Production costs from energy intensive industries in the EU and third countries

This report compares estimated production costs from four energy-intensive industries (steel, cement, chemical and non-ferrous metals) in the European Union and some third countries. Production costs have been estimated following a bottom-up approach, i.e. using information at facility level from a representative number of facilities. Costs are broken down to key factors, such as material, labour and energy costs and exclude capital costs (depreciation and interest). Moreover, the energy costs are estimated considering the effect of the state of technologies and the fuel mix in each country. For the iron and steel industry the production costs of hot-rolled coil and wire rod are analysed as representative flat and long products, respectively. The production costs of these products have been estimated for both the integrated route (blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace) and the recycling route (electrical arc furnace). For the chemical industry, the products analysed are ammonia, methanol, ethylene and propylene; whereas for the non-ferrous metals the analysis is focused on primary aluminium production, copper cathodes and slabs of zinc. Most of the EU28 production costs are ranked (when compared with certain competitor countries) between the 75th percentile and the maximum production cost. These costs are highest in the EU relative to other countries or regions in the case of flat products from the recycling route, ammonia and methanol. For long products -from the recycling route-, flat products -from the integrated route-, ethylene, propylene -refinery grade- and copper anode the EU28 production costs are between the median (the median separates the higher half of the costs from the lower half) and the 75th percentile of all production costs estimated. In the case of cement, the EU28 production cost is quite similar to the value of the median cost. There are also cases in which the EU28 production costs were among the lowest costs, namely for copper cathode and zinc slabs. It is worth noting that the contribution of energy costs to production costs is the highest in the EU only for methanol and ammonia. For all other products and industries analysed (including methanol and ammonia), other components of the cost (raw materials, labour and others or feedstock) contribute more to final costs than energy (natural gas is considered as a feedstock for methanol and ammonia). It is also noteworthy that, in most industries and products, the behaviour of credits (by-products, home scrap, electricity production from waste gases or from combined heat and power) contributes to reduce production costs more in the EU than it does in other countries or regions.JRC.F.6-Energy Technology Policy Outloo

Energy efficiency and GHG emissions: Prospective scenarios for the Chemical and Petrochemical Industry

This study analyses the savings potential of energy consumption and GHG emissions from cost-effective technological improvements in the chemical and petrochemical industry up to 2050. The analysis follows a bottom-up approach; that is, it is based on information at facility level of existing plants with their production characteristics, best available and innovative technologies. The analysis includes 26 basic chemical compounds that cover 75 % of the total energy use (including energy used as feedstock) and more than 90 % of GHG emissions of the chemical sector in 2013. The bottom-up approach includes an annual cost-effectiveness analysis of the uptake of best available and innovative technologies in each facility up to 2050. The projections and assumptions used are in accordance with the reference scenario of the European Commission. In absolute terms, from 2013-2050 the total energy consumption increases by 39.2 % and the GHG emissions' decrease by 14.7 %; these values include the effect (and depend on) a demand increase by 45.6 %. In 2050, without any technological improvement, the GHG emissions and energy consumption would be 36 % and 4 % higher. The minor effect of technological improvements on energy savings can be partly explained by the fact that 73.5 % of the total energy consumed in the manufacturing of the products covered in this study is incorporated in the final products, and most of new technologies have an impact on the direct energy use, but not on the non-energy use.JRC.C.7-Knowledge for the Energy Unio

Prospective Scenarios on Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions in the EU Iron & Steel Industry

This document analyzes on the basis of a detailed bottom-up model the role of technology and its diffusion on energy consumption and CO2 emissions at plant level in the EU-27 Iron & Steel industry. Main current processes of all plants and the cost-effectiveness of their retrofit with Best Available Technologies and Innovative Technologies is analyzed up to 2030. The baseline scenario considers the demand for steel and prices of fuels and resources evolve according to the projection of Primes. Two alternative scenarios vary linearly several times by 2030 some of the main drives of technology change, such us the cost of CO2 allowances, fuels and price of the resources. The reduction ranges for the specific CO2 emissions varies between 14% and 21%. The range for the variation in specific energy consumption goes from 7 to 11%. The higher values rely on the successful market roll-out by 2020 of some key innovative technologies, underlining the importance of the successful conclusion of the research ongoing in those technologies. In the recycling route the results indicate potential improvements between 2010 and 2030 in the specific energy consumption and specific CO2 emissions of about 6% and 11%, respectively.JRC.F.6-Energy systems evaluatio

