A practical path to electrifying food manufacturing

Gas has long supplied the heat for cooking, steaming, drying and sterilisation in Australian food manufacturing. For producers assessing energy costs, supply exposure and emissions, reducing that dependence is becoming an important planning task.

The starting point is to understand the heat a site needs and how efficiently it is supplied. Electrification can then be assessed alongside heat recovery, changes to operating practices and the infrastructure required to support new equipment.

For manufacturers working with tight margins, a staged approach can help focus investment on the applications with the strongest technical and commercial case.

Match the technology to the heat requirement

Food and beverage processes use heat at different temperatures and over different operating schedules. Those requirements determine which alternatives to gas are suitable.

Industrial heat pumps can capture heat from sources such as refrigeration systems or process water and raise it to a useful temperature. Their performance depends on the available heat source, the required delivery temperature and the way the system is integrated into the plant.

Other options include mechanical vapour recompression, electrode boilers, electric thermal energy storage and infrared or radiant heating. These technologies serve different applications; they should not be treated as interchangeable solutions.

The assessment needs to account for temperature, capacity, reliability, food-safety requirements and production schedules. Improving energy efficiency can strengthen the case, but lower operating costs are not automatic. Electricity and gas tariffs, utilisation, connection costs and capital expenditure all affect the result.

Reduce heat demand before replacing supply

A practical roadmap begins with measuring energy use and heat loads. Identify where heat is needed, when demand occurs and where useful heat is currently being lost.

Efficiency improvements and heat recovery should generally be examined before sizing replacement equipment. Waste heat from refrigeration, air compressors or other processes may be suitable for preheating water or serving another part of the facility.

Once those opportunities are understood, manufacturers can prioritise the loads that have the strongest commercial case for electrification. Reducing demand first may also reduce the capacity required from new equipment.

Each stage should be assessed on its own merits and in the context of the wider plan. Savings from one project may support later investment, but that outcome should be demonstrated rather than assumed.

Plan the electrical system early

Electrification may require changes to connections, switchboards or distribution equipment. Available capacity and upgrade lead times should be considered before equipment is selected.

Manufacturers should also assess how on-site generation, battery or thermal storage, electricity procurement and energy-management systems could support the proposed operating model.

Heating and cooling equipment need to work with production schedules and other site loads. Monitoring can help teams understand peak demand, identify operating constraints and evaluate performance after changes are made.

The emissions assessment needs the same care. Report changes in fuel and electricity use alongside the assumptions used to calculate emissions, rather than treating fuel switching alone as proof of a particular reduction.

Learn from industrial projects

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency’s (ARENA) September 2025 funding announcement provides examples of how heat recovery and electrification can be combined in operating facilities.

McCain Foods was awarded $7.38 million to implement two interconnected heat recovery systems at its Ballarat potato processing site. One recovers high-temperature heat from condensate to reduce boiler demand. The other captures fryer exhaust heat to produce hot water, which is upgraded to steam using electrically driven mechanical vapour recompression.

Together, the systems were expected to lower the site’s natural gas boiler load by 22%.

Sugar Australia’s project received a $4.1 million funding commitment to replace natural gas evaporators at its Yarraville refinery with an electrically driven mechanical vapour recompression system.

These projects illustrate specific retrofit pathways. Their results and implementation lessons can help other manufacturers assess comparable opportunities, while recognising that each site has different requirements.

Build a sequence that works for the business

Many manufacturers cannot justify replacing functional equipment immediately. A staged roadmap can align projects with asset renewal, available capital and planned production shutdowns.

Targeted co-investment can help businesses test unfamiliar applications and share lessons. The value of that support is strongest when projects establish credible evidence about performance, costs and the conditions needed for replication.

For food manufacturers, the next step is a site-specific plan: measure heat demand, assess recovery opportunities, evaluate suitable electric technologies and establish how each investment will be tested. That provides a practical basis for reducing gas dependence while protecting production performance.

*Lisa Zembrodt is Principal and Senior Director, Pacific Zone, for Schneider Electric’s SE Advisory Services. Carlo Boghdadi is Enterprise Sustainability Solutions Manager for SE Advisory Services.

Image credit: iStock.com/coffeekai