You are on page 1of 8

PEER-REVIEWED PAPER

Energy efficiency improvements in the
U.S. petroleum refining industry

William R. Morrow, III Jayant Sathaye Eric Masanet
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Northwestern University
1 Cyclotron Road 1 Cyclotron Road 2145 Sheridan Road
Berkeley Berkeley Evanston
California, 94720 California, 94720 Illinois, 60208
USA USA USA

John Marano Ali Hasanbeigi Tengfang Xu
JM Energy Consulting, Inc. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1065 South Lake Drive 1 Cyclotron Road 1 Cyclotron Road
Gibsonia Berkeley Berkeley
Pennsylvania, 15044 California, 94720 California, 94720
USA USA USA

Keywords
energy analysis, energy efficient technologies, petroleum refin- as combined heat and power (CHP), carbon capture, and the
eries potential introduction of biomass feedstocks, which are recom-
mended for further research and analysis.

Abstract
Energy efficiency improvements can be a cost effective ap- Introduction
proach for reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
However, estimating the cost and potential for energy effi-
®
An Energy Star report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) concluded that: “Further re-
ciency improvements in the U.S. petroleum refining industry search on the economics of energy-efficiency measures, as well
is complex due to the diversity of U.S. refineries and lack of as the applicability of these to individual refineries, is needed to
publically available detailed process performance data. A no- assess the feasibility of implementation of selected technologies
tional aggregate model of the U.S. petroleum refining sector at individual plants” [Worrell 2005]. However, a robust meth-
was developed, consisting of twelve integrated processing units, odology for estimating the cost and potential for U.S. refinery
steam generation, hydrogen production, and water utilities. energy efficiency improvements is complicated by a number
The model is carbon and energy balanced such that crude oil of issues unique to refining [Gary 2007, Worrell 2005]. The re-
inputs and major refinery sector fuel outputs are benchmarked fining industry is diverse with refineries distributed across the
to 2010 data. Current penetration of efficiency measures are U.S., each having evolved independently to handle changing
estimated to benchmark energy estimates to those reported in crude oil inputs and product outputs. The last U.S. green-field
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) 2010 data. Each meas- refinery was commissioned in 1979, and the average age of the
ure’s remaining energy savings potential is estimated and their existing refinery fleet is well over fifty years old. However, the
costs are compared to U.S. DOE fuel prices. Resulting efficiency existing fleet is not obsolete. Although capacity at individual
opportunities are presented on a cost of conserved energy sup- refineries has increased over time and refineries are continu-
ply curve. ously being expanded and modernized, no two refineries are
Roughly 1,200 PJ per year of primary fuels savings (40 % ever exactly the same. Each refinery utilizes technologies of dif-
reduction in fuel consumption) and 400  GWh per year of ferent vintage and make, and at any moment in time, there exist
electricity savings (2 % reduction in electricity consumption), a distribution in refinery performance in regards to product
representing nearly 70 Mt CO2 emissions, are potentially cost- yields and energy efficiency. Lastly, individual refinery process
effective. An additional 450 PJ per year of primary fuels savings performance data is proprietary and rarely publicly available.
and close to 1,850 GWh per year of electricity savings, repre- The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Re-
senting roughly 26 Mt CO2 emissions, are not cost-effective. newable Energy Program’s Advanced Manufacturing Office
The model also has the potential to be used to examine the (previously the Industrial Technologies Program) has spon-
costs and benefits of the other CO2 mitigation options, such sored a series of energy efficiency potential bandwidth reports

