As part of its energy and climate policy the Dutch government has reached an agreement with the Dutch energy-intensive industry that is explicitly based on industry's relative energy efficiency performance. The energy efficiency of the Dutch industry is benchmarked against that of comparable industries in countries worldwide. In the agreement, industry is required to belong to the top-of-the-world in terms of energy efficiency. In return, the government refrains from implementing additional climate policies. This article assesses the potential effects of this agreement on energy consumption and CO2 emissions by comparing the current level of energy efficiency of the Dutch industry-including electricity production-to that of the most efficient countries and regions. At the current structure achieving the regional best practice level for the selected energy-intensive industries world result in a 5 ± 2% lower current primary energy consumption than the actual level. Most of the savings are expected in the petrochemical industry and in electricity generation. Avoided CO2 emissions would amount to 4 Mt CO2. A first estimate of the effect of the benchmarking agreement in 2012 suggests primary energy savings of 50-130 PJ or 4-9 Mt CO2 avoided compared to the estimated Business as Usual development (5-15%). This saving is smaller than what a continuation of the existing policies of Long-Term Agreements would probably deliver.@en

Eight major industrial processes are responsible for over 50% of industrial energy consumption in most countries. The energy efficiency of these processes was determined in a number of countries, with appropriate corrections for structural differences between countries. It is shown that considerable differences occur between countries, but that manufacturing industry in Eastern Europe in general is less efficient than in EU countries. In all cases efficiency is worse than what is technically and economically feasible. International comparisons provide information on energy efficiency differences, insight into technological differences between countries and into costs requirements for efficiency improvements. The comparisons can be used in international climate change negotiations and in the field of bilateral or multilateral cooperation.@en

In light of the commitments accepted within the Framework Convention on Climate Change there is an increasing need for useful information on energy consumption and energy efficiency. Governments can use this information in designing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prioritizing energy savings options. International comparisons of energy efficiency can provide a benchmark against which a country's performance can be measured and policies can be evaluated. A methodology for international comparisons of industrial energy efficiency was developed by the International Network on Energy Demand analysis in the Industrial Sector. In this paper this methodology is used to analyze the energy efficiency of two energy-intensive industries in major developing countries. Energy consumption trends are shown for the steel and cement industry and an analysis is made of technologies used. In light of the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which states that the U.S. will not ratify any climate treaty unless it also mandates commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries, the energy efficiency in the two sectors is compared to that of the U.S. The analysis shows that in the iron and steel sector South Korea and Brazil are more energy-efficient than the U.S, while Mexico has achieved a comparable energy efficiency level in recent years. For Cement, South Korea, Brazil and Mexico are the most efficient countries analyzed. In recent years, China, and especially, India appear to have achieved energy efficiency levels, more or less comparable to that of the U.S. In light of data constraints, however, further analysis is required.@en

International comparisons of industrial energy efficiency can be helpful in selecting countries where emission reduction action is most effective. The aim of this paper is to analyse the energy efficiency of two energy-intensive industries in major developing countries. The energy efficiency in the two sectors is compared to that of the US. The analysis shows that the iron and steel sector is most energy-efficient in South Korea and Brazil and that Mexico, India and China have achieved an energy efficiency level comparable to that of the US in recent years. Among the countries analysed, the specific energy consumption in the iron and steel sector ranges from 25 to 70% above best plant energy consumption in recent years. For cement production, we found that South Korea is the most energy-efficient country analysed, followed by Brazil, Mexico and in recent years India. The US and China are the least efficient countries in our analysis. The specific energy consumption in the cement sector ranges from 2 to 50% above best plant energy consumption. The differences in energy efficiency are largely explained by the differences in the type of clinker kilns used. Data on energy use are to some extent uncertain and our results should be used with care. However, on the basis of the statistical data available now, we conclude that developing countries are not always the least efficient and that it is not necessarily true that the cheapest greenhouse gas emission mitigation options can be found there.@en

