PRICE Et Al. - 2023 - Smart Manufacturing - Decarbonization - Thermal Systems

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/smartsustainablemanufacturing/article-pdf/7/1/41/7130721/10_1520_ssms20220027.
pdf by Pontificia Univ Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro PUC/RJ user on 08 June 2024
Smart and Sustainable
Manufacturing Systems
Christopher R. Price,1 Sachin U. Nimbalkar,2 Kiran Thirumaran,2 and
Joe Cresko3
DOI: 10.1520/SSMS20220027
Smart Manufacturing Pathways

for Industrial Decarbonization and
Thermal Process Intensification
VOL. 7 / NO. 1 / 2023
Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/smartsustainablemanufacturing/article-pdf/7/1/41/7130721/10_1520_ssms20220027.pdf by Pontificia Univ Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro PUC/RJ user on 08 June 2024
doi:10.1520/SSMS20220027 / Vol. 7 / No. 1 / 2023 / available online at www.astm.org
Christopher R. Price,1 Sachin U. Nimbalkar,2 Kiran Thirumaran,2 and Joe Cresko3
Smart Manufacturing Pathways for

Industrial Decarbonization and Thermal
Process Intensification
Reference
C. R. Price, S. U. Nimbalkar, K. Thirumaran, and J. Cresko, “Smart Manufacturing Pathways for
Industrial Decarbonization and Thermal Process Intensification,” Smart and Sustainable
Manufacturing Systems 7, no. 1 (2023): 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1520/SSMS20220027
ABSTRACT
Manuscript received July 26, 2022; Rapid decarbonization is fast becoming the primary environmental and sustainability initiative
accepted for publication March 10, for many economic sectors. Industry consumes more than 30 % of all primary energy in the
2023; published online May 17,
2023. Issue published May 17,
United States and accounts for nearly 25 % of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. More than
2023. 70 % of energy consumed by the industrial sector is related to thermal processes, which are
1
also the largest contributors of carbon emissions, overwhelmingly due to the combustion of
Manufacturing Science Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, fossil fuels. Thermal process intensification (TPI) seeks to dramatically improve the energy
One Bethel Valley Rd., NTRC, performance of thermal systems through technology pillars focusing on alternative energy
2360HVC, Mailstop 6472, Oak sources and processes, supplemental technologies, and waste heat management. The impacts
Ridge, TN 37830, USA
(Corresponding author), e-mail:
of TPI have significant overlap with the goals of industrial decarbonization (ID) that seeks to
pricecr@ornl.gov, https://orcid. phase out all GHG emissions from industrial activities. Emerging supplemental technologies
org/0000-0002-0200-7906 such as smart manufacturing (SM) and the industrial internet of things (IoT) enable significant
2
Manufacturing Science Division, opportunities for the optimization of manufacturing processes. Combining strategies for TPI
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and ID with SM and IoT can open and enhance existing opportunities for saving time and en-
One Bethel Valley Rd., NTRC, ergy via approaches such as tighter control of temperature zones, better adjustment of thermal
2360HVC, Mailstop 6472, Oak
Ridge, TN 37830, USA,
systems for variations in production levels and feedstock properties, and increased process
https://orcid.org/0000-0002- throughput. Data collected by smart processes will also enable new advanced solutions such
0826-9720 (S.N.) as digital twins and machine learning algorithms to further improve thermal system savings.
3
Industrial Efficiency and This paper examines the individual pathways of TPI, ID, and SM and how the combination of all
Decarbonization Office, three can accelerate energy and GHG reductions.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585, USA Keywords
thermal process intensification, industrial decarbonization, smart manufacturing, industry 4.0,
energy efficiency, advanced manufacturing, emissions reductions, hydrogen production
Copyright © 2023 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 41
ASTM International is not responsible, as a body, for the statements and opinions expressed in this paper. ASTM International does not endorse
any products represented in this paper.
42 PRICE ET AL. ON SM PATHWAYS FOR ID AND TPI
Introduction
Corporate environmental responsibility metrics have traditionally been based on absolute energy or energy in-
tensity metrics. Within that framework, capital projects mainly focus on energy efficiency and less on the emis-
sions impacts or source of energy. As countries and corporations seek to limit the human impact on global climate
change to the targets set forth by the Paris Climate Agreement,1 the metrics of carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions are fast becoming the new measure of choice. To meet any of the various targets outlined in the Paris
Agreement will require significant investments in energy generation and distribution along with fundamental
changes in end-use technologies to take advantage of greener sources of energy.2 Such changes, for example,
include conversion to heat pumps for space heating3 or replacement of internal combustion engines with electric
vehicles,4 both of which can reduce dependance on fossil-based fuels. Complexity in the global economy and the
inherent fungibility and diversity of existing fossil-fuel energy solutions means that a sector-based approach will
be required to achieve transformational changes and slash industrial emissions while remaining competitive.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the industrial sector in 2021 made up more than
one third (35 %) of all primary energy consumed in the United States (fig. 1). More than three quarters of that
energy (80 %) was derived from fossil fuel–based sources (petroleum, natural gas, and coal).5 Thermal systems
(boilers, cogeneration units, and process heating) account for approximately 70 % of industrial energy use6 and
mainly use fuel energy to generate steam, change physical properties (melting raw materials), promote chemical
reactions (cracking of hydrocarbons), or prepare a material for a secondary process (conversion of coal into coke).
The source of nearly all thermal energy is fossil fuel (more than 80 %), which includes primary sources from an
electric grid that depends heavily on natural gas turbines and coal-fired power plants. Given the size, varied uses,
and energy sources of industry, significant research and analysis will be required to reduce the industrial sector’s
energy use.
From a carbon perspective, figure 2 shows that the industrial sector makes up a large percentage of all
US GHG emissions7 (more than 24 %), of which 51 % are related to thermal processes.6 Emissions come
FIG. 1 Breakdown of energy use and sources by sector in the United States as of 2021 (residential [RES], commercial
[COM], transportation [TRN], industry [IND]).
FIG. 2 Breakdown of CO2e emissions by sector in the United States as of 2020.

