Monitoring and Targeting

The Key Tool in Energy Management Andrew Ibbotson Joe Flanagan

Monitoring and Targeting (M&T)

 Provides lowest payback savings  Provides excellent basis to identify, justify and monitor major projects  Provides most robust way of reporting back to Govt.

What is M&T

 A management tool to help reduce energy and utility usage using a proven methodology.

 A rigorous and well structured analysis of energy and production data  Identification of new cost saving opportunities  Maintains saving performance

The energy management process

Identify where Energy is Used and Develop an Action Plan Senior Management Commitment Measure Energy Consumption and Production Review Performance and Action Plan Develop Targets Audit Implement Energy Saving Measures Produce Reports to Monitor Energy Use Against Output

M&T System

Scoping Study People Management Processes Awareness & Motivation Training Systems Metering & Data Acquisition Software Analysis and Reporting Integration Technology Project Identification Financial Evaluation Engineering

Site Commitment

 Gain senior management commitment  Construct / develop site energy and environmental policy  Develop a specific implementation plan Time scales Resources (site metering and capital funds) Performance measures Project champion and site team

Awareness & Motivation

Meeting every 2 weeks Brewing Group Steering Group Meeting CK, JD, GP & Enviros Brewery 1 Project Champion (Graham Pollock) Brewery 2 Project Champion (Jim Dees) Brewery 3 Project Champion (Bill Smith) Meeting every 1-2 Months Team A Meeting 5 Members Team B Meeting 5 Members Team C Meeting 5 Members     High profile project launch meetings Define departmental reporting system Start training programme (software, methodology & technical) Implement communications programme (policy, reports & competitions)

Training

Methodology

 Principles of a M&T programme

Technology

 Boilers, Steam Systems, Refrigeration, Compressed Air, Drives & Motors, Lighting, Process Systems

Software

 Data collection systems, M&T software and opportunities database

Metering Review and Data Collection

m3  Map the utility, resource and production networks  Establish the data collection methods     Manual, Psion, File Transfer, Mixture Model the site in software Establish correlation and KPI’s Develop specific reports utilising M&T  Boilerhouse, Refrigeration, CCL, Production, KPI’s

Data Collection and Analysis Using a Spreadsheet

Date GAS METER reading

26-May-01 7774339 27-May-01 7775184 28-May-01 7776095 29-May-01 7777127 30-May-01 7777936 31-May-01 7778840 01-Jun-01 7779766

OIL GAS USED METER cuft reading

1,367,000 845,000 911,000 3278562 3278588 3278612 1,032,000 809,000 904,000 926,000 3278635 3278658 3278688 3278721

OIL USED galls ELEC METER reading

320 13034937 260 13034938 240 13034939 230 13034942 230 13034943 300 13034945 330 13034947

ELEC USED KWs Fuel Use Therms

2 14216.87

1 8788.034

1 9474.434

3 10732.9

1 8413.634

2 9401.668

2 9630.468

Target

976125 976125 976125 976125 65,125 - 55,875

Delta

72,125 50,125

CUSUM

-351788 -220663 -155538 -211413 -44287.6

27837.41

77962.41

M&T Software Implemented 6 Months

Opportunity Database

 Captures all improvement ideas  Allocates individual responsibility with deadlines    Monitors idea progress Describes and quantifies the opportunities Potential Savings Investment Required Priority (Payback, Technical Difficulty) Reports the total project status

Opportunity Data Base

Project Review

 Monthly Steering Group Meeting Total Savings Energy Usage Projects/Environmental Improvements Costs  The M&T Quality System Software Standards Training and Programme Standards

Project Implementation

Year 1 Scoping Audit System Develop People Implement Technology Project Payback Benefits 5% -15% Savings Low Risk Utility Savings Environmental Compliance

