirements of process modifications have
been investigated through in-depth studies of a number of indus-
tries (41-53, 61-63). The results of these studies are summar-
ized in Table 32. (Process modifications in the iron and steel
industry were discussed earlier in this section.)
The results for the Portland cement and olefins industries illus-
trate the fact that energy requirements for pollution control may
62
-------
TABLE 32. ENERGY SAVINGS OBTAINABLE BY PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
Industry
Portland cement
Olefins
Copper smelting
Primary aluminum
Cheese making
Pulp and paper
Textile
Ammonia
Glass
Chlor-alkali
Phosphoric acid
Petroleum refining
Reference
number
48
45
62, 63
41
62, 63
44
47
46
49
50
51
43
Energy savings , %
Pollution control
-48
-90
to
to
29
32
-40
Negligible.
-995
30
20
-34
-58
-1,300
98
to
to
to
to
to
0
to
to
-556
70
60
-45
95
-130
100
Total
0
19
-170
50
3
-25
27
80
0
process
to
to
37
to
b
17
to
to
to
to
to
to
25
22
-84
80
5
21
58
84
2.
3
Negative values represent energy penalties.
Not applicable; the modification involves only the wastewater
treatment system.
be increased by a process modification that decreases the overall
energy requirement of the process. Factors other than energy,
pollution control, and economics may also militate for or against
a process modification. In the case of the primary aluminum
industry, the factor consists of utilization of domestic versus
foreign sources of raw materials.
In the cheese-making industry, the process modification consists
of the recovery of whey from the process wastewater. The recov-
ery process involves an evaporative concentration step that is
highly energy intensive. However, the recovered whey can be used
as a food, and its energy, social, and economic values must be
taken into account in judging the utility of the modified process.
The alternative studied in the copper smelting industry is the
Noranda continuous smelting process, as opposed to the convention-
al smelting process. In addition to the reductions in energy con-
sumption idicated in Table 32, use of the Noranda process permits
recovery of greater than 90% of the S0? in the tail gases com-
pared to 66% recovery with the conventional process (62, 63).
The base case for the Portland cement industry is the oil-fired
kiln. Alternatives studied consist of a suspension pre-
flash calciner, fluidized-bed combustion, and coal-fired
long kiln The suspension preheater and flash calciner both
long Klin. ine *""* for pollution control and 25% less energy
require 32% less ^gJ^Sngkim. Fluidized-bed consumption
more^nergylo^pollution control than the long kiln,
63
-------
but 7% less energy overall. The coal-fired long kiln has the
same energy requirements as the oil-fired long kiln.
The lower overall energy requirement for the fluidized-bed cement
process results from energy recovery from the fluidized-bed
reactor off-gas. The entire electrical energy requirement of the
plant can be supplied in this manner (48) . However, generation
of electricity greatly increases the cooling water requirement of
the plant. (The additional cooling water is for steam condensa-
tion in the powerplant.) The energy requirement for thermal pol-
lution control is correspondingly increased. [(Federal effluent
standards for cement plants require the effluent temperature to
be no greater than 3°C above the inlet water temperature (48).]
The higher pollution control energy requirement for the fluidized-
bed cement process is the result of this increased energy require-
ment for thermal pollution control (48).
The base case selected for the olefins industry is production of
ethylene by cracking a 50% ethane/50% propane feed. Two alterna-
tive processes are considered—naphtha cracking and gas-oil crack-
ing. Both alternatives require more energy for pollution control
and more energy overall per unit weight of ethylene produced.
But they both require about 20% less energy overall per unit
weight of all products produced. An important consideration in
this case, in addition to total energy consumption, is the conser-
vation of scarce raw materials through use of alternative feed-
stocks (45) .
The results listed in Table 32 for the pulp and paper industry
are for three alternative pulp manufacturing processes: the
standard kraft process (base case), the alkaline-oxygen pulping
process, and the Rapson effluent-free kraft process. The pollu-
tion control energy requirement in these processes is for waste-
water treatment and effluent disposal (44).
In the textile industry, three model knit and woven fabric
textile mills employing various advanced processing operations
were studied. These model mills were compared with similar base-
line mills employing the best techniques currently practiced in
the textile industry.
The alternatives studied in the ammonia industry consist of ammo-
nia production from natural gas (base case), ammonia production
based on coal gasification, and ammonia production based on heavy
oil gasification. The emphasis in this industry is on conserva-
tion of natural gas rather than energy savings per se.
In the glass industry, six alternative glass melting processes
were studied: natural gas firing (base case) , direct coal firing,
coal gasification, coal-fired hot gas generation, electric melt-
ing, and batch preheating. Only batch preheating has a lower
total process energy requirement than the baseline case. Elec-
tric melting has the smallest energy requirement for pollution
64
-------
control, but the energy required for pollution control at the
powerplant was not included in the calculations. Assuming a 5%
energy penalty for pollution control at the powerplant, electric
melting requires about the same amount of energy for pollution
control as does batch preheating (about 35% less than natural gas
firing). However, conservation of natural gas is the primary
objective of these process modifications.
The alternatives considered in the chlor-alkali industry include
the graphite anode diaphragm cell (base case), the dimensionally
stable anode diaphragm cell, and the ion exchange membrane cell.
A fourth option, the mercury cell, requires 6% more energy over-
all than the baseline case and about 20 times as much energy for
pollution control. The energy requirements for pollution control
in this industry are very small compared with total process
energy requirements.
In the phosphoric acid industry, the baseline case is elemental
phosphorus production in an electric furnace. The alternative
processes consist of the wet process with chemical cleanup of the
phosphoric acid and the wet process with solvent extraction clean-
up. Although the wet process requires considerably more energy
for pollution control than the electric furnace process, this
energy is a small fraction of the total process energy.
The process alternatives studied in the petroleum refining indus-
try were:
• Direct combustion of asphalt in process heaters and
boilers.
• Hydrocracking of vacuum bottoms.
• Flexicoking of vacuum bottoms.
• Internal electricity generation by burning asphalt.
• Hydrogen generation by partial oxidation of asphalt.
The principal conservation benefit of these options derives from
the conversion of refinery residue streams into higher-valued
fuels such as refinery gas and distillate-range products.