PRICE ET AL. ON SM PATHWAYS FOR ID AND TPI 43
from many sources, including the direct combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels, byproducts formed during
industrial processes, gas/refrigerant leaks, or indirectly through electricity usage. There are also embodied
emissions associated with the production and transportation of feedstocks used in the manufacturing proc-
ess that are sourced from third-party suppliers. Each of these sources is categorized as Scope 1 (direct), 2
(indirect), or 3 (value chain) emissions by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol,8 an international framework for
carbon accounting. Most corporate pledges cover reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, over which com-
panies have operational or financial control. Common strategies to reduce these scope emissions include
fuel switching, energy efficiency, or electrification combined with purchasing/generation of renewable en-
ergy. Reducing Scope 3 emissions is more challenging and can involve working with suppliers to reduce
their emissions, sourcing raw materials with lower embodied carbon emissions, or designing for reuse/dis-
posal. As discussed in the following section, decarbonizing the industrial sector will involve a multifaceted
approach that includes alternative fuels, new technologies, innovative processes, and fundamental changes to
the manufacturing supply chain.
The wide scope of industrial manufacturing processes results in a broad range of temperatures required
for thermal systems, spanning an order of magnitude from below 300 to over 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit
(150–1,500 degrees Celsius).9 Figure 3 shows common temperature ranges for drying processes in several
manufacturing industries, highlighting the diversity in process heating intensity and applications. Efficiency
for most heating equipment ranges from between just 15 % to more than 80 %.10 The majority of heat-
related GHG emissions are from just a few energy-intensive industries (e.g., steel, chemicals, cement, alu-
minum, and refining).11 While there are several existing technologies that can replace low-to-medium heat
requirements (heat pumps, geothermal wells, etc.), high-temperature processes still mostly require carbon-
based fossil fuels, particularly in the primary metals sector.12 To truly decarbonize industrial heating ap-
plications will require new fuels, new processes, and (in the short term) better controls/operations for new
and existing equipment. Lowering the temperature requirements of manufacturing processes is key to ac-
celerating adoption and reducing emissions.
One key aspect of energy savings and emissions reductions in the industrial sector will be the emergence of
smart manufacturing (SM). An outcome of the fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0), SM is the integration
of advanced computing with manufacturing to respond in real time to changes in production.13 Industry 4.0 is a
broad term that includes technologies such as the internet of things (IoT), additive manufacturing (three-di-
mensional printing), and cloud computing that enable solutions such as predictive maintenance, rapid pro-
totyping, and augmented reality.14 Analysis of different industrial subsectors shows the potential of SM to aid in
reducing energy and carbon emissions while improving productivity, quality, and customer satisfaction15–17 as
well as tackling several common obstacles such as resource planning and safety. This highlights how the goals of
decarbonizing industry and reducing thermal process energy usage overlap and can be enhanced by SM
technologies.
FIG. 3
Temperature ranges for
drying processes in
example manufacturing
sectors.

SM, Thermal Process Intensification, and Industrial
Decarbonization
As outlined, the industrial sector represents a significant portion of total energy consumption and GHG emissions
in the United States. The following section discusses three important topics related to industrial energy efficiency
and GHG emissions: SM, thermal process intensification (TPI), and industrial decarbonization (ID). By analyzing
the key technology pillars of each topic, this paper shows how SM approaches can accelerate the results of both
TPI and ID by improving operations or finding additional savings. The final section outlines a case study ex-
ploring hydrogen production and identifying how to decarbonize and intensify the process while simultaneous
identifying opportunities for SM to improve results at the intersection of those objectives.
INDUSTRY 4.0 AND SM

