Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Industrial energy use and carbon emissions reduction in the chemicals

sector: A UK perspective
⁎
Paul W. Griffina, , Geoffrey P. Hammonda,b, Jonathan B. Normana
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom
b
Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment (I•SEE), University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom

H I G H L I G H T S

• Future decarbonisation of the UK Chemicals sector has been evaluated.

• The improvement potential of different technological interventions was assessed.
• 2050 ‘technology roadmaps’ were also developed for various alternative scenarios.
• Best practice technologies will prompt short-term energy and CO emissions savings.
2

• The prospects for longer-term, ‘disruptive technologies’ are far more speculative.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The opportunities and challenges to reducing industrial energy demand and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in
Chemicals the Chemicals sector are evaluated with a focus on the situation in the United Kingdom (UK), although the lessons
Industrial energy analysis learned are applicable across much of the industrialised world. This sector can be characterised as being het-
Carbon accounting erogeneous; embracing a diverse range of products (including advanced materials, cleaning fluids, composites,
Enabling technologies
dyes, paints, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and surfactants). It sits on the boundary between energy-intensive (EI)
Improvement potential
and non-energy-intensive (NEI) industrial sectors. The improvement potential of various technological inter-
United Kingdom
ventions has been identified in terms of their energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Currently-available
best practice technologies (BPTs) will lead to further, short-term energy and CO2 emissions savings in chemicals
processing, but the prospects for the commercial exploitation of innovative technologies by mid-21st century are
far more speculative. A set of industrial decarbonisation ‘technology roadmaps’ out to the mid-21st Century are
also reported, based on various alternative scenarios. These yield low-carbon transition pathways that represent
future projections which match short-term and long-term (2050) targets with specific technological solutions to
help meet the key energy saving and decarbonisation goals. The roadmaps’ contents were built up on the basis of
the improvement potentials associated with various processes employed in the chemicals industry. They help
identify the steps needed to be undertaken by developers, policy makers and other stakeholders in order to
ensure the decarbonisation of the UK chemicals industry. The attainment of significant falls in carbon emissions
over this period will depends critically on the adoption of a small number of key technologies [e.g., carbon
capture and storage (CCS), energy efficiency techniques, and bioenergy], alongside a decarbonisation of the
electricity supply.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The chemical and petrochemical industry represents the largest
contributor to industrial energy demand worldwide. It accounts for
about 10% of global total final energy consumption and 7% of
‘greenhouse gas’ (GHG) emissions associated with industry [1]. Chem-
istry provides the fundamental basis for the synthesis of core inter-
mediate and end products in order to satisfy human needs. It supplies
inputs to matter transformation chains in other industrial sectors, e.g.,
plastics, composite materials, industrial gases, fertilizers, and so on [2].
These products are key to the modern global economy stretching from
agriculture to medicine, through fuels, plastics and synthetic textiles.