NONUTILITY COMBUSTION SOURCES
Industrial and commercial boilers constitute a major source of
air pollution (Tables 23 and 24). Most of the control methods
that have been discussed previously for electric powerplants are
also applicable to nonutility combustion sources. Of particular
intereSrare supplementary control systems and fluidized-bed com-
bustion which have been identified as potentially energy-
mistion, wnicn n*™e u f SQ f m utiiity boilers.
conserving methods for controj. u^ -^x
65
-------
Fuel switching, in combination with tall stacks, is an inter-
mittent control method applicable to nonutility combustion
sources. Load shifting, however, is not generally applicable for
obvious reasons. As is the case with powerplants, intermittent
control of nonutility sources is a strategy for meeting ambient
air quality standards. Stricter standards cannot be met by this
method, and no significant reductions of atmospheric sulfate
levels are achieved.
Fluidized-bed combustion is also applicable to nonutility combus-
tion processes. However, its potential for reducing energy con-
sumption may not be as great in this application. The potentially
high thermal efficiency of pressurized fluidized-bed combustion
(Table 27) is due in part to the use of a gas turbine to generate
electricity from the flue gas. When the objective of the combus-
tion process is the production of process steam rather than elec-
tricity, this advantage is lost. Pressurized systems are also
more expensive to construct than atmospheric pressure units—a
major drawback for small plants. Hence small, industrial, pres-
surized fluidized-bed boilers may not be economical compared to
atmospheric pressure fluidized-bed units (64) . The potential
energy savings from atmospheric pressure units, compared with
flue-gas desulfurization, is considerably less than for pressur-
ized units (Table 27) .
Nonenergy aspects of 862 control alternatives for nonutility com-
bustion sources are considered in Reference 64. The alternatives
are evaluated with respect to the following criteria:
• Pollutant emissions
• Retrofitability
• Operation maintenance
• Capital requirement
• Annualized cost
• Availability
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The direct operating energy requirements of 11 municipal waste-
water treatment methods and 12 sludge disposal techniques were
computed in a study by Batelle Memorial Institute (65) . The rela-
tive energy consumption of the wastewater treatment methods are
shown schematically in Figure 7, and the values for the sludge
disposal techniques are given in Figure 8. The treatment strate-
gies and sludge options are identified in Tables 33 and 34.
From Figure 8, it is clear that the least energy-intensive sludge
options are those that employ sludge thickening and digestion
(Options 4 to 8). Methods for handling chemical process sludge
(Options 9 to 12) are the most energy intensive, especially those
that also employ recalcination and reuse of lime (Options 10 and
12). These comparisons do not include energy required for produc-
tion of new lime. It is shown in the DSI study (2) that when the
66
-------
o
cc
LU
Of.
p
• FUEL
1 1 ELECTRICAL
ri
FOOTNOTES
a SURFACE WATER DISPOSAL Of LIQUID EFFLUENT
bLAND DISPOSAL OF LIQUID EFFLUENT
fl n m n
nJhJL lifU-Hn III Ihl 1
ROWRATE. MGD S"2 5 5
TREATMENT STRATEGY 1 2a2b 3 4
-2§|-sa 2g| 2g| 2S§ ss
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 7. Relative energy consumption per unit
capacity of wastewater treatment
strategies. (Source: Reference 65)
o
o:
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT
A TOTAL ENERGY -25
TIMES SLUDGE
OPTION NO. 1
B TOTAL ENERGY -40
TIMES SLUDGE
OPTION NO. 2
^| FUEL
| | ELECTRICAL
A B A 8
n-n m fTP
ROWRATE.MGD s§§ s§§ "Sg =58 -sg 2§ -ag -»«
SLUDGE OPTION 12345678
10 11 12
Figure 8. Relative energy consumption per unit capacity of
sludge disposal options. (Source: Reference 65)
67
-------
TABLE 33.
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
STRATEGIES STUDIED IN REFERENCE 65
Hastewater
treatment
strategy
number
Description
1 Primary treatment followed by land application of effluent.
2 Waste stabilization lagoon followed by either spray irrigation or surface water discharge of effluent.
3 Primary and trickling filter treatment with surface water discharge.
4 Primary and trickling filter treatment followed by spray irrigation.
5 Primary and activated sludge treatment with surface water discharge.
6 Primary and activated sludge treatment followed by spray irrigation.
7 Primary and activated sludge treatment with alum addition and nitrification-denitrification followed
by surface water discharge.
8 Primary and activated sludge treatment with coagulation-filtration followed by surface water discharge
of effluent.
9 Primary and activated sludge treatment, coagulation-filtration, carbon adsorption, and zeolite
ammonia removal followed by surface water discharge.
10 Coagulation-filtration and carbon adsorption followed by surface water discharge of effluent.
11 Extended aeration followed by surface water discharge of effluent.
TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF SLUDGE OPTIONS STUDIED IN REFERENCE 65
Sludge
option
number Description
1 Sludge thickening, chemical conditioning by polymers, vacuum fultration, incineration, and landfill.
2 Chemical conditioning by polymers, centrifugal dewatering, incineration, and landfill.
3 Sludge thickening, conditioning by heat treatment, vacuum filtration, incineration, and landfill.
4 Sludge thickening, digestion, sand drying, and landfill.
5 Sludge thickening, digestion, and land spreading.
6 Sludge thickening, digestion, and ocean dumping by pipeline.
7 Sludge thickening, digestion, chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration, and landfill.
8 Sludge thickening, digestion, chemical conditioning, vacuum filtration, and ocean dumping by barging.
9 Chemical sludge thickening, vacuum filtration, incineration, and landfill.
10 Chemical sludge thickening, vacuum filtration, recalcination and reuse, and landfill of wasted residue.
11 Chemical sludge thickening, centrifugal dewatering, incineration, and landfill.
12 Chemical sludge thickening, centrifugal dewatering, recalcination and reuse, and landfill of wasted residue.
energy credit for new lime production is included in the calcula-
tions, r-ecalcination and reuse of lime (Options 10 and 12) is
still more energy intensive than sludge incineration (Options 9
and 11). However, the difference in energy requirements between
the two options (recalcination and reuse versus incineration) is
only about one-half as great when the energy for lime production
is included.
