Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /enconman

ORC waste heat recovery in European energy intensive industries:Energy and GHG savings

0196-8904/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.041

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 051 20 93431.E-mail address: francesco.campana4@gmail.com (F. Campana).

F. Campana a,⇑, M. Bianchi a, L. Branchini a, A. De Pascale a, A. Peretto a, M. Baresi b, A. Fermi b, N. Rossetti b,R. Vescovo b

a DIN University of Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italyb Turboden Srl, via Cernaia, 10, Brescia, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 February 2013Accepted 16 July 2013

Keywords:Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)Waste heat recoveryCementSteelGlassOil&gasEnergy audit

a b s t r a c t

Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) is a technology with important opportunities in heat recovery from energyintensive industrial processes. This paper represents the first comprehensive estimate of ORC units thatcan be installed in cement, steel, glass and oil&gas industries in the 27 countries of the European Unionbased on an accurate methodology related to real plants in operation or under construction. An evalua-tion of energy savings, depending on the number of operating hours per year and of the consequentdecrease in CO2 emission and electricity expenditure, is also provided. The study, carried out in theframework of an European research project on heat recovery in energy intensive industries, found that,in the most convenient considered scenario, up to about 20,000 GW h of thermal energy per year can berecovered and 7.6 M ton of CO2 can be saved by the application of ORC technology to the investigated andmost promising industrial sectors.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many studies regarding the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) tech-nology have been delivered in last decades, but only in recent yearsdifferent industrial players have become interested in its applica-tions. This is mainly due to different factors such as: ORC technol-ogy upgrades, energy prices rising, more stringent environmentalprotection and energy efficiency policies, such as the European‘‘20-20-20’’ Climate and Energy package, defining targets of pri-mary energy consumption and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) reduction.For a comparison between ORC technology and others – that isStirling engines, Thermo-Electric, Micro Rakine Cycle and InvertedBrayton Cycle – a review is provided in [1]. The study highlightedthat ORC is the best performing technology for heat recovery andpower generation using heat sources at temperature of 200–400 �C. Obviously, ORC conversion efficiency is limited (heat-to-electricity efficiency of larger recuperated cycles ORC systems typ-ically can reach values up to around 20%), if compared with con-ventional and advanced power plant technologies [2–5], but apotential in low/medium temperature waste heat recovery existsand should be quantified. Moreover, waste heat flows are discon-tinuous, thus the cycle needs to be flexible. ORC systems alreadyin function can operate at partial load condition [6] up to 10%,

while steam-cycle need more constant conditions. A thermody-namic analysis and comparison of different ORC simple and ad-vanced layout configurations and fluid selection has been carriedout in many publications [7–13], where the recuperated arrange-ment and fluids such as R245fa, Siloxanes and Hydrocarbons havebeen highlighted as best available design selections for high-gradeenthalpy heat recovery. For an introduction to actual ORC applica-tions and economic evaluations, see [13–25].

Another important issue concerns the selection of the mostpromising industrial processes in term of energy recovery andGHG emission mitigation. SILC project published a report compar-ing industries involved in ETS (Emission Trading System) thatcould benefit by heat recovery initiatives to reduce GHG emissions[26]. A comparison of different industries was performed, in theframework of the H-REII project [27], in order to establish whichfit better ORC opportunities. Results show that cement, glass, steeland oil&gas industries involve the most suitable processes for heatrecovery to power. In the same project, an estimate of the ORCpower that could be installed in European industries was also pro-vided, based on the GHG emissions allowances per year allocatedto every country in the framework of the ETS [28]. While thermo-dynamic analysis can be found in many references [10–24,29–32],this paper is focused on the ORC potential power output that canbe installed in the existing plants of cement, steel, glass and oil&-gas industry, located in the 27 countries of the European Union(EU27). In many countries authorities are working to remove

Nomenclature

CC clinker coolerEAF Electric Arc FurnaceErec energy recoveryETS Emission Trading SystemGCS Gas Compressor StationGHG greenhouse gasesGSF Gas Storage FieldsGT gas turbineho operating hours per year

H-REII heat recovery from energy intensive industriesnA number of energy audits available for a processORC Organic Rankine CyclePCP Process Capacity ParameterPORC ORC power to installPRS preheatingrA energy audit ratiorP ORC specific power of the process