There have been three industrial revolutions to date, with a fourth (Industry 4.0) ongoing.18 While exact def-
initions vary, figure 4 shows that revolutions 1.0 through 3.0 typically encompass the transformation of manu-
facturing through mechanization, mass production, and automation. The next frontier builds upon these previous
innovations and combines computation, big data, and advanced algorithms to derive new intelligence about
processes, supply chains, and energy usage. Smart systems are varied but generally combine sensors, networks,
data, analytics, and actuators in a loop with either automated decision making or human input. SM promises to
provide greater flexibility in the manufacturing sector, allowing production lines to produce products with greater
customization, better enterprise-level management (including greater supply chain resiliency), reductions in
product development lifecycles through advanced modeling and rapid prototyping, as well as reduced operational
costs through lower energy usage and predictive maintenance.
The effects of SM are already being seen throughout the industrial sector. Nimbalkar et al.17 applied the cost-
to-conserve-energy framework to analyze two SM projects in the craft brewing industry. While per-unit energy
intensity for both projects was unaffected, SM directly allowed for a 4 % and more than 1.1 % increase in through-
put, respectively. Overall energy consumption was therefore higher because of more production and the addi-
tional power required for the new cyber-physical system hardware. From an energy productivity standpoint,
however, both projects are cost effective because additional revenue was generated from increased production,
maximizing the brewing processes’ economic output. In previous work, SM was also found to help reduce costs
and energy usage in process supporting systems throughout a manufacturing plant, including in steam boiler,
compressed air, and pumping systems.19 Case studies include incorporating real-time energy submeter data into
production targets (650,000 USD annual energy cost and 5 million kilograms of carbon dioxide [CO2] emission
savings), creating real-time energy control dashboards for operators (300,000 USD annual energy savings), and
installation of variable frequency pumps and advanced controls to reduce part cooling energy (360,000 USD
annual energy savings). Through lightweight designs of airplane parts enabled by additive manufacturing,
one study found possible annual fuel use reductions of 6.4 % by 2050 in the US aviation fleet along with
FIG. 4 Industrial revolutions from the early 1700s through the present.

a reduction in total metal demand of 20 million kilograms per year.20 Improvements like these can help to reduce
energy and emissions associated with transportation and production throughout the manufacturing supply chain.
In the steel sector, predictive maintenance at a facility producing rebar can detect anomalies in pressure cylinders
with 20 days lead time, reducing downtime and achieving more than 100,000 USD in annual operational sav-
ings,21 while separate automotive industry analysis estimates that operating profits could be increased by up to
16 % by deploying artificial intelligence at scale.22
Despite the enormous promise of SM and Industry 4.0 solutions to improve manufacturing energy and
revenue performance, many industries are struggling with adoption. Large capital investments and institutional
inertia mean some large industries (e.g., primary metals and chemicals) are traditionally slow to adopt new tech-
nologies. Most efficiency measures in these industries are still focused on automation and optimization of indi-
vidual processes rather than smart solutions that integrate big data across entire facilities. Other industries,
particularly automotive manufacturing, are well positioned to adopt smart solutions because of previous and
continuing investment in automation.15 More than 40 % of automakers, however, report struggling with adoption
of SM because of a combination of factors including leadership, technical capabilities, and lack of coordination.
Education and training on smart technologies for leaders, operators, and engineers have also been identified as a
key pillar in SM adoption.13 These issues are magnified for small-to-medium–sized manufacturers, who often
have less capital and personnel to devote toward identifying SM opportunities. An additional barrier is balancing
the benefits of SM against the added risks associated with protecting smart systems against cyberattacks.23 With
proper system design and cybersecurity expertise, however, many of these risks can be mitigated and key proc-
esses protected. The business case is clear for manufacturers across the adoption spectrum: SM can reduce energy
usage, save on costs, and reduce direct and indirect GHG emissions.
TPI
TPI is the target of dramatically reducing the energy intensity of thermal processes in the manufacturing sector.
Results of TPI include reducing energy use per unit of production, lower GHG intensity, and cost savings from
reduced utility usage. Some TPI solutions also reduce the complexity of manufacturing processes or shrink facility
footprints, resulting in further cost savings for manufacturers. The main targets of TPI are common thermal
processes such as melting, drying, curing, and heat treatment with equipment such as furnaces, boilers, and
heaters.
Thermal process technologies can be grouped into four main categories: fuel-fired, steam/thermal fluids,
electro-technologies, and hybrid systems. These technologies rely on combinations of the three heat transfer
mechanisms (conduction, convection, and radiation) to transfer heat energy from an energy source to the
material being processed. In addition to varied temperatures, thermal systems are also characterized by their
production capacity and design (batch or continuous). Thermal processes represent more than 70 % of all energy
use in manufacturing and are the largest contributor of CO2 emissions in the sector, which result from com-
bustion of fossil fuels and process-related chemical reactions such as those in cement production. In all cases, the
amount of energy used in a thermal process is greater than the theoretical minimum because of inefficiencies and
various losses through walls, flue gases, openings, etc. To account for these wide variances, TPI enabling tech-
nologies can be grouped into four main pillars9:
1. Low-Thermal Budget Transformative: Disruptive technologies that utilize alternative processes and energy
sources to accomplish the same tasks as current methods.
2. Alternative Energy Sources: Technologies that utilize alternative energy sources while maintaining current
production methods to gain more flexibility and control while reducing energy and carbon intensity.
3. Transformative Supplemental: Technologies (e.g., SM and IoT) that improve energy efficiency while reduc-
ing thermal demand of existing production methods.
4. Waste Heat Management: Technologies that reduce or better capture and recycle process waste heat in a
manner that can be used for other thermal processes.