The energy consumption of the wastewater treatment methods is
strongly dependent on the plant size, which makes comparisons
more difficult. However, Strategy 3, trickling filter treatment
with surface water discharge, appears to be the least energy
intensive. Strategy 5 (activated sludge with surface water dis-
charge) and Strategy 7 (biological-chemical treatment) also have
relatively low energy requirements. Not surprisingly, tertiary
treatment (Strategy 9) is the most energy intensive. (Of course,
68
-------
tertiary treatment has a correspondingly high contaminant
removal efficiency.)
The difference in total energy requirements between activated
sludge and trickling filter treatment can be considerable. In
one example (68) , calculations were made for a 1-million-gal/day
treatment plant. The total (direct and indirect operating energy
and capitalization energy) energy requirement for the trickling
filter plant was about one-half the requirement for the activated
sludge plant. Data of Smith (28) show that electrical energy con-
sumption in trickling filter plants is 64% of that in activated
sludge plants at the 1-million-gal/day plant size, 55% at the
10-million-gal/day size, and 50% at the loo-million-gal/day size.
Trickling filter plants generally have somewhat lower removal
efficiencies for BOD (biological oxygen demand) than do activated
sludge plants. However, trickling filter plants designed for
effluent recycle can achieve removal efficiencies equivalent to
activated sludge plants. Disadvantages of trickling filter
plants relative to activated sludge plants include lower adapt-
ability to changes in wastewater pH, organic matter content and
temperature, and higher capital investment costs.
Significant energy savings are possible through utilization of
the gas produced by anaerobic digestion of organic sludge. For
example, sludge digester gas can be used to fuel internal combus-
tion engines, which can be directly coupled to air blowers and
water pumps; or it can be used to drive electrical generators.
Smith (28) estimates that essentially all of the electrical
energy required by primary treatment plants could be obtained in
this manner. For activated sludge plants, approximately two-
thirds of the electricity requirements could be supplied by
digester gas (28).
An alternative method to anaerobic sludge digestion as a method
of energy recovery from sludge is dewatering (an energy consuming
step) followed by incineration of raw sludge. A waste heat
boiler can be used to recover energy from the incinerator exhaust
gas. The steam may be used to supply process and building heat
and/or to generate electricity. Smith (67) has found that under
the most-ideal conditions, this method is competitive with anaero-
bic digestion on a power recovery basis. But the disadvantage to
anaerobic digestion is that considerable sludge solids remain
after digestion, and the solids require dewatering and ultimate
disposal. The energy required for dewatering and disposal of
this residual sludge was not included in the above comparison.
For advanced wastewater treatment using activated carbon, organic
solvents can be used to regenerate the carbon as an alternative
to thermal regeneration. It is estimated that solvent regenera-
tion may require only one-tenth the energy needed for thermal
regeneration (68) .
69
-------
For the concentration of wastewater streams, reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis, and vapor compression evaporation are less
energy intensive alternatives to standard multi-effect evapora-
tion (68) .
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Energy recovery efficiencies of a number of processes for recover-
ing energy from solid waste are given in Reference 69 and are
reproduced in Table 35. The first column of the table lists the
net energy recovered as fuel, which is reported as a percentage
of the heat value of the solid waste input to the process. This
value is multiplied by the boiler efficiency to obtain the per-
centage of input solid waste energy available as steam to the con-
sumer. On the basis of the latter values, the waterwall
incinerator, the dust RDF process, the Purox gasifier, and the
Torrax gasifier have the highest recovery efficiencies.
TABLE 35. ENERGY RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES OF SOLID
WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY PROCESSES
Energy recovered, percent
of solid waste heat value
Total energy
Process Net fuel produced available as steam
Waterwall incinerator
Fluff RDF
Dust RDFC
Wet RDFC
Purox gasifier
Monsanto gasifier
Torrax gasifier
Oxy pyrolysis
Biological gasification:
With use of residue
Without use of residue
Bray ton cycle
_b
70
80
76
64
78
84
26
29
16 d
31.7°
59
49
63
48
58
42
58
23
42
14b
U
Data from Reference 69. Not applicable.
c d
Refuse-derived fuel. 12.3 as electricity plus 19.4 as steam.
A caveat is in order regarding the data listed in Table 35. The
efficiencies are based on energy balances performed on each proc-
ess in Reference 69. Since most of the processes have not been
operated on a commercial scale, the data on which the energy
balances are based are of questionable validity. In addition,
the energy value of recovered materials is not included in the
analysis. For example, the Monsanto LANDGARD® system is designed
to recover glassy aggregate and ferrous metals for sale and reuse,
70
-------
REFERENCES
1. A National Plan for Energy Research, Development, and Demon-
stration: Creating Energy Choices for the Future. ERDA-18,
Volume 1. U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration,
Washington, DC, 1975.
2. First-Order Estimates of Potential Energy Consumption Impli-
cations of Federal Air and Water Pollution Control Standards
for Stationary Sources. Contract 68-01-2498, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (Draft final
report submitted to the EPA by Development Sciences, Inc.,
July 1975.)
3. Murphy, B., J. R. Mahoney, D. Bearg, G. Hoffnagle, and
J. Watson. Energy Consumption of Environmental Controls:
Fossil Fuel, Steam Electric Generating Industry. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Office of Environmental Affairs,
March 1977.
4. Davidson, J., M. Ross, D. Chynowth, A. C. Michaels, D. Dun-
nette, C. Griffis, J. A. Stirling, and D. Wang. Energy
Needs for Pollution Control. In: The Energy Conservation
Papers, R. H. Williams, ed. Ballinger Publishing Co.,
Cambridge, MA, 1975.
5. Bailly, H., P. Cushman, and A. Steinberg. A Brief Analysis
of the Impact of Environmental Laws on Energy Demand and
Supply- NTIS Publication PB 245 656, Federal Energy Adminis-
tration, Washington, DC, October 1974.
6. Cywin, A. Energy IMpacts of Water Pollution Control. In:
Energy, Agriculture, and Waste Management, W. J. Jewell, ed.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975.
pp. 143-149.
7- Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc. The Economic Impact of
EPA's Air and Water Regulations on the Electric Utility
Industry. EPA-230/3-76-013, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC,
May 1976.
8 Hirst E. Energy Implications of Several Environmental
Qualify Strategies. ORNL-NSF-EP-53, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, July 1973.
71
-------
9. The Economics of Clean Water—1973. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 1973.
10. National Commission on Water Quality. Staff Draft Report,
Washington, DC, November 1975.
11. Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines—Steam
Electric Powerplants. EPA-230/1-73-006, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1973.
12. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric
Power Generating Point Source Category. EPA-4401/1-74-029(a),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October
1974.
13. Crawford, A. R., E. H. Manny, and W. Bartok. Field Testing:
Application of Combustion Modifications to Control NOx Emis-
sions from Utility Boilers. EPA-650/2-74-066, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June
1974.
14. LaChapelle, D. G., J. S. Bowen, and R. D. Stern. Overview
of Environmental Protection Agency's NOX Control Technology
for Stationary Combustion Sources. Paper presented at 67th
Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engi-
neers, Washington, DC, December 1-5, 1974.
15. Shimizu, A. B., R. J. Schreiber, H. B. Mason, G. G. Poe, and
S. B. Youngblood. NOx Combustion Control Methods and Costs
for Stationary Sources. EPA-600/2-75-046, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
September 1975.
16. MacDonald, B. I. Alternative Strategies for Control of
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, 25:525-528, May 1975.
17. Bendixen, T. W., and G. L. Huffman. Impact of Environmental
Control Technologies on the Energy Crisis. News of Environ-
mental Research in Cincinnati. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH, January 11, 1974.
18. Tennessee Valley Authority. Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power
Plant Stack Gas: Use of Limestone in Wet-Scrubbing Process.
NTIS Publication PB 183 908, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, Washington, DC, 1969.
19. Rochelle, G. T. A Critical Evaluation of Processes for the
Removal of S02 from Power Plant Stack Gas. Presented at
66th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, Chicago, IL, June 24-28, 1973.
72
-------
20. McGlamery, G. G. , R. L. Torstrick, W. J. Broadfoot,
J. P. Simpson, L. J. Henson, S. V. Tomlinson, and J. F.
Young. Detailed Cost Estimates for Advanced Effluent Desul-
furization Processes. EPA-600/2-75-006, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1975.
21. Shore, D., J. J. O'Donnell, and F. K. Chan. Evaluation of
R&D Investment Alternatives for SOX Air Pollution Control
Processes. EPA-650/2-74-098, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974.
22. Power Needs for Pollution Control. Electrical World, 155:66-
67. April 1, 1973.
23. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. The Cost of Clean Air.-
1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
January 15, 1974.
24. Teller, A. Air Pollution Control. Chemical Engineering,
79:93-98, May 8, 1972.
25. Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Alternatives. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Council on Environmental
Quality, Washington, DC, February 1974.
26. Herendeen, R. A. An Energy Input-Output Matrix for the
United States (1963)—User's Guide. Center for Advanced Com-
putation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, March 1973.
27. Herendeen, R. A., and C. W. Bullard. Energy Cost of Goods
and Services, 1963 and 1967. CAC Document No. 140, Center
for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL,
November 1974.
28. Smith, R. Electrical Power Consumption for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment. EPA-R2-73-281 (PB 223 360), U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, July 1973.
29. Jenkins, K. H. Inventory of Municipal Waste Facilities in
the United States (1968): Statistical Summary. NTIS Publi-
cation PB 218 475, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Washington, DC, 1968.
30. Huffman, G. L. Processes for the Conversion of Solid Wastes
and Biomass Fuels to Clean Energy Forms. Presented at the
ERDA/EPA/CEQ/FEA/NSF Conference on Capturing the Sun Through
Bioconversion, Washington, DC, March 11, 1976.
31
Franklin W. E., D. Bendersky, W. R. Park, and R. G. Hunt.
Potential Energy Conservation from Recycling Metals in Urban
*of?S wastes in- The Energy Conservation Papers, Chapter 5,
Smfarns, Sd. Balling!? Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA,
1975
73
-------
32. Evaluation of Regenerable Flue Gas Desulfurization Processes.
EPRI FP-272, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA, January 1977.
33. Stukel, J. J., and H. G. Rigo. Energy Efficiencies of Air
Pollution Control Devices. Atmospheric Environment, 9:529-
535, 1975.
34. Gordian Associates. The Potential for Energy Conservation
in Nine Selected Industries: The Data Base. Conservation
Paper No. 8, Federal Energy Administration, Office of Indus-
trial Programs, Energy Conservation and Environmental Divi-
sion, 1975.
35. Hottel, H. C., and J. B. Howard. New Energy Technology:
Some Facts and Assessments. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
1971.
36. Hypochlorite Stacks Up Well Against NOX. Chemical Week, 24-
25, March 3, 1976.
37- Standard Industrial Classification Manual: 1972. Statisti-
cal Policy Division, Executive Office of the President,
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 1972.
38. Development of Pollution and Economic Data on Industrial
Processing Activities for R&D Planning Use. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Energy, Minerals, and
Industry, Washington, DC. (Draft final report submitted to
the EPA by Batelle Columbus Laboratories, December 15, 1975.)
39. 1972 Census of Manufactures, Special Report Series, Fuels
and Electric Energy Consumed. MC72(SR)-6, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC, July 1973.
40. Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Energy Requirements for
Environmental Control in the Iron and Steel Industry. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Office of Environmental Affairs,
Washington, DC, January 29, 1976.
41. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume VIII, Alumina/Aluminum
Industry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034h, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
42. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume III, Iron and Steel
Industry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034c, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
74
-------
43. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume IV, Petroleum Refining
Industry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034d, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
44. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume V, Pulp and Paper
Industry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034e, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
45. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume VI, Olefins Industry
Report. EPA-600/7-76-034f, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
46. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume VII, Ammonia Industry
Report. EPA-600/7-76-034g, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
47. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume IX, Textile Industry
Report. EPA-600/7-76-034i, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
48. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume X, Cement Industry
Report. EPA-600/7-76-034J, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
49. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume XI, Glass Industry
Report. EPA-600/7-76-034k, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
50. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume XII, Chlor-Alkali
Industry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034£, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
51. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume XIII, Phosphorus/Phos-
phoric Acid Industry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034m, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
52 Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume XIV, Primary Copper
IndWry Report. EPA-600/7-76-034n, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
75
-------
53. Environmental Considerations of Selected Energy Conserving
Manufacturing Process Options, Volume XV, Fertilizer Indus-
try Report. EPA-600/7-76-0340, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
54. Monsanto Research Corp. Source Assessment: Overview Matrix.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, July 10, 1975. 36 pp.
55. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Assessment of Alterna-
tive Strategies for the Attainment and Maintenance of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, January 1975.
56. Fluidized-Bed Combustion Seen Less Costly Alternative to
Scrubbers. Environmental Reporter, (8):601-602, 1975.
57. Boersma, L., and K. A. Rykbost. Integrated Systems for Util-
izing Waste Heat from Steam Electric Plants. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 2 (2):179-187, 1973.
58. Haith, D. A. Integrated Systems for Power Plant Cooling and
Wastewater Management. In: Energy, Agriculture, and Waste
Management, W. J. Jewell, ed. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Ann Arbor, MI, 1975. pp. 219-236.
59. Karkheck, J., J. Powell, and E. Beardsworth. Prospects for
District Heating in the United States. Science, 195:948,
1977.
60. Schmid, B. K. S. The Solvent Refined Coal Process. Pre-
sented at the Symposium on Coal Gasification and Lique-
faction: Best Prospects for Commercialization, University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, August 6-8, 1974.
61. Energy Conservation in the Steel Industry. American Iron
and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, May 26, 1976.
62. The Relationship Between Energy Consumption, Pollution Con-
trol, and Environmental Impact: Materials Balance.
Contract EQ4ACO32, Task 2, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.
(Draft report submitted to CEQ by Development Sciences,
Inc., March 31, 1975.)
63. The Relationship Between Energy Consumption, Pollution Con-
trol, and Environmental Impact: Tradeoff Analysis.
Contract EQ4AC032, Task 3, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Council on Environmental Quality. (Draft report
submitted to CEQ by Development Sciences, Inc., April 30,
1975.)
76
-------
64. Choi, P. S. K., E. L. Kropp, W. E. Ballantyne, M. Y. Anastas,
A. A. Putnam, D. W. Hissong, and T. J. Thomas. SO2 Reduc-
tion in Nonutility Combustion Sources—Technical and Eco-
nomic Comparison of Alternatives. EPA-600/2-75-073 (PB 248
051), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC, October 1975.
65. Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Evaluation of
Municipal Sewage Treatment Alternatives. Contract EQC316
(PB 233 489), Council on Environmental Quality, Washington,
DC, February 1974.
66. Mills, R. A., and G. Tchobanoglous. Energy Consumption in
Wastewater Treatment. In: Energy, Agriculture, and Waste
Management, W. J, Jewell, ed. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Ann Arbor, MI, 1975. pp. 151-185.
67. Smith, R. Potential Energy Recovery in Wastewater Treatment
Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, November 13, 1975.
68. Goldstein, D. J., and R. F. Probstein. Energy Conservation
in the Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters. In: Proceedings
of the 12th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Con-
ference, Washington, DC, August 28 to September 2, 1977.
pp. 469-472.
69. Levy, S. J., and H. G. Rigo. Resource Recovery Plant Imple-
mentation: Guides for Municipal Officials. Part 2, Technol-
ogies. Publication No. SW-157.2, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1976.
70. Hirst, E. Pollution-Control Energy. Mechanical Engineering,
96:28-35, September 1974.
71. Hirst, E. The Energy Cost of Pollution Control. Environ-
ment, 15:37-44, October 1973.
72. Hirst, E., and T. J. Healy. Electric Energy Requirements
for Environmental Protection. Public Utilities Fortnightly,
91-(10) : 52-57, May 10, 1973.
73. Hirst, E., and T. J. Healy. Electric Energy Requirements
for Environmental Protection. Presented at Conference on
Energy: Demand, Conservation, and Institutional Problems,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,
February 12-14, 1973.
74 Hitman Associates, Inc. Environmental Impacts, Efficiency,
and Cost of Energy Supply and End Use, Volume 1. Contract
238 784)? U.s! Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Quality, November 1974.
77
-------
APPENDIX A
OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK
An overview of the literature survey is presented in this section.
Each article that made a significant contribution to the data base
is briefly reviewed. Details of the results and the methods
employed are presented in Section 4. The list of articles is not
exhaustive, but all of the major work in this area is included.
A number of the articles are in the form of draft reports that
are subject to revision; these reports are so noted.
The literature reviewed is divided into three categories: broad-
scope studies, in-depth studies, and other related work. Articles
that cover all or many sectors of the economy (but in necessarily
limited detail) are classified as broad-scope studies. The intent
of these studies is normally to provide an overall picture of the
energy required for pollution control on the national level. By
contrast, studies that cover only one or several industries in
considerable detail are classified as in-depth studies. In some
cases where the distinction between the two categories is not
entirely clear, the classification is based on the level of
detail employed in the study. Articles that do not fit in either
of the above categories, but that contain information pertinent
to the present work, are classified as "other related work."
BROAD-SCOPE STUDIES
DSI, Draft Report, 1975 (2)
This is the most definitive of the broad-scope studies. Incre-
mental energy requirements are estimated for pollution control to
meet Federal regulations in 1977 and 1983 for major stationary
source sectors. These sectors are:
• Power plant thermal and air pollution control
• Municipal wastewater treatment
• Industrial water and air pollution control
Average values of energy consumption per unit of capacity are
used with estimates of the capacity requiring control. The
latter are generally estimates made by EPA. Calculations for the
industrial sector are based on estimates of incremental invest-
ment in pollution control equipment made by the Council on
Environmental Quality. Indirect energy for chemicals and sludge
78
-------
disposal is included where data permit. Energy for the fabrica-
tion and installation of pollution control equipment is estimated
using results from energy input/output analysis (26, 27).
Major assumptions made in each calculation are clearly stated;
however, data sources are not always well-documented, which
hinders the evaluation of results. In addition, the results are
in terms of incremental energy requirements relative to a moving
baseline that is not explicitly described in the report. Hence,
estimation of total energy required for pollution control is
difficult.
EEI (Edison Electric Institute), 1972 (22)
Results of a 1972 survey of 87 electric utilities made by the
Edison Electric Institute are reported. Total electrical energy
consumption for pollution control in the industrial sector is
given for 1971 according to the 2-digit standard industrial
classification (SIC) code. Projected annual electrical energy
consumption for pollution control for the period 1973-77 is
presented for each industrial SIC class.
Values of electrical energy consumption for sewage treatment
plants are also given.