⁎
Corresponding author at: CDP - Global Environmental Reporting System, 71 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4AY, United Kingdom.
E-mail address: paul.griffin@cdp.net (P.W. Griffin).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.010
Received 23 January 2017; Received in revised form 21 July 2017; Accepted 6 August 2017
0306-2619/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Griffin, P.W., Applied Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.010
P.W. Griffin et al.
But the world landscape of the chemical industry has dramatically al-
tered in recent years. Asian chemical companies displayed a major
growth trend from 1980 onwards, driven by their domestic markets,
and presently accounts for half of the global market [2]. A surge of new
investment in chemical processing plant then took place in the Middle
East after the turn of the Millennium, based on the natural (oil and
natural gas) resources in that area [2]. However, large-scale shale gas
exploration and development in the United States of America (USA),
after 2006 in particular, has given their chemical sector a strong eco-
nomic advantage when compared with competitors elsewhere [2–4].
The price of gas halved with an impact on competitiveness of a large
part of the global chemical industry (both in terms of natural gas
feedstock and fuel). Companies from across the world are locating
themselves in the US to take advantage of this ‘revolution’ [3]: leading
to a potential ‘Golden Age of Gas’, according to the International Energy
Agency (IEA) [4]. The IEA sees shale gas as contributing about 14% to
global gas production by 2035 [3,4].
The IEA [1] partnered with the International Council of Chemical
Associations (ICCA) and DECHEMA (Germany’s Society for Chemical
Engineering and Biotechnology) in order to produce a technology
roadmap for energy and GHG reductions in the world chemicals sector
out to 2050. This roadmap was developed in the context of the IEA 2 °C
Degree Scenario (2DS) for global warming. It focused on the particular
role of catalytic processes that account for roughly 90% of chemical
processing [1]. The roadmap built on earlier studies of Best Practice
Technologies (BPT) for improving energy efficiency in the sector [5] and
of carbon abatement innovations. The former used mainly a top-down
approach to examine some 57 processes and indicated energy saving
potentials of 5–15% [5]. BPT are the most advanced, economically vi-
able technologies on an industrial scale. ICCA commissioned the
German Öko-Institut, with the support of McKinsey & Company, to criti-
cally review Carbon Life Cycle Assessment (cLCA) studies related to the
chemicals industry [6]. This indicated the potential for GHG emissions
{carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)} abatement ‘from cradle to grave’, i.e.,
over a value chain incorporating the extraction of feedstock material
and fuels through to production, transport and distribution, product
usage, and the ‘end of life’ (disposal or recycling) phases. More than one
hundred cLCA studies were submitted by ICCA member companies
from around the world to McKinsey for evaluation, and then the results
or data were reviewed by the Öko Institut. They concluded [6] that the
best option for reducing global GHG emissions could be achieved by
ensuring that each life-cycle stage of the value chain yielded its op-
timum contribution. Otherwise, a given stage might prevent larger CO2e
reductions elsewhere along the chain, and consequently not elicit net
global reductions overall.
Worldwide assessments of the chemicals industry have been sup-
plemented by regional ones. Europe, or the European Union (EU)
countries, in particular has instigated a number of studies of an energy-
efficient and low-carbon chemicals sector including, for example, those
sponsored by the European Commission (EC), via their Joint Research
Centre (JRC) [7], the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) [8], and
the European Climate Foundation (ECF) [9]. The JRC report [7] used a
bottom-up model to evaluate the European chemical and petrochemical
sector. It assessed the current technological status of 26 basic chemical
products (including fertilizers, organic and inorganic substances,
polymers, etc.), as well as the associated sectoral energy use and GHG
emissions out to 2050. Over this period, it was found that the EU
chemicals industry would experience a 39% rise in energy consump-
tion, but a 15% fall in GHG emissions compared with the early 2010s
[7]. Around 50 Best Available Technologies (BAT), the most effective
innovations presently known, were examined. The importance of re-
placing fossil fuel feedstocks by sustainable alternatives such as hy-
drogen (from electrolysis driven by renewables) and biomass was re-
cognised. Two cross-cutting technologies [combined heat and power
(CHP), already widely used in the chemicals sector, and carbon capture
and storage (CCS)] were recommended as having a potentially
2
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
significant role in energy and GHG emission reductions going forward
[7]. Cefic [8] were aided by Ecofys, the energy and sustainability con-
sultancy, in the development of their 2050 European chemicals
roadmap to a competitive, low-carbon future. They emphasised the
importance of making changes to the sectoral fuel mix, particularly for
heat generation and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) production. This would yield
again about 15% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, although they
noted that deeper cuts could be achieved via the decarbonisation of the
power system and the adoption of CCS facilities [8]. Both the latter
options would be costly and necessitate technological breakthroughs.
Indeed, a novel feature of the Cefic study [8] was the focus on the
adverse impacts that energy and climate policy costs are likely to have
on European competiveness vis-à-vis chemicals production in the USA
and other regions. The ECF were likewise concerned about price com-
petitiveness [9], albeit in the context of the so-called energy policy
trilemma: competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply. They
studied the transition dynamics in the chemicals industry drawing on
the Cefic roadmap [8]. ECF argued [9] that substantial GHG emissions
reduction could be achieved through process and energy efficiency
improvements, alongside greater resource ‘circularity’ or value chain
collaboration. Thus, they suggested that by seeking out “cross-process,
cross-company, cross-sector, and cross country abatement opportu-
nities” European price competiveness in the chemicals sector could be
maintained.
Aggregate studies of the chemicals industry on a global or region
scale have their limitations. Each country has, in reality, its own dis-
tinctive historical background, structural characteristics (including ac-
cess to resources), and potential for energy savings and decarbonisa-
tion. Therefore the present work seeks to draw out lessons from the
chemicals sector and its development in Britain. Industry as a whole in
the United Kingdom (UK) accounts for some 21% of total delivered
energy and 29% of carbon emissions. There are large differences be-
tween industrial sectors in the end-use applications of energy, espe-
cially in terms of products manufactured, processes undertaken and
technologies employed (see Fig. 1 [10]; where the final demand for
energy by broad UK industrial sectors is depicted against various energy
use categories). It is clear that the chemicals sector as seen in Fig. 1
gives rise to the highest industrial energy consumption; mainly due to
low temperature heat processes (30%), electrical motors (19%), drying/
separation processes (16%), and high temperature heat processes (11%)
[10]. UK industry overall has been found to consist of some 350 sepa-
rate combinations of sub-sectors, devices and technologies [11,12].
Nevertheless, it is the only end-use energy demand sector in the UK that
has experienced a significant fall of roughly 40% in final energy con-
sumption since the first oil price shock of 1973/74 [11,12]. This was in
spite of a rise of over 40% in industrial output in value added terms.
However, the consequent aggregate reduction in energy intensity (MJ/
£ of gross value added) masks several different underlying causes: end-
use efficiency {accounting for around 80% of the fall in industrial energy
intensity; largely induced by the price mechanism); structural changes in
industry [a move away from energy-intensive (EI) industries towards non-
energy-intensive (NEI) ones, including services [11,12]}; and fuel
switching (from coal and oil to natural gas and electricity that are
cleaner, more readily controllable, and arguably cheaper for the busi-
nesses concerned).
1.2. The issues considered
The present study builds on work by Dyer et al. [11] commissioned
by the UK Government Office of Science (GOS) and on a recent ‘Advanced
Review’ by Griffin et al. [13]. In each case, a variety of assessment
techniques for determining potential energy use and GHG reductions
were discussed. Griffin et al. [13] then evaluated the wider UK in-
dustrial landscape with the aid of decomposition analysis [14] in order
to identify the factors that have led to energy and carbon savings over
recent decades. They then assessed the improvement potential in two
P.W. Griffin et al.
Fig. 3. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from UK industry.
Source: adapted from Griffin et al. [13].
sectors: ‘Cement’ and ‘Food & Drink’, which represent the EI and NEI
industrial sectors respectively. Here the ‘Chemicals’ sector of UK in-
dustry is examined in terms of energy use and GHG emissions from
product sub-sectors, as well as the improvement potential of its pro-
cesses. This sector can be characterised as being heterogeneous (having
a diverse range of product outputs, including advanced materials,
cleaning fluids, composites, dyes, paints, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and
3
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Final UK energy demand by industrial sub-sector and
end-use.
Source: Norman [10].
Fig. 2. Primary energy intensity, percentage of costs represented by energy
and water, and mean primary energy use per enterprise (reflected by the
area of the data points).
Source: adapted from Griffin et al. [13].
surfactants), and as sitting on the boundary between EI and NEI in-
dustries (see Fig. 2 [13]; where broad UK industrial sectors are split into
an EI and NEI categories). [A high value in any of the measures shown
in Fig. 2 suggests that the sub-sector is EI.] Nevertheless, it accounts for
some 19% of GHG emissions from UK industry – the second largest
sector after steel (see Fig. 3 [13]; where these emissions are split into
broad sectors in pie chart format {both those emanating from energy
use, including those indirectly emitted from electricity use, and process
emissions}). The opportunities and challenges to reducing industrial
energy demand and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the principal GHG
[12]) in the UK Chemicals sector have therefore been evaluated, al-
though the lessons learned are applicable across much of the in-
dustrialised world. The data here has been largely extracted from an
industrial Usable Energy Database (UED) that was produced for the UK
Energy Research Centre (UKERC) by the present authors (see Griffin et al.
[13,15,16]). A set of industrial decarbonisation ‘technology roadmaps’
out to 2050 are finally reported, based on various alternative scenarios:
named Low Action (LA), Reasonable Action (RA), Reasonable Action in-
cluding CCS (RA-CCS), and Radical Transition (RT) respectively. Such
roadmaps represent future projections that match short-term (say out to
2035) and long-term (2050) targets with specific technological solu-
tions to help meet the key energy saving and decarbonisation goals.
Their contents were built up on the basis of the improvement potentials
associated with various processes employed in the chemicals industry
and embedded in the UED [13,15,16]. They help identify the steps
needed to be made by industrialists, policy makers and other stake-
holders in order to ensure the decarbonisation of the UK chemicals
industry.
P.W. Griffin et al.
2. The chemicals sector
2.1. Historical development of the chemicals industry
The way in which the chemicals industry has been perceived by
humanity has changed over time. In the ancient world, crafts were
originally developed to meet the requirements of a domestic setting
[17,18], such as the baking of bread, brewing, pottery making and
leather tanning. Arabic science from about 3500 BCE {before the
‘Common Era’ (CE)}, based largely in Egypt and the Near East, led to
what is now recognised as chemicals [19–22]: the early smelting of
metals [especially copper, gold and mercury (or ‘quicksilver’ - Hg), as
well as alloys like bronze], for example, gave rise to an understanding
of the properties of their chemical compounds. Although it was only
around 2000 BCE that iron was common in Egypt. Before dyes could be
applied to textiles, their fibres needed to be treated with substances
known as ‘mordants’ [18]. The most common of these was alum (a salt
deposit), but this required purifying via a process of recrystallization.
Common salt (sodium chloride - NaCl), which was initially used for the
preservation of fish and meat [18], along with sal ammoniac, were also
widely known minerals from ancient times. Fuller’s earth, which can act
as a natural cleansing agent was found in the Near East, whilst nitre
(from natural deposits in Babylonia) or saltpetre (potassium nitrate –
KNO3) may well have been employed to make nitric acid (HNO3) [17].
Glass production on a significant scale in Egypt was in place by about
1370 BCE, using soda (or ‘natron’ - Na2CO310H2O) from natural de-
posits [17,21]. Crude soap was made from oil and alkali, possibly by
burning plant material to produce potash (or ‘vegetable alkali’); any
mined or manufactured salt that contains potassium (K) in a water-
soluble form [20]. Elementary yellow sulphur certainly existed in natural
deposits near the Red Sea, and may have been adopted to make sul-
phuric acid (H2SO4) or ‘oil of vitriol’ [20]. Fermentation processes for
the purpose of brewing to make alcohol was in widespread use from
antiquity [17,18,21]. The founder of commercial chemistry was later
viewed as being Jabir ibn Hayyan (c. 721–815 CE), known in Europe as
‘Geber the Alchemist’ [13], who experimented from a workshop in Kufa
(Iraq) on a range of chemical processes and initiated “the classification
of materials into spirits, metals and filtration” [21].
The fruits of Arabic chemical processing progressively migrated
across Europe. However, the development of chemicals as they are
known today really commenced with the so-called Industrial Revolution
in the UK from about 1760 CE onwards [17,19,23]. It focussed on the
discovery of ways of bulk-producing acids and alkalis. This came about
from a fusion of empirical ‘rules of thumb’ with the chemical sciences
[21]. Chemistry itself may be traced to the first categorization of che-
mical elements by Robert Boyle (1627–1691) in 1661 [23]. Many
practical technologies for the transformation of raw materials (or
‘feedstocks’) into useful or aesthetically pleasing artefacts were far more
advanced than the understanding of the fundamental principles of ap-
plied science during that period [19]. Some of the drivers behind the
expansion of the UK chemical industry came from the prolific increase
in textile production (particularly cotton manufacture) that necessi-
tated ever more bleaching agents [18], the improvement in the pro-
cessing of sulphuric acid, originally by Joshua Ward (1685–1761) and
subsequently by John Roebuck (1718–1794), and then its large-scale
use for the production of soda in a lead-chamber process devised by the
French chemist Nicolas Leblanc (1742–1806) [17,23]. UK chemical
processing became centred on Merseyside (within a triangle bordered
by St Helens, Warrington and Widnes), Clydeside in central belt of
Scotland, and Tyneside (in the North East of England between New-
castle and North Shields) [17]. Soap production was largely based again
on Merseyside, where William Lever (1851–1925) established the seeds
of the multi-national conglomerate Unilever [18]. The ready and cheap
availability of sulphuric acid led to the production of soda instead of
potash for soap and glass manufacture [23]. Other materials associated
with the heavy chemicals industry included ammonia (NH3), nitric acid,
4
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
caustic soda (sodium hydroxide - NaOH), and artificial fertilizers [17].
The organic chemical industry produced artificial dyestuffs from coal
tar, principally located in the Manchester and Glasgow areas [18], and
high explosives from compounds of nitric acid and cellulose material.
By the late 19th Century, it also started to develop plastics and artificial
fibres [17].
The 1914–1918 Great War had the effect of making the UK re-
cognise that it was vulnerable to disruptions in the importation of
chemicals from Germany and its allies, and from a blockage of com-
mercial shipping by German submarines [20]. That meant that Britain
had to reorganise its chemicals sector in order to produce substitute
materials for explosives [from conventional nitric acid to high ex-
plosives, like nitro-glycerine and trinitrotoluene (TNT)] and fertilizers
(such as nitrates; traditionally imported from Chile). Together the two
world wars of the 20th Century led to much more local manufacture of
chemicals and a focus, for example, on the indigenous production of
high explosives, gasoline from coal and eventually synthetic polymers
[20,24]. The structure of the UK chemicals industry has remained much
the same from that time onwards, although companies have come and
gone through mergers and acquisitions [20]. New products, such as
polythene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and nylon, were produced in the
1950s and 1960s as a result of high levels of research and development
(R & D). This arose from R & D expenditure that was nearly double that
in the whole of UK manufacturing sector as a percentage of sales in-
come [24]. A dramatic growth in the chemicals industry followed in the
1960s and early 1970s, until it became the mature processing industry
that it is today.
2.2. Structure of the modern chemicals sector
Chemicals are a complex collection of many diverse and interacting
sub-sectors covering a wide range of feedstocks, processes and products.
Physical outputs are moved around on an international scale within or
between major companies that are truly multi-national [24]. The in-
dustry is also highly focused on private R & D and protective of in-
formation, meaning that data availability is particularly poor. This high
technology sector takes full advantage to modern developments in
electronics and information and communications technology (ICT), such as
for the automatic control of chemical process plants and automation in
the use of analytical instruments [24,25]. The scale of operation of
chemical firms range from quite small plants (of a few tonnes per year)
in the fine chemicals area, where high purity is required, to giant ones in
the petrochemical sector [24,25]. Batch production is employed by
SMEs where small quantities of chemicals (up to around 100 tonnes per
annum) are required. In contrast, continuous plants are typically used
in cases where a single output, or related group of products, are de-
manded with plants of several thousands to millions of tonnes per year
[24,25]. They often produce intermediates which are converted via
downstream processing into a wide range of products, such as benzene,
toluene and xylenes (BTX), ethylene, phenol, and PVC from petro-
chemical refineries or via ammonia plants [1,24].
Central to the production of organic chemicals is the steam cracking
process which manufactures lower olefins, also referred to as high value
chemicals (ethylene, propylene, butadiene and aromatics), from feed-
stocks deriving from oil or natural gas [22]. The feedstock is primarily
naphtha and ethane-based, and most process fuel demand is met by
fuel-grade process by-product gases. There were four steam crackers
operating in the UK at the end of 2010 and three remaining in operation
today. The physical unit of production for the sector is tonnes of high
value chemical (thvc). Feedstock input in 2010 was about 4 Mt (ac-
cording to the UK Government's Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES)
[26]) leading to an estimated production of 2.8 Mthvc. Based on the
feedstock mix and an assessment of European cracker specific energy
consumption (SEC) (according to the IEA) [27], process fuel demand was
an estimated 53 PJ and electricity demand was 1 PJ [28]. Thus, direct
GHG emissions were estimated to be 2.2 MtCO2e, with total emissions
P.W. Griffin et al. Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