FIG. 5 TPI technology pillars with examples of possible opportunities.
Figure 5 highlights each of these technology pillars as well as a few examples of technologies that primarily
fall under each category. Note that most technologies do not neatly fit into a single TPI pillar and in fact have
aspects that touch on multiple pillars or might enable future projects in other pillars. For this paper, pillar 3 can be
classified as the Industry 4.0 pillar, with most supplemental technologies focusing on energy efficiency and pro-
ductivity. Solutions from this pillar can be combined with projects from the other technology pillars to further
improve the operations of new equipment or processes.
To bring TPI improvements to thermal systems, there is a need for the development of advanced SM and IoT
components that can survive harsh, high-temperature environments. Many thermal processes today rely on just
one or two measurements and empirical relationships between variables to control product quality. While usually
sufficient, greater instrumentation and more accurate measurements with smart sensors would allow for better
regulation of process parameters such as temperatures, batch times, maintenance, and scheduling, thereby in-
creasing throughput and efficiency. Larger data sets will also enable other solutions, including process simulation
via digital twins, artificial intelligence for advanced pattern recognition, and predictive maintenance.
Commercialization of these technologies, combined with the development of intelligent material handling sys-
tems, high-temperature materials for system components including sensors, and IoT communication, can further
drive down energy use and emissions via SM.
ID
ID is the goal of phasing out atmospheric GHG emissions from all industrial processes without affecting the
global competitiveness of the sector. Industrial sector emissions are attributable to a combination of fuel-related
emissions (combustion), electricity generation (on- or off-site), process emissions, and product lifecycles. Nearly
three quarters of industrial sector CO2-equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions in the United States are attributable to
just a few manufacturing subsectors: chemical manufacturing (28 %), petroleum refining (21 %), iron and steel
production (9 %), food and beverage (8 %), forest products such as lumber and paper (7 %), and cement (6 %).6 In
2020, CO2 made up 62 % of all CO2e emissions by the industrial sector, with the remainder made up of methane
(22 %), nitrous oxide (15 %), and fluorinated gases (2 %).7 Focusing purely on manufacturing (excluding agri-
culture, mining, construction, etc.) reveals that more than 80 % of equivalent emissions are directly related to
CO2, which themselves are almost entirely from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The industrial sector in the United States is considered “difficult-to-decarbonize” because of the diversity of
feedstocks, energy sources, and manufacturing processes that make up its operations.24 On top of this, product
demand growth is expected to increase by more than 50 % through 2050, resulting in an 18 % increase of energy-
related CO2 emissions under a business-as-usual scenario.25 To meet these challenges, the focus of most ID re-
search and development is transformational rather than incremental and is shifting focus toward a complete
lifecycle view of manufacturing, from extraction and use-phase all the way through end-of-life and reuse. To
have the largest impact, ID roadmaps typically focus on systems and processes within industrial subsectors with
the greatest potential for rapid decarbonization while still identifying opportunities that can be applied more
broadly. As with TPI, the fundamental technologies of ID can be divided into four main pillars26:
1. Energy Efficiency: Foundational and the most cost-effective strategy for decarbonization in the near term.27
Energy efficiency is a combination of best practices, SM, combined heat and power, and other initiatives
that result in less energy being used for the same job.
2. Industrial Electrification: The conversion of combustion-based manufacturing processes to electricity-
driven alternatives. With on-site renewable energy generation or a greener electric grid, electrification
can significantly reduce carbon emissions.
3. Low-carbon Fuels, Feedstocks, and Energy Sources: The substitution of low-carbon or no-carbon fuels and
feedstocks for existing fuels. Includes a combination of fuel-flexible, hydrogen, and biofuel technologies.
4. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage: Multicomponent strategy to capture carbon at the source or
from the air, use carbon to produce new materials, or store carbon for sequestration from the environment.
The four technology pillars of ID as well as a few examples of technologies from each category are shown in
figure 6. Like TPI, many technologies do not fit into just one ID pillar and may enable future projects in another.
Unlike TPI, SM does not have its own pillar within this framework, but is considered an energy efficiency measure
and an integral part of any project that electrifies, switches fuels, or captures carbon for use in another process.
The following section discusses these opportunities for SM when the goals of ID and TPI intersect.
ID will take many different pathways and will require balancing of many competing interests for industries.28
Future investments in any projects should be informed by the broad trends in energy underway in the United
States and the rest of the world. For example, large capital investments in thermal systems should weigh short-
term emission reductions from high-efficiency fossil fuel–based technologies against the longer-term reductions
FIG. 6 ID technology pillars with examples of possible opportunities.

for an electrified system given the transition of the grid to greener forms of energy. SM can help manufacturers in
the near term by improving the performance of existing equipment, facilities, and supply chains. Reduced energy
requirements through energy efficiency lower the barriers for adopting decarbonized processes in the future. SM
can also optimize the performance of new, low-carbon technologies as they become available in the mid to long
term. More research is required to understand the costs of the physical infrastructure needed to implement SM
projects, the additional risks associated with greater exposure to cybersecurity threats, and the other ancillary
benefits of smarter systems, including safety and resiliency.
Pathways toward TPI and ID with SM