Case Study - UK Dairy Group

     5 Site parallel implementation across UK    5 Teams of 6 people 20 Utility Sub Meters per site (10 water & 10 electric) £30K enManage implementation costs £120 K Utilities Savings Packaging Savings Product Savings Total £300,000 £200,000 £750,000 £1,250,000

Case Study - UK Dairy Group

Projects

 Group condensate recovery improved from 15% to 80%. Water, effluent, gas and chemical savings £60K. (Improved boiler response)  Compressed air leakage minimised saving £30K  Group CIP benchmarking exercise. Savings cica £120K

The Rewards

 Resource cost savings - scope to save Utilities 5% - 15% Raw Materials up to 1% Packaging 5%  Environmental Compliance IPPC ISO 14001  Low Risk

Setting Up M&T Data Collection and Meters

Objectives

 To determine what should be monitored  To determine areas of accountability  To determine costs of further monitoring equipment required  To propose a cost effective solution

Some Initial Thoughts

 How are energy costs monitored?

 Who is acountable for usage?

 Is the company using energy efficiently?

Typical Scenario

 Canned food manufacturer  Energy costs £800,000 (€120,000) per annum  Average monthly bills: Electricity : £40,000 Gas : £26,000  Bills passed to Services Department for checking  Bill paid by the Finance Department  Did they use energy efficiently?

Is Energy Used Efficiently?

 How do we measure performance?

 Who do we make accountable?

 How do we make sure we achieve minimum energy costs?

Level 1 2 3 4 5

Monitoring Systems

System Monthly bills only Monthly meter readings Monthly readings checked against output to produce a specific energy ratio (S.E.R.) Monthly monitoring system based on submetering Weekly system based on submetering and targeted against output

Who is Accountable for the Energy

Level System 1 2 3 4 5 Finance Department Services department Each Production department according to some apportionment Each department according to metered consumption Each department with adjustments made for output

Information Required Prior to Audit

 12 monthly energy bills and costs  Distribution line drawings of all utilities: Gas Electricity Steam Water etc.

 12 monthly production figures  Major plant ratings

Electrical Audit

 Determine major loads from distribution board ammeters  Estimate weekly running hours  Balance against weekly total of electricity consumed

Oil/Gas/Steam/Water Audit

 Can estimate against plant ratings and running hours  Production load should be taken into account  Balance against weekly total consumed  Typically simpler than for electricity as fewer and better defined users.

Steel Company

 UTILITY BILL : €5 Million  Savings potential : 2%  €100,000  Metering costs depend on payback criteria: 12 months payback = €100,000

Typical Energy Balance

Plant/Area Air Compressors Fridge Compressors Bottling Line Sterilising Line Cold stores Offices General Lighting Main Hall Ventilation Boilerhouse Cartoning Unaccounted Balance TOTAL kWh/wk 10,000 18,000 9,000 12,000 8,000 3,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 11,000 11,000 100,000 £/wk 800 1440 720 960 640 240 400 480 560 880 880 8000 £ p.a.

40,000 72,000 36,000 48,000 32,000 12,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 44,000 44,000 400,000

Metering Justification

C= A P t 100 C= Justifiable submetering expenditure (£) A= Annual energy costs (£) P= Potential savings (percentage) t= Acceptable payback period (years)

Typical Values of “P”

 Electricity 3%  Gas/Oil 5%  Steam 5%  Water 5-10%  Comp. Air 10%

Metering Approach

 Take €1 Million p.a. bill (Electric)  3% savings €30,000  Typically 20 meters (installed)  Start with main services Air Comps.

Fridge Comps.