was about 2.4 MtCO2e. Table 1

Another key activity of the chemicals sector is ammonia (NH3) Ultimate yields for steam crackers.
Source: adapted from Griffin [28]. European data collated by Neelis et al. [31].
production. Ammonia is synthesised from hydrogen which is primarily
manufactured by steam reforming of methane from natural gas. The Chemical feedstock (kg product per tonne)
process is exothermic and heat is used to raise steam for other ancillary
processes. It also releases CO2 as a by-product. Two UK sites produce Naphtha Gas oil Ethane Propane Butane Othera Total
ammonia by conventional steam reforming [28]. Fuel and feedstock
High-value 645 569 842 638 635 645 688
input in 2010 was 10 PJ and 19 PJ of natural gas respectively [29] for a chemicals
production of about 857 ktNH3 [30]. Accordingly, process emissions Ethylene 324 250 803 465 441 324 489
were about 1 MtCO2e, whilst direct combustion emissions were Propylene 168 144 16 125 151 168 117
0.5 MtCO2e. Assuming an electricity requirement of 0.8 GJ/NH3 [18], Butadiene 50 50 23 48 44 50 42
Aromatics 104 124 0 0 0 104 40
total emissions from the sector were an estimated 1.6 MtCO2e.
Fuel products/ 355 431 157 362 365 355 312
Baseline process efficiencies and plant load factors adopted in the backflows
present study were largely based on information covering the region of Hydrogen 11 8 60 15 14 11 24
Western Europe. Nevertheless, the focus was on divisions 20–21 of the Methane 139 114 61 267 204 139 157
Other C4 62 40 6 12 33 62 32
UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) for economic activities,
compo-
i.e., ‘chemicals and chemical products’ (20) and ‘basic pharmaceutical nents
products and pharmaceutical preparations’ (21). The breakdown of the C5 and C6 40 21 26 63 108 40 51
structure of the chemicals sector (SIC 20, 21), plus energy for petroleum compo-
feedstock production and CHP plant at integrated refineries, includes nents
C7 and non- 12 21 0 0 0 12 5
[28]:-
aromatics
< 430 °C 52 26 0 0 0 52 19
• Petrochemical processes > 430 °C 34 196 0 0 0 34 18
– Steam cracking (of ethylene, propylene, etc.). Losses 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Process energy 264 261 314 249 242 264 270
– Petrochemical feedstock production (of naphtha, ethane, etc.).
•
Backflows to 91 170 0 113 123 91 81
Other chemical processes and miscellaneous refineries
– Identified chemical process (steam reforming, polymerisation, Share of total: 26% 3% 25% 22% 15% 8% 100%
etc.).
a
– Other (unidentified or ancillary processes, boiler plant, energy Assumed identical to naphtha based steam cracking.
overheads, etc.).
• CHP and non-CHP power plant {including major power producers that account for the bulk of energy use in the sector: a Pareto-like ap-
proach. The rest of the improvement potential in the chemical industry
(MPP)}
– Chemicals (includes one petrochemicals site and ‘other genera- was assessed by determining the possible impact of key cross-cutting
tion’). technologies [13,15,16].
– Refineries (includes two integrated petrochemicals sites).
2.3. Steam cracking of (lower) olefins
The baseline was modelled as 27 different sub-sector processes, each
with its own physical or product output; as displayed in Fig. 4 [15,28]. This process is at the heart of the UK petrochemicals sub-sector and
Here direct net energy demands (fuel, steam, and electricity) are shown produces olefins, which form the basis of many other chemicals (in-
in terms of their current {or ‘baseline’} and BPT levels for chemical cluding plastics). Olefins such as ethylene, propylene and butadiene are
processes in the UK. However, due to data restrictions, only a few of the derived from gas and petroleum feedstocks like ethane, propane, bu-
sub-processes identified were analysed in terms of their improvement tane, naphtha and gas oil. It is by far the largest energy-demanding sub-
potential. It may be argued that this level of disaggregation represents a sector in terms of both fuel and feedstock within the chemicals sector.
useful split of the UK Chemicals industrial structure that others may find DUKES [26] provides data for the consumption of petrochemical feed-
beneficial for future assessments. The procedure adopted was therefore stock from which it is possible to model the UK steam cracking process
to focus principally on a limited set of five chemical products/processes [28]. The typical yield of products deriving from each feedstock, along

Fig. 4. Direct net energy demand (fuel, steam, and electricity) of the
baseline and best practice technology (BPT) levels for chemical processes in
the UK.
Source: Griffin [28], adapted from Griffin et al. [15].

5
P.W. Griffin et al. Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. Sankey energy flow diagram for the UK steam cracking process.
Source: Griffin [28].

with the proportion of raw materials consumed in 2010 is shown in
Table 1 [28,31]. Total feedstock consumption was 4070 kt; equating to
a production of about 2800 kthvc. A Sankey diagram depicting the
calculated baseline energy flows for steam cracking is shown in Fig. 5.
This diagram is based on endothermicity; the theoretical amount of
energy required in an endothermic reaction [32]. In this case, it was
derived from the energy released from the combustion of process fuel.
Estimates of efficiency, energy and carbon dioxide emissions asso-
ciated with steam crackers are shown in Table 2 [27,28,31]. Combus-
tion emissions were calculated from an estimation of process fuel de-
mand. For simplicity, it was assumed that production of by-product fuel
is equal to the approximated share as indicated by Neelis et al. [31] for
process energy covered by feedstock. The remaining process energy is
assumed to be met by natural gas. Fuel efficiency was taken as 17.4 GJ/
thvc; determined by recalculating the European average of 16.9 GJ/
thvc [28], but then correcting it for the UK feedstock mix. The calcu-
lation of emissions via this method provides data within 2% of the
verified emissions figure under the European Union’s Emissions Trading
Scheme (EU-ETS) [28]. This estimation was based on 2010 data. The
average UK fuel SEC for Best Available Technologies (BAT) and Best
Practice Technologies (BPT) was also calculated for the UK feedstock
mix. The European BPT fuel SEC was 13.1 GJ/thvc [27], and so the UK
BPT SEC becomes 13.5 GJ/thvc. According to Worrell et al. [33]), the
BAT fuel SEC is 11 GJ/thvc for naphtha steam cracking and 12.5 GJ/
thvc for ethane cracking. Assuming the average of these SECs for other
feedstock flows, BAT SEC for the UK was found to be 11.8 GJ/thvc. This

Table 2
Energy and emissions analysis for UK steam cracking.
Source: adapted from Griffin [28]. European data for SEC, by-product share and by-product emissions factors from Neelis et al. [31]; readjusted SEC from the IEA [27].

Naphtha Gas oil Ethane Propane Butane Othera Total

SC fuel SEC (GJ/thvc) 17.8 20.7 21 17.6 17.1 17.8 18.7

SC fuel SEC readjusted (GJ/thvc) 16.5 19.2 19.5 16.3 15.9 16.5 17.4
SC fuel SEC readjusted (GJ/t) ethylene 32.9 43.7 20.4 22.4 22.9 32.9 24.4
SC fuel (PJ) 11.3 1.6 16.5 9.4 6.3 3.5 48.6
Share of SC fuel SEC from feedstock 100% 95% 80% 100% 100% 100% –
By-product fuel CO2 emissions factor (tCO2/t) 48.7 48.7 43.3 43.3 43.3 48.7 –
Supplementary fuel CO2 emissions factor (tCO2/t) – 50.5 50.5 – – – –
Specific CO2 emission (tCO2/thvc) 0.80 0.94 0.40 0.99 1.02 1.29 0.79
Specific CO2 emission tCO2/t ethylene) 1.60 2.13 0.42 1.36 1.47 2.57 1.11
CO2 emission (MtCO2) 0.55 0.08 0.34 0.57 0.41 0.27 2.22

Abbreviations: SC-steam cracker; SEC-specific energy consumption.

a
Assumed identical with naphtha based steam cracking.

6
P.W. Griffin et al.
rudimentary assessment implies that the technical improvement po-
tential was 22–38%.
2.4. Reformate fractionation of aromatics
The expression ‘aromatics’ (that mainly constitutes benzene, to-
luene, and xylenes – BTX), which are characterised by double-bonded
carbon molecules [5] that can be modified easily. Their name arises
from their pungent smell that stems from their extraction via the pyr-
olysis of ‘gasoline’/petroleum (a by-product of steam cracking) or from
reformate (a product of the catalytic reforming of naphtha at re-
fineries). These processes are estimated to use an average of 2 GJ final
energy per tonne of BTX aromatics extracted [1]. Ultimate yield of such
aromatics from steam crackers with various chemical feedstocks are
listed in Table 1 [28,31]. BTX aromatics are critical to petroleum re-
fining and the petrochemical industries [5], and demand for all three
products has risen rapidly in recent years. Half of all toluene con-
sumption is utilised as raw material in other aromatics production, i.e.,
for xylene production (using ‘hydroproportionation’) and for benzene
production (employing ‘dealkylation’) [1]. Thus, the full calorific value
(45 GJ/t) must be allocated between these chemicals in order to avoid
double counting, and the feedstock value of toluene must therefore be
corrected by the share of its consumption (by 50%) that is processed
into the other aromatics.
Benzene (C6H6) is one of the largest-volume petrochemicals and the
largest of the BTX aromatics [1,7]. It has been used as a solvent and as a
component of motor vehicle fuel for improving gasoline quality.
However, 70–75% of benzene is consumed globally for the production
of ethyl benzene; primarily for the production of polystyrene and cu-
mene for phenol and acetone [7]. Its use has decreased drastically in
recent years, because of the post-2008 economic downturn and its high
toxicity. BTX aromatics are also important in the production of poly-
mers, other chemicals and several consumer products (such as solvents,
paints, polishes, and pharmaceuticals) [7]. Likewise, they are used in
health and hygiene, food production and processing, transportation,
information technology and other sectors. Like most petrochemicals,
the consumption of BTX aromatics is strongly linked with consumer
demand for plastics. Benzene is expected to grow at a rate of 3% an-
nually until 2018, while the estimated growth in overall toluene con-
sumption was less than 3% per year [7]. Xylene (C8H10) is actually the
name of three isomeric forms; that depend on their relative place in the
methyl groups. According to the JRC report [7] the consumption of
xylenes are expected to grow at 4.5% annually until 2020.
2.5. Steam reforming of hydrogen and ammonia
Steam reforming is a method of producing hydrogen from natural
gas (methane) feedstock. The steam methane reformer (SMR) separates
methane into hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) as a by-product.
Most ammonia (NH3) in the UK is also manufactured by steam re-
forming with methane from natural gas. In that case, the H2 is put
through a secondary reformer, the Haber process, in which it is com-
bined with nitrogen from air to form ammonia. The hydrogen for NH3
production in the UK is manufactured at two sites: the Ince plants at
Billingham and Saltend. Ince use conventional routes at Billingham,
while at Saltend natural gas is used as feedstock for acetic acid and
acetic anhydride production. Hydrogen by-product from this process is
subsequently fed through a small adjacent ammonia plant [34].
Natural gas for feedstock and combustion in conventional steam
reforming was estimated from the UK GHG Inventory [34]. For the 2010
baseline, these were 17.1 PJ and 9.1 PJ respectively [28,30,21]. Pro-
duction related to this natural gas feedstock was 857 kt, giving an
overall fuel SEC of 30.5 GJ/tNH3. The SEC of BAT ammonia production
is as low as 27.6 GJ/tNH3 and could be met by the conventional process
route, together with heat exchange ‘autothermal reforming’ technology
(according to the European Commission [35]). Based on this
7
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
comparison, technical improvement potential for UK ammonia pro-
duction is about 10%.
2.6. Ostwald processing of nitric acid
Nitric acid (HNO3) is a colourless liquid that is used in the proces-
sing of inorganic and organic nitrates and nitro compounds for dye
intermediates, explosives (TNT), fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, rocket
fuel, and many organic chemicals. It is most commonly produced from
ammonia (NH3) via the Ostwald process. The Latvian-born, German
chemist Wilhelm Ostwald developed the process, which he patented in
1902. (He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1909
for his research on catalysis, chemical equilibria and reaction velo-
cities.) In this process, ammonia is converted to nitric acid in two steps.
In the first step ammonia is oxidized by heating with oxygen in the
presence of a catalyst, such as a precious metal gauze [36] (e.g., pla-
tinum with 10% rhodiumto form), nitric oxide (N2O) and nitrogen di-
oxide (NO), together with water/steam. This is a strongly exothermic
reaction that provides a useful heat source following its initiation.
Then, in the second step, the N2O is absorbed in water, which then
forms nitric acid (albeit in a dilute form with concentrations of up to
69% [36]). It also reduces a fraction back to NO. This NO is then re-
cycled, and the acid is concentrated to the required strength by dis-
tillation. Nitric acid production with state-of-the-art technology [36]
induces a significant amount of energy recovery. A modern dual pres-
sure HNO3 plant has a net energy output of 11 GJ/t HNO3-N as high-
pressure steam, corresponding to about 2.4 GJ/t HNO3 (100%) [36].
The process evidently results in emissions of a potent greenhouse gas
- nitrogen dioxide (N2O) [28]. Unfortunately, BAT in this area mainly
has the effect of reducing CO2e emissions [7], rather than N2O. The NOX
concentration after the absorption section of the Oswald process mainly
depends on the pressure applied at that section. Low NOX emission
levels can be achieved by high absorption efficiencies (e.g., by the ap-
plication of high absorption pressures) and/or by end-of-pipe technol-
ogies. Among the end-of-pipe measures is the selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) process for reducing NOX emissions. Emission reduction rates of
up to 95% [34] can be achieved via the state-of-the-art SCR process for
new and existing plants. In new plants a combination of the SCR process
and high-pressure absorption (< 8 bar) are likely to result in NOX
emissions at the level of 100–200 mg NOX/Nm3 (as NO2) [36].
According to Wiesenberger [36], Austrian nitric acid plants cur-
rently have emission levels between 1200 and 2750 mg N2O/Nm3, de-
pending on process technology (particularly the pressure level during
catalytic ammonia oxidation). The adoption of a high efficiency cata-
lytic ammonia oxidation process will reduce this N2O formation. A
commercialised and patented process for the homogeneous decom-
position of N2O in the NH3 combustion unit is available [36] for new
nitric acid plants. Several test projects for developing N2O abatement
processes are underway in industry and at research institutes [36].
Some promising results have been reported [36] on catalytic decom-
position processes of N2O in the ammonia combustion unit. This process
could also be retrofitted onto existing nitric acid plants. Wiesenberger
[36] suggests that catalysts for the catalytic N2O decomposition in the
ammonia conversion unit are already being tested on a prototype scale,
and that they might be available for industrial use in the near future.
2.7. Mercury cell process (chlor-alkali)
This is a process of producing chlorine by electrolysis of a salt so-
lution, a co-product of which is hydrogen (H2) [15,16,28,37]. It is al-
ternatively known as the chloralkali (chlor-alkali or chlor alkali) pro-
cess. In the mercury cell process that has been favoured in Europe [37],
sodium (Na) forms an amalgam with the mercury (Hg) at the cathode.
The two metals react with the water in a separate reactor (called a
‘decomposer’), where an H2 gas and a ‘caustic soda’, or sodium hy-
droxide (NaOH), solution at 50% are produced {two moles of NaOH per
P.W. Griffin et al. Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

