Assessment of Energy Efficiency Projects at Russian Mining Enterprises within the Framework of Sustainable Development
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- It allows for a reasonable approach to the selection of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of these projects based on their goals, scale, and characteristics;
- It facilitates the certification of projects, which includes the creation of standardized descriptions of each project and facilitates the process of identifying, comparing, and selecting projects for implementation, and simplifies the exchange of knowledge and experience between stakeholders;
- It helps to optimize the allocation of resources since it allows for identifying the most promising areas for investment based on the analysis of past and current projects.
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Energy Trilemma Principles Interpreted for the Mining Enterprise Level
- –
- The principle of “safety and reliability” considers the continuity of energy supply, the inadmissibility of disconnection from energy sources, in compliance with safety norms and standards;
- –
- The principle of “energy equality” represents the implementation of measures to optimize energy consumption between engineering and social infrastructure facilities included in the property complex of a mining enterprise, as well as its energy sources;
- –
- The principle of “environmental sustainability” consists of the development and implementation of technologies and processes aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, toxic substances, and other pollutants into the environment, rational use of energy in production processes, public reporting, and communication on environmental initiatives.
3.2. Systematization of Energy Efficiency Projects at Mining Enterprises
3.3. Justification of the Criteria and Indicators for Evaluation
3.4. Multi-Criteria Assessment Methodology
3.5. Testing the Proposed Methodology
4. Discussion
- Some indicators are universal and mandatory sections in the sustainable development reports of mining companies (e.g., energy intensity or CO2 emissions), which allows for uniformity and comparability of data between different enterprises and sectors. The choice of universal indicators for assessing the sustainable development of mining companies not only simplifies the process of collecting information but also allows stakeholders to analyze it comprehensively;
- The analysis of the existing academic literature in the area of indicators for assessing various project outcomes has shown that certain indicators (e.g., readiness factor) are often cited as critical. Furthermore, academic papers emphasize the need to integrate these indicators into the management and reporting system to increase transparency. Thus, the choice of indicators is based not only on practical reporting requirements but also on theoretical foundations, making it more informed and in line with current trends in sustainability;
- The criterion “flexibility” is a relatively new area of energy efficiency improvement; therefore, universal indicators for its assessment have not been developed to date. In this paper, the authors have proposed their own indicators.
- –
- Unit savings on energy costs of 769 RUB/ton of raw materials (formula , Appendix A);
- –
- Increase in the share of the energy storage system in the installed capacity of the power system by 33% (formula , Appendix A).
5. Conclusions
- 1.
- The study found that energy efficiency of the basic sectors of the economy, in particular, the raw materials industry, is an essential condition for sustainable development and the achievement of its goals. In modern conditions caused primarily by the introduction of digital technologies and energy storage systems, energy efficiency can be increased through the implementation of projects. Russian and foreign practice of implementing projects aimed at improving energy efficiency, different in terms of application level, scale, and expected results, necessitates systematization of these projects for the purposes of accounting, evaluation, and reasonable choice. Currently, there is no unified classification of projects related to energy efficiency, so the paper attempts to substantiate the attributes used for systemizing projects—its goals, results, nature of project activities, scale, etc.
- 2.
- A methodological approach to assessing energy efficiency projects was proposed in this research. Based on the systematization of projects, the authors constructed a set of indicators and calculation models, which allows for taking into account various project results (technological, environmental, social, organizational) and the developed multi-criteria assessment methodology;
- 3.
- A set of indicators and calculation models has been formed, which can be applied in assessing the economic efficiency of projects (especially small ones). However, there is a need to form and integrate a more extensive and logical set of criteria that not only provide a qualitative assessment of the results achieved but also allow for a comprehensive analysis of economic benefits and effects.
- 4.
- The developed multi-criteria assessment methodology was tested using the example of the enterprise Albazinsky GOK, which is part of the structure of AO Polymetal. The assessment results showed that achieving the set of projects that include the enterprise’s SDGs is more preferable and, if funding sources are available, can be recommended for implementation.
- 5.
