Energy Conservation Opportunities in the Pulp and Paper Industry: An

Illinois Case Study

Michael J. Chimack, University of Illinois at Chicago, Energy Resources Center
Christine E. Walker, University of Illinois at Chicago, Energy Resources Center
Robert Miller, University of Illinois at Chicago, Energy Resources Center

ABSTRACT

Demand-side power management in the forest products industry is a promising

approach for significantly reducing energy consumption. The forest products industry
consumed more than 3.1 quads of energy in 1994. This represents about 14% of domestic
manufacturing energy use, making the forest products industry as a whole the third largest
industrial consumer of energy, behind only petroleum and chemicals. Within the forest
products industry, the pulp and paper industry (SIC 26) uses the vast majority of the energy,
2.66 quads, while the lumber and wood products industry uses only 0.491 quads.
Cost savings achieved from energy assessments of the pulp and paper industry are
significant. Records of 376 plant energy audits conducted from 1992-2002 reveal that the
average cost savings from implemented measures was $34,122 per facility, averaging 5.2%
of each plant’s total energy budget.
Recent assessments of pulp and paper plants indicate that even greater energy savings
are possible. Combining a strategic energy management approach with the U.S. Department
of Energy’s Industries of the Future program, savings of up to 15% of a plant’s total energy
budget are feasible. If realized, these reductions will result in an average annual savings of
1,175,000 kWh and 9,500 MMBtu per plant.
This paper presents an effective energy conservation and management approach using
tools provided by the Department of Energy’s Best Practices Program, specifically the
Compressed Air Challenge, Motor Decisions Matter and Steam System Opportunity
Assessment for the pulp and paper industry. Using this approach on a national scale, a
significant reduction in energy usage and corresponding cost savings can be achieved,
significantly impacting the national energy grid.

Introduction
The University of Illinois of Chicago’s Energy Resources Center (ERC) and
Industrial Assessment Center, under contract with the Illinois Department of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity and the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), conducted energy
assessments of ten paper and paperboard manufacturers in the Chicago metropolitan area.
These assessments were conducted from November 2001 to December 2002, and
concentrated on the prime energy users in each plant. Significant opportunities for energy
conservation, and therefore cost savings, were determined in each of these plants. Major
energy using systems were identified, including compressed air, process steam, process
motors, lighting, and heating. These measures not only have the potential to conserve energy,
but also to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Energy conservation opportunities (ECOs)
identified for the assessment of the ten facilities can be applied to pulp and paper

4-74
manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. The US DOE Office of Industrial
Technologies provides tools and tips to assist industrial facilities in improving energy usage,
which can be applied to a facility’s energy management program to reduce energy
consumption.

Industry Overview
National

The U.S. forest products industry is an integral part of the nation’s economy. This
industry employs 1.5 million people and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers
in 42 states, with an estimated payroll of $51 billion. Sales of U.S. forest and paper products
exceed $250 billion annually in domestic and export markets (Moore, 2001). The United
States produced 88 million tons of paper and paperboard in 1999, over 700 pounds for every
man, woman and child, and is the world’s largest producer of forest products (OIT, 2002).
Forest and paper industry products represent more than eight percent of the country’s
manufacturing output and rank sixth among domestic manufacturing sectors, using an
extraordinary amount of energy in the process. Since 1972, the industry has reduced its use
of fossil fuels and purchased energy by 53%, while increasing total production by nearly 64
percent over the same period. Currently the forest products industry meets nearly 60 percent
of its own energy needs, producing nearly 43 percent of the nation’s total self-generated
electricity-more than any other manufacturing sector. Even so, the industry is one of the
country’s most energy intensive, ranking as the third largest user of fossil energy in the U.S.
manufacturing sector (EIA, 2000).
The paper industry, is also emission intensive. For this Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code, SIC code 26, the total energy-related emissions nation-wide is 31.6
million metric tons of carbon (MMTC). This represents 8.5% of all emissions in SIC codes
20-39. The main source of emissions is from net electric energy used by facilities (11.0
MMTC), followed by natural gas (8.3 MMTC), and coal (7.9 MMTC) as the top three. Paper
and paperboard mills account for over 80 percent of the energy-related carbon emissions in
the paper industry (EIA, 2000).
Energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) conversion factors were used to present the total
emissions due to energy consumption for the facilities, and the corresponding emission
reduction due to the ECOs. The factors for electricity are for electricity production for the
United States, and represent the current mix of generating facility types nation-wide. For
electricity, 1.43 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt-hour was used, and for natural gas 117 lbs of CO2
per million Btu (RMI, 1999).