mole of chlorine (Cl)}. Solid salt is required to maintain the saturation

of the salt water, and it is usually re-circulated. The brine is first de-
chlorinated, and then purified by a precipitation-filtration process. It
yields chemical products that are extremely pure, so that the chlorine
(along with a little oxygen) can normally be used without further
purification. The mercury process uses the most electricity and also
requires measures to prevent serious environmental contamination.
However, no steam is required to concentrate the caustic solution. Na
must finally be removed from the hydrogen gas and caustic soda so-
lution.
Mercury losses have been considerably reduced over the years, as
chlorine producers have increasingly moved towards membrane tech-
nology, which has much less impact on the environment [38]. Emis-
sions for all mercury cells across Western Europe reached 0.68 g/t of
chlorine capacity in 2015. Some 20 mercury-based chlorine plants
currently remain to be phased out or converted to non-mercury tech-
nology at a cost of more than 3000 million €. These plants account for
an ever decreasing part (less than 20% in 2015) of European chlorine
capacity. Ayres and his co-workers [39,40] argued that “industrial se-
crecy” constrained the availability of the data needed to conduct proper
LCA studies of the mercury cell chlor-alkali process in Europe. They
therefore constructed a plausible emissions profile from process data
and top-down mass balances [40].
There are two other basic processes for the production of chlorine
and caustic soda from brine: the diaphragm cell (which dominated US
chlor-alkali production in the 20th Century [37]) and the membrane Fig. 6. Schematic representation of an integrated top-down and bottom-up modelling
approach for the UK industrial sector.
cell (favoured in Japan [37]). The performance of all such devices is
Source: Griffin et al. [13], adapted from by Dyer et al. [42].
governed by the requirements of electrochemical technology [37].
Membrane cells constitute the most modern process, which yields both
economic and environmental advantages. Chlorine (at the anode) and Energy Database (UED) [15,16], produced by the present authors for the
the H2 (at the cathode) are kept apart by a selective polymer membrane UK industrial sector as part of the research programme of the UK Energy
[38] that allows the sodium ions to pass into a cathodic compartment Research Centre (UKERC). Aspects of both top-down and bottom-up
and react with the hydroxyl (OH) ions to form caustic soda. The de- models were adopted, with detailed bottom-up studies set within a top-
pleted brine is dechlorinated and recycled back to the input stage. down framework. Using this approach would normally entail focusing
Overall, the energy consumption in a membrane cell process is of the on a number of sub-sectors for the bottom-up study [13], with the re-
order of 2200–2500 kWh/t, as against 2400–2700 kWh/t of chlorine for mainder of the sector being treated in a generic manner. Sub-sectors
a diaphragm cell process [38]. Moussallem et al. [41], following a re- that use a large amount of energy are obviously prioritised for bottom-
view of the development of chlor-alkali electrolysis, suggested that the up studies. In additional, sub-sectors that use energy in a relatively
replacement of the H2 evolving cathodes in classical membrane cells by homogeneous manner are easier to analyse and this may also be con-
improved cathodes would require novel electrolysis cell designs, but sidered when selecting appropriate sub-sectors. Sub-sectors that are not
might lead to the reduction of the cell voltage, and correspondingly the the subject of detailed bottom-up modelling require a focus on the
energy consumption, by up to 30%. potential reduction in emissions through widely used, ‘cross-cutting’
technologies [13,15,16].
3. Methods and materials
3.2. Modelling chemical processes
3.1. A hybrid top-down/bottom-up approach
The full range of 27 chemical processes modelled and their con-
There are two broad ways to modelling the industrial sector [13]: tribution to the sector’s overall energy demand are depicted in Fig. 4
top-down and bottom-up approaches; as illustrated in Fig. 6 (adapted [28]. The method and assumptions for building the baseline structure
from Dyer et al. [42] and Griffin et al. [13]). A top-down approach are set out in greater detail in the UED [15] and associated spreadsheets
splits industry into sub-sectors, usually based on available statistical [16], but they are summarised here. Chemical process plant capacity
data, and uses this data to determine energy use, output, energy in- data was sourced from chemical profile articles of the industry in-
tensity and other measures for which data is available. This approach telligence provider (ICIS – see < http://www.icis.com/ > and again
has the advantage of covering a large proportion of energy demand, but Griffin et al. [15,16]). Plant production levels were calculated by ap-
it is limited by the level of disaggregation available from industry-wide plying estimated load factors calculated, for the petrochemical industry,
statistical sources. Thus, the conclusions that can be drawn from such from information provided by the Association of Petrochemicals Produ-
top-down studies are often only indicative in nature. In contrast, a cers in Europe (APPE) [43]. This body publishes production and capacity
bottom-up approach would typically focus on a single industrial sub- figures of key products and derivatives in Western Europe. The average
sector. Energy use can then be separated into lower order sub-sectors, capacity of the products listed was used for other organic chemicals.
processes or manufacturing plants. The data used for this type of Inorganic chemical plant load factors were informed in part by further
bottom-up study typically comes from more specific information articles sourced from ICIS (Griffin et al. [15]). In cases where in-
sources, such as trade associations, company reports, and case studies. formation was not available, a default value of 70% was adopted. The
Such a bottom-up study can therefore be useful in terms of presenting exceptions to these methods are: (i) olefins, which were calculated by
more accurate findings [42], although it will be limited in the breadth analysing petrochemical feedstocks (extracted from the annual edition
of its application. of DUKES [26]) with data on their typical product yields from steam
A hybrid approach was employed to develop the industrial Usable cracking by Meyers [44]; and (ii) NH3, for which an estimate made by