F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252 245

barriers for combined heat and power (CHP) applications. In theirwake, also heat recovery policies have been proposed [33]. Loweand Gereffi describe in [34] new opportunities offered by a newsector, obtained by taking into account all firms involved into heatrecovery systems manufacturing. Their study presents a valuechain (Fig. 1) for applications of industrial waste energy recovery.The value chain is divided into four segments, where many in-volved players and new job opportunities can be identified. Activ-ities that would benefits of new heat recovery projects are not onlyrelated to industry: funding for R&D, GHG emissions reduction andjob opportunities are clear examples of social improvements. En-ergy efficiency policies [35], e.g. White Certificates in Italy [36],industrial category initiatives like SPIRE 2030 [37] and SustainableIndustry Low Carbon Initiative [38] are all helping the economicsustainability of heat recovery. In this framework, a first large scaleestimation on heat recovery potential by means of ORC in energyintensive industries sectors is performed in this paper, based ona reduced group of input key parameters and on a large numberof installations, in order to quantify the amount of residual avail-able electric energy fully recoverable in EU27.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2explains the methodology followed in order to estimate ORC powerpotential in the selected industries. Section 3 presents the amountof installable ORC power in EU27 cement plants and the recover-able energy – as a function of plants operating hours – and the con-sequent savings in energy, costs and GHG emissions. Section 4presents the same estimation for steel industry – Electric Arc Fur-naces and rolling mills, while Section 5 is related to glass industry.Section 6 presents ORC potential data for European Gas Compres-sor Stations (GCS). Finally, conclusions are given in Section 7.

Fig. 1. Heat recovery value chain [22].

2. Methodology for ORC potential assessment

The methodology followed in order to estimate on large scalethe ORC potential in EU27 industries is summarized in Fig. 2 andexplained in the following points:

1. The most interesting industrial processes were identified. Theselected industries are: (i) steel, (ii) cement, (iii) glass and (iv)oil&gas; this selection was done based on their considerableenergy consumption. In each selected industry, the most inter-esting processes were identified using as key factors theamount of wasted thermal power, the source cleanness andthe high number of operating hours. For the steel industry,selected processes are: Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) and rollingmills; in cement industry, clinker production is considered; inglass industry, float glass production and finally gas turbinesin Gas Compressor Stations (GCS) and Gas Storage Fields (GSF)are considered in oil&gas industry. For most of these processesthere is an operating ORC system as reference.

2. For every process, the most influent parameter for an estima-tion of the potential ORC output power, named here ProcessCapacity Parameter (PCP), was identified. Usually this is a dailyor hourly capacity. The selected PCP is described in Table 1 forevery considered process.

3. The value of PCP was detected for every plant of the identifiedprocesses, namely: EAF, rolling mills, clinker production, floatglass and gas turbines in GCS and in GSF.

4. Available energy audits were analyzed. The number of consid-ered plants and of available audits for every process is shownin Table 2. Energy audits provided the ORC power installed, or

Fig. 2. Methodology of analysis scheme.

Table 1Process Capacity Parameter (PCP) description.

Industry Process PCP description Unit

Steel EAF Tap weight tSteel Rolling mills Reheating furnace capacity t/hCement Clinker prod. Daily capacity t/dayGlass Float glass Furnace (tank) capacity t/dayOil&gas GCS and GSF Gas turbine power MW

Table 2Number of plants and energy audits considered.

Process No. of plants considered No. of audits analyzed

EAF 190 3Rolling mills 209 5Clinker prod. 241 21Float Glass 58 5GCS and GSF 613 10

246 F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252

potentially installable, in a considered plant analyzed during afeasibility study. For every ORC system mentioned in the audits,the specific power rA, ratio of ORC power (PORC) over the value ofits PCP, was calculated:

rA ¼PORC

PCP

� �A

ð1Þ

In order to calculate rA for the energy audit cases in which theORC system was not implemented, the used input informationwas the available thermal power (i.e., both gas temperature andmass flow rate) of the topping industrial process. In these cases,PORC to be used in Eq. (2.1) was obtained by assuming the ORC

Fig. 3. Audit results; top: effect of PCP on ORC power and on specifi

heat-to-power conversion efficiency, correlated with the heatsources temperature in all the considered processes, according to[1]. Audits results are plotted in Fig. 3.

5. For each considered process, the average value of all the avail-able rA values, i.e. the ORC specific power related to the Process,named here (rP), was obtained as:

c powe

rP ¼1nA

XA

rA ð2Þ

6. For the i-th plant, the installable ORC power (PORC)i was calcu-lated multiplying the corresponding value of PCP for the valueof rP related to the considered process:

ðPORCÞi ¼ ðPCPÞi � rP ð3Þ

7. The operating hours (ho) of the industrial process were esti-mated: a minimum value of 5000 and a maximum of 8000operating hours per year were considered.

8. Energy recovered for the i-th plant was calculated as:

ðErecÞi ¼ ðPORCÞi � ho ð4Þ

Then, output-based [39] emission factors and energy costs fordifferent countries, shown in Table 3 [40,41], were used, in orderto estimate the avoided GHG emissions and cost savings. Finally,results were aggregated for country and then for process.

