Steel

INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
Benchmarking Report for the Iron and SteelSector
2014
Industrial Energy Efficiency

Benchmarking Report for Iron and Steel Sector
Prepared by
Copyright 2014 United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Summary
The main purpose of the project Industrial Energy Efficiency in Egypt Development of Benchmarking Reports
for Three Sectors Iron and Steel, Fertilizers and Cement, financed by the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), was to prepare industrial
energy efficiency (IEE) benchmarking reports for the three above-mentioned sectors. This report covers the
benchmarking study results for the iron and steel industry.
Chapter 2 explains the methodology applied for establishing the benchmarking studies. It relates, for the most
part, to the UNIDO methodology described in the UNIDO Working Paper Global Industrial Energy Efficiency
Benchmarking An Energy Policy Tool, Working Paper, 2010. Furthermore, Chapter 2 describes the approach
for estimating energy saving potentials, for collecting data, for defining system boundaries and for checking the
reliability of data.
For the Egyptian benchmarking curves, data collected by national experts in companies of the three sectors
were applied. This approach gives much more precise results than simply applying statistical data. The data was
checked by the national and international experts, system boundaries were kept and outliers were deleted.
Chapter 3 contains the basic sector information, including the economic and legislative framework, the number
of companies and ownership, production capacities, main products and markets. Furthermore, Chapter 3
shows the main drivers for energy consumption in the iron and steel industry and the energy consumption of
the whole sector according to national statistical information. These energy consumption values are not very
reliable and were not taken for drawing the energy consumption and saving scenarios in Chapter 4.
The energy consumption in the iron and steel sector depends on the process routes: There are two main routes
for producing steel from iron ores: Blast Furnace with basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF, known as integrated
plants) and direct reduced iron with electric furnace (DRI-EF, known as mini-mills). The most common
production route in Egypt is the second route. Only 8% of total iron production in 2012 in Egypt was produced
by the integrated BOF plant.
Year
2010
2011
2012
Crude steel Production, Thousand Tons
6,676
6,485
6,627
BOF crude steel production, Thousand Tons
600
545
530
EAF crude steel production, Thousand Tons
6,075
5,940
6,100
III
The following table from the Berkeley National Laboratory Study World Best Practice Final Energy Intensity
Values for Selected Industrial Sectors (Ernst Worrell, 2008) shows the BAT values for different production
processes of the iron and steel industry.
World Best Practice Final Energy Intensities
GJ/t Liquid Steel
Blast Furnace Basic Oxygen Furnace Thin Slab Casting
14.8
Smelt Reduction Basic Oxygen Furnace Thin Slab Casting
17.8
Direct Reduced Iron Electric Arc Furnace Thin Slab Casting
16.9
Scrap - Electric Arc Furnace Thin Slab Casting
2.6
From this study, world BAT values for the different process steps within the production routes were taken.
In the beginning of the project, it was planned to establish, in addition to the benchmark curves of individual
companies, similar benchmark curves as in the UNIDO working paper by using national statistical data from the
Industrial Development Authority (IDA) and the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS).
However, during the project activities, the Egyptian experts evaluated the data of IDA and CAPMAS and came
to the conclusion that the data is incomplete for benchmarking purposes. Therefore, the project team decided
not to establish benchmark curves with the statistical data, but to use the outcome of this project to support
IDA and CAPMAS in refining their data collection processes.
Chapter 4 shows the results of the analysis of the data collected in eight Egyptian iron and steel plants. The
investigated companies represent the main iron and steel producers in Egypt with different production routes.
The data of production and energy consumption for those companies were gathered for the years 2010, 2011
and 2012. The investigated companies represent almost 76% of the Egyptian iron and steel final production as
illustrated in the table below.
Process
Total Capacity
Studied Capacity
Percentage of Capacity
[t]
[t]
[%]
Direct Reduced Iron
3,000,000
3,000,000
100
Electric Arc Furnaces
7,265,122
6,800,000
94
Hot Rolling (rebar)
8,818,122
6,780,000
77
Hot Strip Mills (flat)
2,709,000
2,200,000
81
229,710
11,756,832
8,980,000
76
Sections
Total End Products
IV
One important result of the study is the construction of energy efficiency benchmark curves for the different
processes. This means that each company was split up in the different processes (DRI, EAF, hot rolling, hot strip
rolling) on-site. Each process was evaluated separately. The reason was that with this approach plants with a
comprehensive production route, including DRI-EAF and hot rolling (only one plant in Egypt within the studied
years), could be compared with other plants having, for example, only hot rolling on-site (several plants in
Egypt).
The graph below shows the benchmark curve for the iron and steel industry for the electric arc furnaces. These
types of benchmark curves show the specific energy consumption of the analyzed companies per ton of crude
steel produced (GJ/t) as a function of the production volume share. The most efficient plants are represented
to the left and lower part of the curve, and the least efficient plants to the right and upper part of the curve.
The iron and steel plant with the lowest specific energy consumption, which is 2.30 GJ/t for crude steel
production via electric arc furnaces in 2012, has a production volume share of 13%. This value defines the
national BAT value that was applied for calculating the saving potential of the analyzed companies. The second
lowest specific energy consumption in this curve for 2012 is defined as the national best practice technology
(BPT) value. The national BPT value is 2.59 GJ/t. For this study, the BPT value was only applied for the saving
scenarios in Chapter 4.9 in order to draw up the BPT scenario.
The iron and steel plant with the lowest specific energy consumption, which is 1.28 GJ/t for hot rolling in 2012,
has a production volume share of 46%. The national BPT value for hot rolling is 1.34 GJ/t.
In Chapter 4.8, energy saving potentials were calculated, on the one hand, for five electric arc furnaces and for
11 rolling mills that participated in the benchmarking study, and on the other hand, for the whole Egyptian iron
and steel sector. The five EAFs have an energy saving potential of 6 PJ, while the eleven rolling mills have a
potential of 1 PJ. The DRI plant and the hot strip rolling plant were not included in this step as only one plant
per process participated in the study for Egypt in 2012.
For the energy saving potential of the whole iron and steel industry sector in Egypt, the potential was also
calculated for the DRI plant and the hot strip rolling plants (for both plants, the international BAT was applied,
11.7 and 0.2 GJ/t respectively). In total, the saving potential for the whole sector is 11 PJ.
Furthermore, different energy saving scenarios until 2030 and 2050 were drawn in Chapter 4.9. The scenarios
correspond to the scenarios in the UNIDO Working Paper. For the saving scenarios it was decided to exclude
the DRI route, as only one plant was operating at the moment which is already very close to the international
BAT (11.76 GJ/t to 11.70 GJ/t). The four scenarios represent therefore the process steps EAF, hot rolling and
hot strip rolling.
VI
An important factor for drawing the scenarios is the rate of production growth. The production of the iron and
steel sector in 2050 will be three times higher than today and in 2030 it will be 1.7 higher. The different
scenarios were calculated by taking the growing production until 2030 and 2050 into account.
Frozen efficiency: no additional energy efficiency savings are made. The current levels of energy
efficiency are not improved upon.
Baseline efficiency: energy efficiency improves at a rate of 0.5% a year.
BPT scenario: all plants are operating at the current levels of BPT by 2030 and 2050. This is equivalent
to an energy efficiency improvement of 0.41% a year in the period 2012 to 2050. The value for the BPT
was derived from the second best values for 2012 from the analyzed data set. One exception was
made for the hot strip mills: Only one plant was operating in 2012, therefore for the BPT value, the
second best value of the best plant in the years 2010 and 2011 was chosen. As 2010 was the lowest
one, the SEC of 2011 was chosen. The BPT values are 2.59 GJ/t for EAF, 1.34 GJ/t for hot rolling and
1.11 GJ/t for hot strip rolling. All values are national BPT as no international BPTs were available.
BAT scenario: all plants are operating at current levels of BAT by 2030 and 2050. This is equivalent to
an energy efficiency improvement of 0.90% a year in the period 2012 to 2050. The BAT is the lowest
known BAT, either on international or on national level. For the iron and steel sector, the BATs are
2.22 GJ/t for EAF (national BAT), 1.28 GJ/t for hot rolling (national BAT) and 0.20 GJ/t for hot strip
rolling (international BAT).
The following graph shows the four scenarios until 2050. According to the frozen efficiency scenario, the annual
energy consumption in 2050 is about 118 PJ for the process steps EAF, hot rolling and hot strip rolling. The
annual energy consumption in 2050 according to the BAT scenario is about 85 PJ. Comparing the frozen
efficiency scenario and the BAT scenario, the annual saving potential would be about 33 PJ which is about 28%.
VII
The following table shows the annual energy consumption of the iron and steel sector for the process steps
EAF, hot rolling and hot strip rolling in 2012, 2030 and 2050 according to the four scenarios. Furthermore, the
table shows the annual and cumulative energy saving potentials if all companies of the sector reach the BAT
specific energy consumption in 2030 or 2050.
Year
Frozen
Scenario (PJ/a)
Baseline
Scenario (PJ/a)
BPT Scenario
(PJ/a)
BAT
Scenario
(PJ/a)
Savings
Frozen
BAT
Scenario
(PJ/a)
Cumulative
Savings (FrozenBAT) (PJ)
2012
40
40
40
40
2030
69
63
60
50
20
172
2050
118
98
102
85
33
513
This study offers a solid basis for further energy efficiency projects for the Egyptian iron and steel sector. These
projects should focus on supporting the companies in implementing energy efficiency measures and energy
management systems in order to continually improve their energy efficiency.
VIII
Abstract
The report contains the main results for the Egyptian iron and steel sector of the project Industrial Energy
Efficiency in Egypt Development of Benchmarking Reports for Three Sectors Iron and Steel, Fertilizers and
Cement, financed by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF).
Within this project, energy efficiency benchmark curves were established. The methodology relates, for the
most part, to the UNIDO methodology described in the UNIDO Working Paper Global Industrial Energy
Efficiency Benchmarking An Energy Policy Tool, Working Paper, 2010. Furthermore, specific approaches for
estimating energy saving potentials, for collecting data, for defining system boundaries and for checking the
reliability of data were developed.
The main results of the study are the benchmark curves, the energy saving potentials and the energy saving
scenarios. Following saving potentials were calculated:
Frozen efficiency: No additional energy efficiency savings are made.
Baseline efficiency: Energy efficiency improves at a rate of 0.5% a year.
BPT scenario: All plants are operating at the current levels of BPT by 2030 and 2050.
BAT scenario: All plants are operating at current levels of BAT by 2030 and 2050.
The table below shows the annual energy consumption of the iron and steel sector for the process steps EAF,
hot rolling and hot strip rolling in 2012, 2030 and 2050 according to the four scenarios. Furthermore, the table
shows the annual and cumulative energy saving potentials if all companies of the sector reach the BAT specific
energy consumption in 2030 or 2050.
Year
Frozen
Scenario (PJ/a)
Baseline
Scenario (PJ/a)
BPT Scenario
(PJ/a)
BAT
Scenario
(PJ/a)
Savings
Frozen
BAT
Scenario
(PJ/a)
Cumulative
Savings (FrozenBAT) (PJ)
2012
40
40
40
40
2030
69
63
60
50
20
172
2050
118
98
102
85
33
513
IX
Acknowledgement
This report is one of a series of three benchmarking reports of energy intensive sectors in Egypt, namely;
Cement, Iron & Steel and Fertilizers. The reports were developed by the United Nations Industrial Development
Organization within the scope of the Industrial Energy Efficiency Project in Egypt (IEE). The project is funded by
the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and implemented by UNIDO in cooperation with the Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), the Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade of Egypt (MoIFT) and the
Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI).
The reports were developed under the overall responsibility and guidance of Rana Ghoneim and the
coordination of Gihan Bayoumi. The Iron and Steel Sector Benchmarking Report was authored by Konstantin
Kulterer and Ayman El Zahaby with inputs from Ashraf Zeitoun, Fatheya Soliman and Amr Osama.
A special thanks to the staff and management of the Industrial Development Authority especially El Saaed
Ibrahim for their valuable support in facilitating the data collection, without which the development of these
reports would not have been possible.
Contents
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
UNIDO Industrial Energy Efficiency Program
1.2
Aim of the Project
METHODOLOGY TO ESTABLISH BENCHMARKING STUDIES
2.1
UNIDO Benchmarking Methodology
2.2
Drawing the Benchmarking Curves for Egyptian Industry
2.2.1
System Boundaries for Benchmarking
2.2.2
Approach for Data Collection in Companies
10
2.2.3
Selection of the Companies for Data Collection
11
2.2.4
Schedule for Data Collection
13
2.2.5
Limitations of Data Collection and Barriers Encountered
14
2.3
International Benchmarks for Comparison
14
2.3.1
International Best Available Technologies (BAT)
15
2.3.2
International Benchmarking Curves
17
2.4
Approach for Estimating Energy Saving Potentials
20
2.4.1
Saving Potential of Participating Companies
20
2.4.2
Saving Potential of the Whole Sector in Egypt
20
2.4.3
Saving Potentials for the BPT Scenario
20
2.5
Possible Sources on National Level
21
2.5.1
Energy Consumption Data on National Level (Top-Down)
21
2.5.2
Production Data on National Level (Top-Down)
21
2.5.3
Company Data Collection (Bottom-Up)
22
2.6
Process to Check Data Reliability
22
BASIC SECTOR INFORMATION
3.1
Economic and Legislative Framework
23
3.2
Number of Companies and Ownership
24
3.3
Production Capacities
27
3.3.1
Main Products
27
3.3.2
Annual Turnover
32
3.3.3
Main Markets
33
3.3.4
Main Drivers for Energy Consumption
34
3.4
Energy Data
35
3.4.1
Thermal Energy Consumption
35
3.4.2
Electricity Consumption
36
3.5
Energy Efficiency Measures Implemented and/or Planned
37
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1
Achieved Data Sets for Analysis
40
4.1.1
Production Volume of Analyzed Companies
43
4.1.2
Energy Consumption of Analyzed Comanies
44
23
40
XI
4.2
Cost of Energy
49
4.3
Status of Energy Management System Implementation
52
4.4
Benchmark Clusters and/or Adjustment Factors
52
4.5
Energy Performance Indicators of Analyzed Companies
53
4.5.1
On National Level
55
4.5.2
BAT on International Level
69
4.6
Share of Energy Costs of Turnover
70
4.7
Energy Cost Benchmark Curve for Egyptian Companies
70
4.8
Annual Saving Potential
72
4.8.1
Annual Saving Potential for Each Plant
72
4.8.2
Annual Saving Potential for the Whole Sector
73
4.9
Saving Scenarios until 2050 and 2030
75
4.9.1
Conclusions from Saving Analysis and Further Work Needed
80
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Strengthening the Statistical Data Collection Process in Egypt
81
5.2
Implementing Support Programmes for Industry
81
5.2.1
Energy Management Programmes
81
5.2.2
Energy Audit Programmes
82
6
7
8
9
10
LITERATURE
ABBREVIATIONS
ANNEX
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
XII
81
83
85
87
93
95
INTRODUCTION
1 Introduction
The Egyptian industrial sector is responsible for approximately 43% of national final energy consumption and
33% of national electricity consumption (IEA, 2013). Overall industry-related emissions accounted for 29% of
the total emissions in 2005 and are expected to increase their relative share to 36% by 2030 (McKinsey 2010).
The final energy consumption per unit of output in the most important industries in Egypt is typically 10 to 50%
higher than the international average. Therefore, increased energy efficiency (EE) in the Egyptian industry has
the potential to make a significant contribution to meeting the growing energy supply challenges facing the
country.
1.1 UNIDO Industrial Energy Efficiency Program

Energy efficiency in industry contributes to decoupling economic growth and environmental impact while
reducing industrial energy intensity and improving competitiveness. Industry is responsible for more than one
third of global primary energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Industrial energy use
is estimated to grow at an annual rate of between 1.8% and 3.1% over the next 25 years. In developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, the portion of energy supply (excluding transport)
required for industry can be up to 50%. This often creates tension between economic development goals and
constrained energy supply. Still, worldwide, the energy efficiency in the industry is well below the technically
feasible and economic optimum. It has been estimated that the industry has the technical potential to decrease
its energy intensity by up to 26% and emissions by up to 32% providing a striking 8.0% and 12.4% reduction in
total global energy use and CO2 emissions (IEA).
Improving energy efficiency in industry is one of the most cost-effective measures to help supply-constrained
developing and emerging countries meet their increasing energy demand and loosen the link between
economic growth and environmental degradation.
The UNIDO approach in energy efficiency is a holistic approach. It not only focuses on technical improvement,
but also on improvement in policy, management, operations and financing. It introduces optimization of an
entire energy system rather than optimization of individual equipment component. To ensure sustainability, it
focuses on creating a well-functioning local market for IEE services.
1.2 Aim of the Project

The project seeks to address some of the key barriers to industrial energy efficiency (IEE), to deliver
measureable results and to make an impact on how Egyptian industries manage energy through an integrated
approach that combines capacity building and technical assistance interventions at the policy and energy
efficiency project level.
Primary target groups of the project are industrial decision-makers (managers), engineers, vendors and other
professionals and IEE policy-making and/or implementing institutions. The project will provide technical
assistance to develop and help establish market-oriented policy instruments needed to support sustainable
BENCHMARKING REPORT OF THE SECTOR IRON AND STEEL
progression of Egyptian industries toward international best energy performance and to stimulate the creation
of a market for IEE products and services.
The project will broaden knowledge and in-depth technical capacity for IEE with an emphasis on system
organization and ISO energy management in industry, energy professionals and relevant institutions, such as
the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency and other concerned institutions. The project will provide technical
assistance, including energy audits, and support a limited number of pilot IEE projects with high replication
and/or energy saving potential in the key industrial sectors to reach implementation.
The preparation of IEE benchmarking reports for the Cement, Iron and Steel and Fertilizers sectors is part of
Component 1 of the IEE project.
2 Methodology to Establish
Benchmarking Studies
The methodology applied for establishing the benchmarking studies relates for the most part to the UNIDO
methodology described in the UNIDO Working Paper Global Industrial Energy Efficiency Benchmarking An
Energy Policy Tool, Working Paper, 2010. Furthermore the approach for estimating energy saving potentials,
the data collection process, the definition of system boundaries and the process to check the reliability of data
are part of the methodology and explained in this chapter.
2.1 UNIDO Benchmarking Methodology