8
P.W. Griffin et al.
Fig. 7. Sankey energy flow diagram of the UK Chemicals sector as modelled here; baseline data in 2010.
Source: Griffin et al. [15].
the US Geological Survey (USGS) [45] was employed. Baseline process
efficiencies were taken from a report by the IEA [27], which relates to
Western European production. The exception to this was ammonia, for
which the data for combustion and feedstock use of natural gas was
sourced from UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) [46], oxygen was
taken from the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) [47], and hy-
drogen from the European Commission [48]. The sub-sector final de-
mand fuel split [32,49], which is primarily natural gas, was applied to
the processes as an average. The sub-sector was split for the purposes of
determining steam and electricity demand between self-produced and
imported products applied across the various processes. This necessi-
tated that an average emissions factor was employed at the process
level.
The energy flows through the Chemicals sector are illustrated in
Sankey diagram displayed as Fig. 7 [15]; for a 2010 baseline. The data
underlying this sector model was primarily based on DUKES [26].
Special attention was given to combined heat and power (CHP) within
the Chemicals sector. Some CHP plants were classified as major power
producers (MPP), and so would normally be outside the scope of the
final energy demand adopted by the UK Government’s statistical service
for the purposes of compiling DUKES [26]. Here the fuel use for the
Chemicals sector CHP and autogeneration were specified following
discussions with industrial representatives and personal correspon-
dence with the analysts at the UK Government’s former Department of
Energy and Climate Change [DECC] (see again Griffin et al. [15]). Power
consumption was split between grid and autogenerated electricity.
Imported heat, exported heat and exported electricity were all ac-
counted for. Approximately 60% of the electricity produced by CHP in
the Chemicals sector is exported; 50% to the grid and 10% to other
industrial sub-sectors. The remaining fuel demand not used in CHP or
autogeneration is used by processes, in addition to auxiliary boilers and
other miscellaneous equipment. The processes modelled in a bottom-up
manner account for 92% of the non-CHP fuel demand. The steam and
electricity demand represented by a summation of the bottom-up
modelled processes accounted for 50% and 25% of the total demand
respectively. These may appear low as the energy carriers have higher
demand for energy overheads (such as the lighting and heating of
buildings) and auxiliary processes associated with, but not included in,
the chemical process demands listed by the IEA [27].
9
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
4. Improvement potential
4.1. Process improvement
Identified technologies and measures generally fit into three broad
categories. Fuel switching was not identified separately, but occurs via
many of the process substitution options. Natural gas, the least CO2
-intensive fossil fuel, is by far the most widely burnt fuel in the sub-
sector; much of it being used in CHP plants. In a report for the IEA [27],
a broad range of potential technological improvements for the global
chemicals and petrochemicals sector was evaluated. This study aimed
to determine which improvement option constituted the Best Practice
Technology (BPT) out of a portfolio of 66 of the most common processes.
BPTs represent the ‘best’ technology that is currently in use, and
therefore economically viable. This can be distinguished from a Best
Available Technology (BAT), which includes proven technologies that
may not yet be economically viable.
Although the IEA report [27] had a global remit, most of the BPTs
and the average SEC data was European-sourced, and thus provides a
reasonable representation for the UK setting. By taking the SEC data
and applying it to UK process outputs, it was possible to build a simple
bottom-up estimation of process energy demand and GHG emissions for
the sector. Production from most processes was estimated by collecting
plant capacity data from published sources (such as the ICIS [15,47]),
and then applying estimated load factors. The weighted average load
factor for the sector in 2010 was estimated to be 75% [28]. Exceptions
to this approach were for the production of lower olefins and ammonia.
The energy demand accumulated from the 27 identified processes
applicable to the UK chemicals sector that have been examined in some
detail in the present study are again represented in Fig. 4 [28]. It can be
observed that production of high value chemicals from steam cracking
demands by far the greatest amount of energy. The curve then rises
steeply for titanium dioxide, chlorine, soda-ash and ammonia, before
reducing in gradient. The curve peaks before the last process as some
processes are exothermic, and therefore net energy producers. In ag-
gregate, BPTs have the potential to reduce direct energy demand from
98 PJ to 71 PJ, or save 28 PJ (28%) [28]. Primary energy reduction
may be simply estimated on the basis of using the sector efficiency of
steam generation (95%) and weighted average efficiency of owned and
imported electricity. This yields figures of from 121 PJ to 88 PJ, or a
saving of 33 PJ (∼27%) [28]. Given the dominance of lower olefin
production, applying the BAT standard for steam cracking provides a
P.W. Griffin et al.
reasonable approximation for sector BAT potential. Improvement po-
tential of direct and primary energy becomes 41 PJ and 36 PJ respec-
tively, or just over a third of demand. The associated reduction in GHG
emissions from BPT and BAT options is consequently 1.8 MtCO2e (22%)
and 2.3 MtCO2e (27%) respectively [28]. Due to the uncertainties as-
sociated with using European efficiencies and in the estimation of load
factors, these improvement potentials should be treated as indicative.
4.2. Process substitution
These include retrofit technologies, such as dividing wall columns
and membranes for chemical separation. The options assessed in the
present study embraced all those reviewed by Ren and his co-workers
[32,49] in their thorough account of long-term opportunities for the
petrochemicals sector. They range from the replacement of steam
cracker plants with the existing state-of-the-art equipment to radically
different biotechnologies presently in the R & D stage, such as bioe-
thanol-to-ethylene. Many of the technologies would entail a large
structural shift in the way petrochemicals are produced in the UK. Most
of the replacements entail a substitution in feedstock as well as fuel, and
therefore have significant energy and GHG emissions ramifications for
upstream fuel processing industries. These processes were also analysed
by Ren and his co-workers [32,49], but were not included in this as-
sessment as they are outside the scope of the Chemicals baseline. Im-
provement potential of these replacements should not be considered in
isolation, and to properly understand their potential would require an
extension of the definition of industry to include the refineries sector.
4.3. Fuel switching
The current modelling approach [15,16,28] separates a proportion
of generating plant allocated to petrochemical production. This was
estimated to account for a quarter of sector heat and power generation,
as well as 30% of associated GHG emissions, based on three major sites
[28]. The high proportion of emissions was caused by the necessary use
of refinery by-product gases. Thus, a limit is set on the degree to which
fuel may be switched to biomass. Steam crackers are likely to improve
in efficiency going forward, and so it was assumed that additional
surplus cracker fuel gas will be made available to CHP plant, thereby
lowering the limit or restriction on fuel switching [28]. This particular
conflict between improvement options may be circumvented by
switching to alternative petrochemical processes. However, upstream
refinery gases were assumed to remain unchanged as they will continue
to produce such gases regardless [28]. Fuel switching is also an option
for conventional generating plant, and is far less restricted in that ap-
plication. Biomass fuel switching generally applies to coal and natural
gas only. In the case of coal, the present hybrid model automatically
prioritises biomass substitution before switching away from natural gas
[28].
4.4. Carbon capture and storage
Opportunities for retrofitting post-combustion carbon capture and
storage (CCS) facilities [50,51] onto existing steam crackers were as-
sessed by Johansson et al. [52]. There is also significant opportunity to
apply CCS to steam reformers [53,54]. This option is relatively cheap as
the process already produces a pure stream of CO2. It was assumed that
the application of CCS would have a 20% energy penalty and a direct
capture efficiency of 85% [50]. The energy penalty and capture effi-
ciency values were informed by the literature [50,51,55,56], and ap-
plied conservatively owing to the mix of fuels considered in the present
UK study [28]. CCS was assumed to be applied at a generation capacity
that represents petrochemical production; reflecting the application of
CCS to steam crackers. A comparison of retrofit CCS options for existing
steam crackers is illustrated in Fig. 8 [28]. Here energy and GHG
emissions from petrochemical steam cracker retrofitted CCS are
10
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
specifically depicted. It can be seen that these options generally perform
well compared with the alternative process routes. Abatement from CCS
is more advantageous with the biomass-based process routes, because it
gives rise to so-called ‘negative emissions’ (provided that carbon in the
product is not released at a later stage). On the other hand, these op-
tions are more resource efficient and rely on established supply systems.
The prospect of applying CCS is reasonable compared with other
industrial sectors, such as iron and steel [28], or cement [13,28]. All
steam crackers and ammonia plants are situated within CCS cluster
regions (see Fig. 9 [13]). Here the distribution of CO2 point sources and
potential UK CCS cluster regions are illustrated. The cost of capture
from ammonia is also very low because of the purity of its process CO2
emissions. Retrofitting post-combustion capture at steam cracker fur-
naces has been estimated to cost in the range of £28–52/tCO2 [52]. This
range covers the options identified in this study with the lower limit
being comparable to oxyfuel capture technology and attained through
the utilisation of process waste heat. Unlike oxyfuel capture, however,
post-combustion treatment would not require major process modifica-
tion. Irrespective of capture costs, the cost and availability of CO2
transport and storage presents an even greater challenge [53,54].
Cluster regions of industrial activities have been identified for storage
under both the North Sea [54] and the Irish Sea [57] are shown in Fig. 9
[13]. It is interesting to note that the main industrial regions of the UK
remain very much as they were at the time of the Industrial Revolution
(see Section 2.1 above). Thus, UK chemical processing is still largely
centred on Merseyside (within a triangle bordered by St Helens, War-
rington and Widnes), Clydeside in central belt of Scotland, and Tyne-
side (in the North East of England between Newcastle and North
Shields) [17].
5. Petrochemicals production
5.1. The petrochemical context
The petrochemical technologies assessed here represent options for
either substituting existing facilities with radically different process
routes, or maintaining existing facilities and retrofitting carbon capture
equipment. The representation of alternative processes in the present
study (see Figs. 4 and 7) was largely informed from an assessment by
Ren and his co-workers [32,49], whilst the application of CCS was
mainly underpinned by analysis of Johansson et al. [52]. Both of these
studies provide detailed techno-economic comparisons within a wide
portfolio of improvement potential options. Many of these possibilities
were modelled here with ancillary heat and power systems to meet the
envisaged new demand [13,15,16]. The systems were treated as addi-
tional to existing onsite heat and power capacity in the sector, which
are kept separate to avoid risk of double counting opportunities in the
energy sector. However, the present hybrid model (see Fig. 6) allowed
for downsizing of existing facilities to compensate for new generating
capacity or, in the case of alternative processes, the option to exclude
the additional generation capacity. Moreover, for each option ex-
amined, there was a choice as to whether the ancillary system should be
targeted for retrofitting capture facilities to the petrochemical process.
Although these features add flexibility to the model, it is not possible to