Data from this survey represent the most comprehensive estimates
available for pollution control energy consumption in the
industrial sector. However, only electrical energy is included,
and it is not broken down into water, air, and solid waste
pollution control. In addition, the projections are for actual
energy consumption, not energy required to meet all Federal
standards. The survey covered utility companies whose sales
accounted for approximately 20% of total national electrical
energy sales to industrial customers.
Michigan, 1975 (4)
This study was performed at the University of Michigan as part of
the Energy Policy Project sponsored by the Ford Foundation. The
project is similar in scope and methodology to the DSI study,
which it predates. However, most of the estimates of energy
requirements for pollution control are given for 1985 only. Con-
siderable original work was performed, particularly in obtaining
unit energy requirements for various control strategies. A number
of these values have been used in subsequent studies.
Hirst, 1973 (8)
Analyses in this study are less detailed and less consistent than
the DSI and Michigan studies. Areas covered are:
79
-------
• Mass transit
• Automotive controls
• Wastewater treatment
• Solid waste management (including disposal, recycling,
and energy recovery)
• Air pollution
• Thermal pollution
• Energy conservation
Calculations are based on 1970 data with stringent (but arbitrary)
levels of control assumed. Only direct operating energy for pol-
lution control equipment is considered. The results of this
study have been published in a number of different articles, all
of which contain essentially the same information (70-73).
RPA, 1974 (5)
This study considers the effects of environmental legislation on
energy supply and demand. Increased energy demand as a result of
pollution control legislation is estimated for 1973 and 1980 in
five sectors:
• Stationary sources of air pollution
• Mobile sources
• Lead restrictions for gasoline
• Water quality standards for both thermal and waste content
• Municipal solid waste management
The calculation for SOX control at powerplants is similar to that
of the DSI and Michigan studies. Little or no detail is given of
the other stationary source estimates.
Cywin, 1975 (6)
This brief article deals primarily with energy requirements for
water pollution control, but estimates are also given for air pol-
lution control, control of mobile sources, and solid waste pro-
grams. Estimates of energy required to meet EPA regulations are
given for 1980. For water pollution control, the major assump-
tions are outlined, but details of the calculations are not given.
Results for the other sectors are based on EPA estimates or
estimates furnished by government contractors, but the method-
ology is not given. Only direct energy requirements are con-
sidered. EPA is said to believe that the estimates given in this
article are conservative (i.e., near the upper limit for energy
requirements) because of the following underlying assumptions:
• No new technologies are used that would be more energy
efficient than those currently in use.
• Energy prices are low (pre-embargo level) so that the
incentive to reduce energy consumption is minimal.
80
-------
• There is no explicit Federal energy conservation program.
Bendixen and Huffman, 1974 (17)
Energy requirements for several pollution control strategies are
estimated and compared with energy consumption in other sectors of
the economy. Direct energy required for SOX scrubbers on power-
plants is estimated for 1974 assuming the total national capacity
uses 3.5% sulfur coal and is equipped with scrubbers. Electrical
energy consumption for municipal wastewater treatment in 1974 is
estimated using 1968 data given by Smith (28) and assuming that
the total population is served by tertiary treatment. Energy
associated with solid waste collection and disposal is quoted
from Hirst (71) .
IN-DEPTH STUDIES
ERT, 1977 (3)
Energy requirements for pollution control are studied for the
fossil fuel steam electric power industry. Unit energy require-
ments (including preplant, inplant, and postplant uses) are
obtained from the literature for various pollution control strate-
gies. The most frequently cited references are EPA publications
and the Michigan study (4) . The capacity requiring control is
calculated for compliance with various Federal and State regula-
tions in 1983. The distribution of generating capacity, by size,
region, and fuel type is obtained by projecting data for the base-
line year 1974 to 1983. These data are obtained from the FEA
survey of 100 powerplants together with a supplementary survey
made by ERT to determine energy use for pollution control.
Dispersion modeling is used to determine capacity requiring
control to meet ambient air quality standards. Energy require-
ments are computed for seven different SOX control strategies and
attainment of five different air quality goals. Energy require-
ments for control of particulate matter and thermal pollution are
also given.
Iron and Steel, 1976 (40)
A detailed materials-flow approach based on industry-supplied
data is used to estimate pollution control energy requirements.
The steel-making process is broken down into unit processes that
are analyzed individually for pollution control energy needs. A
representative (average) size for each unit is determined based
^
S-.S SS ^ -; tK-
pollution control energy requirements are obtained by imilti-
process vaiues by the on pro
81
-------
Energy requirements are given for inplant air pollution control,
inplant water pollution control, and preplant and postplant pollu-
tion control activities. The preplant energy includes indirect
energy for fabrication of equipment and chemicals as well as
energy used for pollution control by electric utilities in supply-
ing the additional electricity required by steel plants. The
energy values given are those required to meet all State and
Federal regulations in 1983. Calculations are also made assuming
less stringent regulations. Pollution control energy savings
obtainable by modifications of unit processes and pollution con-
trol systems are also presented.
Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1976 (7)
A detailed analysis of the effects of pollution control regula-
tions on electric powerplants is presented. Most of the results
are given in economic terms. National energy penalties for cool-
ing towers, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are given
for 1980 and 1985. No details of the estimation procedures are
given.
A. D. Little, 1976 (41-53)
Detailed analyses of 13 selected industries are given emphasizing
environmental aspects of potential energy-conserving process modi-
fications. Both total energy requirements and energy require-
ments for pollution control in alternative processes are
considered. In one case, nitric acid plants (53) , energy require-
ments for alternative pollution control methods are given.
DSI, Draft Reports, 1975 (62, 63)
The effects of process modifications on the energy required for
pollution control are studied in four selected industries:
copper smelting, pulp and paper bleach plants, potato processing,
and cheese making. Only the copper and cheese-making reports
were available for use in the present study. A detailed
materials-flow approach is employed to determine the energy
requirements for alternative processes. For copper smelting, the
energy required to operate an acid plant for SOX control is deter-
mined for a traditional smelting process and for the Noranda proc-
ess. For cheese making, the alternatives consist of recovery of
whey from the watewater versus treatment of the wastewater with-
out recovery of whey-
Smith, 1973 (28)
In this widely-quoted work, electric power consumption is com-
puted for unit processes employed in primary, secondary, and
tertiary wastewater treatment. These unit energy consumption
values are then combined to calculate the electrical energy
requirements of alternative wastewater treatment strategies.
