Energy use?????? good question.

Things to consider when evaluating the energy consumption

Energy to build new components because of premature failure (Motor, bearings, V Belts, Coupling, Pump). When considering how much energy you actually use you possibly should think of the above things.
Alignment of components and machine design I believe are two of our most critical things that need to be considered.

If you look at the way the car manufacturers have developed over the past 30 years you can find good examples of energy savings.
Years ago the cars were sold with a 10,000 kilometers or 12 month warranty. Now days you can get 5 years unlimited kilometers on several new vehicles. Why you ask?

Good Question?????????

They get the tolerances a lot better when building these components and the alignment of everything is 1000 times better so they found the engines would last a lot longer. They also use different materials but at the end of the day they last longer and use much less fuel.

So why can't we do this to our plant. Well you can you just need to put pressure on your suppliers to give you products that have been designed well and have good tolerances etc. Then you must ensure that you install your machines properly.

We had a pump motor installed last week and the person doing the install tried to tell me it was O.K to have a couple of millimeters of misalignment because it was driven by 8 belts. He was quickly taught why we wanted the alignment to be as good as possible on this machine.

Better alignment = $$$$$$ saved on repairs later.

Now that pump has vibrations running at approx 3.0mm/sec V's 21.5mm/sec before the motor replacement.

We have a long way to go yet on becoming more effiecnt but all these little things add up. I have 120 pumps and another 200 or so machines in my plants and I have approximately 25 years of working life still to go.

Hooch

We are overseeing the 'save energy now' program roll-out within GM. With over 40 surveys completed in 30 plus plants, we are seeing compressed air and steam systems having the largest opportunities and payback. Most of the problems are simple, have significant payback, and are virtually all maintenance related.

This supports what we have seen and reported on in projects since the early 1990's as part of the Department of Energy Industrial programs.

One area that surprised us had to do with a chiller system, however. This one was performed using the US DOE tools and inspired by a joint review at a plant. By reducing pressure in the system, chilled water delivery improved immensely and over 500 horsepower of chiller equipment was de-commissioned.

Electric motor, fan and pump improvements will provide significant improvements. But when compared, they have relatively small improvements as compared to improving their systems with things such as Variable Frequency Drives, proper equipment selection, etc.

Howard

Terry,
In terms of fast and large returns, I would attack light bulbs first, mainly in homes and offices, some in factories as well. Replacing incandescent bulbs in the US alone, where I guess there will be some 2 billion such bulbs will be a great start. This means a total load ca. 100 MW, and 400+ MWh of energy PER DAY. If 75% were replaced with low energy long life bulbs, we can get ca. 250 MWh of savings PER DAY, or about 10 GWh per annum. That will cut a lot of oil imports!
Unfortunately, there is a downside; how do we handle all the heavy metal wastes from the spent energy-efficient bulbs? Lets get cracking on that; it is a subject worth spending research grants on.

Vee

In fact, changing from incandescent bulbs to energy efficient bulbs is well underway, as well as switching from T-12's and other lesser efficient systems. In the near future you won't be able to purchase standard incandescents.

The good news is that the energy efficient bulbs last a lot longer than incandescent.

I do agree, primarily from one standpoint: lighting is the most obvious improvement and can send a message that energy efficiency is important. When doing an energy survey, I have always had the rule that if the client has not already improved lighting, they were less likely to actually follow any other recommendations.

Howard

Howard,
Thank you for the clarification. You say,

quote:

changing from incandescent bulbs to energy efficient bulbs is well underway

Any idea in % terms how far this process has gone in the US? If data is available, how far has it gone in the rest of the world? If you have access to sales trends of incandescent vs low-energy bulbs, that might help quantify the size of the pie.

Dear vee,

Excellent Idea to reduce the Power consumption which will reduce energy requirement and global warming.
ok i do have outside the box question if human did not find out the oil source or didnot use the oil source effectively what would be the consequences(we may not work in this field or talk about this subject) any potential hazard to "living organism " due to continuous containment inside the earth?

In the world of trade off's please note that today's energy efficient light bulbs contain mercury - yes - mercury.

When disposing make sure these do not end up in landfills else water gets contaminated.

Incineration with carbon adsorption seems a good solution (like we have in Lee County FL at the Covanta Energy from Waste Plant).

Save Energy - but let's not do so at the environment's further expense.

Vee - is this so in UK as well?

Terry O

Terry,
You are quite right of course, and I mentioned this issue in my first post in reply to Howard, viz.,

quote:

Unfortunately, there is a downside; how do we handle all the heavy metal wastes from the spent energy-efficient bulbs? Lets get cracking on that; it is a subject worth spending research grants on.