According to the UNIDO Working Paper, a typical benchmark curve plots the efficiency of plants as a function of
the total production volume from all similar plants or as a function of the total number of plants that operate
at that level of efficiency or below.
Figure 1: Illustrative Energy Benchmark Curve for the Manufacturing Industry (UNIDO, 2010)
The benchmark curve is described as follows: The most efficient plants are represented to the left and lower
part of the curve, and the least efficient plants to the right and higher part of the curve. The shape of
benchmark curves would vary for different sectors and regions. However, typically a few plants are very
efficient and a few plants are very inefficient. This is generally represented by the steep slopes of the
benchmark curve before the first decile and after the last decile respectively. (UNIDO, 2010)
This relationship can be used to support a rough assessment of the energy efficiency potential for an industrial
process, which is defined as 50% of the difference between the efficiencies observed at the first and last
deciles.
The most efficient plants in the benchmark curve are used to define the Best Available Technology (BAT) and
the Best Practice Technology (BPT). In the UNIDO Working Paper, the first decile is defined as the BPT and as
the international benchmark. And the most efficient plant is defined as BAT.
Where possible, the analysis uses physical production levels to define the deciles. Where the lack of data
makes such an approach inappropriate or unreliable, deciles are based on the number of plants.
The benchmark curves in the UNIDO Working Paper show energy efficiency benchmarks on a global level. And
the data for country- or region-specific benchmarks came from statistics and further sources.
Depending on the data availability either
the Energy Efficiency Index (EEI), or
the average Specific Energy Consumption, also referred to as Energy Performance Indicator (EPI),
is calculated in the UNIDO Working Paper.
2.2 Drawing the Benchmarking Curves for Egyptian Industry

For the Egyptian benchmarking curves, data collected by national experts in companies of the three sectors
were applied. This approach gives much more precise results. The data was checked by the national and
international experts, system boundaries were kept and outliers were deleted.
Therefore, the results of the benchmarking studies can be applied to support improving the national data
collection on energy consumption and production volumes.
2.2.1 System Boundaries for Benchmarking

In order to make the energy efficiency benchmarks of different companies comparable, the data used for
calculating the EPI or EEI have to be defined very clearly. Following questions have to be considered:
Where is the boundary around the company? Is the truck fleet included? Is the storage of final
products included? Is the transport and shipment of final products included, etc.?
How to deal with the input of energy consumption? How to deal with data about on-site energy
production in combined heat and power plants (CHP), or in photovoltaic (PV) plants, etc.?
What about energy services not produced on-site but purchased? Like purchased compressed air or
purchased steam?
How to deal with raw material input and semi-finished products input (some plants produce the semifinished products on-site, others purchase them, etc.)?
What about final products which were not produced on-site, but are packed on-site, etc.?
The better the system boundaries are defined, the more the benchmarking will be a comparison of apples to
apples.
For the iron and steel industry, several process routes for the production of liquid steel and further for the
production of semi-finished and finished products are available.
The main two process routes are (depending on the kind of process for steel production):
Electric arc furnace route (main route for Egypt)
Basic oxygen furnace route (only one plant in Egypt)
The principal production process in the iron and steel industry are shown in the following figures:
Figure 2: Crude Steel Production Methods ( (European Commission, 2013) page 9)
Figure 3: Electric Arc Furnace Plant Flow Diagram ( (Natural Ressources Canada, 2007), page 58
Figure 4: Processes for the New Technology Option (International Iron and Steel Institute, 1998), page 248
It was agreed upon that during the data acquisition as much data as possible on input/output of material and
energy and on processes on site would be collected. This is especially necessary for knowing afterwards which
materials and pre-products are produced on-site, which processes are applied and which semi-finished and
finished products are produced.
Unfortunately, the exact system boundary is not described in most studies. Furthermore, a lot of benchmarks
on the national level, mix energy consumed by the electric arc furnace route and the basic oxygen route and do
not consider the share of scrap. The share of scrap used in electric arc furnaces for steel production is
especially important: If scrap instead of direct reduced iron is used, the energy consumption for the production
is considerably lower.
In principal, international benchmarks are available only on GJ/t crude steel produced, but this value also
includes the energy consumption for the production of finished (rolled) products.
Therefore, it is necessary to include all processes for rolling.
During the kick-off meeting, the following suggestion for system boundaries or in this case processes to be
included in the study within the iron and steel industry was made:
Coke production
Metal ore roasting and sintering
Production of pig iron or steel
Continuous Casting/Near Net Shape Casting
Re-heating furnaces
Hot Rolling (Hot strip mill, Plate mill, Section mill)
Finishing (Cold Rolling, Galvanizing)
As not all processes are relevant for Egypt, the final system boundary was defined later on when it was clarified
which processes should be included. The following processes were included in this study: production of direct
reduced iron, electric arc furnaces, continuous casting, casting and rolling (hot rolling and hot strip rolling), incl.
finishing.
For process benchmarking it is necessary to have the benchmarks per product of the specific process and not
(only) per liquid steel. Therefore, it was agreed that inputs and outputs for the different processes would also
be collected by the national expert and would be illustrated in some cases using a diagram.
For semi-finished products, the following products were collected:
Direct Reduced Iron
Liquid Steel
Slabs
Blooms
Billets
Thin slabs
For finished products:
Reinforcing bars
Coils
Plates
Furthermore for this study, the following system boundaries and procedures for deriving benchmarks were
defined:
Oxygen Production
The oxygen production is outsourced in several cases. The amount of energy needed for the production of
3
oxygen will be added to the total amount of energy with a value of 650 Wh/Nm Oxygen produced (Natural
Ressources Canada, 2007) page 92.
Fuel Transport, Other Transport
Storage of imported material at the harbor as well as their transport to the plant are outside system
boundary (for benchmarking)
Fuels for transport between production halls and processes (so far not considered), is not included in
studies mentioned above ( (Natural Ressources Canada, 2007), (International Iron and Steel Institute,
1998)
Different On-Site Processes

For comparison with international benchmarks for companies not having all processes on-site:
The international benchmarks will be derived by summing up only those processes which are used onsite:
o Example: As the material preparation is not done on-site (in (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, &
Nan, 2008): 2.5 GJ/t for this step), this value will not be included in deriving the international
benchmark, when comparing to it.
Different Share of Scrap Used in International Benchmarks
International benchmarks are available for EAF plants using 100% scrap and 40% scrap of total input
material. For the plant with different amount of scrap used in the process (e.g. 20%) this value will be
derived by extrapolating these values.
Different Casting Processes Used on the Same Site

Two companies have different casting processes on the same site: continuous casting and thin slab casting.
For comparison with international level, the international BAT value will be calculated using the share of the
produced tons for the different lines:
E.g. thin slab casting: the values 0.2 GJ/t for thin slab casting and 1.9 GJ/t for continuous casting and
hot-rolling bars will be multiplied with the percentage production on thin slab casting line and the
percentage production on hot rolling line respectively.
Different Energy Sources Used on Process and Company Level

Benchmarking on process-level as described above implies that for some facilities (e.g. water treatment)
energy consumption is not considered on the process level. So when the different processes are summarized,
the whole energy consumption is lower than for the whole plant.
Purchased or Sold Products
In some plants, a part of the semi-finished products is purchased.
One plant sells semi-finished products.
For data correction, the following procedure will be used:

Total energy corrected = total energy + energy consumed to produce purchased semi-finished products
Total production corrected (meant liquid steel in this case, which is a pre-product) = amount of purchased
semi-finished products * correction factor (bigger 1 to reflect amount of liquid steel needed to produce
amount of purchased semi-finished products) + liquid steel (reported for this plant)
Energy consumed for purchased semi-finished products (billets) = specific energy consumption for producing
semi-finished products (e.g. EAF plus casting) * amount of purchased semi-finished products (e.g. billets)
2.2.2 Approach for Data Collection in Companies

Data from individual companies from the last available three years was collected. This data shows the trend in
the development of energy consumption and production and allows defining the most representative EPI of
the plant to be used for the benchmark curve.
For the data collection, the Austrian Energy Agency developed a data collection sheet specific for these sector.
It was presented during the kick-off meeting in February 2014 and was discussed with the national expert.
Based on this discussion, the template was improved further by the AEA and the national expert in the
following weeks via email correspondence. In addition, the national expert included further calculations after
several site visits.
Two different kind of data collection sheets were developed:
detailed data collection sheet to be used for companies which were visited by the national expert
simplified data collection sheet to be used for companies contacted by phone and email
For iron and steel sector it was decided to collect data not only on the company level, but also on the process
level. In the data collection sheets in addition to input-output data, information on the status of energy
management and implemented energy saving measures was included.
10
The detailed collection file contains the following excel sheets:
General information
Basic information of the company

Collected data: plant capacity and plant production [t], number of shifts, hours of operation per year,
etc.
Technical information
Detailed information on kind of processes, total capacity, thermal consumption and power installed
Input data
Assessment of input flow

Collected information: primary energy input, conversion factors, raw materials and semi-products, e.g.
scrap, direct reduced iron, liquid steel, oxygen, slabs, billtes
Output data
Assessment of output flow

Collected information: amount of produced end and semi-products per year, e.g. slabs, blooms, billets,
coils, plates, bars
Energy management
Information about implemented energy management systems

Collected data: responsible person for energy management, energy meters/sub-meters installed,
energy efficiency targets available, planned energy saving measures, etc.
Resulting information: assessment of existing or possibility of establishing an energy management
system
Implemented energy efficiency measures
Written information of energy efficiency measures
The data sheets developed are presented in the Annex.
2.2.3 Selection of the Companies for Data Collection

th
The national team in Egypt organized a workshop on the benefits of benchmarking on the 27 of February
2014 in Cairo. The purpose of the workshop was to introduce the concept and benefits of benchmarking to the
participating industries in order to ensure their active participation.
Only companies that were selected to be part of the benchmarking activities were invited to the workshop. The
number of companies that were invited is 23 for cement industry, 21 for iron & steel industry and 9 for the
fertilizers sector. In addition, several representatives from project partners attended and there was a high
participation from the IDA.
For the iron and steel sector, the following table lists all the plants that are registered in the sector according to
a list received from the IDA.
11
Table 1: Overview on Enterprises in the Iron and Steel Sector in Egypt (Including Main Products, Production Capacities and
Processes and Contact Status for the Study)
Enterprise
Governorate
Product
Licensed Production
(t/Year)
Process
Ezz dekheila steel
Alexandria
Wires, Rebar,
1,750,000.0
DRI-EAF-Rolling
Ezz dekheila steel
Alexandria
Plates
1,000,000.0
DRI-EAF-Rolling
Giza
Rebar
180,000.0
Rolling
Menoufia
Rebar
750,000.0
EAF-Rolling
Delta Steel
Cairo
Wires
64,122.0
EAF-Rolling
Suez Steel industries co. Solb Misr
Suez
Billets
800,000.0
DRI-EAF-Rolling
Suez Steel industries co. Solb Misr
Suez
Wires, Rebar
800,000.0
DRI-EAF-Rolling
National Portsaid Steel

company
Portsaid
Rebar
350,000.0
Rolling
Ezz Steel
Menoufia
Rebar
750,000.0
EAF-Rolling
Sarhan steel - Mostafa

sarhan sons
Alexandria
Rebar
40,000.0
Rolling
ElBahtimy steel rebars

forming and forging
Alexandria
Rebar
35,000.0
Rolling
Modern steel forming
Alexandria
Wires
22,500.0
Rolling
United Steel Company
Cairo
Wires
35,000.0
Rolling
Egyptian enterprise for

metallic industries
Kalioubia
Wires
27,000.0
Rolling
Portsaid industries and

engineering
Portsaid
Wires
142,000.0
Rolling
Al Attia Steel
Sharkia
Wires
100,000.0
Rolling
Menoufia
Rebar
180,000.0
Rolling
Ezz for plates
Suez
Plates
1,200,000.0
EAF-Rolling
Egyptian Iron and Steel

Company
Cairo
Sections
927,627.0
BF-BOF-Rolling
Egyptian iron and steel

products
Suez
Rebar
110,000.0
Rolling
Egypt for industries ESTAR
Giza
Rebar
100,000.0
Rolling
Misr for iron and steel

Hawary
Giza
Rebar
100,000.0
Rolling
Maadi Steel
Menoufia
Wires
100,000.0
Rolling
Abouzaabal for engineered

industries
Kalioubia
Sections
12,710.0
Rolling
Sharkia
Wires
300,000.0
Rolling
Cairo
Wires
28,000.0
Rolling
Gharbia
Rebar
100,000.0
Rolling
Marakby Steel
Egyptian American steel
rolling
International Steel Rolling
EzzRollingCompany
Metad helwan
Medi-Steel iron products
12
Enterprise
Governorate
Product
Licensed Production
(t/Year)
Process
Egyptian Steel company
Kalioubia
Rebar
157,000.0
Rolling
Temsah Iron and Steel
Kalioubia
Rebar
25,000.0
Rolling
Egypt Steel Group
Sharkia
Billets
200,000.0
Rolling
Demco
Sharkia
Rebar
75,000.0
Rolling
Misr National Steel

Company
Suez
Rebar
300,000.0
Rolling
Suez steel industries
Suez
Rebar
150,000.0
Rolling
Alexandria for metals

import and export
Beheira
Rebar
75,000.0
Rolling
Giza
Wires
150,000.0
Rolling
Elbeheira industries and

investment
2.2.4 Schedule for Data Collection

In collecting the data, the following table illustrates the dates of the first on-site meeting as well as the date of
receiving the first and the latest version of the data.
Table 2: Overview on Schedule of Data Collection
Code
Date of Visit
Date of First Data
Date of Last Revision

of Data
I&S 01
3/20/2014
3/24/2014
3/29/2014
I&S 02
3/11/2014
4/1/2014
5/22/2014
I&S 03
4/8/2014
6/1/2014
8/17/2014
I&S 04
3/30/2014
5/29/2014
6/17/2014
6/3/2014
9/11/2014
I&S 05
I&S 06
6/4/2014
6/11/2014
6/11/2014
I&S 09
4/9/2014
8/12/2014
8/12/2014
I&S 12
3/30/2014
9/9/2014
9/9/2014
The eight contacted companies represent almost 76% of the total Egyptian production as will be seen later in
Table 27. Other five companies were contacted, and they mentioned that they were not operating at the time
of collecting the data either for plant relocation, renovation or other financial reasons. Two companies didnt
accept to even respond to requests from the consultant of holding a meeting to illustrate the benchmarking
project. The remaining companies were not reached due to the unavailability of their contacts, those
companies were all of small installed capacity (less than 100 000 tons per company per year), and they are all
working on rolling of imported billets.
13
2.2.5 Limitations of Data Collection and Barriers Encountered

Regarding the faced barriers, the iron and steel sector does not have a clear definition regarding which plants
are to be considered in this sector and which process shall be our target: Some of the plants as well as
governmental officers proposed to include only steel making plants (plants with blast furnace ovens, basic
oxygen plants or electric arc furnaces) as they represent the major energy consumption. Other stakeholders
suggested to include also hot rolling mills. Our final decision was to include all the plants with steel making
facilities and study a sample from the rolling only plants in order to have a better understanding of the sector.
Another question was whether to include the small sized rolling only plants or not. The small sized plants were
included.
After defining the target producers, achieving the contact details and establish a connection with the
companies was another problem. Fortunately, the large producers had websites with correct contact
information so we were able to send them faxes and emails to introduce them to the project. Then for the
small companies the yellow pages were checked for their contact data and some of them were reached.
Another problem was to convince the companies to cooperate. For the large companies, they had a concern
regarding the confidentiality of the data they were providing, so a confidentiality and non-disclosure
agreement was prepared and signed with them. Some other companies (especially the rolling only companies)
believed that the rolling process is not an energy intensive process, and shouldnt be considered in the study,
while another portion of the rolling companies believed that they are already running at very high energy
efficiency, pretty close to the BAT norms, thus the IEE project wouldnt be of any benefit for them. Their
concerns were alleviated through several meetings and phone conversations where the direct and non-direct
benefits from the project were illustrated. Luckily, we were able to convince some of them to cooperate.
For the small sized rolling mills, two companies were visited to check their process and data availability, it was
concluded that they dont keep records for their actual consumption/production, thus making it very difficult to
get that data from them.
Another problem was that not all the companies were still operating at the time of gathering the data. Around
seven of the initially targeted plants were not operating either for financial reasons or due to the restless
political situation in Egypt after the 2011 revolution.
Finally, there are few plants that are listed in the IDA by the legal name, while they are known in the market
and on the web by the trade name. Linking the two names together was one of the faced limitations.
2.3 International Benchmarks for Comparison

The study World Best Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected Industrial Sectors from the Berkeley
National Laboratory provides world best-practice EPI for the production of iron and steel, aluminum, cement,
pulp and paper, ammonia, and ethylene. Although the study was published in February 2008, and the data
applied for the benchmarks are even older, the benchmarks will be used for a comparison with the Egyptian
benchmarks.
For the iron and steel industry, the following Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Practice Technology
(BPT) have been identified.
14
2.3.1 International Best Available Technologies (BAT)