There are many pathways toward intensified and decarbonized systems. As discussed, ID is primarily concerned
with eliminating CO2 and other GHG emissions from industrial processes. This can be accomplished through
switching to no/low-carbon fuels, electrification, or through carbon capture and utilization technologies (see
fig. 7). A decarbonized process, however, is not necessarily intensified and in some cases may consume just
as much energy as the baseline case. A process is decarbonized if the energy source and the process produce
no carbon emissions regardless of the impact on total energy input. Similarly, TPI aims only to reduce the energy
intensity of a thermal process by producing, utilizing, and reusing heat more efficiently (fig. 7) using the strategies
discussed previously. Many TPI projects enable greater throughput, which lowers the per-unit energy intensity
but can increase overall energy consumption and therefore associated emissions. Even intensifying via electri-
fication, at least in the short term, may increase indirect emissions depending on the initial fuel and generation
mix of the local electric grid.
The intersection of the ID and TPI pathways encompasses efficiency projects that reduce the energy intensity
of a thermal process while also lowering the total associated CO2 emissions. Given similar production volumes, an
intensified process will use less carbon-based fuels and produce fewer emissions. When greater throughput is
enabled, the reduction in energy intensity from the intensified process must be large enough to outweigh the
increase in associated emissions. Decarbonization through the energy efficiency pillar will inherently intensify
a thermal process. Care must be taken when decarbonizing via fuel switching or electrification to select tech-
nologies that also intensify the process and lower the overall energy consumption. To achieve this balance, TPI
and ID projects should therefore consider both emissions and energy so that both can be reduced and capital
funds are maximized.
SM and IoT represent a new pathway toward decarbonized and intensified thermal systems.
Implementation of SM in the manufacturing sector can enhance the performance of existing systems, improve
equipment lifespan, reduce waste, and increase production yields. Data collected by a smart system allows for
FIG. 7 Pathways toward a smart (S), intensified (I), and decarbonized (D) system from the baseload (left) case.

real-time process monitoring, identification of process models for prediction, and advanced control designs
capable of multiobjective optimization. As with the other pathways discussed, selection of the goals for a smart
system is critical to ensuring that a process is both intensified and emits less GHGs. For example, a smart
intervention that enables greater throughput will require additional optimization to keep overall energy con-
sumption lower than the base case. In the near-to-medium term, the smart pathway offers a key opportunity for
industry to cut energy use and emissions even with existing equipment, which is why SM is a foundational pillar
of both TPI9 and ID.27 SM also expands the potential for future intensification and decarbonization by reducing
the required energy input and the quantity of emissions that must be mitigated. For example, adding smart
controls to a furnace can lower the required temperatures and make it feasible to implement a decarbonization
solution such as a heat pump in the future. SM also provides flexibility and resiliency to manufacturing proc-
esses, enabling lower energy and emissions through all scenarios. Smart systems will be an integral part of
future manufacturing systems as well, improving their performance even after technologies to decarbonize
and intensify have been implemented. The following section explores these benefits and pathways through
an industrial case study.
Significant barriers toward adopting any of the three pathways still exist. The most common strategies for
intensification and decarbonization such as electrification, renewable energy generation, or carbon capture all
require significant investment not only in research and development but also in capital projects. For many man-
ufacturers, particularly small-to-medium–sized companies, these investments may simply be out of reach.
Workforce issues such as training and buy-in from facility management will also create obstacles. Technical
assistance and guidance from market leaders will be instrumental in demonstrating that adoption of new tech-
nologies can be done smoothly while ensuring minimal disruption to production. Improving the performance of
existing systems with supplemental SM and IoT technology can serve as a stepping stone for manufacturers
struggling to finance projects. Smart retrofits may help to lower initial investment costs for SM adoption
and allow for more significant improvements in the future.
Qualitative Case Study: Smart Hydrogen Production

Hydrogen has long been considered a fuel source for the future.29 When combusted, it burns hot, produces no
CO2 emissions, and generates only water when used in a fuel cell. It can be produced domestically via several
mature technological processes (e.g., steam reformation and electrolysis) and transported as a gas in pipelines
or as a liquid in vehicles.30 Hydrogen has the potential to decarbonize energy intensive, high-temperature
industries such as steel production, for which electrified technologies have not yet been developed or com-
mercialized. Hydrogen production can be used as a form of energy storage, generating molecular hydrogen
(H2) when electricity demand is low and excess renewable energy is available.30 There are several types or
“colors” of hydrogen: gray hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reformation, blue hydrogen from
fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, etc.) with carbon capture technology, and green hydrogen from electrolysis pow-
ered by renewable energy.31 Although demand for green hydrogen is increasing, more than 95 % of hydrogen
today is produced via fossil fuels.32 In the near term, reducing CO2 emissions from the traditional steam ref-
ormation process through energy efficiency strategies such as SM is key to realizing the environmental benefits
of hydrogen.
The steam-methane reformation (SMR) process occurs in three main stages.30 Steam and methane react
under pressure in the presence of a catalyst to generate carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. The CO can further
be reacted with water and a catalyst to generate more hydrogen and CO2 in an endothermic water-gas shift
reaction. A pressure-swing adsorption unit can be used to purify the hydrogen, removing other gases such
as water vapor, molecular nitrogen, and more CO2. Heat generated from the water-gas shift can be recovered
and used for other processes. When CO2 is captured, this process produces blue hydrogen; otherwise, it produces
gray hydrogen. Figure 8 shows the generalized process flow, and the following equations give the chemical
reactions:

FIG. 8 General methane steam reformation process to produce hydrogen.
CH4 + H2 O + heat → CO + 3H2 (1)
CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 + heat (2)
Increasing the operational temperature of the reactor can improve the efficiency of the SMR process. In
practice, however, the system is constrained by the design temperatures of the reactor tubes. Uneven heating
within the reactor leads to large safety factors that prevent localized areas from exceeding design limitations
and lowering of the overall hydrogen production efficiency. Research into new SM platforms has assessed
how to use instrumentation and data to improve the temperature profile of a steam reformer.33 Multiple infrared
cameras and a network of temperature sensors placed around the reactor vessel provide nearly constant temper-
ature profiles. Data from these sensors was collected by a multilayer SM platform that integrated several software
packages for security, storage, analysis, and control. Information collected about system operation was used to
identify a reduced order control model for reactor performance optimization. Preliminary results show a decrease
of nearly 40 % in temperature variance and a 25°F (13.9°C) decrease in observed maximum wall temperature.
Together, these results mean the reactor could be operated at a higher temperature while still maintaining an
appropriate safety factor to reduce the chance of hotspots exceeding rated limits. Any efficiency improvements
must be balanced against the additional costs for providing energy to the smart sensors and controls as well as new
required maintenance.
Two cases were presented by the authors on the smart SMR system.33 In the first case, the outlet temperature
of the reformer was increased by 10°F (5.5°C) while maintaining constant H2 production. This increase in outlet
temperature was made possible by the smart controls keeping temperatures in the reformer in a tighter range, as
discussed. Total natural gas consumption decreased by 0.9 %, resulting in a decrease of 0.8 % in overall higher
heating value (HHV) energy consumed per volume of hydrogen produced. In the second case, the natural gas feed
rate was maintained with the same 10°F increase in outlet temperature, resulting in approximately 1.7 % more H2
production and an approximately 0.6 % decrease in HHV energy per volume of production. These results high-
light how a smart steam system can both increase throughput and lower energy consumption. Engineers must
therefore balance production targets and GHG reduction in their project planning.
The smart steam reformation project highlights how SM can enhance the benefits of both TPI and ID,
particularly when their goals overlap. Steam-reformed hydrogen generation is a thermal process, and improving
its operational efficiency fits squarely within the pillars of TPI. Increased efficiency also enables more production
of H2, which can be used to facilitate and supply other TPI projects throughout the industrial sector. Similarly, H2
utilization is an ID technology pillar because it is an energy source that produces no carbon emissions. Improving
production efficiency lowers the environmental impacts of gray hydrogen, reduces the amount of carbon capture
required to create blue hydrogen, and would improve the overall availability of both. Additionally, this would
further drive down the associated emissions from non-green hydrogen use, especially in energy-intensive

industries in the near to mid term. Further SM developments that improve the operations of the water-gas shift
reactor and the pressure-swing adsorption units would also serve to lower the embodied energy and emissions in
gray and blue hydrogen until green hydrogen is more widely available. By incorporating all three pathways toward
a decarbonized and intensified H2 production process, choices on which technologies and opportunities to pursue
become clearer and help to guarantee lower overall energy and emissions output.
Results and Discussion

This paper examines the basics of three key pathways that seek to improve the energy efficiency and environ-
mental sustainability of the industrial sector and, in particular, how the SM pathway is foundational for meeting
all objectives. TPI targets dramatic reductions in energy intensity for thermal processes in some of the largest
energy consuming sectors via a combination of low-thermal budget processes, alternative/low-carbon energy
sources, transformative supplemental technologies (i.e., SM), and waste heat utilization. ID aims to phase
out all GHG emissions from industrial processes through a combination of energy efficiency, industrial electri-
fication with renewable or low-carbon electricity, low-carbon fuels, and carbon capture technologies. Finally,
Industry 4.0 and SM leverage data and computing to optimize manufacturing systems in real time.
As discussed, the threads of all three pathways can have significant overlap but are not always aligned. While
TPI and ID have similar technology pillars, their fundamental goals can differ in important ways. A system can be
decarbonized but not intensified (e.g., by implementing carbon capture technology) and vice versa (e.g., decreased
per-unit energy intensity but substantially higher production). Smart systems offer a way to both decarbonize and
intensify existing processes while enabling continuous efficient operations and future implementation of new
technologies. When considering a capital project to improve a thermal process, all three threads must be con-
sidered. At the intersection of reduced energy use, lower emissions, and smart controls, projects will have the
greatest ability to reduce the impacts of the manufacturing sector on the environment. The presented qualitative
case study of hydrogen production via SMR demonstrates these benefits and connections. Greater instrumenta-
tion allows for real-time data analysis and optimization of the reforming process, reducing hotspots, and im-
proving operational efficiency. Reductions in the embodied carbon emissions of gray and blue hydrogen
would make H2 more feasible as a low-carbon alternative for many energy-intensive industries. Overall, SM
has potential to enhance the technology pillars of TPI and ID, making lowering carbon in the industrial sector
more achievable.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office,
and the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, man-
aged and operated by UT-Battelle, LLC. The DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored
research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
References
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement (Bonn, Germany: United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20230404083520/https://unfccc.int/
sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf
2. N. Eyre, S. J. Darby, P. Grünewald, E. McKenna, and R. Ford, “Reaching a 1.5°C Target: Socio-technical Challenges for a
Rapid Transition to Low-Carbon Electricity Systems,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical, and Engineering Sciences 376, no. 2119 (May 2018): 20160462, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0462
3. T. T. Mai, P. Jadun, J. S. Logan, C. A. McMillan, M. Muratori, D. C. Steinberg, L. J. Vimmerstedt, B. Haley, R. Jones, and B.
Nelson, Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology Adoption and Power Consumption for the United
States, NREL/TP-6A20-71500 (Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018), https://doi.org/10.2172/
1459351
4. Z. A. Needell, J. McNerney, M. T. Chang, and J. E. Trancik, “Potential for Widespread Electrification of Personal Vehicle
Travel in the United States,” Nature Energy 1, no. 9 (2016): 16112, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.112