3. Waste heat recovery in EU27 cement plants: ORC potential

The first examples of waste heat recovery to power in the ce-ment industry are reported on the Best Available Technique Refer-ences (BREF) for cement industry [42] both by means of ORC andsteam-cycle technology. In last five years other ORC heat recoveryplants have been starting up [43]. A simplified scheme of an ORC

r; bottom: hot source temperature and mass flow rate.

Table 3Emission factors and energy cost in EU27 [40,41].

Country Emission factor (t CO2/MW h) Energy cost (€/kW h)

Italy 0.405 € 0.12Germany 0.503 € 0.10Spain 0.430 € 0.08France 0.092 € 0.07UK 0.496 € 0.09Belgium 0.254 € 0.09Austria 0.161 € 0.10Czech Rep. 0.630 € 0.10Others 0.483 € 0.09

Table 4EU27 cement plants location and capacity [44].

Country No. of plants Nominal capacity (Mt/yr)

Spain 38 48.3Italy 59 38.6Germany 33 28.8France 31 21.6Greece 8 14.5Poland 11 14.0Portugal 6 10.8UK 12 10.4Others 61 60.8

Total EU27 259 247.8

F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252 247

unit installed in a cement factory is reported in Fig. 4. Raw materi-als are preheated in multiple cyclones which use exhausted gasescoming from the rotary kiln. Thermal energy of these gases(300–450 �C) can be recovered by means of a heat exchanger (1in Fig. 4). After being cooked in rotary kiln at 1200 �C, clinker hasto be cooled. The second heat source is represented by gases com-ing from this clinker cooler (300 �C) that are recovered by anotherheat exchanger (2). Usually heat exchangers work with diathermicoil which maintains temperature at a stable value. Then heat is ex-changed from diathermic oil to organic fluid and electricity is gen-erated by ORC unit.

There are 259 cement plants in EU27, for a total amount of 389kilns, with an overall capacity of 247.81 millions of metric tons[44], located as reported in Table 4. Among these plants, 11 havenot been considered because of their wet process: for this type ofkiln, it is not convenient to install ORC systems, due to technicalproblems for the heat exchanges. For other 19 plants, the processtype is not described: for 7 of those neither nominal capacity isprovided, thus it was not possible to estimate the ORC power.For the 12 over 19 plants with given annual capacity but withoutprocess type specification, we decided to proceed with the algo-rithm relying on BREF for cement industry [42], which reports thatonly the 2.5% of kilns works with wet process. According to [42]

Fig. 4. ORC in cem

wet kilns will be replaced by dry ones, thus it is possible to con-sider them as dry kilns, in a future perspective. Eventually, the totalnumber of cement plant considered is 241 out of 259.

The PCP for cement industry was expressed in daily capacity. Inorder to estimate the daily capacity, the annual nominal capacitywas used; a conservative representative capacity factor of 0.8 (a ce-ment plant has typically a continuous process at high productionrate) and a production stop of one month a year for maintenancewere considered.

A total of 21 energy audits were analyzed and the correspond-ing rA were calculated. Results are depicted in Fig. 5, reporting therA values for the 21 plants. Plants can be distinguished dependingon the recovered heat source: there are cement plants in whichit is possible to recover heat only from pre-hating cyclones (PRS,component 1 in Fig. 4) or from clinker cooler gases (CC, component2 in Fig. 4) or from both the sources (PRS + CC). Differences in rA

values may be related to many factors affecting the actual installa-ble ORC power, such as raw material humidity rate, average exter-nal temperature, number of cyclones, year of startup, etc. Thecalculated value of rP results equal to 1.01 kW per ton/day of pro-duced clinker. Referring to Italian plants, the adopted rP value is0.75 kW per ton/day of produced clinker, the average value of rA re-lated to this country (11 audits). The value of PCP of all the

ent process.

Fig. 5. ORC at the bottoming of an EAF process.

Table 6Energy recovered, emission and cost savings in cement industry.