State of Illinois

Ranking as one of the state’s top manufacturing industries, Illinois’ forest products
industry is a vital component of the state’s economy. The industry employs 50,000 workers
with an annual payroll of $1.7 billion (AFPA, 2001). Illinois’ paper and wood
manufacturing workforce represents 4.3 percent of the state’s total manufacturing workforce
(AFPA, 2001).
There are a total of 372 paper manufacturing facilities located in Illinois.
Approximately 362 of these plants are involved in converted paper product manufacturing.

4-75
These plants generate total sales of $5.9 billion and make approximately $172 million in
capital improvements per year. This segment employs 29,000 workers with a payroll of just
over $1 billion per year (AFPA, 2001).

Plants Assessed
Overview

The ERC conducted energy assessments of ten paper and paperboard manufacturing
plants in the Chicago metropolitan area between November 2001 and December 2002. To
maintain plant confidentiality, plants are identified as Plant 1 though 10, as well as by their
SIC code throughout this study. Most of these plants manufactured corrugated product, with
the exception of one plant, Plant 6, which manufactured coated and laminated packaging
papers and films. The specific energy using systems studied were the compressed air
generation and distribution systems, process motors, steam boilers and steam distribution
systems, lighting and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Utility bills
were collected and avoided costs calculated for each energy type.
The plants were evaluated over the course of one to four days, with visits normally
scheduled on production days. For each assessment, plant personnel at all levels were
interviewed, both formally and informally. Equipment operators, maintenance workers and
supervisors, plant managers and general managers and when available, chief financial and
executive officers and corporate energy managers were queried for information to better
understand plant operations and policy. Only those recommendations that fell within or
slightly exceeded company capital investment budgets and guidelines were fully investigated
and incorporated into the reports. Additionally, ongoing measures such as compressed air
leak reduction, steam leak reduction and high efficiency motor replacement were
recommended only if the plant had no consistently maintained program of its own. If an
opportunity had already been identified by the plant but not budgeted, it was incorporated;
measures that a plant was currently implementing were not incorporated into the reports.
All of the plants assessed were located in Illinois; three plants were in the city of
Chicago, and the remaining plants were in the surrounding suburbs of the city. These
facilities ranged in size1 from 76,000 square feet to 250,000 square feet, and employed
between 100 and 225 workers. Seven of the facilities are part of larger national or multi-
national firms. Further data for the included plants, including 4-digit SIC codes and operating
hours, are presented in Table 1.

Energy Usage

Each of the ten plants in the study consumed both electricity and natural gas for
powering primary manufacturing equipment, secondary support systems, and supplemental
equipment. Energy usage among the ten plants varied greatly, and was highly dependant on
the product produced, age and condition of equipment, operating procedures and production
orders. Recent utility bills for a consecutive twelve-month period (including both energy and
transportation providers) were collected and analyzed for each of the facilities. These data

1
Plant size only includes main buildings of each facility, not outbuildings or parking lots.

4-76
were then translated into average cost per unit of energy and presented along with annual
usage and cost numbers in Table 2.

Table 1. Plant General Data

Annual Production Plant Size (square Operating Hours
SIC Code
(square feet) feet) (hrs/year)
Plant 1 2650 6,000,000 235,000 4,798
Plant 2 2631 50,000,000 250,000 6,240
Plant 3 2621 Not Available 200,000 6,120
Plant 4 2677 Not Available 110,000 5,616
Plant 5 2653 75,000,000 180,000 4,992
Plant 6 2671 Not Available 76,000 7,368
Plant 7 2657 40,000 tons 220,000 6,624
Plant 8 2653 Not Available 160,000 6,600
Plant 9 2653 800,000 107,000 6,500
Plant 10 2650 850,000,000 150,000 6,000

Table 2. Plant Energy Usage and Cost Data

Energy Unit Cost Demand Gas Gas Total Energy
Demand kW Total Energy
Usage Of Energy Unit Cost Usage Unit Cost Usage
(kW/mo) Budget ($/yr)
(kWh/yr) ($/kWh) ($/kW) (MMBtu/yr) ($/MMBtu) (MMBtu/yr)