5. US Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review – U.S. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2021
(Washington, DC: US Energy Information Agency, 2022), http://web.archive.org/web/20221231123749/eia.gov/
totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/total-energy-spaghettichart-2021.pdf
6. US Department of Energy, Manufacturing Energy and Carbon Footprints: All Manufacturing (Washington, DC: US
Department of Energy, 2021), http://web.archive.org/web/20230226162654/https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
2022-01/2018_mecs_all_manufacturing_energy_carbon_footprint.pdf
7. US Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020, EPA 430-R-22-
003 (Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2022), http://web.archive.org/web/20230307160221/
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-inventory-2022-main-text.pdf
8. Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: World Resources
Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004), http://web.archive.org/web/20230218034500/
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf
9. J. Cresko, A. Thekdi, S. U. Nimbalkar, K. Thirumaran, A. Hasanbeigi, and S. Chaudhari, Thermal Process Intensification:
Transforming the Way Industry Uses Thermal Process Energy, ORNL/SPR-2021/2154, DOE/EE-2604 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, 2022), https://doi.org/10.2172/1871912
10. US Department of Energy, Improving Process Heating System Performance: A Sourcebook for Industry, 3rd ed.
(Washington, DC: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, 2015),
http://web.archive.org/web/20230224131942/https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/Improving Process
Heating System Performance A Sourcebook for Industry Third Edition_0.pdf
11. T. Brown, A. Gambhir, N. Florin, and P. Fennell, Reducing CO2 Emissions from Heavy Industry: A Review of Technologies
and Considerations for Policy Makers, Grantham Institute for Climate Change Briefing Paper No 7 (London: Imperial College
London, 2012), http://web.archive.org/web/20221214204453/https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-
institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Reducing-CO2-emissions-from-heavy-industry—Grantham-BP-7.pdf
12. G. P. Thiel and A. K. Stark, “To Decarbonize Industry, We Must Decarbonize Heat,” Joule 5, no. 3 (March 2021): 531–550,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.007
13. Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute, Accelerating the Democratization of Smart Manufacturing: 2020
Roadmap Update (Los Angeles, CA: Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute, 2020), http://web.archive.
org/web/20221104202922/https://www.cesmii.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/16124_CES_RoadmapModifications
_Digital_rev-final-1.pdf
14. P. Zheng, H. Wang, Z. Sang, R. Y. Zhong, Y. Liu, C. Liu, K. Mubarok, S. Yu, and X. Xu, “Smart Manufacturing Systems for
Industry 4.0: Conceptual Framework, Scenarios, and Future Perspectives,” Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering 13, no. 2
(June 2018): 137–150, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-018-0499-5
15. N. Gill, J. Buvat, A. Ghosh, R. Schneider-Maul, and A. Khadikar, Automotive Smart Factories: Putting Automotive
Manufacturers in the Digital Industrial Revolution Driving Seat (Paris: Capgemini Research Institute, 2018), http://web.
archive.org/web/20201106203435/https://www.capgemini.com/it-it/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/04/dti-automotive-
smart-factories_report-10.pdf
16. L. Mori, T. Saleh, R. Sellschop, and M. Van Hoey, Unlocking the Digital Opportunity in Metals (New York: McKinsey
& Company, 2018), http://web.archive.org/web/20220322131513/https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/
Industries/Metals%20and%20Mining/Our%20Insights/Unlocking%20the%20digital%20opportunity%20in%20metals/
Unlocking-the-digital-opportunity-in-metals_Jan-2018.ashx
17. S. Nimbalkar, S. D. Supekar, W. Meadows, T. Wenning, W. Guo, and J. Cresko, “Enhancing Operational Performance and
Productivity Benefits in Breweries through Smart Manufacturing Technologies,” Journal of Advanced Manufacturing and
Processing 2, no. 4 (October 2020): e10064, https://doi.org/10.1002/amp2.10064
18. A. Lele, Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security (Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019), https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-981-13-3384-2
19. S. Nimbalkar, W. Guo, A. Carpenter, J. Cresko, D. J. Graziano, W. R. Morrow, and T. Wenning, “Smart Manufacturing
Technologies and Data Analytics for Improving Energy Efficiency in Industrial Energy Systems,” in ACEEE Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry (Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
2017), 2-114–2-126, http://web.archive.org/web/20220809073203/https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2017/data/
polopoly_fs/1.3687886.1501159066!/fileserver/file/790269/filename/0036_0053_000028.pdf
20. R. Huang, M. Riddle, D. Graziano, J. Warren, S. Das, S. Nimbalkar, J. Cresko, and E. Masanet, “Energy and Emissions
Saving Potential of Additive Manufacturing: The Case of Lightweight Aircraft Components,” Journal of Cleaner
Production 135 (November 2016): 1559–1570, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.109
21. SORBA IoT, Automated Predictive Analytics for Steel/Metals Industry (Jacksonville, FL: SORBA IoT), http://web.archive.org/
web/20211130173250/https://www.iotone.com/case-study/automated-predicitive-analytics-for-steel-metals-industry/c1184
22. M. Winkler, A.-L. Thieullent, A. Khadikar, R. Tolido, I. Finck, J. Buvat, and H. Shah, Accelerating Automotive’s AI
Transformation: How Driving AI Enterprise-Wide Can Turbo-Charge Organizational Value (Paris: Capgemini
Research Institute, 2019), https://web.archive.org/web/20230314181934/https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/
uploads/2019/03/30-min-%E2%80%93-Report-3-11-1.pdf
23. G. Van der Linden, P.-L. Refalo, S. Chrian, D. Appell, J. Buvat, Y. Khemka, A. Krishna, S. Kanakadandi, and D. Shah, Built
to Defend – Smart & Secure: Why Smart Factories Need to Prioritize Cybersecurity (Paris: Capgemini Research Institute,