ECEEE INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY PROCEEDINGS  487

petroleum refinery industry being fed to a reactor. on literature reviews and private sources spanning the period heat exchangers. A recent update covers the whole refinery industry con. lish pressures and temperatures required to maximize the yield carriers of energy. Therefore. The product from the ranges based on U. one can speak of the efficiency of a process.S. if it is not matched with a re- under development [Energetics. coke. Due to the highly integrated nature of the petroleum refin- ery industry complexities. these meas. Simply improving A recent Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) efficiency without corresponding reductions in fuel gas genera- report helps address the complexity of the refinery industry tion could result in excess fuel gas and catalyst coke potentially and need for further research on the economics of efficien.S. which are consumed within the refinery to supply heat nologies and then an additional 25 % reduction is conceivably and generate electricity. If this caveat is over looked then achieving these potentials where not addressed in either report. to systematically describe and quantify the efficiency separators and heat exchangers) and piping establish pumping options that might be considered within a refinery. The operating pres- ficiency. all integrated through pip- from 1975 to the present. An energy efficient design will recover heat While these three efficiencies are distinct they are also highly from hot process streams that require cooling and transfer it to correlated. estimates of pressure drops through all equipment (reactors. and is then heated analysis with an overview of the methods. The overhead gas is typically purged of impurities. requirements for liquid streams and compression requirements ures can be categorized based on the level at which they are im. In addition to this petroleum feed. all processes and their interactions must be ture conditions. energy abatement measures will not be additive in general. CO2 emissions and costs. bandwidth report focused on five of the most energy intensive A hierarchy of improvements exists. Based on these pressure and tempera- tricity). Control valves are used throughout Petroleum refineries consist of a complex interconnected set to maintain the desired flow rates of the streams within the of processing units integrated through the flow of process process.S. sustaining for much of their fuel and electricity use. and controls. to the desired reaction temperature in a fired heater. before and the resulting aggregated U. Detailed information on the performance of individual pe- ing refinery process performance. primary objectives: 1)  develop robust methods for estimat. refinery industry are mod- timate cost effective energy efficiency potential. Figure 1 is an overall process ity of assessing the feasibility of implementation of selected block flow diagram showing the major hydrocarbon flows be- technologies at individual plants is reduced by modeling the tween the twelve unit processes evaluated in the analysis shown whole U. Thermodynamic and chemical kinetic considerations estab- hydrogen.. instrumentation. reducing fuel consumption possible through the adoption of R&D technologies currently is not necessarily cost effective.73 EUR per USD being sent either to finished product blending or on to fur- [XE. refinery industry in aggregate. not only the reactor and separation operations to provide required heat- in terms energy. industries. and the collection and transmission of data enables sure requirements for the reactor and separations. and estimated stream physical properties and taken into account when considering efficiency improvements. Eenergy Information Administra. Each of the twelve units are mostly comprised of process flect U. and more impor- to petroleum refining in the U. al. or information through the refinery. along with process optimization and control to be used to improve both. This research had three generation systems to utilize these excess fuels. cold process streams that require heating. Costs associated with duction in fuel gas generation. and emissions. 2) establish representative tantly. but also in terms of mass and information.e. and elec. twelve core processes that dominate and 3) generate cost of conserved energy supply curves to es. Therefore. baseline estimates. 2013]. re-compressed. ing. energy.e.S. flow rates. Therefore. Therefore. petroleum refinery ery. a cost of conserved energy supply curve and cost-effectiveness recycle gas is also co-fed to the reactor. ther processing steps. cooling water. and recycled back to the reactor to be re-used in the chemical reactions. separators. A notional model in Figure 1. such that initial improve- refinery unit operations concluding that 27 % of refinery en. energy. ing or cooling. heaters. the future state of the industry in regards to energy usage baseline data of production. for smooth and stable operations. for vapor streams. Improved mass efficiency will improve energy ef.S. for a generic U. ments limit the effectiveness of later improvements. Almost all refinery processes are designed to plemented in the refinery and by whether they directly impact operate continuously requiring a robust process control system the flow of mass.S. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … specific to energy intensive U. such as hydrocarbons.com 2014]. reactor is cooled in a heat exchanger and separated into gase- tion’s industrial sector natural gas price forecasts [EIA 2014] ous and liquid products. cessing steps in the refining of crude oil into finished products cluding that 13 % of total refining energy consumption could produce fuel by-products. energy consumption within the U. The complex. and costs of energy efficiency measures applicable making it difficult to ascertain the current. refinery was developed and “tuned” to re. the molecules of interest. reactors. streams (i. aggregate yield and energy consumption data based equipment such as feed pumps. efficiency potentials could be overestimated. eled in a notional generic refinery. most notably fuel gas and catalyst be reduced by implementing best practices and SOA tech. and contaminants) and various utility streams (i. 2013]. with the liquid hydrocarbon product and converted to Euros at a conversion of 0. Refineries ergy consumption could be reduced through adoption of best are unique relative to most industrial facilities as they are self- practices and state-of-the-art (SOA) technologies [Energetics. Additional make-up Methods gas may also be required. Despite the refin. a heat exchanger network (HEN) is designed around Further.S. CO2 troleum refineries is generally not available at the process level. such as fuel. steam.S. The process feed stream This conference paper presents a condensed version of that is conveyed to the unit using a feed pump.S. emissions. and compressors. energy requirements. requiring additional investments in combined heat and power cy measures [Morrow.. DOE’s. Most pro- 2006]. of desirable product(s). et. 488  ECEEE 2014 INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY – RETOOL FOR A COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY . an initial U.4-062-14 MORROW ET AL 4.