Energy requirements for fuel and chemicals are not considered.
82
-------
Mills and Tchobanoglous, 1975 (66)
This work deals with energy requirements for municipal wastewater
treatment. It is similar in scope to, and largely based upon,
the work of Smith (28) . However, energy requirements for fuel,
chemicals, and capital equipment are also taken into account.
The latter are obtained from energy input/output analysis (26, 27)
Energy consumption data for unit processes are conveniently tabu-
lated for easy reference. Energy requirements for two alterna-
tive wastewater treatment schemes are calculated as an example.
NCWQ, Draft Report, 1975 (10)
This voluminous report discusses the economic, social, and envi-
ronmental impacts associated with the 1972 Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments. Of interest in the present context
are estimates of the energy requirements for municipal and indus-
trial wastewater treatment and powerplant thermal pollution con-
trol. The energy estimate for municipal wastewater treatment is
based on data from the 1974 EPA needs survey. In-depth studies
were made of powerplants and 10 other selected industries:
• Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables
• Inorganic chemicals
• Iron and steel
• Metal finishing
• Organic chemicals
• Petroleum refining
• Plastics and synthetics
• Pulp and paper
• Textiles
• Feedlots
All other industries were lumped together, and their energy
requirements were estimated based on total operating and mainte-
nance cos?s Although few details of the individual studies are
given it can be surmised from the breadth of the above indus
trial'categories that the analyses were of limited depth.
BMI, 1974 (65)
tations are 9iven
83
-------
Solid Waste, 1976 (69)
Energy balances are presented for a number of processes for recov-
ering energy from municipal solid waste. Energy recovery effi-
ciencies are given for each process based on the energy balance
calculations. Many of the data for the energy balances are from
reports made by companies developing the various processes, most
of which have not been operated on a commercial scale. Hence the
validity of the data on which the calculations are based is open
to question.
Iron and Steel Institute, 1976 (61)
Fifteen different process modifications that have been proposed
as energy conservation measures in the iron and steel industry
are analyzed. The advantages and disadvantages of each proposed
modification are given. Factors considered in the analyses
include technical aspects, economic aspects, environmental
effects, potential energy savings, and effect on product quality.
OTHER RELATED WORK
Batelle, Draft Report, 1975 (38)
This report compiles economic, operational, and pollution data on
91 selected four-digit SIC industries. Data obtained from litera-
ture sources are tabulated on the following parameters:
Major pollutants
Annual production
Dollar value of production
Ability to pass on costs
Financial dispersion
Geographical dispersion
Research capabilities
Water discharge
Energy consumption
Recycled materials
Of interest in the present study is an extrapolated tabulation of
the EEI (22) data on electrical energy consumption for pollution
control. The EEI two-digit classification is resolved to four
digits by apportioning the pollution control energy according to
the percentage of total energy consumption for each four-digit
class. The fact that the EEI survey data represent only about
20% of total electric sales to industrial customers is not men-
tioned, and the reader is led to believe that the data represent
total industrial energy consumption for pollution control.
Economics of Clean Water, 1973 (9)
This report is the sixth in a series of reports to the Congress
by EPA as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Municipal, industrial, and electric utility wastewater and
thermal discharges are covered. Estimates of capital and operat-
ing costs to meet 1977 standards are given. Direct energy
requirements for powerplant thermal pollution control are given
84
-------
for 1977 and 1983. However, no information on the source of
these estimates is given.
MacDonald, 1975 (16)
The environmental, energy, and economic penalties associated with
three SOX control strategies for coal-fired electric powerplants
are investigated. The three strategies are:
• To achieve State implementation plan requirements by
burning low-sulfur western coal.
• To achieve State implementation plan requirements by
burning high-sulfur coal and installing limestone scrub-
bers to remove SO2 from the flue gas.
• To meet ambient air quality standards by burning high-
sulfur coal and employing supplementary control systems.
National energy requirements for each strategy are calculated by
a unique method based on an estimate by the Federal Energy Office
of the 1975 fuel deficit that would have resulted from enforce-
ment of existing State implementation plans with no switching
from coal to gas or oil.
Stukel and Rigo, 1975 (33)
The energy efficiencies of particulate and SOx control devices
are calculated. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of the
minimum reversible energy required to separate the pollutant from
a gas stream to the actual energy required. The minimum energy
is calculated as the sum of the kinetic energy of the pollutant
and the reversible energy of mixing.
Hittman, 1974 (74)
A computerized data base is developed for pollutant emissions
associated with various energy supply and end use activities.
Energy supply activities include coal supply, oil supply, natural
gas supply, and electric powerplants. End us activities include
residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses.
For each activity, environmental impact tables are presented that
give pollutant emissions associated with each aspect of the given
activity. The footnotes to the table for electric powerplants
contain some unit energy consumption figures for pollution con-
trol. These are the only data that have a direct bearing on the
present study.
Rochelle, 1973 (19)
Unit power and fuel requirements of a number of SOX control
systems are given as a percentage of powerplant output. Included
85
-------
are throwaway and regenerable scrubbing methods and dry processes,
The source of the data is not given, but it reportedly was based
in part on then-current results of several large-scale EPA demon-
stration projects.
86
-------
APPENDIX B
RANKING OF INDUSTRIAL SECTOR BY FOUR-DIGIT SIC CATEGORIES
TABLE B-l.