2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20230310204742/https://prod.ucwe.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/
Cybersecurity-in-Smart-Factories_Web-2.pdf
24. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System
(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2021), https://doi.org/10.17226/25932
25. US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050 (Washington, DC: US
Energy Information Administration, 2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20230310204942/https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf
26. US Department of Energy, Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap, DOE/EE-2635 (Washington, DC: US Department of
Energy, 2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20221102180203/https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Industrial
Decarbonization Roadmap.pdf
27. US Department of Energy, Industrial Decarbonization, DOE/EE -2563 (Washington, DC: Advanced Manufacturing
Office, 2022), https://web.archive.org/web/20230310205230/https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Pillar_
Specific_Industrial_Decarbonization_FINAL.pdf
28. Å. Löfgren and J. Rootzén, “Brick by Brick: Governing Industry Decarbonization in the Face of Uncertainty and Risk,”
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 40 (September 2021): 189–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.07.
002
29. M. Scott, “Green Hydrogen, The Fuel of the Future, Set for 50-Fold Expansion,” Forbes, December 14, 2020, https://web.
archive.org/web/20230508185022/https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/12/14/green-hydrogen-the-fuel-of-the-future-
set-for-50-fold-expansion
30. International Energy Agency, The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities (Paris: International Energy Agency,
2019), https://web.archive.org/web/20230211185646/https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9e3a3493-b9a6-4b7d-b499-
7ca48e357561/The_Future_of_Hydrogen.pdf
31. J. Winters, “Infographic: What are the Colors of Hydrogen?” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, January 24, 2022,
https://web.archive.org/web/20230420140931/https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/infographic-what-are-the-
colors-of-hydrogen
32. G. Franchi, M. Capocelli, M. De Falco, V. Piemonte, and D. Barba, “Hydrogen Production via Steam Reforming: A
Critical Analysis of MR and RMM Technologies,” Membranes 10, no. 1 (January 2020): 10, https://doi.org/10.3390/
membranes10010010
33. T. F. Edgar, M. Baldea, O. Ezekoye, H. Ganesh, A. Kumar, D. Wanegar, V. M. Torres, et al., Industrial
Scale Demonstration of Smart Manufacturing: Achieving Transformational Energy Productivity Gains, DOE-UT
Austin-0005763 (Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2018), https://doi.org/10.2172/1454266

PRICE Et Al. - 2023 - Smart Manufacturing - Decarbonization - Thermal Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PRICE Et Al. - 2023 - Smart Manufacturing - Decarbonization - Thermal Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/smartsustainablemanufacturing/article-pdf/7/1/41/7130721/10_1520_ssms20220027.

Smart Manufacturing Pathways

Christopher R. Price,1 Sachin U. Nimbalkar,2 Kiran Thirumaran,2 and Joe Cresko3

Smart Manufacturing Pathways for

FIG. 2 Breakdown of CO2e emissions by sector in the United States as of 2020.

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

SM, Thermal Process Intensification, and Industrial

INDUSTRY 4.0 AND SM

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

FIG. 5 TPI technology pillars with examples of possible opportunities.

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

FIG. 6 ID technology pillars with examples of possible opportunities.

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Pathways toward TPI and ID with SM

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Qualitative Case Study: Smart Hydrogen Production

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

FIG. 8 General methane steam reformation process to produce hydrogen.

CO + H2 O → CO2 + H2 + heat (2)

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Results and Discussion

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

Smart and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems

You might also like