Country Energy recovery(GW h/yr)

Emission avoided(103 t CO2/y)

Cost savings (mln€/yr)

5000 h 8000 h 5000 h 8000 h 5000 h 8000 h

IT 433 693 175.5 280.8 53.9 86.3GE 351 562 176.7 282.7 36.0 57.6ES 586 938 252.1 403.4 47.8 76.4FR 250 400 23.0 36.8 18.5 29.6UK 126 202 62. 7 100.3 11.1 17.8BE 54 86 13.6 21.8 4.7 7.5AU 52 84 8.4 13.5 5.5 8.8CZ 64 102 40.3 64.5 6.6 10.5Oth 953 1525 460.2 736.4 76.0 121.5

EU27 2.870 4.592 1212 1.940 260.1 416.2

248 F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252

collected plants was multiplied by rP. Results, aggregated by coun-try, are shown in Table 5. According to the followed calculationmethodology we estimate that over 576 MW of ORC power canbe installed in EU27 cement industry. The annual energy savingswas also estimated, assuming a range between 5000 and 8000operating hours per year, in order to consider variations in cementproduction due to market fluctuations. This energy recovery allowsavoiding the purchase of electricity from national grid and the con-sequent GHG emissions (see Table 6). Considering only EU27 ce-ment plants, an amount between 2.87 and 4.59 TW h per yearcan be recovered, i.e. around 0.46% of the electricity consumptionin European industry in 2010 [45]. The corresponding average va-lue of CO2 avoided emissions, equal to almost 1.5 million metrictons, represents the 0.44% of the total amount of CO2 emitted in2010 by EU27 industry [45]. At current electricity prices for indus-try (see Table 2), European cement plants owners could save be-tween 260 and 416 million euro every year. Considering anaverage value of 3 million euro per installed MW, the market sizeof installations reaches over one billion euro. There are many fac-tors to take into consideration for further developments in ORCapplications in EU27 cement industry: (i) global trend in cementproduction, consumption and trade, with the increasing impor-tance of developing countries as a market players; (ii) energy effi-ciency policies, supporting such installations; (iii) the increasinginterest in alternative fuels, affecting the economic energyscenario.

4. Waste heat recovery in EU27 steel plants: ORC potential

In cement industry, processes and plants can be consideredstandard. In steel industry, on the contrary, there are many

Table 5ORC power estimate for EU27 cement factories.

Country Daily capacity (103 t/day) rP ((MW day)/t) PORC (MW)

Italy 111.7 0.75 86.7Germany 69.8 1.01 70.3Spain 116.5 1.01 117.3France 49.6 1.01 49.9UK 25.1 1.01 25.3Belgium 10.7 1.01 10.7Austria 10.4 1.01 10.5Czech Rep. 12.7 1.01 12.8Others 189.3 1.01 192.5

Total EU27 595.9 575.9

processes and techniques in semi-finished casting production.ORC application is considered more suitable for heat recoveringfrom the exhaust gas of Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) and of rollingmills that will be analyzed separately. In Fig. 6 a simplified processscheme of an ORC unit installed at the bottoming of an EAF is re-ported. Three different layouts can be conceived: heat exchangerscan be placed just outside the furnace (300–1600 �C), before thequenching tower (200–900 �C) or recovering heat from the fluidused in the quenching tower. Inlet gases into conditioning systemhave temperature values of 150–350 �C [46]. Unlike cement orglass process, EAFs work in cycle of almost one hour each (tap-to-tap-time), thus ORC has an automatic control that follows themelting cycle.

190 EAF are located in EU27, 11 of them are currently in idle(Table 7). Process Capacity Parameter (PCP) was identified in tapweight expressed in tonnes. Considering an EAF cycle of almostone hour, PCP can even considered an hourly capacity. Only threeenergy audits are available: one of those is related to Riesa plant(Germany) which is under construction within H-REII Demo pro-ject. For these three audits, the average ratio of ORC power overPCP is 27.8 kW per ton processed: considering few differences inEAF processes, this value has been adopted as rP. No EAFs were dis-carded, neither those which are in idle at the moment. Regardingto rolling mills, scenario is more various. These machineries canbe grouped depending on process type (hot or cold mills) anddepending on the semi-finished product (blooms, slabs, wire rods,plates, etc.). VDEh Database [47] provide data for blooming andslabbing mills (15), billet mills (30), light section (53), medium sec-tion (29) and heavy section (19) mills, hot strip mills (44), wire rod

Fig. 6. ORC at the bottoming of an EAF process.

Table 7Number and nominal capacity of EU27 EAF and rolling mills [47].

Country No. EAF Capac. (Mt/yr) No. rolling mills Capac. (Mt/yr)

Italy 40 23.4 63 35.8Spain 29 18.5 42 21.8Germany 27 16.7 52 50.8France 20 7.6 38 31.3UK 8 4.9 31 15.9Poland 9 4.5 19 9.7Belgium 7 4.7 9 16.6Romania 6 3.2 12 9.0Greece 5 3.5 6 3.2Czech Rep. 9 0.5 12 7.4Others 30 14.0 78 50.2

Total 190 101.7 362 251.8Idle 11 14

Table 8ORC gross power to install in EU27 steel industries.

