Technical, Environmental, and Economic Analysis Comparing Low-Carbon Industrial Process Heat Options in U.S. Poly(vinyl chloride) and Ethylene Manufacturing Facilities

Abstract

Electrification and clean hydrogen are promising low-carbon options for decarbonizing industrial process heat, which is an essential target for reducing sector-wide emissions. However, industrial processes with heat demand vary significantly across industries in terms of temperature requirements, capacities, and equipment, making it challenging to determine applications for low-carbon technologies that are technically and economically feasible. In this analysis, we develop a framework for evaluating life cycle emissions, water use, and cost impacts of electric and clean hydrogen process heat technologies and apply it in several case studies for plastics and petrochemical manufacturing industries in the United States. Our results show that industrial heat pumps could reduce emissions by 12-17% in a typical poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) facility in certain locations currently, compared to conventional natural gas combustion, and that other electric technologies in PVC and ethylene production could reduce emissions by nearly 90% with a sufficiently decarbonized electric grid. Life cycle water use increases significantly in all low-carbon technology cases. The levelized cost of heat of viable low-carbon technologies ranges from 15 to 100% higher than conventional heating systems, primarily due to energy costs. We discuss results in the context of relevant policies that could be useful to manufacturing facilities and policymakers for aiding the transition to low-carbon process heat technologies.

Keywords: decarbonization; electrification; hydrogen; industrial process heat; levelized cost of heat; techno-economic analysis.

Figure 1

Process heat energy (PJ) of U.S. chemical industries according to their NAICS code and temperature range of heat demand in 2014. Data from ref (27).

Figure 2

Unit process diagrams for (A) PVC production and (B) ethylene production. Adapted from ref (38).

Figure 3

GHG emissions and water consumption of process heat technologies for (A) steam generation in PVC production and (B) the steam cracker process in ethylene production. Upstream operations water use represents water consumed indirectly during the fuel production or energy generation process (e.g., natural gas extraction, electricity generation, and hydrogen production using CCS); upstream feedstock water use represents water consumed as a feedstock in fuel production (e.g., electrolysis, steam methane reforming).

Figure 4

Levelized cost of heat of process heat technologies in (A) steam generation for PVC production and (B) the steam cracker process in ethylene production. Technology systems are defined in Table 1.

Figure 5

Sensitivity analysis of (A–D) steam generation technologies for PVC production for a facility in Louisiana. Parameters that affect LCOH are given on the y-axis. In parentheses are the changed parameters that reduce LCOH (left), the baseline parameter (center), and the changed parameter that increases LCOH (right). CC is the carbon cost.

Figure 6

Cost of abatement curve of low-carbon steam generation options for a typical PVC production facility in Louisiana. GH2 is green hydrogen; BH2 is blue hydrogen.