accurately integrate new and existing systems without more detailed
and reliable data on the energy balances of individual petrochemicals
sites [28]. This assessment also excludes the processes for manu-
facturing alternative plastics, such as starch plastics and polylactic acid
(PLA), that could partially replace conventional plastics applications
(and therefore petrochemical steam cracking); again due principally to
a lack of available technical and economic information sources [28].
5.2. Waste plastics utilisation
It is possible to convert waste plastics, such as the polypropylene in
plastic carrier bags, into naphtha and other oils. The method uses
P.W. Griffin et al.
hydrogen, steam and other catalysts to produce the petrochemical
feedstocks through a stepped process of liquefaction, pyrolysis and se-
paration. Originally developed by BASF in Germany, the technology
was abandoned before reaching commercial scale [49]. According to an
estimation by WRAP [58] - a registered UK charity and company lim-
ited by guarantee delivering waste and recycling assessments for gov-
ernments and international bodies - plastic waste arisings in the UK
were about 3 Mt in 2010. Of this, around 2 Mt was packaging waste that
is not collected for recycling. However, not all of this waste would
potentially be available as feedstock. The economics of the processed
waste and feedstock together, relative to oil prices, would dictate the
likely level of substitution. The present hybrid model [15,16,28] en-
ables any substitution rate, though a diversion of 10% of the available
waste stream (200 kt) was assumed. Naphtha consumption for steam
cracking in 2010 was about 1 Mt, which equates to a substitution rate of
20% [28].
5.3. Naphtha routes
Naphtha can be produced from methane (natural gas), coal or bio-
mass in various processes, including the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. FT
naphtha is converted from methane via natural ‘gas-to-liquids’ pro-
cesses or from coal via ‘indirect liquefaction’ [28,49]. Biomass may
similarly be converted to naphtha via Fischer-Tropsch processes, al-
though its efficiency is influenced by the relatively high moisture
content. Steam cracking with FT naphtha typically produces a 40%
higher ethylene yield than conventional naphtha. But, owing to an
absence of aromatics, this produces only a 5% greater high value che-
mical (hvc) yield. In addition, coal and lignocellulosic biomass may be
processed together for added flexibility. Alternatively, coal may instead
be used in the process of ‘direct liquefaction’, although this produces
aromatic-rich naphtha with a 15% lower hvc yield [28,49]. All these
routes have yet to reach full commercialisation, except the methane
11
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 8. Energy and GHG emissions from petrochemical steam cracker
(SC) retrofit CCS. [A –specific energy consumption (SEC) by energy type;
B – corresponding GHG emissions, less those avoided by auto gen-
eration.]
Source: Griffin [28].
route (which has been deployed in South Africa by Mossgas and Ma-
laysia by Shell [49]). Nevertheless, the biomass and biomass/coal blend
options via FT processes were modelled in the present study [15,16,28]
as they exhibit the greatest reduction in GHG emissions.
5.4. Methanol routes
Methanol provides an alternative route for converting methane, coal
or biomass into olefins. The methanol-to-olefins (MTO) route comprises
of three steps: methanol production, methanol conversion to olefins and
gasoline, and product recovery and separation [28,49]. Methanol is
produced from methane, coal and biomass by gasification at elevated
temperatures into a syngas, and subsequently converted to methanol
via synthesis processes. Heat from methanol synthesis may be utilised
to convert some of the methanol into dimethyl-ether (DME) and water;
the former being used in the synthesis of olefins using a fluidised or
fixed-bed reactor. Recovery, separation and cooling processes are es-
sentially unchanged from those used for steam cracking with the exact
yield depending on the severity, catalysts used, and reactor configura-
tion [49]. Research into MTO techniques began 20–30 years ago and
two pilot plants currently operate in Norway [49]. The MTO process
was modelled in the present study [15,16,28] via biomass gasification,
plus coal gasification installed with CCS capture equipment.
5.5. Oxidative coupling
Oxidative coupling is a process by which ethylene can be converted
directly from methane without the intermediate steps of methanol,
naphtha, or ethane production. Oxidative coupling of methane (OCM) is
also referred to as ‘catalytic oxidative dimerization’ of methane or
partial oxidation of methane to ethylene. A fluidised bed reactor (FBR) is
a common reactor design used for this process. Oxygen reacts with
methane inside the reactor in the presence of a catalyst to form a methyl
P.W. Griffin et al.
Fig. 9. Distribution of CO2 point sources and CCS cluster regions in the UK.
Source: adapted from Griffin et al. [13].
radical (CH3) and water [49]. By combining together, the methyl ra-
dicals form ethane, which subsequently dehydrogenates into ethylene.
The catalysts originally used were oxides of alkali, alkaline earth ma-
terials, or other precious earth metals, which are needed in part to
control the oxygen-ions and to maintain the reaction [49]. However,
novel catalysts based on research into genetically modified (GM) bac-
teriophages developed at MIT are presently being advanced by a San
Francisco based start-up [59]. One concern about this process is the
difficulty in preventing the reaction from progressing and converting
ethylene into CO2 and water. Nevertheless, a recent breakthrough in
catalyst design [28] has yielded promising results in two pilot plants
built in 2012, and a larger scale demonstration plant is likely to begin
operation in the near future. The company has also partnered with
German cracker equipment supplier in order to scale up the plant for
commercialisation within the next few years [60]. The reaction takes
place at two thirds the temperature of steam cracking and is exo-
thermic. However, detailed recent performance data was not publically
available for the present study, and therefore the technology modelled
was based on the ‘OCM I’ design developed by Ren et al. [49] from the
work of Swanenberg [61].
5.6. Bioethanol routes
It is possible to convert biomass into ethanol for subsequent dehy-
dration to form ethylene. There are three well-known methods for
producing ethanol from renewable sources [49]: direct fermentation of
starch/sugar rich biomass (e.g., maize starch, sugar beet or sugar cane);
hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass (e.g., wheat, wood or agricultural
12
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
waste, and subsequent fermentation to ethanol); and lignocellulosic
biomass gasification with microbial fermentation or chemical conver-
sion with a catalyst. Detailed analysis on bioethanol production pro-
cesses as part of a portfolio of ‘white’ biotechnology opportunities was
undertaken by Patel et al. [62]. Bioethanol production via lig-
nocellulosic biomass is still at the development stage, and has yet to
have been demonstrated at an industrial scale. The production of
bioethanol from sugar and maize already exists in production facilities
worldwide, and a 0.2 Mt/yr ethanol-to-ethylene (ETE) production plant
based on sugarcane began operation in Brazil in 2010 [28]. Installed
and planned annual bioethanol capacity in the UK is nearly 1 Mt with
90% derived from wheat, in contrast to 7% from sugar beet, and 3%
from municipal solid waste [28]. The UK does not presently have ETE
capacity, and predominantly manufactures bioethanol from wheat
(together with some sugar beet). The feedstocks reported in the lit-
erature consulted for the present work were principally maize and su-
garcane [49,62]. As the choice of feedstock can influence energy and
emissions intensity [28], these representations should be treated as only
indicative for the case of the UK. ETE based on bioethanol from starch,
sugar, and lignocellulosic biomass was modelled in the present study
[15,16,28]. In the case of lignocellulosic biomass, the option of utilising
more of the resource in CHP was also considered.
6. Future prospects: towards a bio-economy
Bioenergy can be produced from either biomass (any purpose-grown
material, such as crops forestry or algae) or biogenic waste (including
household, food and commercial waste, agricultural or forestry waste,
P.W. Griffin et al.
and sewage sludge). Sustainable bioenergy is a renewable resource,
used together with flexible technologies, that is often low-carbon and
potentially generates ‘negative emissions’ when coupled to CCS facil-
ities. However, virtually no bioenergy is currently used in the chemicals
sector, except for the production of bio-hydrogen. The UK
Government’s UK and Global Bioenergy Resource Model (an updated
feedstock availability model; awaiting open publication at the time of
writing) suggests that there is substantial quantities of indigenous
biomass and biogenic waste available even accounting for the appli-
cation of more stringent sustainability and land use criteria; perhaps
equivalent to some 1200 PJ. But many industrial sectors will be com-
peting for this resource alongside, for example, power generation.
Indeed, in their stakeholder engagement with the UK Government, re-
presentatives of the chemicals industry identified what they regarded
as a high level of uncertainty over the supply of low-carbon bioenergy.
A number of the chemical processes (e.g., ammonia production) pre-
sently utilise very large quantities of natural gas feedstock. In order to
replace it, this would need the replacement by major gasification ca-
pacity, together with associated bioenergy supply. The sector believes
that this is unrealistic in view of the cost and possibly restricted
availability of feedstock. The focus of biomass and biogenic waste ga-
sification is therefore likely to be on burning biogas, hydrogen (repla-
cing steam reforming of natural gas) and syngas going forward.
However, burners designed for natural gas would need to be adjusted as
gaseous bioenergy has a lower calorific value. The large number of
smaller fossil-fuelled heaters scattered around a typical chemical fac-
tory would also make it difficult to distribute the correct fuel, or fuel
mixture, to given burners. Pulverised biomass or biogenic waste could
be adopted for high temperature process heat, but that would give rise
to dust deposition on heater tubes and an increase in air pollution
(possible beyond legal limits).
Lower olefins primarily serve as the building blocks to polymers for
the production of plastics, rubbers and fibres. For example, more than
half of ethylene production is polymerised into polyethylene with most
of the remainder forming precursors of other plastics, such as polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), polystyrene, polyester, and so [28]. A lot of research
attention has been given to the potential for substituting these products
with bio-based polymers. There are three main approaches to producing
bio-based polymers [28]: (i) modifying natural polymers (e.g., starch
plastics); (ii) the manufacture biomass-derived monomers by fermen-
tation or conventional methods and polymerise), or directly synthesise
from micro-organisms; and (iii) via genetically modified crops. The UK
appears to have the technical expertise and feedstock capabilities [63],
as well as the downstream industrial demand, to develop a bio-based
polymers manufacturing industry.
The UK produces some 2.5 Mt of primary plastics, or resins, per year
and nearly 5 Mt of converted plastics, such as packaging, downstream
[28]. It is an importer of primary plastics and consumption to the tune
of 5 Mt [28]. Domestic production of bio-based plastics is presently very
low with no large-scale production facilities, although processors have
indicated a willingness to expand their use of bio-based plastics and
already import them [29]. A feasibility study commissioned by the
National Non‐Food Crops Centre (NNFCC) suggests that a wheat-based
200 kt/yr polylactic acid plant could be commercially viable in the UK
market. Britain also produces the feedstock for ethanol-to-ethylene
(ETE), as indicated in Section 5.6 above, or bio-based polypropylene via
its growing bioethanol sector, and is well placed to produce wheat
starch for starch-based plastics [28,64]. However, the industry is pre-
sently in its infancy, although wheat supply could be increased through
the utilisation of set-aside land that might yield an additional 2.1 Mt/yr
[64]. In the long-term, a further 0.5 Mt/yr could be made available
from the conversion of temporary grassland, whilst another 2 Mt/yr
could yield higher intensity crop rotation [64]. Global production ca-
pacity for bio-based polymers is expected to grow substantially from