Country ORC POWERin EAF (MW)

ORC power inrolling mills (MW)

Total ORC power inEU27 steel ind. (MW)

Italy 92.9 21.7 114.6Germany 74.0 82.2 156.2Spain 85.8 25.6 111.3France 43.1 30.1 73.2UK 27.7 19.7 47.4Belgium 25.7 28.7 54.5Austria 4.2 12.2 16.5Czech Rep. 0.8 9.2 10.0Others 83.3 81.0 164.3

Total EU27 437.5 310.5 748.0

Table 9Energy recovery, emission and cost savings in EU27 steel industry.

Country Energy Recovery(GW hh/yr)

Emission avoided(103 t CO2/yr)

Cost savings (mln€/yr)

5000 h 8000 h 5000 h 8000 h 5000 h 8000 h

IT 572 916 206.9 331.0 71.3 114.0GE 781 1250 343.5 549.6 80.0 128.0ES 557 891 184.1 294.6 45.4 72.6FR 365 583 28.8 46.1 27.0 43.3UK 237 379 102.2 163.5 20.9 33.4BE 272 436 66.8 107.0 23.7 38.0AU 82 132 11.2 17.9 8.6 13.8CZ 50 80 27.2 43.5 5.1 8.2Oth 824 1318 380.5 608.8 62.2 99.6

EU27 3740 5984 1351 2162 344.3 550.8

Table 10EU27 flat glass plant distribution and production [48].

Country No. of plants Product (103 t/yr)

Germany 11 1425France 7 907Italy 7 908Belgium 7 907UK 5 645Spain 5 645Poland 3 390Portugal 1 127Other 9 1545

Total 58 7500

Table 11EU27 flat glassworks production ranges [48].

t/day % No. of plants

<400 1 1400–550 37 22550–700 48 28>700 14 7

Total 100 58

F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252 249

mills (33) and plate mills (39) for a total amount of 262 rollingmills.

The first application of heat recovery by ORC from re-heatingfurnaces in hot rolling mills was started up in April 2013 in Singa-pore. Hot rolling mills work with steel at temperature around1500 �C and heat transfer is performed by direct exchange betweenthe organic working fluid and the heat source at temperaturearound 400 �C simplifying the system layout. In this case the PCPwas identified with reheating furnaces hourly capacity, expressedin metric tons per hour. Values were provided only for 209 rollingmills, thus categories of blooming and slabbing mills (15), billetmills (30) and many other facilities were excluded from the ORCpotential calculation.

Six audits were available. The calculated rP value is equal to6.87 kW per ton produced every hour. We used this value in orderto estimate potential for other mills without considering facilitytype, because product type is not related to furnaces size. Resultsfor the installable ORC gross power in EU27 EAFs and rolling millsare presented in Table 8.

Potential recovery and savings are reported in Table 9. Consid-ering 190 installations in EAFs and 209 in rolling mills, an energyrecovery between 3740 and 5984 GW h per year has been esti-mated, equal to around 0.58% of the final electricity consumptionof EU27 industry in 2010 [45]. Avoided emissions of CO2 accountbetween 1.351 and 2.162 million metric tons, around 0.51% ofthe total amount of carbon dioxide emitted in 2008 by EU27[45]. At current electricity price for industry (see Table 2), Euro-pean steel plants owners would save between 344 a 551 millioneuro per year. Considering an average value of 3 million euro perinstalled ORC MW, the market size related to installations reachesover 2 billion euro.

Steel represents the industry with most interesting possibilitiesof application in following years: after the first application of ORCin rolling mills started up in Singapore and the first application of

ORC in EAF to be installed in Riesa (Germany) within H-REII Demoproject by the end of 2013, many others are expected to follow.

5. Waste heat recovery in EU27 glass plants: ORC potential

Glass industry can be divided depending on the manufacturedproduct. In this study, only flat glass plants have been considered,because energy audits for container glass were not available. De-spite the cement and steel cases, it was not possible to access toa database with data for every single glasswork. This study ismainly based on BREF for glass manufacturing [48], related tothe 2007–2008 period. This document reports the number of fur-naces placed in EU27 (Table 11) and their proportion divided intoranges of daily production (Table 11). The PCP was identified indaily capacity. The rP value was calculated relying on 15 energyaudits, one referring to a 1.3 MW ORC unit already operating inItaly, while six of these audits are related to plants in extra EU27countries, nevertheless these data have been used to calculate amore accurate value of rP. These audits report ORC gross power,but in some cases daily production data (PCP) is not available.Thus, PCP has been estimated referring to the proportion shownin Table 10, depending on ORC size. The average rP ratio is2.7 kW ORC power per metric ton of tank daily capacity. For every

Table 12ORC power to install in EU27 flat glass industry.