According to the Berkeley National Laboratory study, World Best Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected
Industrial Sectors, from February 2008, the BAT values given in Table 2-1 were identified for the iron and steel
industry for the different production routes.
Table 3: Summary of World Best Practice Final Energy Intensity Values for Iron and Steel (values per metric ton of steel) for
the Different Process Routes (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008)
World Best Practice Final Energy Intensities
GJ/t liquid steel
Blast Furnace Basic Oxygen Furnace Thin Slab Casting
14.8
Smelt Reduction Basic Oxygen Furnace Thin Slab Casting
17.8
Direct Reduced Iron Electric Arc Furnace Thin Slab Casting
16.9
Scrap - Electric Arc Furnace Thin Slab Casting
2.6
For more information, see Table 4, where the BAT values are given in more detail for each process within the
different process/production routes.
Table 4: Summary of World Best Practice Final Energy Intensity Values for Iron and Steel (values per metric ton of steel)
(Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008)
15
For Egypt, the electric arc furnace route is most relevant and detailed data can be found in Table 5.
Table 5: World Best Practical Final and Primary Energy Intensity Values for Direct Reduced Iron Electric Arc Furnace Route
(values per metric ton of steel) (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008)
It has to be noted that the source of the world best practical final and primary energy intensity values of Worrel
et al. 2008, mentioned above, is a study published in 1998 by the International Iron and Steel Institute
(International Iron and Steel Institute, 1998), esp. page 167 of this study.
In the JRC Reference Report Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron and Steel
Production, the energy consumption for electric arc furnaces is given in the following ranges:
16
Table 6: Input/Output Data for Electric Arc Furnaces Within the EU ( (European Commission, 2013) page 429)
Energy
Unit
Value
Electricity
MJ/t liquid steel
1,4542,693
Fuels
MJ/t liquid steel
30
1,500
In this document, the specific energy inputs per produced direct reduced iron are also given depending on the
manufacturer for the main production process:
Table 7: Characteristics of Commercially Available Direct Reduction Processes ( (European Commission, 2013) page 524)
Energy input (GJ/t

product)
Midrex
HyL III
Fastment/Inmetco
Finmet
10.5
11.3
12.6
12.5
Furthermore, within the BAT document of the JRC, tables are available for other processes as electric arc
furnaces and steelmaking and casting, but here only ranges and not BAT levels are provided.
2.3.2 International Benchmarking Curves

Within the UNIDO Report (UNIDO, 2010), an estimated benchmark curve for the iron and steel industry for
2005 is published. For each country, an EEI value is estimated that reflects the process mix and includes the
production processes of the most important end products into which crude steel is further processed.
Processes:
Blast Furnace (BF)/Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF)
Smelt reduction/Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF)
Direct Reduced Iron (DRI)/Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)
Scrap/Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)
Products:
Hot-rolled flat products
Hot-rolled bars and concrete reinforcing bars
Wire rod
The used best available technologies values for the different products and/or processes are not published
within the report (UNIDO, 2010).
17
Figure 5: Estimated Benchmark Curve for the Iron and Steel Industry, 2005 (UNIDO, 2010)
In the German study Zukunftsmarkt Energieeffiziente Stahlherstellung, international benchmarks based on

ENERDATA (a database for energy consumption on country and sector level) and World Steel data (for
production) were published, in relation to the share of steel produced within electric arc furnaces. But it did
not indicate the size of the share of DRI iron in relation to scrap input in the steel production.
18
Figure 6: Specific energy Input Per Ton Steel, Depending on Share of Electric Produced Iron (EAF) of the Total Steel
Production (2007) (Fraunhofer Institut fr System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI), 2011) (http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isimedia/docs/e/de/publikationen/Fallstudie_Eisen-Stahl.pdf)
The World Steel Association collects data for the energy consumption and the GHG emissions for the iron and
steel industry. The indicators are calculated using route-specific energy and CO2-intensities for three steel
production routes: basic oxygen furnace, electric arc furnace and open hearth furnace.
Figure 7: Energy Intensity and GHG Emissions (World Steel Association, 2013)
19
2.4 Approach for Estimating Energy Saving Potentials

The following chapter describes the methods for calculating the energy saving potentials for the iron and steel
sector in Egypt. The results of this method are shown in Chapter 4.
2.4.1 Saving Potential of Participating Companies

The first type of saving potentials calculated was the saving potential of each company. Therefore the following
method was used:
For each participating company, the specific energy consumption (SEC) was calculated.
The lowest SEC of all analyzed companies is defined as best available technology (BAT) and the second
lowest SEC is defined as best practice technology (BPT).
Assumption for saving potentials of companies which participated on the benchmarking study:
All participating companies achieve the SEC of the company with the lowest SEC (BAT). The potential for each
company will be calculated as:
Potential of each company (x) 1
BAT national
SEC x
2.4.2 Saving Potential of the Whole Sector in Egypt

The second type of saving potentials calculated was the saving potential of all companies of the sector in Egypt.
For this calculation the following data was necessary:
The total annual production of the sector. This information was taken from the IDA data.
The SEC of the total sector: As this information is not available, the project team defined the weighted
average SEC of the analyzed companies in the current benchmarking project as SEC of the total sector.
This assumption is eligible as the companies participated in the current benchmark project gave a
good sample of the whole sector.
With this information the saving potential of the whole sector can be calculated with the same formula:
Potential of the Whole Sector = (International BAT Weighted SEC of the Analyzed Companies) * Total
Production of the Whole Sector
The saving potential of the whole sector is calculated with the lowest known BAT. This can be either the
national BAT or the international BAT.
2.4.3 Saving Potentials for the BPT Scenario

In Chapter 4 different saving scenarios are shown. For the BPT scenario the lowest known BPT value was also
taken. This value can either be a national or an international one.
20
2.5 Possible Sources on National Level

In the beginning of the project it was planned to establish in addition to the benchmark curves of individual
companies, similar benchmark curves as in the UNIDO working paper by using national statistical data from the
Industrial Development Authority (IDA) and the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS).
During the project activities the Egyptian experts evaluated the data of IDA and CAPMAS and came to the
conclusion, that the data is too outdated and in some cases not reliable. Therefore the project team decided
not to establish benchmark curves with the statistical data.
2.5.1 Energy Consumption Data on National Level (Top-Down)

On the national level, the information about energy consumption of individual companies is collected by the
Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy and by the Ministry of Petroleum. The ministries in charge of
electricity and energy in Egypt collect accurate data from industrial companies on energy consumption on a
monthly basis. As this data is not publicly available it requires approval from individual companies to be shared.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to get the data for the UNIDO project. Basically the Egyptian government
could establish benchmark curves with the energy consumption data from the ministry and the production
data from CAPMAS.
Another source for energy consumption data on national level is the IDA. IDA is responsible for granting
licenses for energy supply for industrial enterprises. If a factory starts its operation, it will get a contract and
license for five years of energy supply from IDA. Therefore, IDA data reflect planned energy consumption
data and not metered energy consumption data. Every five years the license for energy supply needs to be
renewed that brings an update of the planned data of IDA.
The energy consumption would have been overestimated as it reflects the licensed energy supply, but knowing
this, the curve would have given a first insight in the sectors specific energy consumption. As already
mentioned, after a closer evaluation of the IDA and CAPMAS data it was decided not to use this data for
establishing benchmark curves.
UNIDO's main counterpart is EEAA which represented the Ministry of Environment. The other project partners
are the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), Industrial Modernization Center (IMC) and Egyptian
Organization for Standardization (EOS) from the Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade (MoIFT) and the
Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI).
2.5.2 Production Data on National Level (Top-Down)

For establishing benchmarks, data on annual production of the three sectors is also required. The federation of
Egyptian industries chamber of metallic industry- collected production and consumption data on sector level
in 2010. The national expert met with the chairman of the chamber and acquired that data as illustrated in
Table 8 below.
21
Table 8: Analysis of Data of the Federation of Egyptian Industries Chamber of Metallic Industry
Statistical Data of 2010

Process
Actual Production
(Million Tons)
Installed
Production
(Million Tons)
Natural Gas
SEC (m3/t)
Electricity SEC
(KWh/t)
SEC
(GJ/t product)
DRI
300
100
11,682
EAF
5,5
20
550
2,735
Rolling
9,5
12
40
90
1,834
Received data: Actual production, Installed production, Natural gas SEC and Electricity SEC
Analysis: SEC (GJ/t Product)
Data source: Federation of Egyptian Industries - Chamber of Metallic Industries
2.5.3 Company Data Collection (Bottom-Up)

The Egyptian experts collected the data according to the established data collection sheets from March till
June 2014. From companies using four main production routes / processes data were received:
Table 9: Number of Companies for Which the Data was Included Within the Report
Production Routes /processes
Number of Companies
DRI/EAF/Rolling
EAF/Rolling
Rolling only
All those 8 companies filled out the detailed data sheet.
2.6 Process to Check Data Reliability

The data collected from the companies have been checked by the national experts and by the AEA experts
according to their competence and branch-specific knowledge.
The calculated EPI were compared with international and national benchmarks and outliers were analyzed.
Data sets containing not explicable substantial deviations from the average were excluded from the benchmark
curve.
Plausibility check of data filled into the excel sheets, like:
22
annual production hours in comparison to maximum annual hours
production capacity to production output
trend of energy consumption and production (3 years)
total energy consumption / production (EPI)
input/output balance (check semi-finished products, purchase of semi-finished etc.)
check of reported measures
3 Basic Sector Information

3.1 Economic and Legislative Framework
The iron and steel industry is considered one of the most important metallurgical industries that assists in the
industrialization and development of countries. The iron and steel industry was first introduced in Egypt during
the 1940s. The aim at that time was to reuse the scrap left from the World War II and to convert it into steel
reinforcement bars.
In the late 1950s, the first integrated steel complex was established in Helwan Cairo governorate. That
complex was considered the first plant that produced steel products from iron ore in Egypt. The raw material
used was locally extracted from Aswan governorate - it was of low grade and rich in impurities. In the 1980s,
another steel complex was installed at Dekheila Alexandria Governorate. This plant produces steel from
imported high grade pellets.
Lately, due to development projects, which resulted in a rapid increase on demand, Egypts production of steel
products showed a remarkable boom in the installed capacity; several mini-mills were installed to convert
imported billets to long products.
There are two main routes for producing steel from iron ores: Blast furnace with basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF,
known as integrated plants) and direct reduced iron with electric furnace (DRI-EF, known as mini-mills). Figure
8 below illustrates the different routes of steel production.
Figure 8: Simplified Iron and Steel Production Flow-Chart, (Worrell, Blinde, Neelis, Blomen, & Masanet, 2010)
The EAF route is more common for the Egyptian market as Egypt had surplus of electricity and natural gas for
decades; this also encouraged investors and the government to issue new licenses for direct reduction
facilities.
23
As a consequence of the revolution of 2011, power generation projects faced several drawbacks that can be
summarized with the following words: lack of maintenance, shortage of fuel, as well as halting of new
installations. This is due to the political and financial unrest conditions. Those drawbacks forced several
projects to be postponed including the construction of new iron and steel production facilities that started at
the end of 2010 and early 2011.
Other than the delay of new facilities, the existing facilities also faced shortage of energy problems, as the
countrys generated electricity was below the consumption, hence the government attempted to reduce the
power supply to energy intensive plants during peak hours in order to sustain the supply to residential and
commercial facilities. This led to a drop of four hours per day in the electricity supplied to steel making plants
to almost half their contractual demand.
Moreover, as most of the fuel was directed to the power plants (natural gas and fuel oil), the supply to the
plants was decreased below their contractual demand.
3.2 Number of Companies and Ownership

The production of the iron and steel industry can be viewed as three main products: iron, steel and endproducts. For Egypt, the installed capacity for each of those main products was estimated as:
Table 10: Egyptian Installed Capacity for Main Products
Product
Number of Plants
Installed Capacity
(t)
DRI
3,000,000
26
Pig Iron
1,000,000
Steel
7,265,122
62
Long products
25
8,818,122
75
Flat products
2,709,000
23
Sections
229,710
32
11,756,832
100
Total
Share of End Production

(%)
The production of iron in either the form of pig iron or direct reduced iron is limited due to the unavailability of
the raw material (iron ore) and the production facilities. By the end of August 2014, there are only two plants
running with direct reduction facilities, but as one of them was commissioned in 2013, its data was not
included in this report. Moreover, there is one plant running with pig iron production (blast furnace). There are
three additional direct reduction plants that are under construction and are expected to be commissioned early
2015.
Pig iron and direct reduced iron are considered as the input to the steel making plants; however, not all the
input to the steel making is virgin iron as it can be substituted by scrap, and that is the case for most of the
Egyptian industries where the ratio between the used direct reduced iron to the used scrap was almost 47%
DRI to 53% scrap among the studied plants. In the steel making plants, the input mix (DRI + Scrap + pig iron) is
transformed to steel via the reduction of the carbon content and the removal of other impurities to form steel
which is then cast to billets, slabs or thin slabs depending on the desired end product. In Egypt, there are
currently seven facilities running with the electric arc furnaces as their steel making plants, and one plant
24
running with both the electric arc furnace and basic oxygen furnace as the steel making plant. Other plants are
currently installing electric arc furnaces that shall increase the value added to their production facilities and
reduce the dependence of the sector on the import of billets.
As cast steel is not a useful product, it shall undergo further processes to be transferred to useful end products.
The three available forms of end products in Egypt are long product (rebars and wire rod), flat products, and
sections. The long products represent the majority of the Egyptian production with an installed capacity of
around 75% from 25 plants, followed by the flat production with an installed capacity representing 23% from
three plants, whereas the sections are only produced in two plants and with very low quantities that can
thereby be neglected (almost 2% of the total production).
th
On the other side, due to the political and economic situation that occurred in Egypt after the 25 of January
revolution, and the increase in the prices of imported billets, a few number of the rolling mills decided to close
their production facilities either temporarily or permanently.
The ownership of the iron and steel production companies is mainly for the private sector with three major
enterprises holding around 75% of the installed capacity, while the state-owned companies represent 11% of
the installed capacity.
The tables below list the iron and steel registered companies with their installed capacities as well as the
ownership. The indicated capacities are based on data received from the IDA, however some of the contacted
companies mentioned different installed capacities from those indicated in the IDA data, hence they were
updated in the tables. Each table illustrates the production of one main product.
Table 11: Iron Production Plants and Their Ownership
Plant
Egyptian Iron and Steel Company
Ezz dekheila steel
Ownership
Process
Iron Installed Capacity

(Thousand Tons)
State owned
Blast Furance
1,000
Private
Direct Reduction Plant
3,000
Table 12: Steel Making Plants and Their Ownership

Plant
Ownership
Steel Installed Capacity (Thousand

Tons)
Ezz dekheila steel
Private
3,000
AlEzz Flat Steel
Private
1,200
Egyptian American steel rolling
Private
1,000
Ezz Steel
Private
800
Suez steel co.
Private
800
Egypt Steel Group
Private
200
Delta Steel
State Owned
64
State Owned
201
25
Table 13: Rebar Producing Plants and Their Ownership

Plant
Ownership
Rebar Installed Capacity (Thousand

Tons)
Marakby Steel
Private
180
Ezz dekheila steel
Private
1,750
AlEzz Flat Steel
Private
1,200
Egyptian American steel rolling
Private
1,000
Ezz Steel
Private
1,000
Misr National Steel Company
Private
300
Egypt for industries - ESTAR
Private
100
National Portsaid Steel company
Private
350
Suez steel co. - Solb Misr
Private
850
Egyptian iron and steel products
Private
110
Metad helwan
Private
28
International Rolling Mills Co.
Private
500
Ezz Rolling Company
Private
500
Demco
Private
75
Sarhan steel - Mostafa sarhan sons
Private
40
ElBahtimy steel rebars forming and

forging
Private
Delta Steel
State Owned
35
64
Egyptian enterprise for metallic

industries
Private
27
Temsah Iron and Steel
Private
25
Egyptian Steel company
Private
157
Maadi Steel
Private
100
Al Attia Steel
Private
100
Suez steel industries
Private
150
United Steel Company
Private
35
Portsaid industries and engineering
Private
142
Table 14: Flat Producing Plants and Their Ownership

Plant
Ownership
Flat Products Installed Capacity

(Thousand Tons)
Ezz dekheila steel
Private
1,000
AlEzz Flat Steel
Private
1,200
26
State Owned
509
3.3 Production Capacities

The total annual installed capacity of the steel final products in Egypt was estimated to be around 11 million
tons. However, even though the 11 million tons are for final product form, the quantity of raw material and
intermediate products are completely different as there are only two plants with the capability to convert the
raw material (iron ore or pellets) to final products. Other plants depend on importing scrap to be converted to
steel and then final product, or import billets to be converted to final products. Table 10 illustrates the great
variation in the installed capacities for each process.
Chapter 3.3.1 and several subsequent subchapters list the definition of intermediate and final products, as well
as the actual production capacity for each product based on published data.
3.3.1 Main Products

Throughout the iron and steel production process, iron takes different forms. The definitions of these different
forms are indicated in the first part of this chapter. The second part discusses the quantities produced and
imported from the intermediate products as well as the final products which are sold to consumers.
3.3.1.1 Definitions for Different Forms of Iron and Steel