Material efficiency improvement saves energy and reduces the consumption of primary resources and reduces the volume of waste. In this article an approach for analysing the potential for material efficiency improvement is proposed and discussed. In this approach the product functions performed by the materials and various improvement measures are taken into account. The potential for material saving and associated energy saving is assessed and evaluated economically. In this paper the approach is tested in an analysis of the potential for material efficiency improvement with respect to plastic packaging in the Netherlands. The technical reduction potential is found to be 34 ± 7% (157 ± 30 ktonne virgin plastics). Realization of this potential would improve the energy efficiency of the lifecycle of plastic packaging by 31% (10 PJ in 1988). From our study we conclude that our approach can indeed be used to investigate the potential for material efficiency improvement. However, a reliable technical and particularly an economical assessment of reduction measures cannot be made until more detailed data become available.@en

In the past, many studies on energy efficiency levels were not comparable due to differences in economic structure between countries. In the project 'International Comparisons of Energy Efficiency' efforts are undertaken to develop methods that do account for such differences. In this paper, we identify structural differences in energy intensive industries and describe ways to incorporate these differences in international comparisons of energy efficiency. For the iron and steel, aluminium, cement, pulp and paper, ammonia, chlorine and alkali, and petrochemicals sectors, structural differences mainly arise in product (quality) mix and import/export streams. In addition to structural indicators, also non-structural, explanatory indicators are identified, such as the penetration of energy efficient equipment and Combined Heat and Power generation. Feedstock mix and process type can either be structural or explanatory indicators, depending on whether or not product mix is affected. A number of issues regarding data quality and other pitfalls are described, mainly related to aggregation level and system boundaries between different industry sectors, and between the industry and energy transformation sectors. The methodologies developed show that structural differences can be taken into account in cross-country comparisons of energy efficiency if appropriate physical energy efficiency indicators are used.@en

As Parties to the Climate Convention EU Member States have opted for a joint fulfilment of post-2000 greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations. No agreement could be reached on a joint EU target before the distribution of the burden of emission reductions among Member States had been agreed upon. This paper presents a sectoral approach to burden sharing, which incorporates important national circumstances. The three categories distinguished are the power sector, the internationally operating energy-intensive industry and the remaining domestically oriented sectors. Emission allowances are calculated by applying rules, such as a limitation of coal use for power production, minimum requirements for renewable energy, and minimum energy efficiency improvement rates in industry. For the domestic sectors a per capita emission allowance approach is used. The approach is applied to EU Member States to show the distribution of emission reductions for 2010. Also a comparison with other burden differentiation approaches is made. Results of the analysis played an important role in internal EU discussions, resulting in a better understanding among negotiators of differences in national circumstances and their role in emission levels. This improved understanding led to a political agreement on emission reduction targets that are substantially higher than targets Member States had been prepared to accept earlier.@en

This paper discusses whether the emissions of greenhouse gases in the European Union can be cut substantially, by 8% or 15%, which are the outcome of the Kyoto summit on climate and the EU negotiating position for this meeting, respectively. The Council of Ministers of the EU have defined a range of common and coordinated policies and measures that can help in reaching this target. Important policies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide turn out to be renewable energy programmes, the stimulation of combined generation of heat and power, measures to support the use of more efficient appliances, voluntary agreements in heavy industry, and carbon dioxide emission standards for passenger cars. Instead of a 9% growth of CO2 emissions in a business-as-usual scenario from 1990 to 2010 a reduction of 5-15% is possible. Also for other greenhouse gases there is room for policies and measures to reduce emissions. We conclude that the targets for the EU are feasible, but that substantial policy development is still necessary to attain these targets.@en

This paper gives an overview of energy efficiencies in six industrial subsectors in fourteen countries in order to indicate what consequences differences in energy efficiency may have for a differentiation of commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Differentiating the burden of greenhouse gas emission reductions among Parties to the UN-FCCC has appeared in recent climate negotiations. Values for the Specific Energy Consumption were compared with structure-corrected values for a reference SEC to obtain an indication of energy efficiency. For some countries, specific energy consumption may be as high as 1.5 to 1.7 times the reference level whereas for other countries factors this factor is not higher than 1.2. In order to establish a differentiation of commitments the room for energy efficiency improvement in each country and each heavy industry subsector was utilized with an equal share in order to achieve an overall 5% reduction of CO2 emissions. The resulting partial reduction objectives for heavy industry vary from -15% to +20% in 2015 over levels in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The effect of these differences in total allowances is 7% to 10%. Although the values of this exercise are preliminary - due to limited data availability - we demonstrate that it makes sense to account for differences in industrial energy efficiencies in future burden differentiation rules.@en