as defined in the text. fuel. as well as the hydrogen and gas consumption can be indirect (e. refinery “off-site” (e..e. electricity.. Processing units or systems: CDU Crude Distillation Unit ACU Atmospheric Crude Unit VCU Vacuum Crude Unit CKU Coking Unit CTU Cat-Feed Treating Unit CCU Catalytic Cracking Unit HCU Hydrocracking Unit DTU Diesel Treating Unit KTU Kerosene Treating Unit NTU Naphtha Treating Unit CRU Catalytic Reforming Unit ISU Isomerization Unit GTU Gasoline Treating Unit AKU Alkylation Unit RGS* Refinery Gas Processing & Flare Systems HYS* Hydrogen Production & Recovery Systems AGS* Acid Gas Removal & Sulfur Recovery Systems SPS* Steam & Power Systems WTS* Water Treatment & Delivery Systems * Additional units or systems considered “off-site”. Additionally. or fuel and electricity (i.). and hydrogen production) contribute to the total steam and hydrogen production of the entire refinery. steam and hydrogen) which processing requirements of each processing unit.g. when ECEEE INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY PROCEEDINGS  489 . fuel and electricity consumption can energy consumption is allocated to the twelve processing units be direct (e.. fired heaters and pumps) which is designated “in- shown in Figure 1.g. required modelling parameters. Overall Process Block Flow Diagram (dashed lines denotes H2 consuming unit processes).g. utilities such as steam and assigned to the individual units according to their proportion to electricity generation.. Where steam is designated “outside the battery limits” (OSBL). and therefore not shown. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … 4-062-14 MORROW ET AL Figure 1.4. refinery industry energy consumption and in this analysis their For each processing unit. etc. or hydrogen is utilized in processing units. The allocation method is based on the energy side the battery limits” (ISBL) for the unit. fuel and electricity To estimate the aggregate energy consumption and perfor- requirements for steam generation and hydrogen production are mance of the twelve units. steam.