Iron Ore: Naturally occurring rocks and minerals that are rich in iron as iron oxides. The iron oxide can be in the
form of hematite (Fe2O3) or magnetite (Fe3O4). Iron Ore is the main raw material for the iron production.
However, for improved iron content and physical properties, it needs to be processed to form sintered iron ore
or pellets before being introduced to the iron-making equipment.
Sintered Iron Ore: It is produced by mixing and combustion of iron ore fines with other iron bearing wastes and
coke dust. This leads to fusion of the fines to form coarse lumps that can be fed to the blast furnace (BF).
Pellets: Iron ore when crushed, ground, mixed with binding agent and heated form durable marble-sized
pellets that are suitable as feed material for both BF and DRI.
Pig Iron: Cast molten iron that is allowed to go cold to solidify. Pig Iron can be used as a high quality scrap
substitute. Pig iron is produced in the BF through the reduction of the oxygen from the iron ore via the
oxidation of carbon monoxide from the combustion gases (indirect reduction) and the carbon from the coke
(direct reduction). This process involves a shaft furnace, where iron ore, coke and limestone (fluxing agent) are
fed from the top part, and hot air for combustion is introduced from the bottom part. The counter-current
movement of the iron ore and coke lead to the combustion of coke and the reduction of iron ore to metallic
iron and slag (a collecting of the fluxing agent and the residual components of iron ore and coke) (Laboratory &
Institute, 2010).
Direct Reduced Iron (DRI): The other alternative way for reducing iron ore to metallic iron is by the direct
reduction using reducing gas to produce direct reduced iron. The reducing gas is either CO or H 2. Most of the
DRI is produced in counter-current shaft furnaces, similar to the blast furnace. In this furnace, iron ore is
introduced from the top of the furnace in the form of pellets, while the reduction gasses are preheated in an
external heat exchanger and introduced in the middle of the furnace. Most operating DRI use natural gas as the
reduction gases (Laboratory & Institute, 2010).
Ladles (molten steel): They are produced as a transition product to convert the iron into tough and tenacious
refined steel, where iron from BF or DRI undergoes several treatment processes to eliminate the carbon and
27
unwanted elements. Ladles are produced either by the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF), where the majority of the
raw material is scrap steel, or by the Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF), where the majority of the raw material is pig
iron. The output from both types of furnaces as molten steel is tapped into ladles and delivered to be cast in
semi-finished products.
Ingots, slabs, blooms and billets: They represent different forms of semi-finished products. They are produced
in casting yards or through continuous casting. In casting yards, ladle transferred from the furnace is poured
into an ingot casing to solidify, then the casing is removed and the ingot is sent to primary mills to be rolled
into slabs, blooms or billets. In continuous casting, the ingot production is eliminated, and the steel proceed
directly to the rolling or forming while retaining significant heat, thus reducing the downstream reheat cost and
time.
Rolled products: Even though the semi-finished products can find a market for their sale, this market is limited
to the trade between steel producers. Rolled products are sold to the construction or fabrication entities. They
include steel plates, pipes, coils, bars, rods and sections. Various forms of the finished products depend on the
o
finishing process, where hot rolling semi-finished products are heated to over 1,000 C, before they pass
through a multiple set of rollers to reduce their thickness to the set thickness while increasing in length and
width. In cold rolling, the hot rolled product is further rolled at ambient temperature to improve the surface
finish and the strength. Forming is similar to hot rolling, but the rollers have special shapes to produce bars,
rods or sections.
Finished products: Rolled products can be one form of finished products. For some cases, rolled products are
subject to further finishing processes to satisfy special physical specifications. Finishing processes include
pickling (acid treatment), heat treatment (tempering), quenching or coating.
3.3.1.2 Production
As mentioned in Chapter 3.2 of this report, there is only one company having the BF-BOF technology and
consequently, the amount of pig iron is limited to the capacity of that company. Similarly, for the DRI, as it is
produced from only one company, its quantities are limited to the production capacity of that company. For
the other facilities, scrap, and billets are imported for the production of final products.
From statistical data, the actual production of crude steel increased in Egypt from around 4.4 million tons in
2003 to over 6.6 million tons in 2012 with an increase rate of 4.7% annually as illustrated in Table 15 and
Table 16 below. This increase is mainly due to the introduction of new facilities.
Through reviewing the split of the produced steel between the BOF and the EAF, it appears that the
productivity of the BOF in 2012 showed a decrease of almost half the production of 2003, with a maximum of
1,300 tons recorded in 2006, whereas the production from the EAF process showed an increase from the 2003
production by almost 100% in 2012. This implies that more plants and licenses are issued using the EAF
technology for its suitability to the sources of energy available in Egypt.
28
Table 15: Egyptian Crude Steel Production trend (Source: (World Steel Association, 2013b))
Year
Crude Steel Production, Thousand
Tons
BOF Crude Steel Production,
Thousand Tons
EAF Crude Steel Production,
Thousand Tons
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
4,398
4,810
5,603
6,045
6,224
6,198
5,541
6,676
6,485
6,627
1,150
1,280
1,100
1,300
1,000
900
840
600
545
530
3,250
3,530
4,500
4,750
5,225
5,300
4,700
6,075
5,940
6,100
Crude Steel Production Trend

8000
Production (Thousand Tons)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Total Production (crude steel)
BOF
EAF
Figure 9: Crude steel Production Trend
Regarding the iron input to the steel making plants, namely BOF and EAF, the statistics for iron use are
illustrated in Table 16 and Figure 10. It should be noted that the convention is to use the pig iron as the input to
the BOF, and use scrap together with the direct reduced iron as input to the EAF. For that convention, the
increase in the import of scrap and the decrease in the production of pig iron are in line with the decrease in
the steel production from the BOF and the increase in the EAF capacities, while keeping the direct reduction
capacities more or less constant at the installed production capacity.
29
Table 16: Egyptian Trend of Iron Use (Source: (World Steel Association, 2013b))
Year
Pig Iron (Thousand
Tons)
Direct Reduced Iron
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1,080
1,000
1,100
1,100
1,000
900
800
600
600
550
2,870
3,020
2,900
2,800
2,786
2,643
3,051
2,965
2,932
3,068
543
1,045
1,226
2,244
2,274
1,457
1,269
1,950
2,612
1,975
(Thousand Tons)
Imported Scrap
(Thousand Tons)
Trend of Iron Use

3500
Iron Used (Thousand Tons)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Pig Iron
Direct Reduced Iron
Imported Scrap
Figure 10: Trend of Iron Use
The actual production of the hot rolled products, which represent the final product from the iron and steel
industry, is illustrated in Table 17. Hot rolled products are classified into long products which include the steel
rebars (reinforcing bars) and wire rods, and flat products which can be either in coil form or flat plates.
30
From the statistical data, it can be concluded that the total production increased by almost 40 % in 10 years
with its peak in 2010 reaching 7,939 tons/year, the long products increase was almost 78 % with its peak in
2010 as well with a production of 6,302 tons/year, while the flat products decreased by 40% for the same
period with the peak of flat products at 2006 and 2007 with 2,095 tons/year and 2,061 tons/year.
Table 17: Egyptian Final Steel Production Trend (Source: (World Steel Association, 2013b))
Year
Hot Rolled Products
(Thousand Tons)
Long Products
(Thousand Tons)
Flat Products
(Thousand Tons)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
5,200
5,100
6,800
6,420
6,687
6,766
6,352
7,939
6,588
7,265
3,500
3,400
4,800
4,326
4,626
5,037
5,200
6,302
5,426
6,229
1,700
1,700
2,000
2,095
2,061
1,729
1,152
1,637
1,162
1,036
Finished Products Production Trend

9000
8000
Production (Thousand Tons)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Hot rolled products
Hot rolled long products
Hot rolled flat products
Figure 11: Finished Products Production Trend
31
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that Egypt is on the track of increasing the crude steel production
through installing more electric arc furnaces. Moreover, Egypts production of hot rolled products is increasing
through installing more rolling mills. Those increases are aiming at developing a self sufficiency from the iron
and steel production as a strategic product, and in the same time better utilization of the available energy
sources.
3.3.2 Annual Turnover

The iron and steel industry is one of the most intensive industries in terms of energy use and turnover.
Regarding the annual turnover, the last available statistical data reporting the whole sector was published by
the CAPMAS for the year 2007/2008, where it reported the total production and the corresponding sales value
during the period from 1996/1997 to 2007/2008 as follows:
Table 18: Egyptian Annual Steel Production and Turnover Trends (Source: (CAPMAS, 2008))
Year
Production (t)
Value (EGP)
Average price (EGP/t)
1996/1997
1,350,008
1,544,838,000
1,144
1997/1998
1,804,370
1,733,828,000
961
1998/1999
2,263,065
2,238,381,000
989
1999/2000
3,788,261
3,336,021,000
881
2000/2001
5,215,874
4,566,805,000
876
2001/2002
4,069,520
4,211,395,000
1,035
2002/2003
3,157,895
4,736,843,000
1,500
2003/2004
3,044,516
8,627,765,000
2,834
2004/2005
4,540,237
12,353,376,000
2,721
2005/2006
4,241,757
11,580,077,000
2,730
2006/2007
3,902,707
18,732,992,000
4,800
2007/2008
5,840,112
27,585,701,000
4,723
With the current steel price fluctuating around 4600 4800 EGP/t since 2008, the annual turnover for the 2012
production can be estimated to be 34,145,500 EGP.
Other indicators were calculated from data provided in a reports prepared by the Egyptian Electric Utility and
Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency,
2011; Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency, 2012) where they provided the
total electricity consumed by the sector together with other sectorial data as shown in the following table.
32
Table 19: Indicators for the Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory
Agency, 2011), (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency, 2012)
2010/2011
2011/2012
Electricity (Million kWh)
6,877.80
6,905.49
Value added (Million EGP)
4,645.00
6,847.00
6,114,000.00
7,995,571.00
39,961.00
41,922.00
1,124.93
863.66
759.73
856.35
1,481.00
1,009.00
Production (t)
# of employees
Electrical SEC, kWh/t
Value added per ton, EGP/t
Electricity per value added, kWh/EGP
From those figures, it was concluded that the sector electrical consumption showed an improvement in
2011/2012 from 2010/2012, with an increase in the value added per ton steel produced. This resulted in a large
decrease in the electricity used per value added to the product.
3.3.3 Main Markets

The main markets for the Egyptian iron and steel production are local markets in order to fulfil the market
needs. However, exporting surplus portion of the production to African and Arab countries appeared in the last
decade, with the increase in the installed capacities, and the decrease in the local demand.
According to the statistical data from the world steel association (World Steel Association, 2013b), Egypt
exports finished products in the form of flat steel or long products; however, the percentage of export from the
total production is not really significant for the long products (almost 2 % of the long production), while the flat
exports reached 36% of the flat production. However, as a net trade, Egypt is still considered as a steel
importer country where it imports iron ore in the form of pellets, imports scrap and billets, and imports
finished products. Net imports of semi-finished and finished products in 2012 recorded 3,390,000 tons, 44 % of
them in the form of ingots or billets.
33
Table 20: Trend of Semi-Finished and Finished Trade (World Steel Association, 2013b)
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
1,337
1,793
1,883
2,219
1,000
1,065
337
446
557
262
2,052
1,622
3,410
2,905
2,249
3,066
5626
3324
2574
3652
715
-171
1,527
686
1,249
2,001
5,289
2,878
2,017
3,390
Semi-Finished and
Finished Products
Exports (Thousand
Tons)
Semi-Finished and
Finished Products
Imports (Thousand
Tons)
Net Imports (Thousand
Tons)
3.3.4 Main Drivers for Energy Consumption

First of all, the energy consumption in the iron and steel sector depends on the process routes.
The main further factors affecting the energy consumption in the iron and steel industry are:
Production volume
DRI/Scrap ratio for the EAF
Scrap grade
Billet grade
Kind of products
Whereas for some drivers, namely production volume and DRI/scrap ratio, it is relatively easy to establish
benchmarks, for some drivers, i.e. kind of products, it is more difficult. Especially for rolling mills, the energy
consumption depends on the time necessary to roll a specific product.
34
3.4 Energy Data

In analyzing the energy data, following conversion factors were used in order to convert the reported energy to
GJ.
Table 21: Conversion Factors Used in the Study
Convert from
To get
Multiplication factor
Source
kWh
MJ
3.6
(IEA, 2014)
Nm3 Natural gas
MJ
37.74
IPCC
Mbtu
MJ
Ton Coal
MJ
Nm3 oxygen
Ton Lime
kWh
MJ
1,055
35,638.04163
0.65
450
(IEA, 2014)
(Azhar University, 2014)
(Canadian Steel Producers Association & Natural Resources
Canada, 2007)
Estimated based on the data of one of the plants
Even though some plants provided different conversion factors for the natural gas based on their utility
invoices, those factors were neither consistent for all plants nor for the three studied years, so it was preferred
to stick to a fixed conversion factor for the study.
The iron and steel industry is considered one of the most energy-intensive industries throughout the world,
where according to data from 2007, the total global energy consumed in the iron and steel industry alone was
almost 0.5 Mtoe. The total energy consumed in all the industrial sectors was around 3Mtoe (IEA, 2010).
Energy intensity in the iron and steel industry differs depending on the process implemented in the plant,
where according to the BAT, the Sintering-Coking-BF-BOF-Refining-Continuous Casting-Hot Rolling route
consumes about 16.5 GJ/t of crude steel, whereas the Sintering-Pelletizing-DRI-EAF-Continuous Casting-Hot
Rolling route consumes around 18.6 GJ/t, while the EAF-Continuous Casting-Hot Rolling consumes 4.3 GJ/t, and
Hot Rolling only consumes 1.8 GJ/t (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008).
3.4.1 Thermal Energy Consumption

Thermal energy is extensively required for the heating of iron oxide in order to convert it to iron in either BF or
DRI and also in the preheating of the billets entering the hot rolling section. Thermal energy that is widely used
in the iron and steel industry is from the combustion of coal, coke or natural gas with little or no dependence
on light fuel oil.
Thermal energy sources can be classified based on the production process: the BF depends mainly on the coke
in the iron oxide reduction process, the direct reduction plants can run by natural gas as the source of
reduction gas with plants in few regions of the world run the direct reduction plants through a different
technology where the coke is used as the reduction gas.
Since there is only one plant operating the BF-BOF route, and as Egypt is not rich in coal that is needed to
produce coke, the production and consumption of coke in Egypt is only limited to the demand of that single
plant.
35
Regarding the most important source of thermal energy in Egypt, namely natural gas, Egypt used to have
reasonable quantities of natural gas reserves, which encouraged investors as well as the Government of Egypt
to install direct reduction plants. Egypt had only one plant running with direct reduction facility until few years
back, when four new licenses were issued to install new direct reduction plants, one of which was
commissioned in 2013, while the other three are currently installing their natural gas operated direct reduction
plants and are expected to be commissioned in 2015.
Relatively small quantities of natural gas or heavy fuel oil are used in reheating the billets entering the hot
rolling mills.
Other than the natural gas, imported coal or coke are sometimes used in the electric arc furnace to assist in
forming foamy slag, which improves the electrical power efficiency by around 20 % (Worrell, Blinde, Neelis,
Blomen, & Masanet, 2010) or to adjust the chemical composition of the produced steel.
Unfortunately, there were no statistical data available for the sector consumption of natural gas or coal.
3.4.2 Electricity Consumption

Electricity is mainly needed in the electrical arc furnace which consumes extremely high quantity of electricity.
According to a study conducted by Worrel et. al (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008), the best practice
scrap fed EAF consumes 474 kWh/t liquid steel for the EAF and ladle refining, whereas for the EAF that is fed by
DRI and Scrap at a ratio of 60:40 consumes 595 kWh/t liquid steel.
Other than the EAF, electricity is needed to run the motors and other electrical equipment available in the iron
and steel plant, as well as the ancillary oxygen and lime plants.
The best practice for a DRI-EAF-Hot rolling plant consumes around 230 kWh/t liquid steel, as the waste heat
from the DRI can be used to generate around 609 kWh/t, while the whole process consumes around
839 kWh/t.
From the annual reports prepared by the Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency
(EGYPTERA), the Egyptian Iron and Steel total production, electric consumption and electrical specific energy
consumption were reported for 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection
Regulatory Agency, 2011; Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency, 2012) as
illustrated in the following table.
Table 22: Iron and Steel Production and Electric Consumption (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory
Agency, 2011), (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency, 2012)
Year
Production (t)
Electric Consumption
(GWh)
SEC
(kWh/t product)
2010/2011
6,114,000
6,877.8
1,125
2011/2012
7,995,571
6,905.5
864
From the above table, it can be concluded that the efficiency of utilizing the electric energy improved in
2011/2012 from 2010/2012; however, the reasons for that improvement are not clear from only those two
data sets.
36
Also the report mentioned the share of electricity consumed in the iron and steel sector relative to the other
industrial sectors in Egypt and relative to the total electricity consumed in industrial and non-industrial
applications as follows:
Table 23: Share of Iron and Steel Electric Consumption Among the Country's Total Electric Consumption
Year
Iron and Steel Electric

Consumption
(GWh)
Total industrial Electric

Consumption
(GWh)
Total Electric Consumption

(GWh)
2009/2010
6,342.1
31,548.8
118,903
2010/2011
6,877.8
31,779.1
125,159
2011/2012
6,905.5
34,763.6
133,969
With the share of iron and steel represents around 13 % of the electricity consumed in the industrial sector,
and representing the largest consumer of electricity among the industrial sectors followed by the cement
industry consuming around 10 % and the aluminium industry consuming around 9 % of the electricity
consumed in the industrial sector.
3.5 Energy Efficiency Measures Implemented and/or Planned

Due to the importance of energy for the iron and steel production facilities, and following the shortage in
energy supply and the increase in energy tariff, several plants started analyzing their energy use, and trying to
improve their energy efficiency.
From the contacted plants, three plants mentioned that they plan to be ISO 50001 certified in 2014. They
started implementing that plan through receiving consultancy services from the UNIDO on implementing an
energy management system. Other than those three plants, one fourth plant started receiving the same
services from the UNIDO EnMS training.
Other plants keep records for their energy efficiency, in which they estimate the thermal and electrical SEC and
compare them to international records without having a systematic approach to reduce that SEC.
Through the replies on the energy efficiency measures from the plants, for three plants running steel making
process, following measures were concluded:
Table 24: Percentage of Three Steel Making Plants with Saving Measures Already Implemented
Measure
% of application
Improved process control (neural network)
100%
Adjustable speed drives
100%
Transformer efficiency - Ultra high power transformers
100%
Bottom stiring/stiring gas injection