- In the course of the study, it was found that currently, there is a lack of regulatory framework and mandatory reporting requirements for sustainable development in the Russian Federation in the context of implementing energy efficiency projects at mining enterprises. This situation complicates the process of data collection and analysis. At the same time, given that a significant number of enterprises already publish sustainability reports, it becomes obvious that sections on energy efficiency projects should be included in these reports. This addition will increase the transparency of the companies’ activities in the field of sustainable development and also contribute to the implementation of the principles of the best available technology.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Possible Project Outcomes | The Basic Models (Indicators) for Evaluating the Result | Criteria for Evaluating the Result | Indicators of Economic Evaluation of the Result | Note |
---|---|---|---|---|
Technological | Availability factor (system, equipment) [51] | Increasing the equipment availability factor | Increase in production volumes due to reduced downtime | —unit production cost, RUB/unit |
[64] | Increased MTBF | Increase in production volumes due to increase in equipment operating time | —unit production cost, RUB/unit | |
[53] | Increasing the probability of failure-free operation of equipment | Reduction in equipment repair costs by reducing the number of equipment failures | —equipment repair costs as a result of failure, RUB | |
Savings due to reduced depreciation payments | —depreciation charges with the use of technology, RUB | |||
[53] | Increasing the efficiency of the power plant | Increase in electricity production | —volume of primary energy consumption, J | |
[54] | Increasing the share of electricity storage | Reduction in charges for electricity consumption during peak hours | —electricity price in off-peak period, RUB/kW⋅h | |
Reduction in fuel costs | —fuel price, RUB/l | |||
Reduction in energy costs | —price of electricity per 1 kilowatt-hour, RUB/kWh | |||
Environmental | Reduction in emissions charges | —price for emissions, RUB/ton | ||
Improving the structure of consumed energy sources | Savings (costs) when using renewable energy sources | —change in the volume of renewable resources, J | ||
Social | Increasing the level of qualifications of employees | Reduction in wage costs | —output in the planned year in wholesale prices of the enterprise, units | |
Organizational | Reducing the loss of an employee’s working time | —unit cost of production, RUB/unit | ||
Reduction in inefficient jobs | —average salary per laid-off employee, RUB | |||
Energy-saving behavior and active participation in projects to reduce energy consumption | Reducing staff training costs | —price of energy resources, RUB/unit |
Appendix B. Comparison of Energy Efficiency Improvement Projects at the Albazinsky GOK
Criterion | Indicator | Indicator Change | Indicator Scores | Criterion Scores | Volume of Investments, RUB bln. | Cumulative NPV, RUB bln. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project for the construction of an electric power complex | ||||||
Economic efficiency | Energy intensity requirements | Unchanged | 0 | 10 | 1.2 | 3.5 |
Volume of energy consumption | Is down 66% | 10 | ||||
Ecological performance | Share of energy from renewable energy sources | Unchanged | 0 | 10 | ||
Volume of CO2 emissions | Emissions in scope 1 are reduced by 100% | 10 | ||||
Reliability and safety | Technical utilization factor | Unchanged | 0 | 0 | ||
Equipment readiness factor | Unchanged | 0 | ||||
Flexibility | Utilization factor of the electricity storage network | Unchanged | 0 | 0 | ||
Demand management factor | Unchanged | 0 | ||||
Total | 20 | 1.2 | 3.5 |
Criterion | Indicator | Indicator Change | Indicator Scores | Criterion Scores | Volume of Investments, RUB bln. | Cumulative NPV, RUB bln. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project for construction of a power complex, application of renewable energy sources, and energy storage system | ||||||
Economic efficiency | Energy intensity requirements | Unchanged | 0 | 10 | 1.2 (base project) 0.079 (additional project) | 3.5 (base project) 0.094 (additional project) |
Volume of energy consumption | Is down 66% | 10 | ||||
Ecological performance | Share of energy from renewable energy sources | Is up 0.02% | 1 | 11 | ||
Volume of CO2 emissions | Emissions in scope 1 are reduced by 100% | 10 | ||||
Reliability and safety | Technical utilization factor | Unchanged | 0 | 0 | ||
Equipment readiness factor | Unchanged | 0 | ||||
Flexibility | Utilization factor of the electricity storage network | Is up 33% | 8 | 8 | ||
Demand management factor | Unchanged | 0 | ||||
Total | 29 | 1.2 | 3.5 |
References
- Dimitrov, R.S. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: Behind Closed Doors. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2016, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Energy Trilemma. Time to Get Real—The Case for Sustainable Energy Investment. World Energy Counc. 2013, 52, 113. Available online: https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2013/09/2013-Time-to-get-real-the-case-for-sustainable-energy-investment.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2024).