Range Capacity(t/day)

ORCpower(kW)

No. ofplants

Total ORC power(MW)

<400 350 1040 1 1.0400–550 475 1040 22 22.9550–700 625 1500 28 42.0>700 750 1800 7 12.6Total flat 58 78.5

Fig. 8. ORC Power over gas turbine Power diagram.

250 F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252

range, an average size was calculated as shown in Table 12, for atotal gross ORC power of 78.5 MW with 58 installations. Consider-ing 5000 annual operating hours, an energy recovery of392.6 GW h per year can be estimated; avoided GHG emissionsare equal to 140,333 metric tons and avoided energy costs areequal to 35.1 million euro per year. In case of 8000 annual operat-ing hours, the following results can be obtained: energy recoveryequal to 628.2 GW h per year, avoided GHG emissions equal to224,533 metric tons and avoided energy costs equal to 56.2 millioneuro per year.

6. Waste heat recovery in EU27 gas turbines based oil&gasindustries: ORC potential

Natural gas transmission infrastructures are typically based ongas turbine (GT) units, used to accomplish natural gas compressionin Gas Compressor Station (GCS), placed around every 100–200 km, in order to maintain gas pressure on average around70 bar, but with cases typically in the range 40–120 bar [49]. Their

Fig. 7. European gas compresso

distribution is depicted in Fig. 7. Also in Gas Storage Fields (GSF)gas is inserted into the infrastructure by means of gas turbines.These stations use a part of the conveyed gas; the GCS is typicallymade up of at least two GTs, one of those plays a backup role. GCScan be divided in base load stations, which work continuously,approximately 8000 h per year, and seasonal stations, located inwarm regions, working less than 4000 h per year. Fig. 8 showsthe potential ORC power versus GT power, with reference to differ-ent commercial units. ORC allows the recovery of up to 35% of theGT power, thus rP value chosen is 0.30. Data for GT power installedin every European country were collected from [50] and from gastransmission companies websites. To exclude backup units (usu-ally one over three GTs) a reducing coefficient of the installedpower equal to 0.65 was adopted. In order to consider only base

r station distribution [50].

Table 13Gas turbine power and ORC power in Gas Compressor Station.

Country Gas turbines power(MW)

Corrected power(MW)

ORC power(MW)

Germany 2455 718 215UK 1455 426 128Italy 876 256 77France 650 190 57Netherland 1014 297 89Spain 471 138 41Austria 443 130 39Belgium 126 37 11Slovakia 42 12 4Ireland 99 29 9Poland 392 115 34Czech Rep. 349 102 31Hungary 237 69 21Finland 13 4 1Bulgaria 227 66 20

EU27 8849 2588 776Russia 44,377 12,980 3894Ukraine 5862 1715 514Norway 150 44 13

Total Europe 59,238 17,327 5198

Table 14ORC potential in EU energy intensive industries.

Process Heat sourcetemp (�C)

PsORC

(kW/t)Plants ORC power

(MW)

Flat Glass 500 2.33 58 79Clinker Prod. 350 1.01 241 574EAF 250a 27.8 190 438Rolling mills 400 6.87 209 310GCS and GSF 30%b 613 1304

Total 2705

a Steam from heat exchanger.b Percentage of gas turbine Power.

Table 15Energy recovery, emission and cost savings at 5000 h/yr (a) and at 8000 h/yr (b) inEU27 industries.

Energy recovery(GW hh/yr)

Emission avoided(103 t CO2/yr)

Cost savings (mln€/yr)

5000 h 8000 h 5000 h 8000 h 5000 h 8000 h

Flat Glass 393 628 140 225 35.1 56.2Cement 2870 4592 121 1940 260.1 416.2Steel 3740 5984 1351 2162 344.3 550.8GCS and GSF 6520 10,432 2328 3724 583.5 933.7

EU27 13,523 21,636 5032 8501 1223 1957

Fig. 9. Annual energy recovery in EU27 industries.

F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252 251

load stations, a cautionary additional coefficient of 0.45 wasadopted. ORC power was estimated as a 30% of the corrected GTpower. Results are reported in Table 13. Excluding Russia,1304 MW ORC gross power can be installed in EU27 gas plants,with electricity generation up to 10.43 TW h per year, avoidedGHG equal to 3.7 million metric tons and avoided energy costsequal to 934 million euro per year. The calculated values of energyrecovery, avoided emission and cost savings for the four consid-ered industries are reported in Tables 14 and 15 and in Fig. 9.