800 kt in 2012 and to over 5 Mt in 2017 [65]. Appropriate public
support and incentives would be required in order to push forward
13
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
technological development.
7. UK chemical ‘technology roadmaps’ to a low-carbon future by
2050
7.1. Background
A set of technology roadmaps have been developed in order to
evaluate for the potential deployment of the identified chemical tech-
nologies out to 2050. The extent of resource demand and GHG emis-
sions reduction was therefore estimated and projected forward. Such
roadmaps represent future projections that match short-term (say out to
2035) and long-term (2050) targets with specific technological solu-
tions to help meet key energy saving and decarbonisation goals. A
bottom-up technology roadmap approach has been adopted, based on
that were previously used by Griffin et al. [13,66] to examine the im-
pact of UK cement decarbonisation (for further details see Griffin [28]).
Thus, their contents were built up on the basis of the improvement
potentials associated with various processes employed in the chemicals
industry and embedded in the UED [13,15,16].
7.2. Baseline UK chemical technology projections
The projected baseline is affected by sector output, grid dec-
arbonisation, and deployment of BPT/BAT. It is assumed that the grid
will decarbonise by around 85% over the period 2010–2050. Owing to
the high trade intensity of the sector and high dependency on fuel
prices, it is impossible to project forward with high confidence the fu-
ture trend in petrochemicals production. Investment is going into shale
gas imports into Britain, as well as potential local shale gas extraction,
that will be sent to the Grangemouth refinery complex in Scotland; in
large part to produce high value chemicals (hvc) [4,63,67]. However, the
extent to which shale gas will affect the market over the short-medium-
term is uncertain [4]. Based on planned capacity closures, and the 2010
load factor, lower olefin production has been an estimated 2.4 Mthvc in
2015 [28]. For simplicity, and in the absence of more detailed in-
formation, hvc production levels were assumed to remain at roughly
this level into the future. Similarly, the production from other chemical
products modelled in the present study [15,16,28] were assumed to
remain at their 2010 levels. It has been presumed that progress towards
the take-up of BAT will be gradual, and reach the 2010 BPT level by
about 2050 [28]. Reductions in steam and electricity demand are
thought not to lead to significantly reduced generation of heat and
power in the chemicals sector, but rather to increase exports to the
public distribution system. Efficiency improvements via CHP plant were
not directly assessed here, due largely to uncertainty about the impact
of fuel switching. General energy saving methods, such as improved
motors, better boiler efficiency, and so on, were assumed to steadily
reduce sector energy demand by 10% in 2050. This reduction was taken
as being similar across fuel, steam, and electricity demand.
7.3. Scenario definition
The identified improvement technologies for the UK were in-
corporated into a chemical technology roadmap framework through a
series of scenarios. The baseline year for the framework was taken as
2010. Full details of the both the 2010 baseline and the BAT/BPT im-
provements can be found in the UKERC industrial UED [15,16]. Four
future scenarios were devised in order to demonstrate this approach.
The chemical industry has been active in the area of technology road-
mapping, particularly at the global level via the IEA [1], and ideas from
such roadmaps were drawn on in constructing some of the scenarios
detailed below [13,28,66]:
• Low Action (LA). This scenario describes a path of only slight im-
provements. No further investment is made in additional process
P.W. Griffin et al.
technology improvements, and efficiency is only improved in-
cidentally through the replacement of retired plants.
• Reasonable Action (RA). All identified efficiency technologies are
installed by 2025, and retired plants are replaced with best practice
ones by 2030.
• Reasonable Action including CCS (RA-CCS). This scenario is based
on RA, but includes CCS. Biomass co-firing with CCS may, of course,
mitigate upstream emissions on a full life-cycle basis, due to po-
tential ‘negative emissions’ [68]; something that will need careful
study in future studies.
• Radical Transition (RT). This scenario explores a boosted or radical
version of the reasonable action (without CCS) scenario [28].
7.4. Alternative UK chemical technology roadmaps
The chemicals sector GHG emission pathways are illustrated in
Fig. 10 (on a ‘credit basis’ [28]) for the assessed roadmaps and the
projected baseline. Graph A includes direct emissions (scope 1),
whereas Graph B includes direct and indirect emissions (scope 1–2/3).
Graph C includes GHG emissions from the combustion of lower olefins
(on top of Graph B emissions). Additional autogeneration plant for
14
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 10. GHG emission pathways associated with the technology roadmaps
for the UK chemicals sector (on a credit basis).
Source: Griffin [28].
alternative lower olefin production routes, as modelled for example by
Ren et al. [32], are excluded in order to avoid conflict with existing
generation plant. That also provides a simpler basis for comparison. As
electricity and heat are exported from the sector, it is useful to analyse
the associated emissions by what would otherwise be emitted from
public distribution systems. Due to commercial restrictions on data
availability it was not possible to accurately determine the extent of
sector autogeneration and heat trading over the earlier years. Instead
these graphs are used as a way of comparing the future potential of the
constructed roadmaps and their relationship with the wider UK system.
Indirect emissions presented in Fig. 10 were estimated on a ‘credit basis’
[28].
Graphs B and C in Fig. 10 indicate that heat and electricity is ex-
ported from all pathways with emission factors calculated from their
generation. Roadmaps with lower GHG emissions intensity of genera-
tion therefore have a lower emissions trajectory. The baseline only re-
quires a 10% biomass demand for CHP, and so it benefits by exporting
this heat and electricity to other users to whom the higher GHG emis-
sions factor would elseways be attributed. Conversely, the 80% biomass
CHP roadmaps show a narrower improvement on their counterparts
and all CCS roadmaps, for which emission is captured from auxiliary
P.W. Griffin et al.
generation plant producing surplus electricity, appear less attractive.
An indication of the relative degree of decarbonisation of the grid and
district heat systems may also be deduced. Biomass demand highlights
the greater levels necessary for radical abatement under the Radical
Transition (RT) set of roadmaps as shown in Fig. 10. RT3 gives a similar
abatement to RT5 [bio-CHP], but requires much larger amounts of
biomass. RT5 would be a far more effective way to utilise this level of
consumption. Thus, Graphs A and B show that the RT roadmaps abate
less than the Reasonable Action including CCS (RA-CCS) roadmaps;
especially so on a credit basis [28]. However in Graph C, which includes
GHG emissions from the combustion of hvc, the RT roadmaps which use
biomass as a feedstock display significantly improved, relative perfor-
mance. In particular, RT3 (lingo FT naphtha) and RT5 (bio-ETE) abate
more than the CCS roadmaps in Fig. 10. The use of biogenic waste-
derived naphtha, which is limited to replacing 20% of naphtha feed-
stock, shows only a marginal net improvement in Graph C.
The trajectory of the petrochemicals sector were determined against
the higher and lower carbon caps of the EU-ETS (although they are not
shown here – the interested reader should consult Griffin [28]). Because
the scope of the petrochemicals sector must include feedstock produc-
tion to enable comparison between lower olefin production routes, caps
are proportionally adjusted up from the GHG emissions verified for
steam cracking. No constraint specific to this scope of emissions exists
under the EU-ETS as the allocations are necessarily site-based. How-
ever, this study has provided an indication of the potential for meeting
the cap. Direct emissions, as indicated in Fig. 10, do not fully account
for the whole picture. It can therefore be deduced that the EU-ETS
unfairly incentivises the use of retrofit CCS over bio-based process
routes [28]. This is because CCS specifically addresses emissions at the
point of installation.
8. Concluding remarks
The opportunities and challenges to reducing industrial energy de-
mand and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the Chemicals sector have
been evaluated with a focus is on the situation in the United Kingdom
(UK), although the lessons learned are applicable across much of the
industrialised world. This sector can be characterised as being quite
heterogeneous, and as sitting on the boundary between energy-in-
tensive (EI) and non-energy-intensive (NEI) industrial sectors (see again
Fig. 2). Currently-available technologies will lead to further, short-term
energy and CO2 emissions savings in chemicals processing, but the
prospects for the commercial exploitation of innovative technologies by
mid-21st century are far more speculative. There are a number of non-
technological barriers to the take-up of such technologies going for-
ward. Consequently, the transition pathways to a low-carbon future in
the UK chemicals industry by 2050 will exhibit large uncertainties. The
attainment of significant falls in carbon emissions over this period de-
pends critically on the adoption of a limited number of key technologies
[e.g., carbon capture and storage (CCS), energy efficiency {including
combined heat and power (CHP)} techniques, and bioenergy], alongside
a decarbonisation of the electricity supply [13]. Thus, this technology
assessment and associated roadmaps help identify the steps needed to
be made by industrialists, policy makers and other stakeholders in order
to ensure the decarbonisation of the UK chemicals sector.
The chemicals sector has long been the largest owner of generating
plant in UK industry. Most generation is from CHP plant with sig-
nificant amounts of excess electricity exported to the grid or other in-
dustrial sectors. Special care should be taken not to ‘double count’ auto-
generation and grid decarbonisation, and the relative contributions to
decarbonisations of each should be accounted for separately.
Replacement process technologies (e.g., bio-processing and methanol-
to-olefins) cannot be properly compared without consideration of up-
stream feedstock processing. This is because they replace both the
stream cracking process and production of petroleum feedstocks, e.g.,
naphtha and ethane. Special care should also be taken when modelling
15
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
the emissions avoided through switching to biomass or biogenic waste
derived feedstock. Depending on the scope of analysis, carbon fixation
from biomass growth may be subtracted, or GHG emissions from end-
product incineration may be assumed zero. In order to reduce emissions
via waste recycling, the waste stream must be diverted from degrada-
tion in landfill or incineration.
The prospect of applying CCS [50–57] is reasonable compared with
other industrial sectors, such as iron and steel [28], and cement
[13,28,66]. All steam crackers and ammonia plant are situated within
CCS cluster regions (see again Fig. 6) [13,28]. Pipeline technology for
building a CO2 transport network is ready to be rolled out, and the UK
already has preliminary plans for at least two large transport ‘hubs’ that
will eventually be centrally located amongst a cluster of CCS power
stations and industrial sites. The cost of capture from ammonia is also
very low, because of the purity of its process CO2 emission. Retrofitting
post-combustion capture at steam cracker furnaces has been estimated
to cost in the range of £28–52/tCO2 [52]. This range covers the options
identified in the study with the lower limit being comparable to oxyfuel
capture technology and attained through the utilisation of process
waste heat. Unlike oxyfuel capture, however, post-combustion would
not require major process modification [53].
Acknowledgements
This is an extended and updated version of a paper originally pre-
sented at the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2016)
held in Beijing, China over the period 8–11 October 2016 (denoted then
as paper ICAE2016-560). The work reported forms part of a programme
of research at the University of Bath on the technology assessment of
energy systems and transition pathways towards a low-carbon future
that has been supported by a series of UK research grants and contracts
awarded by various bodies associated with the Research Councils UK