- Marti, L.; Puertas, R. Sustainable Energy Development Analysis: Energy Trilemma. Sustain. Technol. Entrep. 2022, 1, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Latif, M.I.; Zhang, J.; Omran, M. Examining the Energy Trilemma Index and the Prospects for Clean Energy Development. Gondwana Res. 2023, 122, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevskaya, M.A.; Raikhlin, S.M.; Vinogradova, V.V.; Belyaev, V.V.; Khaikin, M.M. A Study of Factors Affecting National Energy Efficiency. Energies 2023, 16, 5170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavel, T.; Amina, A.; Oleg, K. The Impact of Economic Development of Primary and Secondary Industries on National CO2 Emissions: The Case of Russian Regions. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 351, 119881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makarova, L.M.; Rodina, E.E. Management Accounting of Energy Costs. Forum Fam. Plan. West. Hemisph. 2019, 162–168. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Official Website of RUSAL. Sustainability Report for 2022. Available online: https://rusal.ru/sustainability/report/ (accessed on 8 March 2024). (In Russian).
- Official Website of PJSC Severstal. Sustainability Report for 2022. Available online: https://severstal.com/rus/ir/indicators-reporting/social-reports (accessed on 8 March 2024). (In Russian).
- Official Website of HammerMaster. Mining in Quarries and Open Pits. Available online: https://hammermaster.ru/stati/dobycha-poleznykh-iskopaemykh-v-karerakh-i-razrezakh (accessed on 8 March 2024).
- Larichkin, F.D.; Knysh, V.A.; Nevskaya, M.A.; Fedoseev, S.V.; Bloshenko, T.A.; Melik-Gaikazov, I.V.; Perein, V.N.; Novoseltseva, V.D.; Goncharova, L.I.; Gilyarova, A.A. Rational Use of Secondary Mineral Resources in the Conditions of Ecologization and Implementation of the Best Available Technologies; Publishing house of FIS KSC RAS: Apatites, Russia, 2019; ISBN 9785911374174. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Bolton, P. Gas and Electricity Prices During the ‘Energy Crisis’ and Beyond/Paul Bolton. Available online: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9714 (accessed on 8 March 2024).
- Russian Electric Power Industry: 20 Years of Reforms. Analytical Center for Fuel and Energy Complex. Available online: https://www.bigpowernews.ru/photos/0/0_sPRMFOSQOiredLNqtTHGsuoEUICUROHk.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2024). (In Russian).
- Nikolaeva, N.V.; Kallaev, I.T. Features of Copper–Molybdenum Ore Grinding. MIAB. Min. Inf. Anal. Bull. 2024, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Meng, X. Evaluation and Empirical Research on the Energy Efficiency of 20 Mining Cities in Eastern and Central China. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2018, 28, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamali, S.; Wittig, V.; Börner, J.; Bracke, R.; Ostendorf, A. Application of High Powered Laser Technology to Alter Hard Rock Properties towards Lower Strength Materials for More Efficient Drilling, Mining, and Geothermal Energy Production. Geomech. Energy Environ. 2019, 20, 100112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherepovitsyn, A.; Tsvetkova, A.; Komendantova, N. Approaches to Assessing the Strategic Sustainability of High-Risk Offshore Oil and Gas Projects. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dmitrieva, D.; Solovyova, V. Russian Arctic Mineral Resources Sustainable Development in the Context of Energy Transition, ESG Agenda and Geopolitical Tensions. Energies 2023, 16, 5145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebedev, A.; Cherepovitsyn, A. Waste Management during the Production Drilling Stage in the Oil and Gas Sector: A Feasibility Study. Resources 2024, 13, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GOST R 56828.24-2017; Best Available Techniques. Energy Saving. Guidance on the Application of the Best Available Techniques for Increasing the Energy Efficiency Energy Saving. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200146366 (accessed on 8 March 2024). (In Russian)
- GOST 31532-2012; Energy Conservation. Energy Efficiency. Composition of Indicators. Basic Concepts. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200102302 (accessed on 8 March 2024). (In Russian)
- Hajian, M.; Jangchi Kashani, S. Evolution of the Concept of Sustainability. From Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals. In Sustainable Resource Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.-Y.; Tsao, S.-H.; Tzeng, C.-W.; Lin, H.-J. Influence of the Vertical Wind and Wind Direction on the Power Output of a Small Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine Installed on the Rooftop of a Building. Appl. Energy 2018, 209, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinina, O.; Nevskaya, M.; Zhang, L.; Que, C.T. Analysis of the Influence of Macroeconomic Factors on the Sustainable Development of the Chinese Coal Industry. In Proceedings of the 21st International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2021, Albena, Bulgaria, 16–22 August 2021; pp. 631–638. [Google Scholar]