Plant 1 3,776,692 $0.047 1,102 $13.76 94,870 $6.82 107,760 $1,005,326

Plant 2 5,837,438 $0.037 1,102 $14.06 83,209 $2.57 103,132 $621,538
Plant 3 4,501,497 $0.064 933 $5.61 6,677 $7.52 22,041 $401,686
Plant 4 3,604,875 $0.063 877 $5.27 0* $0* 1,057* $281,449*
Plant 5 3,705,556 $0.063 777 $4.73 65,730 $3.91 78,377 $537,413
Plant 6 5,504,246 $0.055 1,056 $7.43 69,183 $5.42 87,969 $776,051
Plant 7 8,293,446 $0.056 1,498 $3.59 21,502 $7.47 49,808 $692,453
Plant 8 5,185,689 $0.064 869 $3.59 58,666 $3.16 76,365 $556,556
Plant 9 2,798,121 $0.065 555 $3.64 43,660 $2.47 53,210 $317,460
Plant 10 2,238,763 $0.067 436 $3.64 42,908 $3.45 50,549 $317,751
AVERAGE 4,544,632 --- 921 --- 54,045 --- 69,795** $549,421**
TOTAL 45,446,323 --- 9,205 --- 486,405 --- 629,211** $5,226,234**
* The plant had no natural gas using equipment, but did receive steam and heat from a district boiler. Quantity
of steam and heat provided and amount paid for the heat were not available.
** Figures adjusted to exclude Plant 4.

Due to deregulation of both the electric and natural gas utilities in Illinois, all of the
plants included in the study negotiated their electricity contracts, and most negotiated their
natural gas contracts as well. Contracts vary between plants, some with lower usage (kWh)
charges, but higher demand charges, and vice versa. Plant 1 had a natural gas cogeneration
system on line, which was used to provide energy to the plant and steam to its production
process. However for the base year, the generator was not in operation for seven months out
of the twelve-month period. The plant was penalized with high stand-by demand charges as
part of its cogeneration rider.

4-77
Major Energy Using Systems

There are several main energy using systems in pulp and paper manufacturing
facilities. These include compressed air, electric motors, process steam, lighting, and heat.
There were many similarities among the plants with respect to the types of energy-using
equipment operated. All of the plants had a significant amount of compressed air and electric
motors driving their operations, as well as lighting throughout the facility. Seven of the ten
plants required significant amounts of steam in their processes. Six of these facilities had
large boilers that provided steam, while the seventh facility, Plant 1, used its cogeneration
plant, supplemented by a small boiler to provide the necessary plant steam. The total installed
capacity for these major energy-using systems for each plant are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Plant Major Energy Using Systems

Compressed Air Motors Lights Boiler/Heating
(total HP) (total HP) (total kW) (Btu)
Plant 1 200 3,086 129 3,000,000
Plant 2 295 890 127 16,750,000
Plant 3 250 9,634 171 No boiler
Plant 4 285 740 62 Unavailable
Plant 5 300 1,460 188 24,254,000
Plant 6 150 2,386 45 1,350,000
Plant 7 215 2,889 191 18,675,000
Plant 8 150 2,101 150 40,200,000
Plant 9 250 1,405 98 16,738,000
Plant 10 150 1,970 85 14,645,000
AVERAGE 225 2,656 125 15,068,000
TOTAL 2,245 26,561 1,246 135,612,000

Compressed air. In the United States, compressed air systems account for 0.5 percent of
energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. By improving the operation of industrial
compressed air systems, facilities can provide energy efficiency improvements of 20-50
percent (OIT, 2002). Close observation of operations at the facilities and detailed questions
to plant management revealed that compressed air is considered by many plant personnel to
be a resource that costs little to operate and maintain. In addition, personnel believed
maintaining compressed air systems to be difficult and fiscally inefficient. That is,
purchasing additional capacity is more prudent than addressing false demand caused by
excessive system leaks. Often problems with compressed air systems were “fixed” by
increasing the operating pressure at the source in order to maintain the required end use
pressure. A number of compressed air ECOs were found at nearly all of the plants surveyed.
Nine of the ten plants had compressed air systems that offered significant opportunities for
energy conservation and cost savings in leak reduction, outside air usage, reduction of
compressor air pressure, energy-efficient nozzles, or a combination of the above measures.
The notable exception to this was Plant 5, which recently installed a new compressed air
system and was implementing a thorough leak mitigation program. The summary of
compressed air savings opportunities is outlined in Table 4.