I think that Incineration with carbon adsorption is a good start, but not the solution. Ideally, we should recover the heavy metals for reuse. That is why I think research is required.
The UK has not yet woken up to the environmental issues yet. Bulbs go into landfill!. Segregation at source is at its infancy.

Terry,

quote:

In the world of trade off's

Every effort to do things differently has an impact, often environmental. Solutions always cause other problems; the trick is to be able to manage them. As an example, consider power generation:
1. Wind Power results in noise pollution.
2. Nuclear power results in a major waste handling problem.
3. Dams for Hydroelectric Projects can causes earthquakes.
4. Thermal power means greenhouse gases.
5. Tidal Power - don't know yet, but I suspect there will be one.
6. Bio-mass is a good one, relatively low greenhouse gases and reduces landfill as well.
7. Photovoltaic cells; needs lots of surface, so it is great for places far away from inhabited areas.
8. Fuel Cells, some hope here, if it ever gets to become a major player.
9. Hydrogen, myriads of practical problems, from production costs to storage and handling.
10 Fusion? Lets hope we get it this century!

Most of the new technology is too costly, at least now. Nothing is perfect. So lets work on getting consumption down, as much as possible.

Vee,

Here in the US they are now pushing electric cars that plug in and everyone seems to think this is so green!

The lithium they need for batteries comes from even worse areas than oil does!

The electricity they need to recharge the vehicles comes from power plants - hmmmm! Unless we start allowing more nuclear plants to be built that generally means more coal being burned.

I did read in an interesting article about Shah Agassi - the whiz kid that was heir apparent at SAP and left when they picked someone else to lead. He has conceived of a grid system where batteries (possibly even lead based batteries) are exchanged and recharged - like a gas station but a battery station instead. The car owner would not be the battery owner. You would "fill up" just like you do now - only instead of gas - an automated system would lift out your drained battery and install a charged battery.

These "charging stations" would run on clean energy (solar where possible, wind where possible etc...)

Not sure the advantages or disadvantages but I really like the new thinking. The solutions that will deliver us are probably not even on the drawing board yet.

We need leadership and engineering to get out of this mess.

I know a bunch of engineers - but I am afraid leadership is the scarcest resource available!

Terry O

quote:

Most of the new technology is too costly, at least now. Nothing is perfect. So lets work on getting consumption down, as much as possible.

Agreed Vee.

Of course publishing a magazine with paper, mailing that magazine, producing 3 events (actually many of our host hotels are happy to work with us to reduce consumption and footprint) operating several Internet servers that generate massive heat and consume lots of electricity may seem un-green - we are working in several areas to reduce our consumption.

We are also working to educate others to do the same.

We are not a perfect operation but we are living in the question all the time now - and by doing so - we find new ways almost daily to reduce consumption.

This discussion has been very useful too. Thanks.

Terry O

I had a good discussion with a friend at work that had a lot of experience on nuclear subs. I’m no expert mind you… He believes the French have a better nuclear power model with their smaller plants spread though larger areas. The US model of very large plants depending on large scale grid distribution system doesn’t make great sense to me. The grid system is already highly taxed. I think with the French model outages would affect a smaller area than with the US model. An accident might be less devastating with the small scale vs. large scale concept.

He told me that industry use of nuclear power is far too inefficient; that we just heat water to steam with it. Why can’t be do better at depleting the energy in nuclear fuel than we do now? Nuclear waste would be less problematic if there were less residual energy left in it, no?

Better yet, I’d like to see more point of use power generation such as solar panels on new housing and businesses, geothermal heating and cooling, etc.

As to your original question Terry, I believe Heating and Cooling have the biggest opportunities for impacting energy use, including both building design and power use.

quote:

Originally posted by Vee:

3. Dams for Hydroelectric Projects can causes earthquakes.

I've never heard of that connection, any details?

Steve

The other advantage EDF has in France is that all of the plants are of one design.

If a change/improvement is made - it can be applied system wide.

Every plant in the USA is a different design.

Terry O

Steve,

quote:

I've never heard of that connection, any details?

Quite right, Steve, there is no scientific study on the subject. But there is speculation, similar to Power Lines or Cell Phones to cancer. In the latter case there is some research, though not definitive one way or the other.
The earthquake connection was cited about Koyna Dam in India, ca. 1962, and others I do not recall. It is believed we need a fault line plus a large mass of water.

This is all unproven, so you are right in pointing it out

Terry,

An interesting topic. There is no one good answers. Where are the most opportunities? It depend on industry and the maturity of an energy program. i.e. if any exists!