- Cherepovitsyn, A.; Stroykov, G.; Nevolin, A. Efficiency of Low-Carbon Technologies Implementation at Non-Ferrous Metallurgy Enterprises under the Conditions of Carbon-Regulation Development in Russia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izmailova, M.A. Sustainable Development as a New Component of Corporate Social Responsibility. MIR (Mod. Innov. Res.) 2021, 12, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horan, D. National Baselines for Integrated Implementation of an Environmental Sustainable Development Goal Assessed in a New Integrated SDG Index. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venghaus, S.; Dieken, S. From a Few Security Indices to the FEW Security Index: Consistency in Global Food, Energy and Water Security Assessment. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 342–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M.; Jato-Espino, D.; Castro-Fresno, D. Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Index an Adequate Framework to Measure the Progress of the 2030 Agenda? Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shilets, E.S.; Kravchenko, V.A.; Lukyanenko, T.V. Energy Trilemma Is a Basis of the Sustainable Development of Fuel and Energy Complex. Vestn. Inst. Econ. Res. 2017, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
- Shaikh, I. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Practice and Firm Performance: An International Evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2022, 23, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resniova, E.A.; Ponomarenko, T.V.; Mosquera, A.P.U. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Directions of Strategic Development of the Energy Sector. Eurasian Sci. J. 2020, 12. Available online: https://esj.today/PDF/82ECVN220.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2024). (In Russian).
- Shklyarskiy, Y.E.; Skamyin, A.N.; Carrizosa, M.J. Energy Efficiency in The Mineral Resources And Raw Materials Complex. J. Min. Inst. 2023, 261, 323–324. [Google Scholar]
- Lijuan, Z.; Ponomarenko, T.V.; Sidorov, D.V. Clean Coal Technologies with Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage in China’s Coal Industry. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. 2024, 105–128. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senchilo, N.; Babanova, I. Improving the Energy Efficiency of Electricity Distribution in the Mining Industry Using Distributed Generation by Forecasting Energy Consumption Using Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies (FarEastCon), Vladivostok, Russia, 6–9 October 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Levesque, M.; Millar, D.; Paraszczak, J. Energy and Mining—the Home Truths. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 84, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, M.; Romero, A.; Shields, G.; Millar, D.L. Optimal Synthesis of Energy Supply Systems for Remote Open Pit Mines. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 64, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awuah-Offei, K. Energy Efficiency in Mining: A Review with Emphasis on the Role of Operators in Loading and Hauling Operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 117, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matos, C.R.; Carneiro, J.F.; Silva, P.P. Overview of Large-Scale Underground Energy Storage Technologies for Integration of Renewable Energies and Criteria for Reservoir Identification. J. Energy Storage 2019, 21, 241–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menéndez, J.; Ordóñez, A.; Álvarez, R.; Loredo, J. Energy from Closed Mines: Underground Energy Storage and Geothermal Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 108, 498–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinyele, D.O.; Rayudu, R.K. Review of Energy Storage Technologies for Sustainable Power Networks. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2014, 8, 74–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinina, O.; Nechitailo, A.; Stroykov, G.; Tsvetkova, A.; Reshneva, E.; Turovskaya, L. Technical and Economic Assessment of Energy Efficiency of Electrification of Hydrocarbon Production Facilities in Underdeveloped Areas. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romasheva, N.V.; Babenko, M.A.; Nikolaichuk, L.A. Sustainable Development of the Russian Arctic Region: Environmental Problems and Ways to Solve Them. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. 2022, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laayati, O.; Bouzi, M.; Chebak, A. Smart Energy Management: Energy Consumption Metering, Monitoring and Prediction for Mining Industry. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Control, Optimization and Computer Science (ICECOCS), Kenitra, Morocco, 2–3 December 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Chizhova, E.N.; Shumilova, E.Y.; Chizhov, S.F. Methodological Approaches to Project Classification. Bull. Belgorod Univ. Consum. Coop. 2006, 4, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Klyuev, R.V.; Morgoeva, A.D.; Gavrina, O.A.; Bosikov, I.I.; Morgoev, I.D. Forecasting Planned Electricity Consumption for the United Power System Using Machine Learning. J. Min. Inst. 2023, 261, 392–402. [Google Scholar]
- Soofastaei, A.; Fouladgar, M. Improve Energy Efficiency in Surface Mines Using Artificial Intelligence. In Alternative Energies and Efficiency Evaluation; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Safa, M. Classification of Construction Projects. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 2015, 9, 625–633. [Google Scholar]
- Nazarychev, A.N.; Dyachenok, G.V.; Sychev, Y.A. A Reliability Study of the Traction Drive System in Haul Trucks Based on Failure Analysis of Theirfunctional Parts. J. Min. Inst. 2023, 261, 363–373. [Google Scholar]
- GOST 27.003-90; Reliability in Engineering. Composition and General Rules for Setting Reliability Requirements. Standardinform: Moscow, Russia, 2007.