4-78
 Table 4. Plant Compressed Air Savings Summary
Energy Demand
Energy Demand Total Cost Simple
Cost Cost Implementation
Savings Savings Savings Payback
Savings Savings Cost ($)
(kWh/yr) (kW/mo) ($/yr) (months)
($/yr) ($/yr)
Plant 1 304,958 $14,332 64 $10,496 $24,828 $3,000 1.4
Plant 2 267,664 $9,904 43 $7,237 $17,141 $4,400 3.1
Plant 3 60,066 $3,844 10 $4,180 $8,024 $1,434 2.1
Plant 4 30,940 $1,949 11 $696 $2,645 $1,900 8.6
Plant 6 81,348 $4,473 11 $984 $5,457 $2,900 6.4
Plant 7 126,699 $7,094 19 $824 $7,918 $5,000 7.6
Plant 8 41,003 $2,624 6 $267 $2,891 $969 4.0
Plant 9 89,522 $5,819 25 $1,077 $6,896 $4,023 7.0
Plant 10 85,714 $5,745 14 $626 $6,371 $2,900 5.5
AVERAGE 120,879 $6,198 23 $2,932 $9,130 $2,947 4.0
TOTAL 1,087,914 $55,784 203 $26,387 $82,171 $26,526 ---

Motors. This industry spends 2.6 percent of its overall operating costs to operate electric
motor systems-higher than any other 2-digit manufacturing SIC. Motor system electrical
costs could be reduced by 14 percent on average by simply factoring in energy efficiency and
utility costs into motor purchasing or repair evaluations (OIT, 1999). Installed motor
capacities varied at the plants surveyed. As with most industrial facilities, motors of varying
load factors and efficiencies were found throughout the plants. In the event of a motor
failure, many facilities use “stock motors” regardless of the motor size or efficiency when
replacing faulty motors, even though premium-efficiency motors are available. Opportunities
to improve motor efficiency were present at all ten plants. Replacing a standard efficiency
motor with a premium efficiency motor can result in energy savings over the life of the
motor, and can be readily evaluated using OIT’s MotorMaster+3.0 software. Premium
efficiency motors were not purchased due to maintenance practices that do not emphasize
motor efficiency, plant motor purchase practices, insufficient premium efficiency motors
information and the low priority of energy efficiency decisions as compared to the high
priority of minimizing production downtime.

Boilers/heating. Process heating for industrial facilities accounts for 17 percent of all
industrial energy use (OIT, 2002). In the plants assessed, on-site boilers provided process
heat. Several ECOs were discovered during these assessments. These included improving
boiler combustion efficiency, using blowdown steam energy rather than live steam to preheat
makeup feedwater, and installation of a stack economizer. For example, tuning the boiler at
Plant 1 would raise the combustion efficiency at the plant from 78.4 percent to 80.9 percent,
and result in natural gas consumption and cost savings. By using blowdown steam rather
than live steam to preheat makeup water, Plant 1 could recover energy currently available,
but discarded. Nearly 85 percent of the boiler blowdown energy could be recovered by
piping the boiler blowdown to the existing flash tank/feedwater heater tank auxiliary system
already in place (Dyer & Maples 1991, 9-14). By installing a stack economizer at Plant 5,
waste heat from the boiler exhaust flue could be used to preheat combustion air and increase
the efficiency of the boiler. For these recommendations, the implementation cost is higher

4-79
than for other energy-using systems, but the resulting paybacks are still attractive. Boiler
efficiency improvement opportunities for the applicable plants are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Plant Boiler Savings Summary

Total Energy Savings Total Cost Savings Implementation Simple Payback
(MMBtu/yr) ($/yr) Cost ($) (yrs)
Plant 1 7,462 $50,891 $37,536 0.7
Plant 5 1,854 $5,085 $13,727 2.7
AVERAGE 4,658 $27,988 $25,632 0.9
TOTAL 9,316 $55,976 $51,263 ---