7. Conclusions

At the current trend, the EU target of 20% reduction in the finalenergy consumption will be hardly met [51]; thus, heat recoveryrepresents an opportunity to recover energy in industry processes.Among heat recovery technologies, ORC systems represents a via-ble option to be adopted in different industries. Taking into consid-eration only the following sectors: cement, steel (EAF and rollingmills), glass (float furnaces) and GCS in Europe, the installation of2705 MW of ORC gross power has been estimated in this study.This ORC power installation potential would lead to up to21.6 TW h per year of electricity production, with savings of almost1.95 billion euro and of over 8.1 million tons of GHG emission, avalue which represents almost 2% of the European Industryconsumption.

This study represents the first comprehensive estimate of ORCunits that can be installed in cement, steel, glass and oil&gas indus-tries in the 27 countries of the European Union based on an accu-rate methodology, described in Section 3, related to real plants inoperation or under construction. These industries were chosenfor their larger opportunity; new applications in other fields arecurrently objects of study (non-ferrous metals, aluminum, copper,waste, biomass, etc.). This study and the described methodologycan be a starting point for assessing ORC potential in other sectorsor world regions in order to quantify additional interesting oppor-tunities for energy savings and environmental benefits.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank: the H-REII Demo project; Tur-boden srl, represented by A. Foresti, S. Santarossa, V. Vaccari, forinternal data and support in the study; FIRE; M. Manuzzi and N.Decarli for their help.

References

[1] Bianchi M, De Pascale A. Bottoming cycles for electric energy generation:parametric investigation of available and innovative solutions for theexploitation of low and medium temperature heat source. Appl Energy2011;88:1500–9.

[2] Bhargava RK, Bianchi M, Campanari S, De Pascale A, Negri di Montenegro G,Peretto A. A parametric thermodynamic evaluation of high performance gasturbine based power cycles. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2010;132:022001-1–022001-14.

[3] Bhargava RK, Bianchi M, Campanari S, De Pascale A, Negri di Montenegro G,Peretto A. High efficiency gas turbine based power cycles – a study of the mostpromising solutions: Part 1 – A review of the technology. In: Proceedings of theASME Turbo Expo, vol. 7. p. 305–14.

[4] Bianchi M, Branchini L, De Pascale A, Melino F, Peretto A, Bhargava RK, et al.Gas turbine power augmentation technologies: a systematic comparativeevaluation approach. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, vol. 5. p. 99–107.

[5] Fossil fuel power generation state-of-the-art. Power Clean Thematic Network,European Union Fifth Framework Energy R&D Programme, Contract No. ENK5-CT-2002-20625; 2004.

[6] Beith B. Small- and micro-combined heat and power (CHP) systems. Advanceddesign, performance, materials and applications. Woodhead PublishingLimited; 2010.

[7] Nguyen TQ, Slawnwhite JD, GoniBoulama K. Power generation from residualindustrial heat. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51(11):2220–9.

252 F. Campana et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 76 (2013) 244–252

[8] Wang J, Yan Z, Wang M, Li M, Dai Y. Multi-objective optimization of an OrganicRankine Cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery using evolutionaryalgorithm. Energy Convers Manage 2013;71:146–58.

[9] Lee KM, Kuo SF, Chien ML, Shih YS. Parameters analysis on Organic RankineCycle energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manage 1988;28(2):129–36.

[10] Dai Y, Wang J, Gao L. Parametric optimization and comparative study ofOrganic Rankine Cycle (ORC) for low grade waste heat recovery. EnergyConvers Manage 2009;50(3):576–82.

[11] Wei D, Lu X, Lu Z, Gu J. Performance analysis and optimization of OrganicRankine Cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery. Energy Convers Manage2007;48(4):1113–9.

[12] Branchini L, De Pascale A, Peretto A. Thermodynamic analysis and comparisonof different Organic Rankine Cycle configurations. In: Proceedings ofICAE. China: Suzhou; 2012.

[13] Al-Sulaiman FA, Dincer I, Hamdullahpur F. Thermoeconomic optimization ofthree trigeneration systems using Organic Rankine Cycles: Part II –Applications. Energy Convers Manage 2013;69:209–16.

[14] Liu JP, Fu JQ, Ren CQ, Wang LJ, Xu ZX, Deng BL. Comparison and analysis ofengine exhaust gas energy recovery potential through various bottom cycles.Appl Therm Eng 2013;50(1):1219–34.

[15] Vélez F, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Antolín G, Chejne F, Quijano A. A technical,economical and market review of Organic Rankine Cycles for the conversion oflow-grade heat for power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(6):4175–89.

[16] Palestra N. Applicazione di Cicli ORC a Recuperi Termici da Processi Industriali(Italian). Vescovo: Turboden press; 2010.