and the added diesel. this excludes the jet fuel. etc. energy associated water-usage (process. current and future technolo. the applica- ciated with improved catalysts and other process consumables. steam costs by averaging higher and lower cost measures.S. to be added. they also have an effect (either decreasing or study.g. (1) An algorithm is used to order the CCE values from lowest to highest begins with a base case representation of a refinery that where: has not implemented any of the energy measures identified. The refinery models are constrained to satisfy a U. etc. € and selects the measure with the lowest cost of conserved ener- q Capital recovery factor. vintage 1995) and current penetration analysis.. joules) using a gregated product demand slate (e.S. the energy (fuels. heat exchanges. ing electricity (e. allowing the complexity of U.g.). pe- this estimate: the number and character of the new equipment troleum refinery aggregated output product slate (i. energy consumption within the petroleum refining industry. is particularly tricky for projects that involve re-working an Each unit process presented in Table 1 was analyzed separate- existing process.0561 Mt CO2/PJ [IPCC 2006]. This estimate is considering major process modifications. and cost of installation.g. Instead. furnace efficiency or process notional refinery. that the marginal electricity consumption within the petroleum The cost of conserved energy (CCE) for an energy efficiency refinery industry is grid purchased electricity. Assigning capital costs to the energy efficiency measures de- scribed can be problematic. such as improved based on 2010 process throughput [EIA 2013]. Examples of these types of projects are heat ly to qualify and quantify potential energy efficiency measures. CCE Cost of conserved energy.. even when the cost of any new Results equipment is known. since energy efficiency projects involve Table 1 presents estimated energy consumption for the twelve modifications to an existing plant. ag. process heaters and boilers. the resulting aggregate cost of conserved energy supply curve creases. 2012]. steam distribution. petroleum refining industry. tricity purchases are excluded from the CCE calculation. refinery processes were developed for the LBNL in many cases. The re. adding together the individual unit-process curves. the processes (e. boiler efficiency improve- ments) have been allocated to each unit process based on 1.S. diesel. steam. This is especially true when modelled unit processes for the year 2010. The U. 490  ECEEE 2014 INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY – RETOOL FOR A COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY . yr-1 gy. Several items must be known in order to make ing modelling of energy required to produce the 2010 U.572 Mt CO2/TWh is used to convert electricity saving into grid level CO2 emissions1. and engineer- heat integration. are selected for their impact on fuel energy conservation but tions for U. This procedure allows composite fuel and engineering. within individual process units varies. This methodology implicitly accounts for changes in the productivity improvements. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … not available in the open literature.S. measures solely affecting energy measures from each of the processes are presented as individual usage of major refinery offsites (e. starting from reported aggregate data. The capital recover factor is used to convert unit capi. integration and piping network modifications. This becomes the basis for the next iteration and the proce- M Non-energy annual increases in O&M costs.S. cooling. maintenance (O&M) costs. However.S. rates are estimated to reflect 2010 aggregate energy consump- tal costs to cost per unit energy savings (e. utilization improvements). jet fuel.) although their application increases in O&M considered result from additional costs asso.270 Mt CO2 of electricity sector emissions associated a weighted distribution of unit consumption of total offsite with 3.e.) using a composite crude oil assay representative of fuel used to generate electricity and is intended to reflect final the average crude oil composition processed in the U. €/GJ The algorithm then examines all of these measures separately I Added capital cost. petroleum refinery industry is first modelled without The capital recovery factor of 17. etc. electricity impacts of process integration on overall refining efficiency to be as. av- measures is calculated with the following equation: erage CO2 emissions factor of 0.. The first item may be difficult to estimate if electricity). decreases or both in annual non-energy operating and for the U. However. € dure is repeated until all of the measures have been accounted B Annual decreases in O&M costs due to non-energy for.S. In addition. described in the methods description above. however.4-062-14 MORROW ET AL 4. are included in the fuel conservation supply curves by convert- sessed. Models coupling empirical data and engineering calcula..971 TWh of electricity production reported in EIA AEO 2012 [EIA.. Many of the measures to reduce Many of the energy efficiency and abatement measures are fuel requirements also result in decreases or increases in elec. Therefore.1 % was assumed for the energy efficiency (i. finery models are carbon balanced allowing carbon to be tracked CO2 emissions are calculated using the IPCC natural gas con- and CO2 emissions estimated as fuels are consumed throughout version factor of 0. Figure 2 presents Any given energy measure applied may result either in in.g. The remaining potential is evaluated as efficiency measures. some of the existing equipment is to be re-used.g. GJ/yr implementation of measures selected earlier in the sequence.. €/GJ) for energy tion (shown in Table 2). gasoline. were deduced by reverse energy generation. (e. € cost of conserved energy for any specific measure due to the ES Annual energy savings. A 2010 U. kWh) to fuel energy (e.. quantity of gasoline..g. similar in that they affect common equipment used throughout tricity usage. conversion factor (1 kWh = 3.S. and averaging their cost would misrepresent pumping efficiency improvements) or indirectly (e.. The last item and waste) and hydrogen production are also modelled.e. the value of incremental changes in elec. It is assumed the refinery processes. Other pumps.g. This is calculated from 2. the added cost of the equipment. refineries and the impact increasing) on electricity usage. tion of many of the measures within the processing units has In addition to measures that bare directly on unit-process different costs and therefore summing them across the whole fuel and electricity usage. or inferred electricity-usage abatement curves to be generated by simply from descriptive accounts of past. Measures gies..g.6 MJ).