Steam leaks. With typical paybacks of less than six months, steam leaks resulting from
piping or steam trap failures are a significant area of potential savings for an industrial
facility. While the leaks found at the facilities were small, they represented a significant,
consistent loss of energy. Plant operations and maintenance personnel were aware of specific
leaks but did not place a high priority on fixing them. No matter the size of the leak, line
pressure of the system at the point of exit, utility cost or maintenance rate, repairing a steam
leak offered the best combination of high energy and cost savings at low cost at a specific
location. The resulting simple paybacks are extremely attractive, with investment dollars
being returned almost immediately. A summary of the leaks found and the associated
savings and implementation cost is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Plant Steam Leak Savings Summary

Total Energy
Number of Total Cost Implementation Simple Payback
Savings
Steam Leaks Savings ($/yr) Cost ($) (months)
(MMBtu/yr)
Plant 1 4 1,561 $10,646 $900 1
Plant 2 4 3,339 $30,178 $900 1
Plant 5 6 2,911 $11,382 $1,350 2
Plant 9 13 3,206 $10,710 $2,925 4
Plant 10 7 1,469 $5,069 $2,100 5
AVERAGE --- 2,497 $13,597 $1,635 1.4
TOTAL 34 12,486 $67,985 $8,175 ---

Waste heat. Industrial processes generate large amounts of waste heat energy that is then
released into the atmosphere. Waste heat issues were identified at six of the plants surveyed.
Plants 2 and 8 had scrap collection systems powered by fans that moved corrugated scrap
through the plant. These systems used plant air, which was exhausted outside of the facility.
To offset this air loss, makeup air was drawn into the plant and heated to the ambient
temperature. By ducting outside air directly to the scrap collection positions, outside air
would comprise the majority of the exhaust air. Consultation with a major manufacturer of
air conveyance systems indicated that a 70 percent savings of heated air could be expected if
this system were implemented. Plant 6 had high quality heat available from its incinerator
that could be used to supplement the heat provided by its curing rooms and ovens, while
Plant 7 was venting hot air from its compressors outside during the winter months, heat that
could be ducted to the production floor. A listing of the savings and implementation costs
associated with waste heat recovery recommendations is presented in Table 7.

4-80
 Table 7. Plant Waste Heat Recovery Savings Summary
Total Energy Savings Total Cost Savings Implementation Simple Payback
(MMBtu/yr) ($/yr) Cost ($) (yrs)
Plant 2 2,671 $30,066 $21,105 0.7
Plant 3 559 $56,185 $35,508 0.6
Plant 5 997 $2,754 $9,057 3.3
Plant 6 15,931 $86,345 $61,557 0.7
Plant 7 1,253 $9,358 $8,500 0.9
Plant 8 6,385 $17,131 $57,993 3.4
AVERAGE 4,633 $33,640 $32,287 1.0
TOTAL 27,796 $201,839 $193,720 ---

Lighting. Lighting is often overlooked at industrial facilities, though it often uses as much
as 10-20 percent of the overall electrical energy budget (BTP, 2002; EERE, 2002). All of the
plants surveyed had inefficient lighting systems installed in the production, warehouse, and
office areas. Several lamp types were repeatedly found, including T-12 fluorescent lamps
with magnetic ballasts (both 4 foot and 8 foot), high intensity discharge lamps, and
incandescent lamps. Most of the plants had considered retrofitting their lighting systems at
some point, either using internal labor or contracting to an outside vendor. Significant
savings opportunities were found in replacing existing lamps and ballasts with more efficient
ones (such as T-8 or T-5 lamps with electronic ballasts), for all lamp types and using controls
such as occupancy sensors and dimmers where appropriate. Though often with longer
payback periods, lighting retrofits were often recommended for sections of the plants at a
time, in order to spread out the investment cost. The summary of energy and cost savings,
along with implementation costs for the plants is presented in Table 8.

Insulation. Insulating exposed steam pipes, valves, and/or tanks can result in natural gas and
cost savings. It is important not only that surfaces be covered, but that the insulation is
installed properly, and that insulation that has degraded over time be replaced. While the
bare surfaces were small in terms of total area, the areas were directly responsible for
significant heat losses. While installing insulation in some areas may be more difficult due to
being located in hard to reach areas or near the ceiling, if installed properly, it is a one time
event that will result in consistent energy conservation and savings. Five of the plants
assessed had bare steam pipes, valves, and/or tanks, as well as places where insulation had
never been applied or where the insulation had degraded over time. Degradation mainly
occurred in areas where insulation was not properly wrapped or protected. For process
heating and steam systems, 1.5 inch mineral fiber board insulation (R=3.0) is typically
recommended for pipes, valves and tanks and evaluated using OIT’s 3E Plus software.
Listings of insulation energy and associated cost savings, as well as implementation costs,
are detailed in Table 9.