(RCUK) Energy Programme for which the second author (GPH) was the
holder. That associated with industrial energy demand and carbon
emissions reduction originally formed a part of the ‘core’ research
programme of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC); Phase 2,
2009–2014 [under Grant NE/G007748/1]. The first author (PWG) and
third author (JBN) undertook their contributions to the present work as
part of a UKERC flexible funding project entitled ‘Industrial Energy Use
from a Bottom-up Perspective’ [for which the second author (GPH) was
the Principal Investigator]. The second author (GPH) was also a Co-
Investigator of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council’s (BBSRC) Sustainable Bioenergy Centre (BSBEC) during
2009–2013, as part of the ‘Lignocellulosic Conversion to Ethanol’
(LACE) Programme [under Grant Ref: BB/G01616X/1]. During the
preparation of this paper, the second (GPH) and third (JBN) authors
continued to work in the field of industrial energy use and carbon
emissions reduction; supported by the UK Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) ‘End Use Energy Demand’ (EUED)
Programme, as part of the Centre for Industrial Energy, Materials and
Products (CIE-MAP) [under Grant EP/N022645/1], as a Co-Director
and Research Fellow respectively.
The authors' names are listed alphabetically.
References
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA), International Council of Chemical Associations,
DECHEMA. Technology roadmap: energy and GHG reductions in the chemical in-
dustry via catalytic processes. Paris (France): IEA Publications; 2013.
[2] Jacquelin L-M, de Bucy J, Caujolle A. Facts & figures: energy and carbon for green
chemistry. Paris, France: ENEA Consulting; 2015.
[3] International Energy Agency [IEA]. World energy outlook: are we entering a golden
age of gas? Special report. Paris (France): IEA; 2011.
[4] Hammond GP, O’Grady A. Indicative energy technology assessment of UK shale gas
extraction. Appl Energy 2017;185(2):1907–18.
[5] Saygin D, Patel MK, Tam C, Gielen DJ. Chemical and petrochemical sector: potential
of best practice technology and other measures for improving energy efficiency.
Paris (France): OECD/IEA; 2009.
P.W. Griffin et al.
[6] International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA). Innovating for greenhouse
gas emission reductions: a life cycle quantification of carbon abatement solutions
enabled by the chemical industry. Brussels (Belgium): ICCA; 2009.
[7] Boulamanti A, Moya JA. Energy efficiency and GHG emissions: prospective sce-
narios for the chemical and petrochemical industry. JRC Science for Policy Report
(JRC105767/EUR 28471 EN). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union; 2017.
[8] The European Chemical Industry Council [Cefic]. European chemistry for growth:
unlocking a competitive, low carbon and energy efficient future. Brussels (Belgium):
Cefic; 2013.
[9] European Climate Foundation [ECF]. Europe’s Low-carbon Transition:
Understanding the challenges and opportunities for the chemical sector. Brussels
(Belgium): ECF; 2014.
[10] Norman JB. Industrial energy use and improvement potential PhD Thesis Bath (UK):
University of Bath; 2013
[11] Dyer CH, Hammond GP. C.I. Jones CI, McKenna RC. Enabling technologies for in-
dustrial energy demand management. Energy Policy 2008;36(12):4434–43.
[12] Hammond GP. Industrial energy analysis, thermodynamics and sustainability (In
memoriam: Willem van Gool). Appl Energy 2007;84(7–8):675–700.
[13] Griffin PW, Hammond GP, Norman JB. Industrial energy use and carbon emissions
reduction: a UK perspective. WIREs Energy Environ 2016;5(6):684–714.
[14] Hammond GP, Norman JB. Decomposition analysis of energy-related carbon
emissions from UK manufacturing. Energy 2012;41(1):220–7.
[15] Griffin P, Hammond G, Norman J. Industrial energy use from a bottom-up per-
spective: developing the usable energy database (Beta Version). Report UKERC/
WP/ED/2013/002, London (UK): UK Energy Research Centre; 2013 < http://data.
ukedc.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/dataset_catalogue//view.cgi.py?id=15 > [accessed 20
October 2014].
[16] Griffin P, Hammond G, Norman J. Industrial energy use from a bottom-up per-
spective: usable energy database (spreadsheet - beta version). London (UK): UK
Energy Research Centre; 2013 < http://data.ukedc.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/dataset_
catalogue//view.cgi.py?id=15 > [accessed 20 October 2014].
[17] Buchanan RA. Industrial archaeology of Britain. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Books; 1972.
[18] Butt J, Donnachie I. Industrial archaeology of the British Isles. London, UK: Paul
Elek; 1979.
[19] Derry TA, Williams TI. A short history of technology: from earliest times to A.D.
1900. London: Oxford University Press; 1960.
[20] Williams TI. The chemical industry: past and present. 2nd ed. Wakefield: Ep
Publishing; 1972.
[21] Al-Hassani STS, Woodcock E, Saoud R, editors. 1001 inventions: muslim heritage in
our world. 2nd ed.Manchester (UK): Foundation for Science Technology and
Civilisation; 2005.
[22] Al-Khalli J. Pathfinders: the golden age of Arabic science. London, UK: Allen Lane;
2010.
[23] Cossons NBP. The book of industrial archaeology. 2nd ed. Newton Abbot (UK):
David & Charles; 1987.
[24] Heaton CA, editor. An introduction to industrial chemistry. 2nd ed.London (UK):
Blackie Academic & Professional; 1991.
[25] Royal Society of Chemistry [RSC]. Industrial chemistry case studies. London (UK):
RSC; 1998.
[26] Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [BEIS]. Digest of United
Kingdom energy statistics. London (UK): BEIS; 2016 [annual].
[27] International Energy Agency [IEA]. Chemical and petrochemical sector: potential of
best practice technology and other measures for improving energy efficiency. Paris
(France): IEA; 2009.
[28] Griffin PW. Radical change in energy intensive UK industry PhD Thesis Bath (UK):
University of Bath; 2013
[29] Office for National Statistics [ONS]. Energy use by industry - source and fuel
1990–2012. London (UK): ONS; 2014 [Spreadsheet].
[30] Webb N, Broomfield M, Cardenas L, MacCarthy J, Murrells T, Pang Y, et al. UK
greenhouse gas inventory 1990 to 2011: annual report for submission under the
framework convention on climate change. Report Ricardo-AEA/R/3355. Didcot
(UK): Ricardo-AEA; 2012.
[31] Neelis M, Patel M, De Feber M. Improvement of CO2 emission estimates from the
non-energy use of fossil fuels in the Netherlands. Utrecht (The Netherlands):
Department of Science, Technology and Society; Universiteit Utrecht; 2003.
[32] Ren T, Patel M, Blok K. Olefins from conventional and heavy feedstocks: energy use
in steam cracking and alternative processes. Energy 2006;31(4):425–51.
[33] Worrell E, Price L, Neelis M, Galitsky C, Zhou N. World best practice energy in-
tensity values for selected industrial sectors Report LBNL-62806 Berkeley (CA), UK:
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; 2008
[34] Department for Energy and Climate Change [DECC]. GHG inventory research: non-
energy use of fuels. London (UK): HMSO; 2007.
[35] European Commission [EC]. Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC):
reference document on best available techniques for the manufacture of large vo-
lume inorganic chemicals - ammonia, acids fertilisers. Seville (Spain): EC; 2007.
[36] Wiesenberger H. State-of-the-art for the production of nitric acid with regard to the
IPPC directive. Monograph 150 (M-150). Vienna (Austria): Umweltbundesamt
GmbH (Federal Environment Agency Ltd); 2001.
[37] Brinkmann T, Giner Santonja G, Schorcht F, Roudier S, Delgado Sancho L. Best
16
Applied Energy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
available techniques (BAT) reference document for the production of chlor-alkali.
JRC Science for Policy Report (JRC91156/ EUR 26844 EN). Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.
[38] World Bank Group. Chlor-alkali plants. Pollution prevention abatement handbook.
Washington (DC, USA): World Bank Group; 1998. p. 279–328.
[39] Ayers R. The life-cycle of chlorine, part I: chlorine production and the chlorine-
mercury connection. J Indust Ecol 1997;1(1):81–94.
[40] Ayres RU, Ayres LW. The life cycle of chlorine, part II: conversion processes and use
in the European chemical industry. J Indust Ecol 1997;1(2):65–89.
[41] Moussallem I, Jörissen J, Kunz U, Pinnow S, Turek T. Chlor-alkali electrolysis with
oxygen depolarized cathodes: history, present status and future prospects. J Appl
Electrochem 2008;38(9):1177–94.
[42] Dyer CH, Hammond GP, McKenna RC. Engineering sustainability: energy efficiency,
thermodynamic analysis and the industrial sector. Environ Eng (J Sustain Environ
Eng, Inst Engin, Australia) 2008;9(2):17–22.
[43] Association of Petrochemicals Producers in Europe [APPE]. Capacity and produc-
tion data (online) < http://www.petrochemistry.eu/about-petrochemistry/facts-
and-figures/capacity-and-production-data.html > [accessed 5 August 2013].
[44] Meyers R. Handbook of petrochemicals production processes. New York (USA):
McGraw-Hill Education; 2004.
[45] US Geological Survey [USGS]. Mineral commodities summaries: nitrogen (fixed) -
ammonia. Reston (VA, USA): USGS; 2012.
[46] Office of National Statistics [ONS]. Annual business survey: section C – manu-
facturing. Newport (UK): ONS; 2012.
[47] International Iron and Steel Institute [IISI]. Energy use in the steel industry.
Brussels (Belgium): IISI; 1998.
[48] European Commission [EC]. Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC):
best available techniques (BAT) reference document for iron and steel production.
Seville (Spain): EC; 2012.
[49] Ren T, Patel MK. Basic petrochemicals from natural gas, coal and biomass: energy
use and CO2 emissions. Resour, Conserv Recycl 2009;53(9):513–28.
[50] Hammond GP, Ondo Akwe SS, Williams S. Techno-economic appraisal of fossil-
fuelled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage. Energy
2011;36(2):975–84.
[51] Hammond GP, Spargo J. The prospects for coal-fired power plants with carbon
capture and storage: a UK perspective. Energy Convers Manage 2014;86:476–89.
[52] Johansson D, Sjöblom J, Berntsson T. Heat supply alternatives for CO2 capture in
the process industry. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2012;8:217–32.
[53] Collodi G, Wheeler F. Hydrogen production via steam reforming with CO2 capture.
Chem Eng Trans 2010;19:37–42.
[54] Element Energy. Potential for the application of CCS to UK industry and natural gas
power generation [Final Report for the UK Committee on Climate Change].
Cambridge (UK): Element Energy; 2010.
[55] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. IPCC special report on carbon
dioxide and storage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005 [Prepared by
Working Group III of the IPCC].
[56] International Energy Agency [IEA]. Cost and performance of carbon dioxide capture
from power generation. Paris (France): IEA; 2011.
[57] Department of Energy and Climate Change [DECC]. 2012. CCS roadmap: sup-
porting deployment of carbon capture and storage in the UK. London (UK): DECC;
2012.
[58] Waste & Resources Action Programme [WRAP]. UK plastics waste – a review of
supplies for recycling, global market demand, future trends and associated risks.
Banbury (UK): WRAP; 2006.
[59] Bullis K. Chasing the dream of half-price gasoline from natural gas. MIT Technol
Rev (online) 15 January 2014 < https://www.technologyreview.com/s/523146/
chasing-the-dream-of-half-price-gasoline-from-natural-gas/ > [accessed 15
January 2017].
[60] Tullo AH. Siluria’s oxidative coupling nears reality. Chem Eng News
2014;92(27):20–1.
[61] Swanenberg GMJM. Cogeneration of ethylene and electricity with oxidative me-
thane coupling: study of technical feasibility and economic merit. Delft (The
Netherlands): Stan Ackermans Instituut; 1998.
[62] Patel M, Crank M, Dornburg V, Hermann B, Roes L, Husing B, et al. Medium and
long-term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk che-
micals from renewable resources - the potential of white biotechnology The BREW
Project Utrecht (Netherlands): Utrecht University; 2006
[63] The Knowledge Transfer Network [KTN]. From shale gas to biomass: the future of
chemical feedstocks. Horsham (UK): KTN; 2016.
[64] Barker M, Safford R. Industrial uses for crops: markets for bioplastics. London (UK):
HGCA; 2009.
[65] European Bioplastics. Bioplastics: facts and figures. Berlin (Germany): European
Bioplastics; 2013.
[66] Griffin PW, Hammond GP, Norman JB. Prospects for emissions reduction in the UK
cement sector. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Energy 2014;167(3):152–61.
[67] Hammond GP, O’Grady A. The life cycle greenhouse gas implications of a UK gas
supply transformation on a future low carbon electricity sector. Energy
2017;118:937–49.
[68] Kruger T, Darton R. Negative emissions technologies could become the world’s
largest industry. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Civil Eng 2013;166(2):51.