Let's Get Industrious

The US Department of Energy has an aggressive Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) for at least two reasons. First, energy efficiency is clearly going to be a competitive edge over the coming years. But equally important is that 75% of US energy consumption is done by industrial and commercial users. Put another way, reducing industrial and commercial energy use by 33% is equivalent to making every home in the US a 'net zero' home, requiring no outside energy input. And it's a lot easier. It is at least within the realm of possibility.

This is the reason I like the ITP so much. It's aiming high. None of this 'change your light bulbs and take shorter showers.' It's hitting where the problem is - our industrial plant.

So where do we start?

That's an interesting story too. The ITP estimates that 80% of industrial/commercial energy (or about 60% of total US energy) is consumed by 6 industries, namely Chemicals, Primary Metals, Petroleum, Paper, Nonmetallic Minerals, and Paper. And not only that, but these industries account for only 13% of US manufacturing plants!

The chart, originally presented by Paul Scheihing of the DOE's ITP, shows the numbers. The NAICS code is the North American Industrial Classification System. Every firm in the US and Canada is classified in a hierarchical fashion for statistical purposes. 325 is Chemicals, 331 is Primary Metals, etc.

The key finding from this chart is that significant energy use reduction is possible without having to visit and analyze every manufacturing plant in the nation. Oh yes, 13% of them is a great number still. But it is actually approachable with a concerted effort. And since energy use reduction has financial value as well, a focused program is likely to find a willing and engaged audience. These are the proverbial 'low hanging fruit.'

But there's more.

These are 'plants,' meaning that they are not spewing their emissions down the highway or in the stratosphere. And in fact, much of the consequent emissions come from the power plants that provide them electricity. And many, if not the majority, of US power plants burn coal to spin their turbines. You can see where I'm going with this.

If we can not only target energy savings at these 13% of US manufacturing plants, but mandate to the utilities that the lower energy demand result in less coal burning, we will have struck a victory for carbon emissions reductions as well.

So that's the policy focus I'd like to see. It's perhaps less splashy than weatherizing low income homes. But it will in the end be a lot more effective.