081 48 392 143 2. while others hydrogen production. The lists of energy efficiency measures de- tom-up. predictive approach was employed to estimate energy veloped provide a database of potential cost-effective measures usage on an refinery processing unit basis. to analyze other national or regional refining industries.540 399 638 4. Individual processing unit cost of achieved below a fuel price of €5. ergy balanced. The negative electricity savings within The tools developed for the current analysis include an ag- the Potentially Cost Effective category in Table 2 result when gregate. it will be difficult to estimate with confidence. other applications. the largest of which take within a highly integrated industry. Importantly.4.048 1. electricity and CO2 emission reduction potentials LBNL report [Morrow. 2013]. Petroleum Refining Model circa 2010. The baseline information. Final) Process Million ISBL OSBL ISBL OSBL bbl/year CDU 5.213 103 100 176 423 CRU 992 313 119 979 1. as. the petrochemical industry. In this analysis. et. such as gas processing. by and costs of other GHG mitigation options. Because many of these fuel reduction measures are cost effec. the “low-hanging fruit” efficiency improvements associated with supporting processes. have been accomplished [CONCAWE 2008]. which require ac- applied to.251 DTU 1. 2013]. the major processing units they’re sion in integrated assessment models (IAM). be used steam drives reduces steam loads and therefore fuel consump.283 10. For example. provement measures applied to specific refinery process units. al.081 HCU 474 92 471 61 2. otherwise. is general and has the potential to be used to explore the benefits lines and efficiency potentials [Energetics 2006. 2005]. steam and power systems.507 ISU 147 6 28 21 9 GTU 419 34 136 60 423 AKU 170 0 35 4 500 Total Modeled Energy Consumption 848 2. and their cost of conserved fuel. with some modifications. but introduces a new electricity load. It has been suggested in the past that in modern petroleum Twelve primary refinery process units were modeled and saving refineries. the ECEEE INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY PROCEEDINGS  491 . al. these tools are place in the NTU (Naphtha hydrotreating unit). notional petroleum refinery model that is mass and en- fuels savings measures are replaced with electricity consum. the costs and benefits of reducing GHG emissions by adopting Discussion industry-based efficiency standards. 2012]. curate bottom-up representation of energy efficiency technolo- gies. The results of this analysis indicate moval and water treatment have been allocated to the twelve that roughly 1. as well tion for steam generation.507 measures in Figure 2.200 PJ of annual energy savings are still to be units based on utilization. acid gas re- disagree [Laitner. and an accounting methodology that tracks the ing measures. Replacing designed such that they can. or establishing energy-consumption base.769 CKU 725 107 26 2. which is similarly integrated. This results in an accurate representation quantifying potential benefits and costs of energy efficiency im- of costs and impacts. A bot. conserved energy supply curves are discussed in a previous Total fuel.305 2. The top ten energy savings measures ficiency adoptions within the petroleum refinery industry. cost of conserved energy supply curves have cost curve data and models developed in this analysis can have been developed for the U.S. The refinery model developed [Worrell et.246 868 CTU 1.033 51 243 150 1. Estimated Energy Consumption for the U. This approach builds that can be taken by industry to improve their energy efficiency upon earlier efforts focusing on energy efficiency technologies and to mitigate GHG emissions.076 CCU 725 -335 42 2.8/GJ.596 13. are shown in Table 2. 2007. inter-dependent nature of adopting energy-efficiency measures sor steam-drives with electric drives. Throughput Fuel (PJ.225 KTU 575 29 53 401 376 NTU 1. petroleum refining industry.S. Scenarios can be examined that specifically look forward in tive to implement the cumulative electricity effects result in a time at a range of market and policy driven changes in the net increase in electricity consumption within this category of transportation industry affecting energy requirements and ef- cost-effective measures. An example of this is replacing recycle compres. are presented in Table 3 along with their respective fuel and The primary application for the cost curves can be for inclu- electricity savings potential. Primary) Electricity (GWh. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … 4-062-14 MORROW ET AL Table 1.