Production costs from iron and steel industry in the EU and third countries

This report provides an overview of the production costs in the iron and steel industry in the EU and third countries. The cost breakdowns are provided for two typical products of the integrated and recycling routes (hot rolled coil as a proxy of flat products and wire rod as a proxy of long products). The analysis includes detailed information from 153 production facilities in the EU27 and 10 other countries (Russia, Turkey, United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Brazil). The information is based on data from October 2019. This is the last available data before the COVID-19 pandemic affected the iron and steel industry. The results show that the EU27 has the third highest production costs for hot rolled coil via the integrated route (458 EUR/t). The main contributors to these costs are the raw material costs 65%, the ‘other costs’ 27% and energy costs 17%. The CO2 cost is included in ‘other costs’ and for the EU27 represents 2% of the total production costs. It is worth noting that the EU27 is among the world leaders in creating credits from recycling materials and energy. This shows a high optimisation of the integrated route processes in the European steel industry, as a result from cumulated investments in innovations over the years. The results also show that the EU27 has the second highest production costs for hot rolled coil via the recycling route, which is however only 6% higher than the lowest production cost of all the countries in the analysis. Finally, for the production of wire rod, the EU27 production costs are either the highest (when produced via the integrated route) or second highest (when produced via the recycling route). The materials cost in the EU27 are 68% and 58% of the production costs, for each of the two respective production routes. These shares for the material cost are similar in the rest of countries. The share of the energy costs in the EU in wire rod production in integrated route is 11%. This is close to the minimum observed share. In the recycling route the 20% is the highest share observed in any of the countries considered.JRC.C.7-Knowledge for the Energy Unio

Heat and Cooling Demand and Market Perspective

In order to fully understand the national potentials for cogeneration, it is essential to identify the existing and prospective demand of heat and cooling by sector. A study will be performed on a MS level to describe the demand of heat and cooling by different sectors (i.e. industrial, residential), demand types (different temperatures) and supply technologies. This work aims to analyze the current situation and future trends of heat and cooling demand in the EU, as well as, the use and availability of industrial. Within each sector the demand will be presented for different segments. The focus is to map the demand of heat and cooling on temperature intervals possible to be supplied by district heating, district cooling or CHP. In order to capture the characteristics of heat, heat is split into different types; space heating, warm water, cooking, and industrial heat. For cooling, space cooling is the main type applicable to district cooling.JRC.F.6-Energy systems evaluatio

Energy Efficiency and GHG Emissions: Prospective Scenarios for the Aluminium Industry

This study examines the possibilities for energy efficiency and GHG emission improvements in the European aluminium industry. The first part of the study presents the status quo of the industry in the EU28 and Iceland by compiling a database of existing plants with their production characteristics and the best available and innovative technologies (BATs/ITs). A model EU is then developed to simulate the trend in each plant towards 2050. The use of the model in different scenarios allows the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of investments in BATs/ITs. The results show that in absolute terms, for the whole industry the energy consumption and direct GHG emissions can decrease from 2010 to 2050 by 21% and 66%, respectively. And, in almost all scenarios, for the primary aluminium production there is a convergence in the reduction of specific energy consumption and direct GHG emissions of 23% and 72%, respectively. Since most of the savings come from technologies that are in early stages of research, there is a clear need of a decided push and of creating the right conditions to make these potential savings happen.JRC.F.6-Energy Technology Policy Outloo

Atrasentan and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (SONAR): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Short-term treatment for people with type 2 diabetes using a low dose of the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist atrasentan reduces albuminuria without causing significant sodium retention. We report the long-term effects of treatment with atrasentan on major renal outcomes. Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 689 sites in 41 countries. We enrolled adults aged 18–85 years with type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)25–75 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 of body surface area, and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR)of 300–5000 mg/g who had received maximum labelled or tolerated renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 4 weeks. Participants were given atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily during an enrichment period before random group assignment. Those with a UACR decrease of at least 30% with no substantial fluid retention during the enrichment period (responders)were included in the double-blind treatment period. Responders were randomly assigned to receive either atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily or placebo. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of doubling of serum creatinine (sustained for ≥30 days)or end-stage kidney disease (eGFR <15 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 sustained for ≥90 days, chronic dialysis for ≥90 days, kidney transplantation, or death from kidney failure)in the intention-to-treat population of all responders. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01858532. Findings: Between May 17, 2013, and July 13, 2017, 11 087 patients were screened; 5117 entered the enrichment period, and 4711 completed the enrichment period. Of these, 2648 patients were responders and were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group (n=1325)or placebo group (n=1323). Median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·4–2·9). 79 (6·0%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 105 (7·9%)of 1323 in the placebo group had a primary composite renal endpoint event (hazard ratio [HR]0·65 [95% CI 0·49–0·88]; p=0·0047). Fluid retention and anaemia adverse events, which have been previously attributed to endothelin receptor antagonists, were more frequent in the atrasentan group than in the placebo group. Hospital admission for heart failure occurred in 47 (3·5%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 34 (2·6%)of 1323 patients in the placebo group (HR 1·33 [95% CI 0·85–2·07]; p=0·208). 58 (4·4%)patients in the atrasentan group and 52 (3·9%)in the placebo group died (HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·75–1·59]; p=0·65). Interpretation: Atrasentan reduced the risk of renal events in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease who were selected to optimise efficacy and safety. These data support a potential role for selective endothelin receptor antagonists in protecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of developing end-stage kidney disease. Funding: AbbVie