Foamy slag practice
0%
100%
37
Measure
Oxy-fuel burners
Post-combustion of the flue gases
DC arc furnace
Scrap preheating - tunnel furnace (Consteel)
Scrap preheating, post combustion - shaft furnace (Fuchs)
Engineered refractories
% of application
67%
33%
0%
33%
33%
100%
Airtight operation
0%
Contiarc furnace
0%
Flue gas monitoring and control

Eccentric bottom tapping on existing furnace
While for the measures for the hot rolling mills, following measures were concluded:
38
67%
100%
Table 25: Percentage of Four Hot Rolling Mills With Saving Measures Already Implemented
Measure
% of Application
Proper reheating temperature
100%
Avoiding overload of reheat furnaces
100%
Energy efficient drives in the rolling mill

Process control in hot stip mill
Recuperative and regenerative burners
Flameless burners
75%
100%
0%
50%
Insulation of furnaces
100%
Walking beam furnace
75%
Controling oxygen levels and/or speed on combustion air fans

Heat recovery to the product
Waste heat recovery (cooling water)
100%
50%
0%
Regarding the general measures that serve as an energy efficient measure, following were concluded:
Table 26: Implementation Rate of General Measures of Four Companies
Measure
Preventive maintenance
Energy monitoring and management system
% of Application
100%
0%
39
4 Analysis of Results
4.1 Achieved Data Sets for Analysis
In preparing this report, twenty-two companies were contacted, of which nine companies participated in
providing their production and energy consumption data, while five were not operating and hence didnt
participate, two provided incomplete data (only the average values or the consumption without the
corresponding production), one company was excluded as it was a non-comparable company (the only
company operating the BF-BOF route), and five companies refused to cooperate. The remaining companies
were not contacted due to the unavailability of their correct contacts.
The data collection from the plants was conducted through direct contact with the companies; this involved a
process where we tried to convince them by filling in the data collection sheet for their production and
consumption from the company records and utility invoices. Most of the contacted companies were very
cooperative in providing the data; however, some had some concerns regarding the confidentiality of their
data or in terms of the possibility of achieving benefits for the participating companies. Those concerns were
alleviated through several meetings and discussions as well as by providing case studies for similar companies
in other countries that implemented the Industrial Energy Efficiency Project with the UNIDO.
The investigated companies represent the main iron and steel producers in Egypt with different production
routes. The data of production and energy consumption for those companies were gathered for the years
2010, 2011 and 2012. The investigated companies represent almost 76 % of the Egyptian iron and steel final
production as illustrated in Table 27.
Table 27: Capacity of Analyzed Companies
Process
Total Capacity
Studied Capacity
% of Capacity
DRI
3,000,000 t
3,000,000 t
100.0
EAF
7,265,122 t
6,800,000 t
94.0
Hot Rolling (rebar)
8,818,122 t
6,780,000 t
77.0
Hot Strip Mills (flat)
2,709,000 t
2,200,000 t
81.0
0.0
8,980,000 t
76.4
Sections
Total End Products
229,710 t
11,756,832 t
The graph below gives an overview of the different plants and their processes:
40
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figure 12: Overview on the Participating Plants (IS Numbers) and Applied Processes
Table 28 to Table 31 illustrate the aggregated material balance for the participating plants for each production
process.
Table 28: Studied DRI Material Balance
Year
Input Material
Output Material
Pellets (t)
DRI (t)
Metallization Factor
(Output/Input)
2010
4,298,068
2,855,195
66%
2011
4,441,417
2,973,204
67%
2012
4,198,560
2,835,451
68%
41
Table 29: Studied EAF Material Balance

Year
Input Material
Output
Metallization
Material
Factor
(Output/
Scrap (t)
DRI (t)
Imported
FeSi (t)
FeSiMn (t)
Pig Iron (t)
Produce
Input)
Steel (t)
2010
3,674,545
3,304,747
2,137
6,399
6,089,324
87%
2011
3,713,381
3,301,858
11,746
2,154
5,835
6,040,712
86%
2012
3,745,417
3,207,202
8,025
2,246
5,617
6,166,973
88%
Table 30: Studied Rebar Production Material Balance

Year
Input Material
Output Material
Metallization factor
Billets (t)
Rebars (t)
2010
5,288,880
5,089,960
96%
2011
5,308,289
5,067,155
95%
2012
6,030,268
5,734,157
95%
Input Material
Output Material
Metallization Factor
Thin Slabs (t)
Flat (t)
2010
1,496,722
1,433,040
96%
2011
1,044,164
1,001,084
96%
2012
919,741
893,434
97%
(Output/Input)
Table 31: Studied Flat Production Material Balance

Year
(Output/Input)
From the above tables, it can be concluded that the metallization factor which indicates the ratio between
the weight of output material produced by each ton of input material for the DRI is around 67 %, 87 % for the
steel making, and 95 % for the rolling mills. Furthermore, the share of flat production from the total final
products decreased from 23 % in 2010 to 14 % in 2012. This decrease was mainly due to the shutdown of the
flat production line in one of the plants and operating all that plants production on rolling of rebar. Another
conclusion is the quantity of imported steel in the form of billets. This quantity ranges from 3-7 % for the three
reported years; however, as the number of rolling only plants is not representative in the studied sample (77 %
of the total production), and 12 % of the number of rolling only plants (3 out of 25 operating were analyzed),
the quantity of imported billets is expected to be around 10 % based on the installed capacities. Furthermore,
42
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
the share of scrap to virgin iron used in steel making is around 52 % of scrap. The virgin iron used in the electric
arc furnaces was in the form of direct reduced iron, pig iron or hot briquetted iron (FeSi or FeSiMn).
4.1.1 Production Volume of Analyzed Companies

The following tables represent the breakdown of finished steel production volume among the analyzed
companies for 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Table 32: Finished Steel Production Volume of Analyzed Companies
Design Capacity
2010 Production
2011 Production
2012 Production
Average Production
(Tons/Year)
(Tons/Year)
(Tons/Year)
(Tons/Year)
(Tons/Year)
IS01
180,000
139,472
146,458
143,974
143,301
IS02
2,750,000
2,829,470
2,750,771
2,850,096
2,810,112
IS03
1,200,000
448,725
417,743
584,493
483,654
IS04
1,000,000
993,575
935,364
832,451
920,463
IS05
1,000,000
1,045,953
956,281
980,743
994,326
IS06
300,000
337,330
312,825
291,223
313,793
IS09
850,000
354,198
423,733
643,751
473,894
IS12
500,000
374,278
125,064
300,718
266,687
7,780,000
6,523,000
6,068,239
6,627,449
6,406,229
Total
Regarding the utilization of the plants in the three years, the following tables illustrate the utilization factor for
each production process. From those tables, it is clear that 2012 has the highest utilization factor for both the
steel production and the rebar production.
Table 33: Utilization Factor for Collected DRP Data
Code
Installed Capacity (T)
Utilization factor (%)

2010
2011
2012
IS02
3,000,000
95%
99%
95%
Total
3,000,000
95%
99%
95%
43
Table 34: Utilization Factor for Collected EAF Data

Code

2010
2011
2012
IS02
3,000,000
99%
98%
102%
IS03
1,200,000
59%
48%
58%
IS04
1,000,000
87%
104%
95%
IS05
800,000
104%
103%
101%
IS09
800,000
90%
84%
82%
Total
6,800,000
90%
89%
91%
Table 35: Utilization Factor for Collected Rolling Mills Data

Code

2010
77%
2011
2012
81%
80%
106%
112%
IS01
180,000
IS02
1,750,000
IS03
1,200,000
0%
26%
49%
IS04
1,000,000
99%
94%
83%
IS05
1,000,000
105%
96%
98%
IS06
300,000
112%
104%
97%
IS09
850,000
42%
50%
76%
IS12
500,000
75%
25%
60%
Total
6,780,000
75%
75%
85%
105%
Table 36: Utilization Factor for Collected Flat Products Data

Code

2010
2011
2012
99%
90%
89%
IS02
1,000,000
IS03
1,200,000
37%
8%
0%
Total
2,200,000
65%
46%
41%
4.1.2 Energy Consumption of Analyzed Comanies

The conversion factors mentioned in Table 21 were used to calculate the energy consumption of the analyzed
companies.
44
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1.2.1 Thermal Energy Consumption

The following tables represent the amount of thermal energy consumed and the thermal SEC for each plant.
The thermal energy consumed in the analyzed iron and steel plants are from the natural gas used for
combustion as well as the direct reduction process and the coke and lime addition to the electric arc furnace.
Table 37: Thermal Energy Consumption of Analyzed Companies
2010
2011
2012
GJ/Year
GJ/t
GJ/Year
GJ/t
IS01
216,233
1.55
236,136
1.61
250,062
1.74
234,144
1.63
IS02
41,282,022
14.59
42,373,115
15.40
40,227,699
14.11
41,294,279
14.70
IS03
1,395,281
3.11
1,192,757
2.86
1,525,772
2.61
1,371,270
2.86
IS04
1,650,883
1.66
1,694,254
1.81
1,684,137
2.02
1,676,425
1.83
IS05
1,575,818
1.51
1,464,135
1.53
1,509,059
1.54
1,516,337
1.53
IS06
422,812
1.25
387,946
1.24
354,651
1.22
388,469
1.24
IS09
857,479
2.42
1,014,169
2.39
1,430,368
2.22
1,100,672
2.35
IS12
595,900
1.59
172,931
1.38
412,944
1.37
393,925
1.45
47,996,427
7.36
48,535,444
8.00
47,394,692
7.15
47,975,521
7.50
Total
GJ/Year
Average
GJ/t
GJ/Year
GJ/t
Thermal SEC (GJ/t

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
IS06
IS12
IS05
IS01
IS04
IS09
IS03
Figure 13: Thermal SEC of Analyzed Companies
45
From the chart and table, it appears that the thermal SEC shows great variability ranging between 1.44 GJ/t for
rolling only companies and 2.14 GJ/t for companies running EAF+Rolling. Data of the company running
DRI+EAF+Rolling was omitted from this chart for better illustration purpose.
4.1.2.2 Electrical Energy Consumption

The following tables represent the amount of electrical energy consumed and the electrical SEC for each plant.
The electrical energy consumed in the analyzed iron and steel plants are from the electric consumption in the
process equipment as well as from the oxygen production plant.
Table 38: Electrical Energy Consumption of Analyzed Companies
2010
GJ/Year
2011
GJ/t
GJ/Year
2012
GJ/t
GJ/Year
Average
GJ/t
GJ/Year
GJ/t
IS01
55,706
0.40
54,891
0.37
59,094
0.41
56,564
0.39
IS02
11,206,769
3.96
11,007,125
4.00
11,204,980
3.93
1,139,625
3.96
IS03
1,810,366
4.03
1,417,620
3.39
1,694,281
2.90
1,640,756
3.44
IS04
1,928,830
1.94
2,483,064
2.65
2,366,644
2.84
2,259,512
2.48
IS05
2,155,854
2.06
2,157,543
2.26
2,144,824
2.19
2,152,740
2.17
IS06
118,469
0.35
107,363
0.34
97,967
0.34
107,933
0.34
IS09
1,456,086
4.11
1,482,633
3.50
1,586,459
2.46
1,508,393
3.36
IS12
118,602
0.32
46,760
0.37
94,093
0.31
86,485
0.33
18,850,682
2.89
18,756,999
3.09
19,248,343
2.90
18,952,008
2.96
Total
46
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Electrical SEC (GJ/Ton)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
IS12
IS06
IS01
IS05
IS04
IS09
IS03
IS02
Figure 14: Electrical SEC of Analyzed Companies
From the chart and table, it appears that the electrical SEC shows great variability among the studied plants.
This is mainly due to the difference in the production process, where the rolling only plants range around
0.353 GJ/t, while the EAF+Rolling has an average of 2.86 GJ/t and the DRI+EAF+Rolling approaches 4 GJ/t.
47
4.1.2.3 Total Energy Consumption

The following table illustrates the aggregation of the thermal and electrical energy consumption as well as the
total SEC for each plant.
Table 39: Total Energy Consumption of Analyzed Companies
2010
2011
GJ/Year
GJ/t
2012
GJ/Year
GJ/t
GJ/Year
Average
GJ/t
GJ/Year
GJ/t
IS01
271,939
1.95
291,027
1.99
309,156
2.15
290,708
2.03
IS02
52,488,791
18.55
53,380,240
19.41
51,432,680
18.05
52,433,904
18.67
IS03
3,205,647
7.14
2,610,377
6.25
3,220,053
5.51
3,012,025
6.30
IS04
3,579,712
3.60
4,177,318
4.47
4,050,781
4.87
3,935,937
4.31
IS05
3,731,671
3.57
3,621,678
3.79
3,653,883
3.73
3,669,078
3.69
IS06
541,281
1.60
495,308
1.58
452,618
1.55
496,402
1.58
IS09
2,313,564
6.53
2,496,803
5.89
3,016,827
4.69
2,609,065
5.70
IS12
714,502
1.91
219,691
1.76
507,037
1.69
480,410
1.78
66,847,108
10.25
67,292,443
11.09
66,643,034
10.06
66,927,528
10.46
Total
Total SEC Distribution (%)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IS06
IS12
IS01
IS05
Thermal Ratio
Figure 15: Total SEC Distribution among Studied Companies
48
IS04
IS09
Electrical Ratio
IS03
IS02
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
From the chart and table, it appears that the total SEC shows great variability among the studied plants
depending on the production process, where for the companies with rolling only, the share of thermal energy
represents almost 80 % of the total energy use, while for the companies with EAF+Rolling the thermal energy is
around 42 % of the total energy and for the DRI+EAF+Rolling the thermal energy is around 78 % of the total
energy.
4.2 Cost of Energy

The cost of energy didnt really represent a burden on the Egyptian industries as the energy was subsidized by
the GoE. However, due to the shortage in the natural gas and petroleum supplies, as well as the international
boom of fuel prices in 2004 and 2008, fuel and electricity costs went up in an attempt to eliminate the subsidy.
Among the first industries that were subject to the reduction of the subsidy was the iron and steel industry
together with other energy-intensive industries, where the cost of one MBTU of natural gas was increased from
0.85$/thousand cubic feet in March 2004 to 1$/thousand cubic feet in September of the same year. It
remained steady till July 2006 where it increased to 1.25$/ thousand cubic feet.
In 2007, the unit of measuring of consumption was changed from thousand cubic feet to Million British
Thermal Unit (MMBTU) with the tariff increasing to 1.72 $/MBTU. In 2008, the tariff increased to 3$/MBTU,
and remained fixed until 2012 where it increased to 4$/MBTU, and finally reaching 7$/MBTU in 2014.
Neglecting the effect of currency conversion from $ to EGP (the exchange rate increased by about 25% from
5.75 EGP/$ in 2006 to 7.14 EGP/$ in 2014 with a minimum of 5.3 EGP/$ in August 2008 as per Figure 16), the
natural gas tariff had two major increases in 2008 and 2014, where at both times it increased by 75%. Table 40
illustrates the history of natural gas tariff with the related decrees.
Figure 16: History of EGP-US$ Exchange Rate
49
Table 40: History of the Natural Gas Tariff

Year
Tariff ($/MBTU)
Decree
2004
0.85
470/2004
2004
1516/2004
2006
1.25
1325/2006
2007
1.72
1914/2007
2008
1795/2008
2010
1953/2010
2012
MOM ministereal meeting 27/11/2011
2014
1162/2014
For the electricity, the tariff was increased from 0.111 EGP/kWh to 0.133 EGP/kWh in 2007 followed by
another increase to reach 0.202 EGP/kWh in 2008. In 2010, it increased again to 0.235 EGP/kWh. In July 2014, a
decree was issued with the increase of the electricity tariff for five years ending at 0.433 EGP/kWh in 2018.
Table 41 illustrates the history of electricity tariff with the related decrees. For the sake of unifying the
monetary values throughout the report, the tariff is expressed in terms of $ with an exchange rate of
7.14 EGP/$ (Central Bank of Egypt, 2014)
Similar to the natural gas tariff, the electricity tariff had two major increases where it increased by 52 % in 2008
and by 57 % in 2014.
Table 41: History of the Electricity Tariff
Year
Tariff
(EGP/kWh)
Tariff
($/kWh)
Decree
2007
0.111
0.016
1914/2007
2007
0.133
0.019
1914/2007
2008
0.202
0.028
1795/2008
2010
0.235
0.033
2130/2010
2014
0.369
0.052
1257/2014
2015
0.384
0.054
1257/2014
2016
0.393
0.055
1257/2014
2017
0.410
0.057
1257/2014
2018
0.433
0.061
1257/2014
50
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figure 17 & Figure 18 illustrate the trend of both the natural gas and the electricity tariffs.
Natural Gas Tariff Trend

8
7
6
$/MBTU
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 17: Natural Gas Tariff Trend
Electricity Tariff Trend

0.5
0.45
0.4
EGP/kWh
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Figure 18: Electricity Tariff Trend
51
4.3 Status of Energy Management System Implementation

Until the date of writing this report, none of the steel plants in Egypt had implemented energy management
systems. However, several plants were in the process of planning their energy management system to be
qualified for the ISO 50001 by the end of 2014 or early in 2015.
Within the questionnaire that was collected from six running plants, there were some yes/no questions on
their readiness to implement energy management system.
The following table illustrates the percentage of yes answers received on each question
Table 42: Percentage of Yes Answers Received on Each Question
Question
Q1: Energy Management system applied?
Percentage of Yes
Percentage of No
0%
100%
Q2: Responsible Person for Energy issues (e.g. Energy manager)?
43%
57%
Q3: Do you analyze your energy consumption?
86%
14%
Q4: Are energy meters/sub-meters installed?
100%
0%
Q5: Resources available for Energy management?
50%
50%
Q6: Energy efficiency considered in investment decisions?
60%
40%
Q7: Energy Efficiency Targets available?
50%
50%
0%
100%
57%
43%
Q8: Previous Energy Audits Available? If yes date of audit?

