The pulp and paper industry accounts for over 12% of total manufacturing energy use in the U.S. (U.S. EIA 1997a), contributing 9% to total manufacturing carbon dioxide emissions. In the last twenty-five years primary energy intensity in the pulp and paper industry has declined by an average of 1% per year. However, opportunities still exist to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the manufacture of paper in the U.S. This report analyzes the pulp and paper industry (Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 26) and includes a detailed description of the processes involved in the production of paper, providing typical energy use in each process step. We identify over 45 commercially available state-of-the-art technologies and measures to reduce energy use andm calculate potential energy savings and carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Given the importance of paper recycling, our analysis examines two cases. Case A identifies potential primary energy savings without accounting for an increase in recycling, while Case B includes increasing paper recycling. In Case B the production volume of pulp is reduced to account for additional pulp recovered from recycling. We use a discount rate of 30% throughout our analysis to reflect the investment decisions taken in a business context.摘要纸浆和造纸工业占制造业总能源的使用在美国（美国EIA 1997年）的12％以上，贡献了9％，占制造业的二氧化碳排放量。在过去二十五年来，平均每年1％的纸浆和造纸工业的主要能源强度已经下降了。然而，机会仍然存在，以减少能源使用和温室气体排放量在纸的制造在美国的这份报告分析了纸浆和造纸工业（标准行业代码（SIC）26），包括参与生产过程的详细描述的纸张，提供在每个工艺步骤的典型的能源使用。我们确定市售超过45个国家的最先进的技术和措施，以减少能源使用ANDM计算潜在的节约能源和减少二氧化碳排放。由于废纸回收的重要性，我们的分析检查两种情况。案例A识别潜在的初级能源节约，不占回收增加，而案例B包括增加废纸回收。在案例B纸浆的生产量降低到占额外纸浆回收循环再造。整个我们的分析，我们使用30％的折现率，以反映在商业环境中采取的投资决策。
Our Case A results indicate that a total technical potential primary energy savings of 31% (1013 PJ) exists. For case A we identified a cost-effective savings potential of 16% (533 PJ). Carbon dioxide emission reductions from the energy savings in Case A are 25% (7.6 MtC) and 14% (4.4 MtC) for technical and cost-effective potential, respectively. When recycling is included in Case B, overall technical potential energy savings increase to 37% (1215 PJ) while cost-effective energy savings potential is 16%. Increasing paper recycling to high levels (Case B) is nearly costeffective assuming a cut-off for cost-effectiveness of a simple payback period of 3 years. If this measure is included, then the cost-effective energy savings potential in case B increases to 22%.我们的案例一个结果表明，总的技术潜力，一次能源节省达31％（1013焦耳）存在。情况A，我们确定了一个符合成本效益的节能潜力为16％（533 PJ）。从节约能源的二氧化碳减排量案例A是25％（7.6 MTC）和14％（4.4 MTC），分别为技术和成本效益的潜力。当回收案例B中，整体的技术节能潜力增加而具成本效益的节能潜力为16％至37％（1215 PJ）。
I. INTRODUCTIONIn 19941 the U.S. manufacturing sector consumed 22.8 EJ of primary energy, almost one-quarter of all energy consumed that year in the United States (U.S. EIA 1997a).2 Within manufacturing, a subset of raw materials transformation industries (pulp and paper, primary metals, cement, chemicals, petroleum refining) require significantly more energy to produce or transform products than most other manufactured products. This report reflects an in-depth analysis of one of these energy-intensive industries – pulp and paper.19941美国制造业消耗的初级能源，几乎四分之一的所有能源消耗，每年在美国（美国EIA 1997年）.2在制造业，原材料工业转型的一个子集（纸浆和造纸，初级22.8 EJ金属，水泥，化工，石油炼制）需要显着更多的能量，比大多数其他制造产品的生产或改造产品。这份报告反映了深入的分析，这些能源密集型产业之一 – 纸浆和造纸。
The manufacture of paper and paperboard is an important element of a modern economy. It also is a highly capital and energy-intensive process. International comparisons show that U.S. papermaking energy intensities are greater than those in many other countries (Farla et al., 1997). As such, opportunities exist for increasing energy efficiency in the pulp and paper industry in the U.S. http://www.ukassignment.org/mgessaydx/
II. OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
The health of the U.S. pulp and paper industry in an increasingly competitive global paper market is highly dependent upon an accessible fiber resource base, continuing capital investments, the maintenance of a pool of skilled labor, and demand powered by the growth in the economy. The United States, with its developed economy, growing population income, vast forest resources, large pool of skilled labor and access to capital is the largest producer of pulp and paper in the world. The U.S. pulp and paper industry is made up of three primary types of producers: i) pulp mills, which manufacture pulp from wood or other materials, primarily wastepaper; ii) paper mills, which manufacture paper from wood pulp and other fiber pulp; and iii) paperboard mills, which manufacture paperboard products from wood pulp and other fiber pulp.