For the last at least 10 years I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with various people in various industries. It always amazed me how little knowledge they had and how little they cared about energy….it was just to cheap! Now there seems to be a change in the attitude….however, with gas prices going down quickly ($1.69/gallon regular in my area) big truck and SUV sales are on the rise again. And industry may fall a sleep too….

Biggest opportunities:
- lighting definitely. But only of plant has an old lighting system and operates 24/7/
- steam and compress air. Yes. And usually quick and inexpensive implementation.
- Motors. They do not offer quick return. Energy efficient motors offer simply payback time of 6 – 15 years .
- VFD’s – in some application the pay back time is less than 12 months time.
- HVAC, yes and easy to implement.

Let’s do not forget about “waste heat recovery”. 6 – 10 MW can be recovered and turned to electricity on a typical glass furnace. And there are others.

In more general terms we need to get our energy system in order. Everybody talks about the generation side. Let’s not forget about transmission system. And in this country it needs an upgrade urgently.

Terry, I agree with you on the nuclear energy. We need to build more nuclear power stations. They would provide the nest base load solution. Waste? I think we can deal with it. Wind and solar will not be sufficient. For system to operate correctly a “rotating reserve” is needed. And only big turbine/generators can provide it.

Kris

I have to agree. My biggest concern on the energy side was that prices would drop. They have and the energy and environment issue visibility is dropping as a result. This is not the first time for this cycle.

You are definitely right about the lack of understanding of energy. Did you know that manpower, and related legacy costs, are only about 8% of the cost to manufacture a vehicle and energy is over 55%? The opportunities abound in that area, yet we are still stuck on reducing labor costs (go after the pennies) in improving competitiveness in USA auto manufacturers.

Howard

Howard,
No, I did not know that energy cost is so high in auto industry. This is an interesting information.

Unfortunately we are run by bean counters and financial people who look only short term gains. We lack true leaders. Reducing a few people give instant savings, instant results so this is the way most administrators behave. Yes, I call them administrators, as they are not even managers, not to mention leaders.

Energy savings – until an energy program is instituted in a plant there always be energy waste. Especially that energy is treated as an operation expense. Almost like raw material. And most do not understand how it is really used, where it goes. Many get caught up in lighting upgrade and air leaks chasing and call it an Energy Program. This is not even a tip f the iceberg. But not many understand it….again this is on the demand side of the energy. As a country we need to look at supply side as well. And we need to educate people. Being environmentally conscious should be a complement. Right now it seems opposite is true. But times are changing quickly so let’s hope we will see nuclear power stations, wind and solar power, different type of cars….

Kris

There has been a fair amount of work on industrial energy savings and improvements. In fact, a majority of the improvements are maintenance-related tasks, let alone proper maintenance.

I have attached an example of impact from a recent energy conference. While the measurements are from an actual application, the $/kWh is randomly selected. (I will post later, I keep getting a disk limit exceeded error).

The US Department of Energy has also been emphasising industrial energy improvement for over 20 years with industrial programs. The most recent has been very successful - the Save Energy Now program which was initiated because of extremely high energy costs associated with natural gas, first. Then it was expanded from just steam to compressed air, fans, pumps, process heating, etc.

Here is this year's report from the US DOE: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/i...t_final_09_17_07.pdf

At the UAW/GM Worldwide Facilities Group Joint Task Team on Construction and Maintenance we have implemented these surveys and working with our GM Utilities group have been implementing the findings. While GM has been actively pursuing energy improvements in the past, having the extra set of eyes on the systems has been fantastic and the findings significant. Again, much of the improvements have been in the area of proper maintenance.

The findings were significant enough that GM has been the largest user and supporter of the program: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/i...st.cfm/companies=efg

More significantly has been the joint UAW and Management aspect of the program. The oversight and implementation of the program is through one of the UAW team members.

Sincerely,
Howard

Howard

Attach your files again please - we had a server issue that is now solved by reducing our hosts monthly economic crisis!

They are now happy and created more space for us - and so we are happy too!

Feel free to post your attachement now.

Thanks for your patience.

Terry O

Terry

Thanks. Here is the note slide with the belt information and related energy and environment.

Howard

This is a pretty good resource for starting out:

http://www.epa.gov/lean/energytoolkit/index.htm

I thought you might find the following article from snopes.com interesting: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
In regards to dangers of CFL's. Looking forward the the advent of LED's.

Howard,
Many thanks for posting these case studies which are very helpful in quantifying claims and justifying proposals. Any others you have and able to publish will be most welcome.
Cranus, thanks for dispelling some of the myths about CFLs.