Q9: Energy saving measures planned?
Though there is no company implementing energy management systems, 43 % of the companies already
assigned an energy manager and 86% analyze their energy consumption. From the meetings with the plants, all
the plants are willing to improve their energy efficiency and hence reduce the consumption. This will is strongly
driven by the scarcity of energy sources, and the rapid increase in the unit price.
4.4 Benchmark Clusters and/or Adjustment Factors

In order to be able to analyze the data, following benchmarking clusters were set for the study:
Plants running with Direct Reduced plant + Electric Arc Furnace + Rolling
Plants running with Electric Arc Furnace +Rolling (incl. DRI plant above)
Plants running with Rolling (Rolling plants only)
The benchmark curves shall be drawn for:
52
Benchmark curves for EAF alone
Benchmark curves for Rolling alone
Benchmark curves for EAF+Rolling
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Furthermore, as all the data was collected on process level, we defined model plants more than the real-life
plants. For example, one real life plant runs DRI-EAF and produces reinforcing bars and flat plates and is
defined as:
One EAF-Continous casting plant producing billets
One hot rolling mill consisting of reheating and rolling plant producing reinforcing bars
One hot strip mill plant producing flat products
One plant running EAF - Continous casting- hot rolling plant producing reinforcing bars
The correction factor for each process was estimated by averaging the input:output ratio of the process from
available plants data, for example the ratio between input billets to output rebars from the hot rolling mills was
available from the data of 5 plants. This ratio was averaged and applied to the other two plants to estimate
their input billets. Applied correction factors are illustrated in Table 43. This data was used for deriving the
Energy Performance Indicators if semi-finished products were sold or purchased (detailed description is given
in the following chapter).
Table 43: Correction Factors Estimated for Material Correction of Each Process
Process
To convert from
Multiply by
To get
Direct Reduction plant
Pellets
0.67
DRI
EAF
Scrap
0.87
Steel
Hot Rolling
Billets
0.955
Rebars
Slab
0.96
Flat coils
Hot Strip Mill
4.5 Energy Performance Indicators of Analyzed Companies

The approach implemented in analyzing energy performance for the companies was to analyze each process
separately while fixing its system boundaries. Furthermore, and to be able to draw benchmark curves,
following criteria was used in selecting the process and plants analyzed:
They are applicable at two or more plants.
They contain comparable process equipment.
They have the essentially the same material input and output streams.
The direct reduction facility was analysed, though it did not fit the above criteria, as it was the only direct
reduction facility in Egypt within the studied years. As indicated in chapter 3.2 there are new direct reduction
facilities recently commissioned or are due to be commissioned by early 2015, so it is necessary to include the
analysis of that plant.
53
The input and output material for each of the above mentioned plants shall be corrected to factor out the
purchase and sale of intermediate products (steel, iron, billets). This was achieved by the following calculation:
For plants where the SEC for different processes is available the following procedure will be applied:
o Total energy corrected = total energy + energy consumed to produce purchased semi-finished
products
o Total production corrected (meant liquid steel in this case, which is a pre-product)= amount
of purchased semi-finished products * correction factor (bigger 1 to reflect amount of liquid
steel needed to produce amount of purchased semi-finished products)+liquid steel (reported
for this plant)
o Energy consumed for purchased semi-finished products (billets) = specific energy
consumption for producing semi-finished products (e.g. EAF plus casting) * amount of
purchased semi-finished products (e.g. billets)
Table 44 to Table 47 illustrate the collected energy data for each process, while the mass balance for each
process was illustrated in Table 28 to Table 31.
Table 44: Energy Data for Direct Reduction Plants
3
Year
Consumed Electricity (kWh)
Consumed NG (Nm )
Output DRI (t)
2010
279,756,000
883,535,945
2,855,195
2011
282,404,000
942,978,490
2,973,204
2012
275,245,000
857,495,688
2,835,451
Table 45: Energy Data for Electric Arc Furnaces

Year
Consumed
Electricity
(kWh)
Consumed NG
3
(Nm )
Consumed
Coal (t)
Consumed
3
Oxygen (Nm )
Consumed
3
Lime (Nm )
Output Steel
(t)
2010
3,560,325,286
63,461,676
101,344
230,097,336
342,911
6,089,324
2011
3,555,087,088
64,666,539
86,707
213,301,896
290,960
6,040,712
2012
3,668,329,913
67,134,521
102,855
226,167,831
367,592
6,166,973
Table 46: Energy Data for Rolling Mills

3
Year
Input Billets (t)
Consumed Electricity
(kWh)
Consumed NG (Nm )
Output Bars (t)
2010
5,288,880
464,625,210
158,157,713
5,089,960
2011
5,308,289
465,412,906
153,168,984
5,067,155
2012
6,030,268
527,808,655
175,855,905
5,734,157
54
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Table 47: Energy Data for Hot Strip Mills

3
Year
Input slabs (t)
Consumed electricity
(kWh)
Consumed NG (Nm )
Output flats (t)
2010
1,496,722
205,687,650
28,599,326
1,433,040
2011
1,044,164
144,712,400
17,962,828
1,001,084
2012
919,741
131,531,000
15,684,413
893,434
4.5.1 On National Level

In preparing the benchmark on national level, separate benchmark curves were prepared for each process as
per the following system boundaries:
4.5.1.1 Plant Level Analysis

This analysis considers the actual energy consumption as reported by the plants for all the production
processes divided by the steel production. The focus of this analysis is the whole energy consumption per plant.
The analysis is conducted only for steel making plants where the rolling only plants are analysed in a later
section. The total energy used per plant is illustrated in terms of GJ as:
Table 48: Total Energy Consumption for Analyzed Steel Making Plants
Plant
Energy Use (GJ)

2010
2011
2012
Average
IS02
52,488,791
53,380,240
51,432,680
52,433,904
IS03
3,205,647
2,610,377
3,220,053
3,012,026
IS04
3,579,712
4,177,318
4,050,781
3,935,937
IS05
3,731,671
3,621,678
3,653,883
3,669,077
IS09
2,313,564
2,496,803
3,016,827
2,609,065
55
Following are the actual crude steel production for the plants:
Table 49: Crude Steel Production from Analyzed Steel Making Plants
Plant
Produced Steel (t)

2010
2011
2012
Average
IS02
2,971,230
2,932,189
3,068,329
2,990,583
IS03
707,523
576,437
690,705
658,222
IS04
865,319
1,040,536
948,641
951,499
IS05
828,204
823,416
804,344
818,655
IS09
717,048
668,133
654,955
680,045
The calculated EPI which represent the specific energy consumption relative to the crude steel for the different
plants are:
Table 50: Plant Level EPI for Analyzed Steel Making Plants
Plant
EPI (GJ/t steel)

2010
2011
2012
Average
IS02
17.666
18.205
16.762
17.533
IS03
4.531
4.528
4.662
4.576
IS04
4.137
4.015
4.270
4.137
IS05
4.506
4.398
4.543
4.482
IS09
3.227
3.737
4.606
3.837
From the above analysis, it is impossible to compare plants based on plant level analysis due to the difference
in the production processes, product mix and the possible purchase and sale of intermediate products, thus we
shall go for process level analysis as illustrated in the following sub-chapters.
4.5.1.2 Electric Arc Furnaces Benchmarks

This curve includes the energy consumed in the electrical arc furnace, ladle treatment, continuous casting,
oxygen plant and lime plant. Energy consumed in this boundary includes: electricity, natural gas, oxygen and
coal. For the lime, as there was no specific conversion factor indicated in previous studies, the total energy
consumed by the lime plant was included in the input energy.
The energy performance indicator was estimated by converting all the input energy sources to GJ equivalent
from the conversion factors (illustrated in Table 21), then summing up all the input energy and divide it by the
output steel for each plant.
56
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results of the analysis of the electric arc furnaces are illustrated in Table 51:
Table 51: Achieved EPI for EAF
Plant
2010
2011
2012
Average
EPI
(GJ/t)
Scrap %
EPI
(GJ/t)
Scrap %
EPI
(GJ/t)
Scrap %
EPI
(GJ/t)
Scrap %
IS02
3.768
16
3.578
14
3.673
16
3.673
16
IS03
3.471
62
3.415
66
3.399
70
3.429
66
IS04
2.338
100
2.566
100
2.857
100
2.587
100
IS05
2.253
87
2.217
93
2.299
94
2.257
91
IS09
2.414
97
2.730
94
2.592
89
2.579
93
From the above data, the achieved curves were as follows:
Specific energy consumption [GJ/t crude steel]
Benchmark Curve for EAF 2010

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Cumulative production volume share

Figure 19: Benchmark Curve for EAF for Year 2010
57
Benchmark Curve for EAF 2011

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0

Benchmark curve for EAF 2012

4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
58
0.4
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Table 52: Achieved EPI for EAF for the Years 2010, 2011 and 2012
BPT/BAT Value
2010 (GJ/T Billet)
2011 (GJ/T Billet)
2012(GJ/T Billet)
BPT
2.338
2.566
2.592
BAT
2.253
2.217
2.299
Through aggregating the data of the three years by summing the production and consumption of each plant for
the three years in order to achieve the average EPI, following data were achieved:
Table 53: Achieved EPI for EAF for Aggregated Data for three years
Plant
Production Volume Share
EPI (GJ/T Crude steel)
IS02
49%
3.673
IS03
11%
3.430
IS04
16%
2.594
IS05
13%
2.256
IS09
11%
2.575
With the benchmark curve as follows:
59
Benchmark Curve for EAF

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

Figure 22: Benchmark Curve for EAF Average of three years
And the sector BAT is taken as 2.256 GJ/t crude steel which corresponds to the lowest EPI with an average
scrap ratio of 91%, and the second best EPI which corresponds to the BPT was 2.575 GJ/t crude steel with an
average scrap ratio of 93 %. The last percentile had an EPI of 3.673 with an average scrap ratio of 16 %.
The great variability in the EPI of the studied electric arc furnaces is mainly due to the difference in the share of
scrap used for steel production. The quantity of coal consumption was found to be inversely proportional to
the scrap ratio. As the virgin iron increases (smaller scrap ratio), more coal is needed to adjust the carbon
content of the produced steel. The energy content of the carbon is added to the energy needed, therefore the
energy performance index is higher for companies using a lower amount of scrap. Regarding other sources of
energy (electricity and natural gas), their correlation with the scrap ratio was found to be very poor (R-square
or 0.57 for electricity and 0.55 for natural gas). Usually a R-square of above 0.75 (with a maximum of 1) is an
indicator for good correlation between two independent variables.
60
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Specific Coal Consumption (Kg/t steel)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
y = -0.3453x + 34.603
R = 0.9535
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
90
100
Scrap ratio
Figure 23: Relation between Coal Consumption and Scrap Ratio
Electrical
800
Specific electrical consumption

(kwh/t steel)
700
600
500
R = 0.5713
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Scrap ratio
Figure 24: Relation between Electrical Consumption and Scrap Ratio
61
Specific Natural Gas Consumption (Nm3/t steel)
Natural Gas
20
18
R = 0.556
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Scrap ratio
Figure 25: Relation between Natural Gas Consumption and Scrap Ratio
4.5.1.3 Rolling Mills Benchmarks

This curve includes the energy consumed in the reheating furnace as well as the rolling mills. The energy
sources are either natural gas (for the reheating furnace) or electricity for the rolling mills.
The analysis was conducted similar to that of the electric arc furnaces in estimating the EPI, but here we divide
by the input billets. The achieved data from this analysis were as illustrated in Table 54:
Table 54: Achieved SEC for Rolling
EPI (GJ/T billets)
Code
2010
2011
2012
Average
IS01
1.88
1.92
2.07
1.96
IS02
1.33
1.28
1.28
1.30
IS03
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
IS04A
1.56
1.59
1.66
1.60
IS04B
1.50
1.54
1.47
1.50
IS05A
1.31
1.34
1.34
1.33
IS05B
1.38
1.34
1.43
1.38
IS06
1.55
1.54
1.51
1.53
IS09A
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
IS09B
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.85
1.70
1.63
1.74
IS12
62
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
It should be noted in the above table that the rolling mills for some plants are split to A and B as those plants
have two rolling sections with the data available for each rolling section. From the above data, the achieved
curves for rebar rolling were as follows:
Specific energy consumption [GJ/t input billets]
Benchmark Curve for Rolling 2010

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

Figure 26: Benchmark Curve for Rebar Rolling for Year 2010
63
Benchmark Curve for Rolling 2011

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

64
0.8
0.9
1.0
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Benchmark curve for Rolling 2012

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00

Table 55: Achieved EPI for Rolling for the Years 2010, 2011, 2012
BPT/BAT Value
2010 (GJ/T Billet)
2011 (GJ/T Billet)
2012(GJ/T Billet)
BPT
1,331
1.337
1.335
BAT
1.309
1.277
1.280
Through aggregating the data of the three years by summing the production and consumption of each plant for
the three years in order to achieve the average EPI, following data were achieved:
Table 56: Achieved EPI for Rolling for Aggregated Data
Plant
EPI (GJ/T Billet)
IS01
3%
1.957
IS02
36%
1.295
IS03
6%
1.440
IS04A
8%
1.599
65
Plant
EPI (GJ/T Billet)
IS04B
9%
1.504
IS05A
8%
1.328
IS05B
11%
1.384
IS06
6%
1.534
IS09A
7%
1.394
IS09B
2%
1.369
IS12
5%
1.744
With the benchmark curve as follows:
Benchmark Curve for Rolling

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

Figure 29: Benchmark Curve for Rebar Rolling
And the sector BAT is taken as 1.295 GJ/t Billet, which corresponds to the lowest EPI from the aggregated data,
and the second best EPI which corresponds to the BPT was 1.328 GJ/t.
66
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.5.1.4 Hot Strip Mills Benchmarks

This curve includes the energy consumed in the thin slab casting and hot strip mill. For the studied plants, both
processes are combined in a continuous line, hence their split is impossible. The energy sources are natural gas
and electricity. Since there are only two plants running this process, and as one of them was stopped since
2012, the possible curves are only for 2010 and 2011 according to the following table and curves:
Table 57: Achieved SEC for Hot Strip Mills
Code
EPI (GJ/T Slabs)

2010
2011
Average
IS02
1.060
1.113
1.086
IS03
1.544
1.416
1.518
4.5.1.5 EAF-Rolling Mills Benchmarks

This curve aggregates the performance of the EAF-Continuous Casting with the performance of the
corresponding hot rolling mills. The purpose of that curve is to check the performance on a plant level for
plants producing rebars starting by the electric arc furnaces.
It should be noted that the reported production in this curve does not represent actual production for the
corrections made to account for the sold and/or purchased billets as discussed in Chapter 4.5.1.
The achieved data from this analysis were as illustrated in Table 58:
Table 58: Achieved SEC for EAF-Rolling
Code
EPI (GJ/T Billets)

2010
2011
2012
Average
IS02
5.099
4.854
4.953
4.97
IS03
4.911
4.855
4.839
4.87
IS04
3.863
4.134
4.421
4.14
IS05
3.605
3.556
3.689
3.62
IS09
3.616
4.126
3.941
3.96
From the above data, the achieved curves for EAF-rebar rolling were as follows:
67
Benchmark Curve for EAF + Rolling

7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0

Figure 30: Benchmark Curve for EAF + Rolling
And the sector BAT is taken as 3.62 GJ/t Billet, which corresponds to the lowest EPI from the aggregated data,
and the second best EPI which corresponds to the BPT was 3.96 GJ/t.
4.5.1.6
National BAT Values
For the BAT values, the lowest values available of all three years of all plants were chosen.
For the BPT values, the second best value of 2012 was chosen. For hot strip mills an exception was made.
Usually the second best value was from a different plant than the BAT value. But as the values of the second
hot strip mill analyzed would be higher than the average specific consumption, in this case the BPT was chosen
as the second best value of the same plant, of which the data was derived for the BAT value.
68
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
From the data analysis on process level, following BAT values were obtained:
Table 59: Achieved National BAT and BPT Values per Process
Process
BAT SEC GJ/T Steel Lowest of All Years
BPT SEC GJ/T Steel (2012 Values,

except for BPT)
DRI
11.763
11.763
EAF
2.217
2.592
Rolling
1.28
1.335
Hot Strip Mill
1.060
1.113
EAF-Rolling
3.605
3.941
4.5.2 BAT on International Level

For the international energy performance indicators, BAT values from the Worrell study (Worrell, Price, Neelis,
Galitsky, & Nan, 2008) are used for comparison. In that study, the following BAT figures were available:
Table 60: International BAT
Process
Electrical (GJ/T)
Thermal (GJ/T)
Oxygen (GJ/T)
Total (GJ/T)
-1.2
12.9
11.7
EAF (40% Scrap)
1.7
0.6
0.3
2.5
EAF (100% Scrap)
1.5
0.6
0.3
2.4
Continous casting
0.03
0.03
0.1
Hot Rolling Mills
0.3
1.6
1.8
Thin Slab Casting +

Hot Strip Mill
0.2
0.1
0.2
DRI
From the collected data, two issues were faced as follows:
The scrap ratio for most of the EAF plants is other than 40 % or 100 %. Consequently, we had to
extrapolate the BAT figures, which would be 2.4 for 100 % scrap and 2.5 for 40 % scrap to fit for each
plant conditions according to the following formula
(
(
)
)
From which, the following table illustrates the interpolated international BAT for each EAF plant/year:
69
Table 61: Corrected International BAT for EAF Plants

