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

Panel: 4. Undertaking high impact actions: The role of technology and systems optimisation

This is a peer-reviewed paper.

Authors:
William Morrow, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA
John Marano, JM Energy Consulting Inc., USA
Jayant Sathaye, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA
Ali Hasanbeigi, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA
Eric Masanet, Northwestern University, USA
Tengfang Xu, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA

Abstract

Energy efficiency improvements can be a cost effective approach for reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. However, estimating the cost and potential for energy efficiency improvements in the U.S. petroleum refining industry is complex due to the diversity of U.S. refineries and lack of publically available detailed process performance data. A notional aggregate model of the U.S. petroleum refining sector was developed, consisting of twelve integrated processing units, steam generation, hydrogen production, and water utilities. The model is carbon and energy balanced such that crude oil inputs and major refinery sector fuel outputs are benchmarked to 2010 data. Current penetration of efficiency measures are estimated to benchmark energy estimates to those reported in U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) 2010 data. Each measure’s remaining energy savings potential is estimated and their costs are compared to U.S. DOE fuel prices. Resulting efficiency opportunities are presented on a cost of conserved energy supply curve.

Roughly 1,200 PJ per year of primary fuels savings (40% reduction in fuel consumption) and close to 500 GWh per year of electricity savings (2% reduction in electricity consumption), representing roughly 70 Mt CO2 emissions, are potentially cost-effective. An additional 400 PJ per year of primary fuels savings and close to 1,700 GWh per year of electricity savings, representing roughly 24 Mt CO2 emissions, are not cost-effective.

The model also has the potential to be used to examine the costs and benefits of the other CO2 mitigation options, such as combined heat and power (CHP), carbon capture, and the potential introduction of biomass feedstocks, which are recommended for further research and analysis.