- Stadnik, D.A.; Stadnik, N.M.; Lopushnyac, E.V.; Kumsiev, G.A. Methodological Principles of Optimal Control of Air Distribution in an Underground Mine in “Ventilation on Demand” Systems. Izv. Tul. Gos. Univ. Nauk. O. Zemle 2022, 457–466. [Google Scholar]
- Bazhin, V.Y.; Ustinova, Y.V.; Fedorov, S.N.; Shalabi, M.E.K. Improvement of Energy Efficiency of Ore-Thermal Furnaces in Smelting of Alumosilicic Raw Materials. J. Min. Inst. 2023, 261. [Google Scholar]
- Solomentsev, O.; Zaliskyi, M.; Zuiev, O. Radioelectronic Equipment Availability Factor Models. In Proceedings of the 2013 Signal Processing Symposium (SPS), Serock, Poland, 5–7 June 2013; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Beregova, G.M.; Matveeva, K.V. Statistical Estimation of Probability of Failure-Free Operation for Quality Assurance. Ipolytech J. 2010, 242–245. [Google Scholar]
- Petrovskiy, A.N. Increased Efficiency of Eccentric Cycloidal Engagement. Proc. High. Educ. Inst. Маchine Build. 2021, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senchilo, N.D.; Ustinov, D.A. Method for Determining the Optimal Capacity of Energy Storage Systems with a Long-Term Forecast of Power Consumption. Energies 2021, 14, 7098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efimov, V.I.; Minibaev, R.R.; Korchagina, T.V.; Novikova, Y.A. On Mining Negative Environmental Impact. Ugol’ 2017, 66–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chervonchenko, S.S.; Frolov, V.Y. Research of the Operation of an Autonomous Electrical Complex with a Combined Composition of Backup Power Sources. Power Eng. Res. Equip. Technol. 2022, 24, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neverov, E.N.; Korotkiy, I.A.; Korotkikh, P.S.; Golubeva, N.S. Perspective Directions of Decarbonization of Industrial Production with a High Carbon Footprint in Manufactured Products. Polzunov Bull. 2022, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozhevnikova, L.V.; Freidkina, E.M. Energy Inspection as the Most Important Tool for Energy Saving and Improving the Energy Efficiency of an Enterprise. In Proceedings of the Economic and Management Technologies of the XXI Century: Theory and Practice, Training of Specialists, St. Petersburg, Russia, 15 November 2016; pp. 37–42. [Google Scholar]
- GOST 27322-87; The Energy Balance of the Enterprise. General Concepts. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200011413 (accessed on 9 March 2024).
- GOST 27002-89; Reliability in Engineering. Basic Concepts. Terms and Definitions. Russia Gost: Moscow, Russia, 1990.