Cumulative results.653 2.4-062-14 MORROW ET AL 4. Table 2. CO2 Fuel Electricity Emissions Savings Savings Reductions (Million t (PJ/yr) (GWh/yr) CO2/yr)† Cost Effective * 556 651 32 Potentially Cost Effective ** 649 -240 36 Technical but not Cost 448 1. Cost of Conserved Energy Supply Curve (includes fuel & electricity). ** Potentially Cost Effective = the cumulative totals that fall in between the lower and higher price lines in Figure 2.S. 492  ECEEE 2014 INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY – RETOOL FOR A COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY . electric grid in 2010 [EIA.255 94 * Cost Effective = the cumulative totals that fall below the lower price line in Figure 2.0561 Million t CO2/PJ [IPCC. and 0. 2012]. † Fuel CO2 emissions are based on the IPCC conversion factor of 0.586 Million t CO2/TWh for the U.844 26 Effective Total 1. 2006]. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … Figure 2.

“Annual Energy Outlook 2012”. ergy efficiency impacts and costs. Industrial Technologies Program.38 Add Recycle & ST Ejector CDU 36 0 €0. and product References slates.62 Revamp Heat Integration (low-cost) CDU 40 172 €1.e. 32–33. hybridization.63 Install Overhead Chillers CDU 44 143 €7. Advanced Manufacturing Office. steam.74 Install Overhead Vacuum Pump CDU 129 0 €2. by looking at reported data alone. Fuel Electricity Cost of Processing Energy Savings Measures Savings Savings Conserved Unit (PJ/yr) (GWh/yr) Energy (€/GJ) Install HRSG Post Regenerator CCU 132 0 €3.S. emissions are to be drastically reduced over the next fifty DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. prepared by Energetics Inc.78 Improve catalysts to reduce H2 consumption HCU 36 31 €5.32 Efficient Burners/Control X Air CDU 32 0 €2. ing low-sulfur bunker fuels. The role of CO2 capture and sequestration in petroleum re.S. and projected demand growth for jet and diesel pp. refining industry. provides a rigorous framework for evaluating energy consump. while some may be positive. which may introduce truly “drop-in” biofuels EIA 2013. Brussels. fuel specifications. 2007.S. In closing. http://www. years. and ysis. meaning that the energy usages are cal- leum refining. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … 4-062-14 MORROW ET AL Table 3. the analysis presented here is unique in that it Energetics. analysis are predictive. internationally agreed to marine SOx reductions requir. to examine impacts of these potential changes.S. Top energy savings measures. “Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Early Release. ECEEE INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY PROCEEDINGS  493 . adding this capability would be an incremental addition to cooling water) at a level of detail required for quantifying en- the core model framework. “Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.4. Energy Information Administration (EIA). and increased erence case”. hydrogen production. vehicle and mitigation options”. Energy Information in the long term. rather than assumed or capture technologies in a petroleum refinery setting. http://www. for the U.40 model framework is capable of examining the impact of intro. Nov. Washington DC. “Petroleum and Other Liquids. 2007. CONCAWE Report No. and the cost and effectiveness of future carbon culated using a bottom-up approach.eia. imports of Canadian synthetic crude oils and dilbit blends. Future sensitivity analyses will be needed Administration” (EIA). prepared by Energetics Inc.55 Install New Internals ACU 34 161 €6. 