There were 190 operating pulp mills and 598 operating paper and paperboard mills in the U.S. in 1996. About 58% of all the paper/paperboard mills are located in the Northeast and the North Central regions, close to final consumers. However, 56% of the paper/paperboard capacity and more than 70% of wood pulp capacity are located in the South Atlantic and the South Central regions, close to the sources of fibers. Mills located in those regions are mostly large integrated pulp and paper mills (Kincaid, 1998). More than 45% of all paper and paperboard and about 60% of all wood pulp are produced by mills with capacity over 450 tonnes per year (tpy). The average capacity of an U.S. paper/paperboard mill in 1995 was about 168 tpy, while the average capacity of a wood pulp mill was about 330 tpy.
Virgin pulp is used to produce a variety of pulps in the U.S., most importantly chemical pulp, semi-chemical pulp, mechanical pulp, dissolving pulp, and pulp made from non-wood fibers.Total U.S. pulp production increased from 37.9 Mt (Million tonnes) in 1970to 60.0 Mt in 1994, at a rate of 1.9% per year, though growth has slowed slightly in recent years (UN, 1998). Pulp production increased at a 2.2% average annual rate between 1970 and 1980, decreasing to an average of 1.8% per year between 1980 and 1994. Overall, pulp production increased steadily, with periodic minor decreases. In 1970, chemical pulp accounted for 77% of pulp production, while mechanical and other pulp, accounted for 9.8% and 13.5%, respectively. While total pulp production has increased significantly since 1970, the composition of U.S. pulp production has changed little; chemical pulp production has become more dominant, comprising 82% of total pulp production while mechanical pulp production has fallen to 9%. In addition to the various types of raw pulp, recovered paper is used as a raw material in producing paper products. Recovered paper use has grown from 8.4 Mt in 1961 to 33.3 Mt in 1997, at an average rate of 3.9% per year.
Although the U.S. pulp and paper sector has reduced its primary energy intensity by 27% over the past 25 years (1970-1994), a large technical potential still exists to further reduce energy intensity. This analysis of U.S. pulp and paper industry reviews more than 45 specific energy-efficiency technologies and measures, and assesses energy savings, carbon dioxide savings, investments costs and operation and maintenance costs according to two scenarios (with and without development of the recycled paper use). Using a conservation supply curve methodology, we identify a total costeffective reduction of 6.3-6.5 GJ/t of paper. This is equivalent to an achievable energy savings of 16% of 1994 U.S. pulp and paper primary energy use and 14% of U.S. pulp and paper carbon dioxide emissions (corresponding to a reduction of almost 48-49 kgC/t of paper). If one includes the expansion of recycled paper production as cost-effective, then potential cost-effective energy savings increase to 22% of primary energy use in 1994. These results are consistent with other recent studies that have also examined potentials in the pulp and paper industry (Ruth et al, 2000,
The difference between case A and case B highlights the importance of recycling. The potential for increased use of recovered fiber is product, site, and time-dependent, and given the complexity of the issue, a better assessment of the technical and policy requirements for removing the barriers and identifying opportunities to increase waste paper recovery and recycling is necessary. As can be seen from the write up in Section V, we derived our cost data and energy savings data primarily from a thorough literature review from existing trade publications. There was, however, limited information on some of the measures. Further refinement and improvement of cost estimates and benefits of energy efficient investments would be desired. Finally, it is often the case that certain non-energy, productivity benefits accompany the investment in updated technology. We believe that a careful investigation into this area could further strengthen the case for selected energy efficiency investment in this sector.