- Kovalenko, P.; Rokochinskiy, A.; Volk, P.; Turcheniuk, V.; Frolenkova, N.; Tykhenko, R. Evaluation of Ecological and Economic Efficiency of Investment in Water Management and Land Reclamation Projects. J. Water Land. Dev. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worrell, E.; Laitner, J.A.; Ruth, M.; Finman, H. Productivity Benefits of Industrial Energy Efficiency Measures. Energy 2003, 28, 1081–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Projects’ Systematization Attributes | Project Groups | Subgroups |
---|---|---|
1. Main goal | Reduction in energy consumption | • Extensive energy saving • Intensive energy saving |
Improving the quality of consumed and produced energy resources | • Improving the quality of the energy source • Increasing energy conversion efficiency | |
Improving the reliability and safety of the company’s power system | ||
Increasing the flexibility of energy resources and energy system management | ||
2. Results | Technological, environmental, economic, social, organizational | |
3. Relation to the production process | In basic manufacturing processes, auxiliary manufacturing processes, serving processes, and logistics and transport operations | |
4. Nature of project activities | Organizational, technological, technical, economic | |
5. Level of results manifestation | Main result, additional result, complex result | |
6. Project implementation level | Technological process, production process, enterprise, company | |
7. Project scale | Small, medium, large |
Criterion | Indicator | Formula | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Economic efficiency | Energy intensity requirements | —quantity of manufactured products, RUB | |
Volume of energy consumption | |||
Ecological performance | Share of energy from renewable energy sources | —energy from low-carbon sources, J —total energy, J | |
Volume of CO2 emissions | = | —volume of CO2 emissions without the use of technology, tons —volume of CO2 emissions using technology, tons | |
Reliability and safety | Technical utilization factor | —number of hours of equipment failure-free operation, h. —operating time regime fund of all energy equipment and installations for the year, h. | |
Equipment readiness factor | —time of correct operation, h —forced downtime, h | ||
Flexibility | Utilization factor of the electricity storage network | —number of hours of energy production from the electricity storage network, hour | |
Demand management factor | —power reduced on demand, W —total power, W |
Project Evaluation Criteria | Indicators | Range of Indicator Variation | Indicator Scale, Points | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Economic efficiency | Energy intensity requirements | 0–40% | 0–4%—1 4–8%—2 8–12%—3 12–16%—4 16–20%—5 | 20–24%—6 24–28%—7 28–32%—8 32–36%—9 36–40%—10 |
Volume of energy consumption | 0–30% | 0–3%—1 3–6%—2 6–9%—3 9–12%—4 12–15%—5 | 15–18%—6 18–21%—7 21–24%—8 24–27%—9 27–30%—10 | |
Ecological performance | Share of energy from renewable energy sources | 0–10% | 0%—1 2%—2 3%—3 4%—4 5%—5 | 6%—6 7%—7 8%—8 9%—9 10%—10 |
Volume of CO2 emissions | 0–100% | 0–10%—1 10–20%—2 20–30%—3 30–40%—4 40–50%—5 | 50–60%—6 60–70%—7 70–80%—8 80–90%—9 90–100%—10 | |
Reliability and safety | Technical utilization factor | 0–100% | 0–10%—1 10–20%—2 20–30%—3 30–40%—4 40–50%—5 | 50–60%—6 60–70%—7 70–80%—8 80–90%—9 90–100%—10 |
Equipment readiness factor | 0–100% | 0–10%—1 10–20%—2 20–30%—3 30–40%—4 40–50%—5 | 50–60%—6 60–70%—7 70–80%—8 80–90%—9 90–100%—10 | |
Flexibility | Utilization factor of the electricity storage network | 0–40% | 0–4%—1 4–8%—2 8–12%—3 12–16%—4 16–20%—5 | 20–24%—6 24–28%—7 28–32%—8 32–36%—9 36–40%—10 |
Demand management factor | 0–10% | 0%—1 2%—2 3%—3 4%—4 5%—5 | 6%—6 7%—7 8%—8 9%—9 10%—10 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nevskaya, M.A.; Raikhlin, S.M.; Chanysheva, A.F. Assessment of Energy Efficiency Projects at Russian Mining Enterprises within the Framework of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177478
Nevskaya MA, Raikhlin SM, Chanysheva AF. Assessment of Energy Efficiency Projects at Russian Mining Enterprises within the Framework of Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177478
Chicago/Turabian StyleNevskaya, Marina A., Semen M. Raikhlin, and Amina F. Chanysheva. 2024. "Assessment of Energy Efficiency Projects at Russian Mining Enterprises within the Framework of Sustainable Development" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177478