8/08. path of the U. 2013. Washington DC. July 2013. These trends will have a significant impact on the future CONCAWE 2008. and model the individual processing units capability has not been modeled explicitly for this body of anal. Petroleum Refining Industry”. The tools developed for this ducing renewable fuels on the cost and emissions from petro.S. fuel. tion and efficiency improvement opportunities within the U. since many gov/petroleum/. The current analysis does not consider the ramifications of current trends in petroleum refining related to novel tech- nologies. crude oil qualities.84 Install Furnace Air Pre-Heat CRU 30 0 €8. and ancillary equipment (i.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/ and further implementation of renewable and/or low-carbon index. fuel standards. EIA 2014.55 Reduce Coking of Tube Surfaces CDU 34 0 €2. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renew- petroleum refining industry that previously was not obtainable able Energy.eia. refinery crude slate changes due Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption. Energetics. EIA 2012. December 2008. Energy Informa- ficiency and lowering emissions. While this derived empirically. Future challenges that will Impact of product quality and demand evolution on likely affect the industry include: lower gasoline-to-distillate EU refineries at the 2020 horizon CO2 emissions trend product ratios due to ethanol blending into gasoline. of these could have negative ramifications for improving ef.41 Install Furnace Air Pre-Heat CDU 49 0 €5.cfm. “Petroleum Refining Industry Energy fining will also need to be examined more completely if CO2 Bandwidth Study”. for the U. Ref- to increased production of domestic shale oils. tion Administration (EIA). “Refinery Technology Support Group. Washington DC.

Nadel. “IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Worrell. T. prepared by Energetics Inc. 2006.com 2014.. Indus..J... R.. Jan 2012..N. “Petroleum Refining 2013 “Assessment of Energy Efficiency Improvement in Technology & Economics”. Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. http://www. 2008 from: http:// ® – An Energy Star Guide for Energy and Plant Managers. 2–16. American Council for an Processes”.iges. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory www.S.html. Chap. Sachs. J. M. W.jp/public/2006gl/vol2. Energy)”. Gary.E... Lawrence Press. Elliott. S.ipcc-nggip. for the U. Morrow. 2006. and Cost Saving Opportunities for Petroleum Refineries pp. DOE Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Oct. S. 2007. Handwerk. Sathaye. Hasanbeigi. C.or. 38.. Report No. G.. UNDERTAKING HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS: TECHNOLOGY AND … Energetics.. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Retrieved on November 21. Report No. Xu. Laitner.4-062-14 MORROW ET AL 4.xe..com/cur- 2012 “The long-term energy efficiency potential: what rencyconverter/convert/?From=EUR&To=USD. IPCC 2006. CRC the United States Petroleum Refining Industry”. J. Khan. trial Technologies Program. E. H. J..A. E121. XE. LBNL-56183. A. Reference Manual (Volume 2.H. J. 2005.. Energy Efficiency Improvement Inventories. Galitsky. Fifth Edition. 494  ECEEE 2014 INDUSTRIAL SUMMER STUDY – RETOOL FOR A COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY .R. p. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ”Currency Converter”. LBNL-6292E. 1. “Energy Bandwidth for Petroleum Refining the evidence suggests”.. Kaiser. Marano.