4to. Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad. Memoria académica

Este volumen acoge la memoria académica de la Cuarta edición del Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad, CITIS 2017, desarrollado entre el 29 de noviembre y el 1 de diciembre de 2017 y organizado por la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (UPS) en su sede de Guayaquil. El Congreso ofreció un espacio para la presentación, difusión e intercambio de importantes investigaciones nacionales e internacionales ante la comunidad universitaria que se dio cita en el encuentro. El uso de herramientas tecnológicas para la gestión de los trabajos de investigación como la plataforma Open Conference Systems y la web de presentación del Congreso http://citis.blog.ups.edu.ec/, hicieron de CITIS 2017 un verdadero referente entre los congresos que se desarrollaron en el país. La preocupación de nuestra Universidad, de presentar espacios que ayuden a generar nuevos y mejores cambios en la dimensión humana y social de nuestro entorno, hace que se persiga en cada edición del evento la presentación de trabajos con calidad creciente en cuanto a su producción científica. Quienes estuvimos al frente de la organización, dejamos plasmado en estas memorias académicas el intenso y prolífico trabajo de los días de realización del Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad al alcance de todos y todas

Impact of support schemes and barriers in Europe on the evolution of cogeneration

This paper analyses the effectiveness of different support measures to promote cogeneration in the European Union. The analysis looks in to the average progress of cogeneration between two different periods. The economic effect of the support measures in each country is quantified with the help of a cost–benefit analysis carried out by the Cogeneration Observatory and Dissemination Europe(CODE) project. The scope of this study is necessarily affected by the need to limit the number of projects and support measures. However, there is no evidence of a relationship between the economic advantage offered by support measures and the deployment of cogeneration in the Member States.The study considers the effect of different barriers (reported by the Member States) on the promotion of cogeneration. The individual analyses of the barriers differ widely in quality and depth. When some barriers are reported, there is an increase of the variability of the penetration of cogeneration.This counter-intuitive fact leads us to conclude that there is a lack of consistency in the barriers reported,and a clear need for consistent reporting on barriers.The possible effect of competition between measures supporting combined heat and power and renewable energy sources is also analysed.JRC.F.6-Energy systems evaluatio

Production costs of the chemical industry in the EU and other countries: Ammonia, methanol and light olefins

Our study compares chemical production costs in the European Union (EU) and other countries in order to understand whether these costs are higher in the case of Europe than in other countries. Our analysis focuses on ammonia, methanol and light olefins (ethylene and propylene), as all of them are considered chemical compounds produced in large scale. The countries selected for comparison are USA, Russia, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia, since they have high shares of extra-EU28 trade and/or the global installed capacity of the selected products. A bottom-up approach (based on information at facility level) has been followed, including 116, 29, 122 and 224 facilities producing ammonia, methanol, ethylene and propylene respectively. Taking into consideration the complex differences in technologies and co-products between operators, costs are broken down to six components: (1) feedstock, (2) credits (due to co-products), (3) electricity, (4) thermal energy 5) other materials (chemicals, catalysts etc.) and (6) labour and other costs (salaries, overheads etc.). Our findings suggest that it is not easy to reach a common conclusion about the whole chemical industry. Overall costs compare more favourably among countries than initially thought in the case of processes producing co-products, but maybe less favourably when processes are without co-products. The European industry has lower production costs than the industries in the other countries in the case of ethylene and propylene, but higher in the case of ammonia and methanol. Feedstock costs play the most important role in the total production costs of all four products, but the presence of credits due to by-products could change the behaviour of the total costs.JRC.F.6-Energy Technology Policy Outloo