4-81
 Table 8. Plant Lighting Savings Summary
Energy Demand
Energy Demand Total Cost Simple
Cost Cost Implementation
Savings Savings Savings Payback
Savings Savings Cost ($)
(kWh/yr) (kW/mo) ($/yr) (yrs)
($/yr) ($/yr)
Plant 1 245,670 $11,547 53 $8,657 $20,204 $71,260 3.5
Plant 2 22,303 $825 3 $563 $1,388 $3,057 2.2
Plant 3 208,604 $13,353 45 $3,025 $16,378 $59,444 3.6
Plant 4 52,611 $3,314 22 $1,391 $4,705 $31,710 6.7
Plant 5 273,557 $15,160 51 $2,115 $17,275 $85,625 5.0
Plant 6 172,694 $9,513 24 $2,096 $11,609 $35,754 3.1
Plant 7 75,278 $4,217 36 $464 $4,681 $21,512 4.6
Plant 8 409,979 $26,239 62 $2,676 $28,915 $76,995 2.7
Plant 9 265,613 $17,268 45 $1,654 $18,922 $52,443 2.8
Plant 10 7,666 $515 3 $129 $644 $2,361 3.7
AVERAGE 173,398 $10,195 34 $2,277 $12,472 $44,016 3.8
TOTAL 1,733,975 $101,951 344 $22,770 $124,721 $440,161 ---

Table 9. Plant Insulation Savings Summary

Total Energy Savings Total Cost Implementation Simple Payback
(MMBtu/yr) Savings ($/yr) Cost ($) (yrs)
Plant 1 517 $3,523 $4,516 1.3
Plant 5 405 $1,349 $471 0.3
Plant 8 1,342 $4,241 $5,892 1.4
Plant 9 877 $2,164 $5,153 2.4
Plant 10 496 $1,708 $2,582 1.5
AVERAGE 727 $2,597 $3,723 1.4
TOTAL 3,637 $12,985 $18,614 ---

Results
Overall Energy Savings and Emission Reductions

The seven energy-using systems examined offer significant natural gas and electricity
energy conservation and cost savings opportunities for all ten plants surveyed. Steam leak
and compressor leak repairs demonstrated the best ratio of lowest implementation cost to
projected savings with the shortest payback time. Other compressed air ECOs and boiler
efficiency offer the next best set of savings numbers, with compressed air investments
returning investment dollars in less than four months and boiler efficiency upgrades paying
back in eleven months. The first-costs for the remaining recommendations are higher and the
payback times significantly longer. It was also at this point that the plants cease to have the
option of implementing the recommendations incrementally, allowing them to spread out the
costs across one or more years. The recommendation for waste heat recovery was within the
payback range of all ten plants assessed, but the first costs take up too large a portion or
exceed the allotted capital investment budget. Lighting retrofits offer the least attractive
combination of first costs, savings and payback. While lighting retrofits can be implemented
incrementally, the long payback, significant commitment over time and potential disruption

4-82
of plant operations all make for a unappealing combination. Annual energy savings and
emission reduction totals by fuel type for all ECOs presented are listed by plant in Table 10.

Table 10. Plant Annual Energy Savings Summary

Energy Savings Demand Savings Nat. Gas Savings Total CO2 Reduction
(kWh/yr) (kW/mo) (MMBtu/yr) (tons)
Plant 1 550,628 117 9,540 951.8
Plant 2 289,967 46 6,010 558.9
Plant 3 268,670 55 1,519 281.0
Plant 4 83,551 33 0 59.7
Plant 5 273,557 51 6,167 556.4
Plant 6 254,042 35 15,931 1,113.6
Plant 7 201,977 55 1,253 217.7
Plant 8 450,982 68 10,534 938.7
Plant 9 355,135 70 4,083 492.8
Plant 10 93,380 17 4,644 338.4
AVERAGE 282,189 55 6,631 589.7
TOTAL 2,821,889 547 59,681 5,509.0

When considered as a group, the simple paybacks for the recommendations

concerning seven of the ten plants fall within typical capital investment guidelines. With the
exception of Plant 4, which purchased steam and heat from a non-utility supplier, all of the
plants have opportunities to conserve both electricity and natural gas and realize cost savings.
As a percentage of total energy budget, savings range from as little as 2.6 to 22 percent, with
an average of 10.4 percent. The amount of emission reduction from primary energy input for
all of the plants and all of the recommendations is 8 percent. Energy cost savings and
implementation cost totals for all energy-using systems are presented by plant in Table 11.