RANKING OF EEI (2) DATA BASED ON BATELLE
RESOLUTION TO FOUR-DIGIT SIC CATEGORIES9
SIC
3312
2911
2621
2869
2631
3662
2819
3334
3621
3462
3321
3714
3352
3711
3331
2895
3465
3691
3313
12—
2611
2812
3471
2821
3391
2824
3333
2865
3531
3523
3996
Name
Blast furnaces and steel mills
Petroleum refining
Papermills
Industrial organic chemicals, NEC
Paperboard mills
Radio and TV commercial equipment
Industrial inorganic chemicals, NEC
Primary aluminum
Motors and generators
Metal forgings and stampings
Gray iron foundries
Motor vehicle parts and accessories
Aluminum rolling and drawing
Motor vehicles
Primary copper
Carbon black
Automotive metal stampings
Storage batteries
Electrometallurgical products
Coal and lignite mining
Pulp mills
-Alkalies and chlorine
Plating and polishing
Plastic materials and resins
Iron and steel forgings
Organic fibers, noncellulosic
Primary zinc
Cyclic intermediates and crudes
Construction machinery
Farm machinery
Hard surface floor coverings
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
on
•j\j
31
Percent
°f b
total
22.54
8.46
6.03
5.31
4.74
3.43
3.29
2.57
2.54
1.69
1.52
1.39
1.29
1.26
1.20
1.17
1.15
1.06
1.00
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.81
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.67
0.66
Cumulative
percent
22.54
31.00
37.03
42.34
47.08
50.51
53.80
56.37
58.91
60.60
62.12
63.51
64.80
66.06
67.26
68.43
69.58
70.64
71.64
72.58
73.51
74.43
75.29
76.14
76.97
77.78
78.54
79.29
80.03
80.70
81.36
See footnotes at end of table, p. 90.
(continued)
87
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
SIC
3469
3914
3399
3323
3221
3351
2661
3341
2823
2653
2813
3361
3721
242-
2822
3724
3322
3357
2816
3079
3273
3251
3011
2899
2011
2873
3316
3332
3229
3315
2013
2063
3317
3339
2951
2834
249-
3211
3356
3511
2221
243-
3731
2211
Name
Metal stampings, NEC
Silverware and plated wares
Primary metal products, NEC
Steel foundries
Glass containers
Copper rolling and drawing
Building paper and board mills
Secondary nonferrous metals
Cellulosic manmade fibers
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes
Industrial gases
Aluminum castings
Aircraft
Sawmills and planing mills
Synthetic rubber
Aircraft engines and parts
Malleable iron foundries
Nonferrous wiredrawing, insulating
Inorganic pigments
Miscellaneous plastic products
Ready-mix concrete
Brick and structural tile
Tires and innertubes
Chemical preparations, NEC
Meatpacking plants
Nitrogen fertilizers
Cold finishing of steel shapes
Primary lead
Pressed and blown glass
Steel wire and related products
Sausages and other prepared meats
Beet sugar
Steel pipes and tubes
Primary nonferrous metals, NEC
Paving mixtures and blocks
Pharmaceutical preparations
Miscellaneous wood products
Flat glass
Nonferrous rolling and drawing, NEC
Steam engines and turbines
Weaving mills, manmade fibers
Millwork, plywood, related products
Shipbuilding and repair
Weaving mills, cotton
Rank
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Percent
°f b
total
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.52
0.49
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.33
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
Cumulative
percent
81.91
82.46
83.00
83.52
84.01
84.48
84.94
85.40
85.85
86.25
86.64
87.03
87.40
87.76
88.12
88.45
88.76
89.07
89.36
89.65
89.94
90.21
90.48
90.74
90.99
91.24
91.48
91.72
91.95
92.18
92.41
92.64
92.85
93.06
93.27
93.48
93.69
93.89
94.09
94.28
94.46
94.64
94.82
95.00
See footnotes at end of table, p. 90.
(continued)
88
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
SIC
3069
2046
14—
3392
2841
2892
13—
3296
2262
2048
2511
2026
2033
2051
2833
2082
2261
3369
2075
2851
3295
3362
2077
2062
2711
2037
99--
2879
3466
2023
2085
2861
2015
2752
10—
2061
23—
3861
2022
2021
21—
3111
19 —
244-
Name
Fabricated rubber products
Wet corn milling, etc.
Mining, nonmetallic minerals
Nonferrous forgings
Soaps and other detergents
Explosives
Oil and gas extraction
Mineral wool
Finishing mills, synthetics
Prepared feeds
Wood household furniture
Fluid milk
Canned fruits and vegetables
Bread , cake , and related products
Medicinals and botanicals
Malt liquors
Finishing mills, cotton
Nonferrous castings, NEC
Soy bean oil mills
Paints and varnishes
Minerals ground and treated
Brass, bronze, and copper castings
Animal and marine fats and oils
Cane sugar refining
Newspapers
Frozen fruits and vegetables
Nonclassifiable
Pe st ic ides , e t c .
Crowns and closures
Condensed and evaporated milk
Distilled liquors; example: brandy
Gum and wood chemicals
Poultry dressing plants
. Commercial printing, lithographies
Metal mining
Raw cane sugar
Apparel and related products
Photographic equipment adn supplies
Cheese, natural and processed
Creamery butter
Tobacco manufactures
Leather tanning and finishing
Ordnances and accessories
Wooden containers
Rank
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Percent
of .
total
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
Cumulative
percent
95.18
95.36
95.53
95.70
95.86
96.02
96.17
96.32
96.47
96.62
96.77
96.92
97.07
97.21
97.35
97.48
97.61
97.74
97.86
97.97
98.08
98.19
98.29
98.39
98.48
98.57
98.65
98.72
98.79
98.85
98.91
98.96
99.01
99.06
99.11
99.15
99.19
99.23
99.26
99.29
99.31
99.33
99.35
99.36
See footnotes at end of table, p. 90.
89
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
SIC
2017
3811
59—
01—
2091
2411
5171
Name
Poultry and egg processing
Engineering and scientific instruments
Retail stores
Agriculture
Canned and preserved seafoods
Logging camps and contractors
Petroleum bulk stations and terminals
Rank
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Percent
°f b
total
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cumulative
percent
99.37
99.38
99.38
99.38
99.38
99.38
99.38
Reference 38 is a draft report subject to revision.
Percent 1977 energy requirement for pollution control in industrial sector.
90
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-084
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF PRESENT
POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
5. REPORT DATE
May 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. W. Serth and R. S. Hockett
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
MRC-DA-762
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, OH 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1320
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab-Cinn., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 3/4/76 - 6/30/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Estimates of energy requirements for pollution control at stationary
sources in the United States, as compiled from the literature, are
presented and discussed. The data are analyzed to determine the
distribution of energy requirements among economic sectors and among
pollutant types. Alternative methods of pollution control that are
potentially less energy intensive and still capable of meeting
environmental regulations are also discussed.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Energy
Pollution
Pollution control
Stationary sources
Energy requirements
97B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS <
UNCLASSIFIED
101
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
91
•{{ U. s. CO1. E WiHEHT Fl;iNnun OFFICE: 1978 — 757-140/1370
------- |