Code
Scrap Ratio (%)
BAT (GJ/t Crude Steel)
2010
2011
2012
2010
2011
2012
IS02
16%
14%
16%
2.540
2.543
2.540
IS03
62%
66%
70%
2.463
2.457
2.451
IS04
100%
100%
100%
2.4
2.4
2.4
IS05
87%
93%
94%
2.421
2.412
2.41
IS09
97%
94%
89%
2.406
2.41
2.418
4.6 Share of Energy Costs of Turnover

Not available for Iron and Steel.
4.7 Energy Cost Benchmark Curve for Egyptian Companies

For the energy cost per ton of product, four figures were calculated for each year: energy cost per ton direct
reduced iron, energy cost per ton steel, energy cost per ton rebar and energy cost per ton flat product. The
average values for each of the studied years are illustrated in the following table, where the curves are drawn
with the plant identification code rather than the production share on the x-axis.
Table 62: Average Energy Cost per Process
Average Energy Cost EGP/t Product
Process
2010
2011
2012
DRI
260
265
332
EAF
152
155
162
Rolling
48
47
57
Hot Strip Mill
52
52
53
EAF-Rolling
192
195
212
70
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Energy Cost Per ton Produced steel

250
200
EGP/t
150
100
50
0
IS02
IS03
IS04
2010
2011
IS05
IS09
2012
Figure 31: Cost of Energy for Electric Arc Furnaces
Energy Cost Per ton Produced Rebar

80
70
60
EGP/t
50
40
30
20
10
0
IS01
IS02
IS03
IS04A
IS04B
2010
IS05A
2011
IS05B
IS06
IS09A
IS09B
IS12
2012
Figure 32: Cost of Energy for Rolling Mills
71
4.8 Annual Saving Potential

The saving potential was calculated for each plant (against the national BAT of the year 2012) for the processsteps EAF and Rolling Mills. As for Direct Reduced Iron and Hot Strip Mills, only one plant is currently operating
and so the savings were not calculated for this step.
In addition, the saving potential was calculated for the whole sector. For this and the following scenarios, the
BAT values were defined a little different to the plant level saving calculation. The BAT was taken either from
international sources or from national data (with the lowest value of all plants of all three analyzed years).
Furthermore, the saving potential was calculated for DRI and for Hot Strip Mills with current production data
from IDA.
4.8.1 Annual Saving Potential for Each Plant

On plant level, the following table illustrates the estimated saving potential based on the national BAT values
for 2012 and the following equation:
Potential of each company (x) 1
72
BAT national
x annual production (t )
SEC x
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Table 63: Saving Potential for EAF

Code
BAT Based Saving Potential (%)
BAT Based Saving Potential (GJ)
IS02
37%
4,214,956
IS03
32%
759,724
IS04
20%
529,144
IS05
0%
IS09
11%
191,466
Total
29%
5,695,290
Table 64: Saving Potential for Rolling Mills

Code
IS01
38%
118,098
IS02
0%
IS03
11%
96,537
IS04A
23%
157,608
IS04B
13%
85,718
IS05A
4%
24,036
IS05B
10%
87,062
IS06
15%
68,704
IS09A
8%
44,368
IS09B
7%
24,846
IS12
22%
109,356
Total
10%
816,334
4.8.2 Annual Saving Potential for the Whole Sector

The annual saving potential for the whole sector was calculated for the following steps:
Step 1: First, data from the analyzed plants of 2012 is used for deriving the average specific energy
consumption.
Step 2: Total energy consumption of Egypt is calculated by multiplying the total Egyptian production
from IDA data with the specific energy consumption derived in Step 1.
Step 3: This production value is also multiplied by the national or international BAT value (which is
lower)
Step 4: The difference of the values of Step 2 and 3 is to get the saving potential if the total Egyptian
current production volume would be produced with the Best Available Technology.
73
For these BAT values the lowest values of all companies of all three years, or if even lower the international
BAT was used.
Table 65: Sector EPI Calculation
2012
DRI
EAF
Hot Rolling
Hot Strip Rolling
2,835,451
6,166,973
6,030,268
919,741
100
85
65
33
33,352,769
19,875,111
8,536,913
1,065,441
11.763
3.223
1.416
1.158
BAT Value (GJ/t)
11.700
(International)
2.217 (National)
1.280 (National)
0.200
(International)
BPT Value (GJ/t)
11.763 (National)
2.592 (National)
1,335 (National)
1.113 (National)
2,835,451
7,265,122
9,226,623
2,814,456
33,352,769
23,414,260
13,061,920
3,260,306
31
10
83
177,993
7,307,484
1,251,843
2,697,415
Total Production analysed

plants (tons)
Percentage of total Egyptian
production [%]
Energy Consumption analysed
plants (GJ)
Average Specific Energy
Consumption (GJ/t)
Total Egyptian Production (t)
Total Energy Consumption

Egypt = Total Egyptian
Production * Average SEC
Total Egyptian production is based on the data of installed capacities received from the IDA.
Weights indicated in this column correspond to input billets, where billets = bars/0.9557 as the SEC and BAT values are per ton billet
Weights indicated in this column correspond to input slabs, where slabs = flat/0.9625 as the SEC and BAT values are per ton slab
3
Total Egyptian Production is based on the data of installed capacities received from the IDA
2
74
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figure 33: Energy Consumption in Current State and Energy Consumption at BAT Level with Current Production Volume
4.9 Saving Scenarios until 2050 and 2030

For iron and steel, the following procedure was applied to derive the energy savings till 2050:
In this study, the steel production steps DRI, EAF, rolling and hot strip mills were analyzed separately. In each
process different amounts of steel are produced or machined (see table above). For the saving scenarios it was
decided to exclude the DRI route, as only one plant was operating in the analyzed years which is already very
close to the international BAT (11.76 GJ/t to 11.70 GJ/t Therefore this process step would not contribute a lot
to the estimated saving based on the following calculations.
For deriving the production values for iron and steel in 2050 the following approach was chosen:
In IEA 2009 Energy Technology Transitions for Industry (OECD, 2009) (p.58), the crude steel demand
projections for the low- and high demand cases from 2006 to 2050 (with additional projection for
2015 and 2030) are published. The crude steel demand is given in per capita (kg/cap) for the regions
South Africa and Other Africa (among others).
For the scenario, the value for Other Africa was chosen and corrected (via interpolation of the values
2006 and 2015) to get the value for 2012. The corresponding increase to 2050 was calculated as a
factor. For this study, the average between high and low demand case was chosen (for crude steel
demand this factor is 1.97). This means the average per capita demand increases by approximately the
factor of two between 2012 and 2050.
In addition, the population growth for Egypt for this period was taken from the United Nations, World
Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, available on:
http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm
From this source the factor for the population growth between 2012 to 2050 for Egypt was taken
(1.51).
75
To get the factor for the increase of the demand between 2012 and 2050 those two factors are
multiplied: For crude steel it is 2.8. This means that until 2050 the demand for iron and steel increases
by a factor of three (which corresponds to an annual growth rate of 2.91 %).
This factor was applied to all three production volumes and the annual increase was calculated for the
production scenario.
For the different efficiency scenarios, the specific energy consumptions mentioned in table 65 were used. The
production values were calculated for each year by multiplying the current production volume with the
calculated annual growth rate. This volume was multiplied with the different specific energy consumption
values calculated for each year to get the forecasted energy consumption for each production step. For each
year, the three derived energy consumption values were added to get one energy consumption value for the
sector iron and steel in Egypt.
As the BOF route was excluded from the whole analysis, these values do not include this route, which was
below 10% in 2012 and is diminishing each year. In addition the DRI route was also not included for reasons
mentioned above.
Frozen efficiency: no additional energy efficiency savings are made. The current levels of energy efficiency are
not improved upon.
Baseline efficiency: energy efficiency improves at a rate of 0.50% a year.
BPT scenario: all plants are operating at the current levels of BPT by 2050. In the years between 2012 and 2050
the specific energy consumption improves gradually from the current SEC to reach the BPT value by 2050.
The value for the BPT was derived from the second best values for 2012 from the analysed data set. One
exception was made for the hot strip mills: Only one plant was operating in 2012, therefore for the BPT value,
the second best value of the best plant in the years 2010 and 2011 was chosen. As 2010 was the lowest one,
the SEC of 2011 was chosen.
This is equivalent to an energy efficiency improvement of 0.41% a year in the period 2012 to 2050. The BPT is
the lowest known BPT, either on international or on national level.
BAT scenario: all plants are operating at current levels of BAT by 2050. In the years between 2012 and 2050 the
specific energy consumption improves gradually from the current SEC to reach the BAT value by 2050.
This is equivalent to an energy efficiency improvement of 0.90% a year in the period 2012 to 2050. The BAT is
the lowest known BAT, either on international or on national level.
76
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Figure 34: Energy Consumption Growth for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Process Steps EAF, Hot Rolling and Hot
Strip Rolling for the Different Scenarios, 2012-2050
For the scenario until 2030, the same procedure as for the scenario for 2050 was applied. The difference is that
the same BAT and BPT values are already reached in 2030 instead of 2050. For the production volume, the
values were calculated with the corresponding 2030 values from the same sources mentioned above. The
annual production growth rate based on this calculation is 3.12%.
BPT scenario: all plants are operating at the current levels of BPT by 2030. This is equivalent to an energy
efficiency improvement of 0.84% a year in the period 2012 to 2030.
BAT scenario: all plants are operating at current levels of BAT by 2030. This is equivalent to an energy efficiency
improvement of 1.89% a year in the period 2012 to 2030. The BAT is the lowest known BAT, either on
international or on national level.
77
Figure 35: Energy Consumption Growth for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Process Steps EAF, Hot Rolling and Hot
Strip Rolling for the Different Scenarios, 2012-2030
78
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Table 66: Energy Consumption for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Different Scenarios (without BOF Route) and
Energy Saving of the BAT Scenario in Comparison to the Frozen Scenario
Year
Frozen
Scenario (TJ/a)
Baseline
Scenario (TJ/a)
BPT Scenario
(TJ/a)
BAT
Scenario
(TJ/a)
Savings
Frozen
BAT
Scenario
(TJ/a)
Cumulative
Savings (FrozenBAT) (TJ)
2012
39,740
39,740
39,740
39,740
2030
69,147
63,181
59,649
49,555
19,592
172,184
2050
118,026
97,556
101,815
84,585
33,442
513,387
Figure 36: Energy Consumption for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Process Steps EAF, Hot Rolling and Hot Strip
Rolling for the Different Scenarios
The saving potential for both years 2030 and 2050 is 28.3% in the BAT scenario in comparison to the frozen
scenario.
79
4.9.1 Conclusions from Saving Analysis and Further Work Needed

First of all for the scenarios a sum of all energy consumption values for the different production processes was
calculated. Therefore the different saving assumptions for the different processes is not visible on these charts:
For the electric arc furnaces a quite a high saving potential of approximately 30% is estimated. But it has to be
mentioned that especially those plants with a low scrap ratio have a high specific energy consumption which
lies considerably above the international benchmark and the national BAT, which is derived from plants with
scrap ratio of 90% and above. Therefore those plants would have to be analyzed in more detail to verify that
saving potential. In addition an international BAT for lower scrap ratios (below 40%) would have to be
elaborated.
For hot rolling the current saving potential is estimated to be low as the mills in comparison to the BAT value
are already quite good. Here a more detailed analysis of more current international BAT values would be
necessary.
For hot strip rolling the international BAT value (0.20 GJ/t) is very low compared to those derived from the
Egyptian plants (above 1 GJ/t). For these plants a more detailed study is recommended to find reasons for the
explanation of this big difference.
80
RECOMMENDATIONS
5 Recommendations
5.1 Strengthening the Statistical Data Collection Process in Egypt
The statistical energy relevant data for industrial sectors in Egypt are not based on real production capacity and
energy consumption data, but on planning data. This should be improved and the statistical data collection
process of energy relevant data of companies in Egypt should be optimized including following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Each company has to report relevant data like energy consumption and production volumes on a
regular basis (monthly/yearly) to the statistical authorities. A standardized data collection
template should be applied. This template can be elaborated based on the data collection sheet
for the analysis in the participating companies.
Collection and aggregation of data should be done by the statistical authorities.
The statistical authorities should publish the aggregated data annually.
Regarding to the collected data an energy balance should be established.
To support the energy relevant statistical process the following steps and requirements are important:
Plausibility checks of all collected data

Received data should be verified onsite at random
There have to be enough personnel resources
Experts of statistical authorities, sector associations and companies (private and state owned) should
be well trained
5.2 Implementing Support Programmes for Industry

5.2.1 Energy Management Programmes
In companies not having an energy management system in place there is no structured approach to improve
their energy performance. Although the possibilities to improve the energy performance may be known, either
identified within an energy audit or by internal staff, the measures are not simply implemented. This is due to
several reasons, one being that the top-management or other key stakeholders oppose such measures or
prefer other investment measures with better return on investment. In case the measures are implemented,
often the energy consumption starts to rise again after a certain time because there is a lack of precise roles
and responsibilities for maintaining the optimized systems.
Therefore a systematic approach is needed. Energy management can offer this approach: First of all, energy
must be a key topic in the company, from top-management down to all employees all relevant persons shall be
engaged in saving energy. Clear target setting and the follow-up of saving measures ensure that energy
efficiency steadily increases. Systematic energy management as systematic tracking, analysis and planning of
energy use is one of the most effective approaches to improve energy efficiency in industries ( (IEA, 2012).
Energy management programmes are policies and initiatives that encourage companies to adopt energy
management.
81
There are various approaches to implement energy management programmes in a country or a region. The
approach depends on the existing policy framework, objectives, industrial composition and other country- or
region-specific factors.
Energy management programmes are most effective when planned and implemented as part of broader
energy efficiency agreements with the government. During the planning stage the purpose of the program
should be articulated, including inter-linkages with other policies. Important design steps include establishing
what support systems need to be created to boost implementation, how progress will be monitored, and
setting up plans for evaluating the results of the program. The success of the energy management program is
clearly correlated with the provision of appropriate resources and supporting mechanisms, including
assistance, capacity building and training, and provision of tools and guidance during the implementation
stage.
Benefits of Energy Management Programmes
The main objectives of energy management programmes are to decrease industrial energy use and reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions. If properly designed they also can help attain other objectives. By supporting
industry in using energy more productively they can boost competitiveness and redirect savings to more
productive uses and reduce maintenance cost.
A further benefit is that energy management programmes are flexible instruments that can be adapted to
changing policy needs and changes in industry thereby ensuring continued effectiveness and relevance. By
continuously monitoring implementation and through regular evaluation, policy makers can identify
opportunities to include new mechanisms or establish linkages to emerging policies.
In implementing energy management programmes, governments can play an important role in establishing a
framework to promote uptake of energy management systems, by developing methodologies and tools, and
promoting the creation of new business opportunities in the area of energy services. Energy management
programmes can tend to achieve significant and sustainable savings at very low cost in the initial years.
5.2.2 Energy Audit Programmes

Energy audit programmes are a very cost efficient way to reach national targets on greenhouse gas reduction
or increase of energy efficiency. From the energy audits, energy saving potentials and saving measures are
identified. The companies and organisations then decide whether to carry out saving measures or not, or put
them in a framework for a more years investment and execution planning.
From the policy design point of view, an energy audit program usually consists of several elements:
82
The implementing instruments like the legislative framework, the subsidy /financial scheme and other
incentives/promotion and marketing activities.
The administration of the program with the interaction of the key players: the administrator (very
often a government level body), the operating agent (e.g. an energy agency), the auditors and the
participating organizations. The operating agent is responsible for the development of the energy
audit models and the monitoring system.
Quality assurance comprises the training and/or the authorization of the auditors and the quality
control (checking of the reports).
In addition, audit tools should be made available.
LITERATURE
6 Literature
Cabinet of Ministers. (2008). Ministerial decree No. 1975.
Cabinet of ministers. (2010). Ministerial decree No. 2120.
CAPMAS. (2008). Egyptian Iron and Steel Industry. Von CAPMAS:
http://www.capmas.gov.eg/pdf/studies/ahmd/tsl_new.pdf abgerufen
Ernst Worrell, L. P. (2008). World Best Practice Final Energy Intensity Values for Selected Products of
Cement Industry. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
European Commission. (2013). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron and
Steel Production. Luxembourg: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
European Commission. (2013). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the
Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide. Luxembourg: Joint Research Centre of
the European Commission.
Fraunhofer Institut fr System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI). (2011). Zukunftsmark
Energieeffiziente Stahlherstellung. Karlsruhe.
Hanafy, M. (24. March 2014). Chairman - Metallic Industries Chamber - Federation of Egyptian
Industries. (A. El-Zahaby, Interviewer)
IEA. (2010). Energy Technology Perspectives - Scenarios & strategies to 2050. OECD Publishing.
International Iron and Steel Institute. (1998). Energy Use in the Steel Industry. Brussels.
Laboratory, L. B., & Institute, A. I. (2010). The State-of-the-Art Clean Technologies (SOACT) for
Steelmaking Handbook. Washington, DC: Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate.
Natural Ressources Canada. (2007). Benchmarking Energy Intensity in The Canadian Steel Industry.
UNIDO. (2010). UNIDO Working Paper on Global Industrial Energy Efficiency Benchmarking. United
Nations Industrial Development Organization.
World Steel Association. (2013). Sustainable Steel, Policy and Indicators. Brussels: World Steel
Association.
83
World Steel Association. (2013b). Steel Statistical Yearbook. Brussels: worldsteel Committee on
Economic Studies.
Worrell, E., Blinde, P., Neelis, M., Blomen, E., & Masanet, E. (2010). Energy Efficient Improvement and
Cost Saving Opportunities for the U.S. Iron and Steel Industry. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkkeley National Laboratory.
Worrell, E., Price, L., Neelis, M., Galitsky, C., & Nan, Z. (2008). World Best Practice Energy Intensitiy
Values for Selected Industrial Sectors. Berkely: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkely National
Laboratory.
84
ABBREVIATIONS
7 Abbreviations
AEA
BAT
BPT
CAPMAS
CHP
DRI
EAF
EE
EEI
EGP
EPI
IEA
IDA
IEE
JRC
OECD
PV
SEC
SME
TFEU
UNIDO
Austrian Energy Agency