Plant Opportunities and Available Tools

For improving overall energy efficiency and reducing energy costs at these plants, a
holistic and proactive approach is encouraged. The DOE Office of Industrial Technologies
(OIT) has programs and tools available to assist industrial facilities in undertaking energy
conservation measures for the major energy using systems presented. This includes free
software packages that are available to assess energy savings potential in areas such as
compressed air, motors and pumps, steam, and insulation. These tools are available for
download at the OIT website (www.oit.doe.gov). Using these tools requires the facility to
invest some time and take a proactive, systems approach to energy use at the plant, but the
overall savings can be significant. Though the management from the plants assessed during
this program was presented with information about the OIT tools during the assessment, none
had prior knowledge of the availability of the OIT tools.

4-83
 Table 11. Plant Annual Energy Cost Savings and Implementation Summary
Energy Demand Nat. Gas Total Cost % of Total Implementation
Simple
Savings Savings Savings Savings Energy Cost
Payback
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) Budget ($)
Plant 1 $25,879 $19,153 $65,060 $110,092 11.0% $117,212 1.1 yrs
Plant 2 $10,729 $7,800 $60,244 $78,773 12.7% $29,462 5 mos
Plant 3 $17,197 $7,205 $63,935 $88,337 22.0% $102,618 1.2 yrs
Plant 4 $5,264 $2,087 $0 $7,351 2.6* $33,610 4.6 yrs
Plant 5 $15,160 $2,115 $20,570 $37,845 7.0% $110,230 2.9 yrs
Plant 6 $13,986 $3,080 $86,345 $103,411 13.3% $100,211 1.0 yrs
Plant 7 $11,311 $1,288 $9,358 $21,957 3.2% $35,012 1.6 yrs
Plant 8 $28,863 $2,943 $30,242 $62,048 11.1% $164,569 2.7 yrs
Plant 9 $23,087 $2,731 $12,874 $38,692 12.2% $64,544 1.7 yrs
Plant 10 $6,260 $755 $16,020 $23,035 7.2% $71,143 3.1 yrs
AVERAGE $15,774 $5,462 $40,516 $57,154 10.4% $82,861 1.4 yrs
TOTAL $157,736 $49,157 $364,648 $571,541 $828,611 ---
* Figure takes only electrical savings into account

In order to best use the OIT tools, accurate plant data are necessary. Information for
anything from the facility utility rates to the size and efficiency of the motor powering the
compressed air system, and boiler operating temperatures and pressures are crucial to get the
most out of these tools. A brief description of these tools is provided in the following
paragraphs.
MotorMaster+3.0 is a motor management tool, which allows for comparing various
efficiency motors, creating a record of maintenance for each motor, as well as predicting
energy, savings, and environmental benefits of using high efficiency motors. The software
has a catalog of over 20,000 AC motors, which is searchable by motor type and
manufacturer. Additionally, this program, can assist in decreasing motor inventory and track
motors that continually fail.
AirMaster+ is a compressed air software tool that assists in assessing the compressed
air system in a comprehensive manner, including evaluating system upgrades. Each
compressor within a facility is inputted, along with compressor operating pressure, airflow
capacity, end uses, and control information. As with the MotorMaster+3.0 software, this tool
also assists in the creation of a maintenance log, to record and track changes and problems
with the system. Evaluating savings and effectiveness of energy efficiency measures is also
feasible with this tool.
For steam systems, there are currently two available tools, the Steam System Scoping
Tool 1.0c, and the Steam System Assessment Tool. These tools were designed to help
facility managers assess savings from potential steam system improvements, as well as create
a profile for the existing steam system; much like the AirMaster+ does with the compressor
system. Plant conditions that are inputted into the facility profile will assist in calculating
energy, cost, and emissions savings of potential improvements, as well as track the
performance and maintenance of the steam system.
Finally, with 3E Plus, a Microsoft Windows® based software, evaluation of installing
or improving insulation on exposed surfaces such as heat tanks and steam pipes can be done.
While this program does not create a database of the pipes and surfaces, it is an important
tool in determining the cost effectiveness of insulating and emissions reductions due to the

4-84
resulting energy savings. The program is able to calculate the most economical thickness of
industrial insulation for a given process, with the operating conditions, ambient temperatures,
and surface properties as inputs.
In addition to the software tools available, the DOE OIT also has energy tips and case
studies separated out by industry to assist manufacturers in investigating ECOs, and
demonstrate realized savings from actual facilities.