[17] Brasz JJ, Biederman BP, Holdmann G, Production Power. Power productionfrom a moderate – temperature geothermal resource, GRC AnnualMeeting. USA: Reno, NV; 2005.

[18] Meacher JS., Organic Rankine Cycle systems for waste heat recovery inrefineries and chemical process plants. ESL-IE-81-04-90. In: Proc. from the 3rdindustrial energy technology conference, Houston, TX; 1981.

[19] Bhargava RK, Bianchi M, De Pascale A. Gas turbine bottoming cycles forcogenerative applications: comparison of different heat recovery cyclesolutions. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, vol. 4; 2011. p. 631–41.

[20] Boretti. Energy recovery in passenger cars. J Energy Res Technol, Transe ASME[Internet]. 134(2).

[21] Boretti. Recovery of exhaust and coolant heat with R245fa Organic RankineCycles in a hybrid passenger car with a naturally aspirated gasoline engine.Appl Therm Eng 2012;36(1):73–7.

[22] Bianchi M, De Pascale A, Spina PR. Guidelines for residential micro-CHPsystems design. Appl Energy 2012;97:673–85.

[23] Chacartegui R, Sánchez D, Muñoz JM, Sánchez T. Alternative ORC bottomingcycles for combined cycle power plants. Appl Energy 2009;86:2162–70.

[24] Clemente S, Micheli D, Reini M, Taccani R. Energy efficiency analysis of OrganicRankine Cycles with scroll expanders for cogenerative applications. ApplEnergy 2012;97:792–801.

[25] David G, Michel F, Sanchez L. Waste heat recovery projects using OrganicRankine Cycle technology – examples of biogas engines and steel millsapplications, World Engineers’ Convention, Geneva 4–9; September 2011.

[26] Danish Technological Institute, IDEA Consult and Ecorys Research andConsulting, Competitiveness of energy-intensive industries under theEuropean Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) – Orientation study for the SILCInitiative; 2011.

[27] Rossetti N. Energy intensive industries per settori (Italian), LIFE08 – ENV IT000422, H-REII Annex 1. Turboden press; 2010.

[28] Rossetti N. Studio delle potenzialità del recupero calore in aziende altamenteenergivore finalizzato alla valorizzazione elettrica mediante tecnologia ORC(Italian). University of Brescia; 2010.

[29] Schuster, Karellas S, Kakaras E, Spliethoff H. Energetic and economicinvestigation of Organic Rankine Cycle applications. Appl Therm Eng2009;29(8–9):1809–17.

[30] Tchanche BF, Lambrinos GR, Frangoudakis A, Papadakis G. Low-grade heatconversion into power using Organic Rankine Cycles – a review of variousapplications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(8):3963–79.

[31] Shengjun Z, Huaixin W, Tao G. Performance comparison and parametricoptimization of subcritical Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and transcriticalpower cycle system for low-temperature geothermal power generation. ApplEnergy 2011;88:2740–54.

[32] Quoilin S, Declaye S, Tchanche BF, Lemort V. Thermo-economic optimization ofwaste heat recovery Organic Rankine Cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31(14–15):2885–93.

[33] European Community, Reference Document on Best Available Techniques inthe Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries; 2010.

[34] Lowe M, Gereffi G. Recycling Industrial Waste Energy, Chapter 7. Reportprepared for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Center on Globalization,Governance & Competitiveness (CGGC). Duke University; 2009.

[35] European Community, Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on,Energy Efficiency; 2009.

[36] Di Santo D, Forni D. White Certificates for the industrial sector. FIRE; 2012.[37] http://www.spire2030.eu.[38] SET-plan, Horizon 2020, NER300.[39] Bianchi M, De Pascale A. Emission calculation methodologies for CHP plants.

Energy Proc 2012;14:1323–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.887.

[40] EEA 2010. <http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer>.[41] Europe’s Energy Portal, 2012. <http://www.energy.eu/>.[42] European Community, Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document

for the Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide; 2013.[43] http://www.turboden.eu/en/public/downloads/11-COM.P-18-rev.24.pdf.[44] Global cement Directory, 2013. <http://www.globalcement.com/directory>.[45] Eurostat 2010. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/

home/>.[46] Born C. Analysis of potential and specific problems of heat recovery in steel

plants. AISTech; 2011.[47] VDEh Plantfacts database; 2012.[48] European Community, Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document

for the Manufacture of, Glass; 2012.[49] Chaczykowski M, Osiadacz AJ, Uilhoorn FE. Exergy-based analysis of gas

transmission system with application to Yamal-Europe pipeline. Appl EnergyJune 2011;88(6):2219–30.

[50] www.energydelta.org.[51] European Commission, Impact Assessment accompanying the document

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiencyand amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC; 2011.