Best Available Technology
Best Practice Technology
Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics
Combined Heat and Power
Direct Reduced Iron
Electric Arc Furnace
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency Index
Egyptian Pound
Energy Performance Indicator
International Energy Agency
Industrial Development Authority
Industrial Energy Efficiency
Joint Research Centre
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Photovoltaic
Specific Energy Consumption
Small and Medium Sized Enterprise
Total Final Energy Use
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
85
ANNEX
8 Annex
Table 67: Data Collection Sheet General Information
Company Data
Company Name
Company Code
City
Contact Name
Email Address
Phone Number
Website
Table 68: Data Collection Sheet General Information

Plant Description
2010
2011
2012
Plant Capacity [t]

Actual Production [t]
Number of Shifts
Hours of Operation Per Year
Number of Employees (incl. Sub-contracted)
Year of Starting Production of This Site
Total Plant Size [m]
Table 69: Detailled Data Collection Sheet

Basic Technical
Information
Number
Total
Capacity
[t/h]
Technology
applied
Thermal
Power
installed
Thermal
Cons.
Electric
Power
installed
Electrical
Consumption
Sintering Plants
Coke Ovens
Blast Furance
Basic Oxygen
Furance
Direct Reduction
Plant
Electric Arc
Furance
87
Basic Technical
Information
Number
Total
Capacity
[t/h]
Continous
Casting/Laddle
Treatment
Re-Heating
Furnace
Hot Strip Mill
Plate Mill
Section Mill
Acid Treatment
Cold Rolling
Finishing
Oxygen Plant
Table 70: Data Collection Sheet Input Data

Energy (per year)
Electricity
Heavy Fuel Oil (Mazout)
Liquified Petroleum
Propane
Butane
Natural Gas (combustion) + LC
Natural Gas (process)
Natural Gas (others)
Natural Gas (total)
Coal
Steam Purchased
District Heating, Hot Water
Compressed Air Purchased
Fuels (for material transport on site)
Coke
88
Technology
applied
Thermal
Power
installed
Thermal
Cons.
Electric
Power
installed
Electrical
Consumption
ANNEX
Energy (per year)

Oxygen (purchased)
Alternative Fuels
Others
Table 71: Part of Data Collection Sheet Input Data

Energy (per year)
Electricity
Heavy Fuel Oil (Mazout)
Light Fuel Oil (Solar)
Natural Gas
Coal
Coke
Table 72: Part of Data Collection Sheet Input Data

Iron & Steel
Iron Ore
Sinter
Pellets
Scrap
Direct Reduced Iron
Pig Iron (Hot Metal)
Ingots
Liquid Steel
Oxygen
Plastic
Slabs (Semiproduct)
Billets (Semiproduct)
Lime
89
Table 73: Part of Data Collection Sheet Output Data

Pig Iron
DRI (Sponge Iron)
Liquid Hot Metal
Crude Steel
Slabs
Blooms
Billets
Thin Slabs
Reinforcing Bars
Coils
Plates
Others
Table 74: Data Collection Sheet Part Energymanagement Information

Energy Management Information
Management system applied? If yes, which one
If the answer to question 1 is not ISO 50001, please answer the following questions:
Responsible Person for Energy issues
(e.g. Energy manager)?
Do you analyse your energy consumption?
Are energy meters/sub-meters installed?
Resources available for Energy management?
Energy efficiency considered in investment decisions?
Energy Efficiency Targets available?
Previous Energy Audits Available? If yes date of audit?
Energy saving measures planned?
90
ANNEX
Table 75: Implemented General Energy Saving Measurements

General
Preventive maintenance
Energy monitoring and management system
Combined heat and power/cogeneration
High efficiency motors
Variable speed drivers: flue gas control, pumps and fans
Table 76: Implemented Energy Saving Measurements: Steelmaking

Steelmaking - Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)
Improved process control (neural network)
Adjustable speed drives
Transformer efficiency - Ultra high power transformers
Bottom stirring/stirring gas injection
Foamy slag practice
Oxy-fuel burners
Post-combustion of the flue gases
DC arc furnace
Scrap preheating - tunnel furnace (Consteel)
Scrap preheating, post combustion - shaft furnace (Fuchs)
Engineered refractories
Airtight operation
Contiarc furnace
Flue gas monitoring and control
Eccentric bottom tapping on existing furnace
DC twin-shell with scrap preheating
Casting
Efficient caster laddle/tundish heating
Near net shape casting - thin slad
Near net shape casting - strip
Table 77: Implemented Energy Saving Measurements: Hot Rolling

Hot Rolling
Proper reheating temperature
Avoiding overload of reheat furnaces
Energy efficient drives in the rolling mill
Process control in hot stip mill
Recuperative and regenerative burners
91
Hot Rolling
Flameless burners
Insulation of furnaces
Walking beam furnace
Controling oxygen levels and/or speed on combustion air fans
Heat recovery to the product
Waste heat recovery (cooling water)
92
LIST OF FIGURES
9 List of Figures
Figure 1: Illustrative Energy Benchmark Curve for the Manufacturing Industry (UNIDO, 2010) ........... 3
Figure 2: Crude Steel Production Methods ( (European Commission, 2013) page 9) ............................ 5
Figure 3: Electric Arc Furnace Plant Flow Diagram ( (Natural Ressources Canada, 2007), page 58 .... 6
Figure 4: Processes for the New Technology Option (International Iron and Steel Institute, 1998),
page 248 .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 5: Estimated Benchmark Curve for the Iron and Steel Industry, 2005 (UNIDO, 2010) .............. 18
Figure 6: Specific energy Input Per Ton Steel, Depending on Share of Electric Produced Iron (EAF) of
the Total Steel Production (2007) (Fraunhofer Institut fr System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI),
2011) (http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-media/docs/e/de/publikationen/Fallstudie_Eisen-Stahl.pdf)
............................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 7: Energy Intensity and GHG Emissions (World Steel Association, 2013) .................................. 19
Figure 8: Simplified Iron and Steel Production Flow-Chart, (Worrell, Blinde, Neelis, Blomen, &
Masanet, 2010) ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Crude steel Production Trend ................................................................................................ 29
Figure 10: Trend of Iron Use ................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 11: Finished Products Production Trend .................................................................................... 31
Figure 12: Overview on the Participating Plants (IS Numbers) and Applied Processes ........................ 41
Figure 13: Thermal SEC of Analyzed Companies ................................................................................... 45
Figure 14: Electrical SEC of Analyzed Companies.................................................................................. 47
Figure 15: Total SEC Distribution among Studied Companies .............................................................. 48
Figure 16: History of EGP-US$ Exchange Rate ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 17: Natural Gas Tariff Trend ....................................................................................................... 51
Figure 18: Electricity Tariff Trend .......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 19: Benchmark Curve for EAF for Year 2010 .............................................................................. 57
Figure 22: Benchmark Curve for EAF Average of three years ............................................................... 60
Figure 23: Relation between Coal Consumption and Scrap Ratio ........................................................ 61
Figure 24: Relation between Electrical Consumption and Scrap Ratio ................................................. 61
Figure 25: Relation between Natural Gas Consumption and Scrap Ratio ............................................ 62
Figure 26: Benchmark Curve for Rebar Rolling for Year 2010 .............................................................. 63
93
Figure 29: Benchmark Curve for Rebar Rolling ..................................................................................... 66

Figure 30: Benchmark Curve for EAF + Rolling ...................................................................................... 68
Figure 31: Cost of Energy for Electric Arc Furnaces............................................................................... 71
Figure 32: Cost of Energy for Rolling Mills............................................................................................. 71
Figure 33: Energy Consumption in Current State and Energy Consumption at BAT Level with Current
Production Volume ................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 34: Energy Consumption Growth for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Process Steps EAF,
Hot Rolling and Hot Strip Rolling for the Different Scenarios, 2012-2050 ............................................ 77
Figure 35: Energy Consumption Growth for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Process Steps EAF,
Hot Rolling and Hot Strip Rolling for the Different Scenarios, 2012-2030 ............................................ 78
Figure 36: Energy Consumption for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Process Steps EAF, Hot
Rolling and Hot Strip Rolling for the Different Scenarios ...................................................................... 79
94
LIST OF TABLES
10 List of Tables
Table 1: Overview on Enterprises in the Iron and Steel Sector in Egypt (Including Main Products,
Production Capacities and Processes and Contact Status for the Study) ............................................. 12
Table 2: Overview on Schedule of Data Collection ............................................................................... 13
Table 3: Summary of World Best Practice Final Energy Intensity Values for Iron and Steel (values per
metric ton of steel) for the Different Process Routes (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008) . 15
Table 4: Summary of World Best Practice Final Energy Intensity Values for Iron and Steel (values per
metric ton of steel) (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan, 2008) ...................................................... 15
Table 5: World Best Practical Final and Primary Energy Intensity Values for Direct Reduced Iron
Electric Arc Furnace Route (values per metric ton of steel) (Worrell, Price, Neelis, Galitsky, & Nan,
2008) ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Input/Output Data for Electric Arc Furnaces Within the EU ( (European Commission, 2013)
page 429)............................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 7: Characteristics of Commercially Available Direct Reduction Processes ( (European
Commission, 2013) page 524) ............................................................................................................... 17
Table 8: Analysis of Data of the Federation of Egyptian Industries Chamber of Metallic Industry ... 22
Table 9: Number of Companies for Which the Data was Included Within the Report ......................... 22
Table 10: Egyptian Installed Capacity for Main Products...................................................................... 24
Table 11: Iron Production Plants and Their Ownership ........................................................................ 25
Table 12: Steel Making Plants and Their Ownership ............................................................................ 25
Table 13: Rebar Producing Plants and Their Ownership ....................................................................... 26
Table 14: Flat Producing Plants and Their Ownership .......................................................................... 26
Table 15: Egyptian Crude Steel Production trend (Source: (World Steel Association, 2013b)) ............ 29
Table 16: Egyptian Trend of Iron Use (Source: (World Steel Association, 2013b))............................... 30
Table 17: Egyptian Final Steel Production Trend (Source: (World Steel Association, 2013b)) ............. 31
Table 18: Egyptian Annual Steel Production and Turnover Trends (Source: (CAPMAS, 2008)) ........... 32
Table 19: Indicators for the Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer
Protection Regulatory Agency, 2011), (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory
Agency, 2012) ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Table 20: Trend of Semi-Finished and Finished Trade (World Steel Association, 2013b) .................... 34
Table 21: Conversion Factors Used in the Study ................................................................................... 35
Table 22: Iron and Steel Production and Electric Consumption (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer
Protection Regulatory Agency, 2011), (Egyptian Electric Utility And Consumer Protection Regulatory
Agency, 2012) ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Table 23: Share of Iron and Steel Electric Consumption Among the Country's Total Electric
Consumption ......................................................................................................................................... 37
95
Table 24: Percentage of Three Steel Making Plants with Saving Measures Already Implemented...... 37
Table 25: Percentage of Four Hot Rolling Mills With Saving Measures Already Implemented ............ 39
Table 26: Implementation Rate of General Measures of Four Companies ........................................... 39
Table 27: Capacity of Analyzed Companies ........................................................................................... 40
Table 28: Studied DRI Material Balance ................................................................................................ 41
Table 29: Studied EAF Material Balance................................................................................................ 42
Table 30: Studied Rebar Production Material Balance ......................................................................... 42
Table 31: Studied Flat Production Material Balance ............................................................................. 42
Table 32: Finished Steel Production Volume of Analyzed Companies .................................................. 43
Table 33: Utilization Factor for Collected DRP Data .............................................................................. 43
Table 34: Utilization Factor for Collected EAF Data .............................................................................. 44
Table 35: Utilization Factor for Collected Rolling Mills Data ................................................................. 44
Table 36: Utilization Factor for Collected Flat Products Data ............................................................... 44
Table 37: Thermal Energy Consumption of Analyzed Companies......................................................... 45
Table 38: Electrical Energy Consumption of Analyzed Companies ....................................................... 46
Table 39: Total Energy Consumption of Analyzed Companies .............................................................. 48
Table 40: History of the Natural Gas Tariff ............................................................................................ 50
Table 41: History of the Electricity Tariff ............................................................................................... 50
Table 42: Percentage of Yes Answers Received on Each Question ....................................................... 52
Table 43: Correction Factors Estimated for Material Correction of Each Process ................................ 53
Table 44: Energy Data for Direct Reduction Plants ............................................................................... 54
Table 45: Energy Data for Electric Arc Furnaces.................................................................................... 54
Table 46: Energy Data for Rolling Mills.................................................................................................. 54
Table 47: Energy Data for Hot Strip Mills .............................................................................................. 55
Table 48: Total Energy Consumption for Analyzed Steel Making Plants ............................................... 55
Table 49: Crude Steel Production from Analyzed Steel Making Plants ................................................. 56
Table 50: Plant Level EPI for Analyzed Steel Making Plants .................................................................. 56
Table 51: Achieved EPI for EAF .............................................................................................................. 57
Table 52: Achieved EPI for EAF for the Years 2010, 2011 and 2012 ..................................................... 59
Table 53: Achieved EPI for EAF for Aggregated Data for three years ................................................... 59
Table 54: Achieved SEC for Rolling ........................................................................................................ 62
Table 55: Achieved EPI for Rolling for the Years 2010, 2011, 2012 ...................................................... 65
Table 56: Achieved EPI for Rolling for Aggregated Data ....................................................................... 65
Table 57: Achieved SEC for Hot Strip Mills ............................................................................................ 67
96
LIST OF TABLES
Table 58: Achieved SEC for EAF-Rolling ................................................................................................ 67

Table 59: Achieved National BAT and BPT Values per Process ............................................................. 69
Table 60: International BAT................................................................................................................... 69
Table 61: Corrected International BAT for EAF Plants .......................................................................... 70
Table 62: Average Energy Cost per Process .......................................................................................... 70
Table 63: Saving Potential for EAF ........................................................................................................ 73
Table 64: Saving Potential for Rolling Mills ........................................................................................... 73
Table 65: Sector EPI Calculation ............................................................................................................ 74
Table 66: Energy Consumption for Egyptian Iron and Steel Sector for the Different Scenarios (without
BOF Route) and Energy Saving of the BAT Scenario in Comparison to the Frozen Scenario ................ 79
Table 67: Data Collection Sheet General Information .......................................................................... 87
Table 68: Data Collection Sheet General Information .......................................................................... 87
Table 69: Detailled Data Collection Sheet ............................................................................................. 87
Table 70: Data Collection Sheet Input Data .......................................................................................... 88
Table 71: Part of Data Collection Sheet Input Data .............................................................................. 89
Table 72: Part of Data Collection Sheet Input Data .............................................................................. 89
Table 73: Part of Data Collection Sheet Output Data ........................................................................... 90
Table 74: Data Collection Sheet Part Energymanagement Information ............................................... 90
Table 75: Implemented General Energy Saving Measurements ........................................................... 91
Table 76: Implemented Energy Saving Measurements: Steelmaking................................................... 91
Table 77: Implemented Energy Saving Measurements: Hot Rolling..................................................... 91
97

Steel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT

Benchmarking Report for the Iron and SteelSector

Industrial Energy Efficiency

Copyright 2014 United Nations Industrial Development Organization

Crude steel Production, Thousand Tons

BOF crude steel production, Thousand Tons

EAF crude steel production, Thousand Tons

GJ/t Liquid Steel

Blast Furnace Basic Oxygen Furnace Thin Slab Casting

Smelt Reduction Basic Oxygen Furnace Thin Slab Casting

Direct Reduced Iron Electric Arc Furnace Thin Slab Casting

Scrap - Electric Arc Furnace Thin Slab Casting

Direct Reduced Iron

Electric Arc Furnaces

Hot Rolling (rebar)

Hot Strip Mills (flat)

Baseline efficiency: energy efficiency improves at a rate of 0.5% a year.

Frozen efficiency: No additional energy efficiency savings are made.

Baseline efficiency: Energy efficiency improves at a rate of 0.5% a year.

UNIDO Industrial Energy Efficiency Program

Aim of the Project

METHODOLOGY TO ESTABLISH BENCHMARKING STUDIES

UNIDO Benchmarking Methodology

Drawing the Benchmarking Curves for Egyptian Industry

System Boundaries for Benchmarking

Approach for Data Collection in Companies

Selection of the Companies for Data Collection

Schedule for Data Collection

Limitations of Data Collection and Barriers Encountered

International Benchmarks for Comparison

International Best Available Technologies (BAT)

International Benchmarking Curves

Approach for Estimating Energy Saving Potentials

Saving Potential of Participating Companies

Saving Potential of the Whole Sector in Egypt

Saving Potentials for the BPT Scenario

Possible Sources on National Level

Energy Consumption Data on National Level (Top-Down)

Production Data on National Level (Top-Down)

Company Data Collection (Bottom-Up)

Process to Check Data Reliability

BASIC SECTOR INFORMATION

Economic and Legislative Framework

Number of Companies and Ownership

Main Drivers for Energy Consumption

Thermal Energy Consumption

Energy Efficiency Measures Implemented and/or Planned

Achieved Data Sets for Analysis

Production Volume of Analyzed Companies

Energy Consumption of Analyzed Comanies

Status of Energy Management System Implementation

Benchmark Clusters and/or Adjustment Factors

Energy Performance Indicators of Analyzed Companies

BAT on International Level

Share of Energy Costs of Turnover

Energy Cost Benchmark Curve for Egyptian Companies

Annual Saving Potential

Annual Saving Potential for Each Plant

Annual Saving Potential for the Whole Sector

Saving Scenarios until 2050 and 2030