Impediments, Barriers, and Accelerants to Implementation

Reasons vary when determining why energy conservation measures are not
implemented or why efficiency improvement tools are not used. Among the reasons include:
high paybacks associated with energy recommendations, the related implementation costs,
and potential downtime to implement the recommendations. Of the ten plants surveyed,
eight of the plants required paybacks of less than two years while five of the eight plants
wanted returns of less than eighteen months. The time required to actually implement a
project often seemed to be a factor in decision-making. Plant management and maintenance
personnel indicated indirectly that projects that can be completed in a short amount of time
have greater chance of being implemented than projects that are expected to take longer,
even if the projects taking longer have better payback numbers. Projects that are either
recurring or incremental in nature were viewed with skepticism. Competing for approval and
funding with other capital expenditures was also seen as a deterrent to implementing the
energy saving measures. However, certifications for ISO or QSO certification were given as
reasons for implementing energy conservation measures.
The OIT software tools mentioned previously are readily available and supported, but
in general are not in use at facilities due to plant personnel having insufficient product
knowledge, lack of training, and the time required to set up the facility profiles in each of the
programs. Time must be taken at the start, as the tools can only be as useful as the accuracy
of the information entered. As part of a rigorous approach to energy conservation at a
facility, these tools can increase the efficiency and productivity of a plant, and create a record
of recurring problems or issues with the major energy using systems, thereby adding a
modicum of predictability to plant maintenance programs. This can assist in not only
reducing energy consumption, but also decreasing a facility’s downtime.

Conclusion
The paper and paperboard industry, a subset of SIC 26, is an energy and emissions
intensive industry that is growing at a steady rate. As fuel and operating costs continue to
rise, the industry will continue to look for ways to increase its efficiency, raise profitability
and reduce emissions, without large capital expense, resulting in a short payback period.
Assessments of ten SIC 26 facilities in the State of Illinois demonstrated that there are
several ECOs in the major plant energy-using systems alone. In Illinois, if the plants assessed
implement the energy conservation measures identified, an average savings of electricity
usage of 2.8 MWh/year and an average savings of natural gas usage of 59.7 MMBtu/year are
attainable. Consequently, an estimated 5,509 tons of energy-related carbon dioxide
emissions per year would be eliminated from the environment.
The Office of Industrial Technology has recognized and addressed the need for
energy resources and has software and tools available at no cost to the user. However, the

4-85
availability of these tools for assessing opportunities in industrial facilities is not well known
and therefore the use of these tools in facilities has been relatively limited. None of the
assessed plants were using nor had knowledge of the OIT tools prior to the energy
assessment.
By following energy conservation recommendations, reviewing case studies, and
using available software tools, any paper and paperboard manufacturing facility can work
toward reducing energy consumption and increasing efficiency, thereby leading to a
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to the environment.

References
American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA). 2001. Illinois Forest & Paper Industry at a
Glance.

Building Technologies Program (BTP), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
2002. U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, vol. 1.

Dyer, David F. and Maples, Glennon. 1991. Boiler Efficiency Improvement. Boiler
Efficiency Institute, Auburn, AL.

Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2000. Carbon Emissions: Paper Industry. Available
online: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/carbon_emissions/paper.html.

Moore, W. Henson. American Forest & Paper Association, Energy Testimony.2001. Speech.
June 8.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). 2002. Buildings Energy
Databook Available online: http://www.buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov.

Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). 2001. Forest Products Industry Profile.

Available online: http://www.oit.doe.gov/forest/profile.shtml.

Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). 2002. Best Practices Program: Industrial Systems:
Compressed Air. Online: www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/compressed_air.

Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). 2002. Best Practices Program: Industrial Systems:
Process Heat. Online: www. oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/process_heat.

Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT). 1999. Motor System Usage in Forest

Products.Online: http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). 1999. Energy and Carbon Dioxide Conversion Factors for
US. Available online: www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid343.php.

4-86