Boilerhouse  Apportion remainder as distribution boards dictate

Department and Energy Account Centre (EACs)

 Definable areas - Department  Definable plant - EAC  Preferably Accountable to one person - EAC  Significant energy costs - EAC

Metering

Electricity Meters

 Simple and accurate  Relatively cheap  Turn down ratio - most current transformers inaccurate below 20% full current  Majority of installation can be done whilst board is live  Install meters with kWh & kW read-out

Flow Meters

 Different Types  Different Fluids  Accuracy Considerations  Installation Considerations

Flow Meters

 Orifice Plate Meters  Variable Area Meters  Turbine Meters  Vortex Shredding Meters  Electromagnetic Meters  Ultrasonic Meters  Rotating Lobe Meters  Rotary Piston Meters  Diaphragm Meters

Gas Meters

    Suitable meters include: turbine diaphragm rotating lobe Temperature and pressure compensation needed, ideally automatic for larger users Fairly accurate +/-1% Typical costs: Turbine Diaphragm

25mm

€300

50mm

€1,800 €1,200

80mm

€2,700 -

Steam Meters

 Suitable meter types include: Orifice plate Variable area Vortex shedding Rotary shunt  Relatively expensive  Accurate sizing very important  Temperature and Pressure correction essential  High on maintenance costs  Adequate removal of condensate to stop water hammer is essential

Steam Meter Costs

Meter Type

Orifice Plate Variable Area Vortex

Meter Cost (£) 100 mm 150 mm

7,000 7,000 10,000 6,000 Includes automatic pressure compensation 12,000 7,500

Water Meters

 Suitable meters include: Rotary piston Turbine Vortex shedding Ultrasonic Electromagnetic  Standard meters accept 40oC  Relatively cheap if use positive displacement meters  Critical for control of steam usage in some cases  Check flow rates accurately and reduce pipe diameter if possible

Water Meter Costs

Meter Type

Positive Displacement Turbine Electromagnetic

Meter Costs (£) 25 mm 50 mm 100 mm

250 600 7,00 2,500 700 1,200 3,000

Compressed Air Meters

 Suitable meter types include: Orifice plate Variable area Turbine Vortex shedding  Metering considerations similar to those for steam  Expensive, similar to steam meters  Pressure and temperature compensation needed

Heat Meters

 Measures flowrate, flow temperature and return temperature to calculate “heat” usage  Expensive: Meter Type Turbine (<130 °C) Electromagnetic (130 -180 °C) Meter Costs (£) 100 mm 150 mm 3,500 5,000 6,000 7,000  Accuracy of temperature measurement must be high as the temperature difference can be small

Oil Meters

 Suitable meters include: Turbine Rotary Piston  Easy to install  Relatively cheap i.e. around €1000  Density (i.e. Temperature) compensation needed  Beware of supply/return line burners!

 Tank dipping not sufficiently accurate

Installation

 In-house or sub-contract  Ease of access/remote reading  Correct units: m3/gallons  Don’t underestimate costs  Allow reasonable time-scale  Install meters with a 4-20 mA or pulse output if available

Data Collection

Data Collection

 All Meter readings  Production Data  Ambient Temperature Data (degree days)  Auxiliary Data

Meter Reading Frequency

 Monthly  Weekly  Daily  Each shift  Each batch

Data Collection Methods

 Manual  Hand held data logger  Totally automatic

Manual / Portable Data Logger

 Allow 1 minute/meter  Ensure meters read at same time each week  Ensure at least 2 people know location of all meters  Produce meter reading form to reduce errors

Automatic Data Logger

 Worthwhile for larger users  Allow at least double meter costs for automatic data collection  Cannot be justified on cost savings alone, must have additional benefits such as process control  Can lead to data saturation

Error Checking

 Meters with consistent errors can still be used since we are looking at trends in consumption  Digit errors most common, normally compensated for at next reading  Watch for meters “going round the clock”  Software should pick up significant data entry errors

Production Data

 Often not available straight away  Energy monitoring period must be in line with production monitoring  Collect all data to start with and then simplify later  Simplify production data as much as possible, hopefully to overall tonnage

Ambient Temperature

 Degree day data  Manual collection Max/min thermometers  Automatic collection Degree day logger Meteorological office  Important

Degree Days

Day

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

T max T min T Ave

8.5

7.6

5.0

4.0

6.5

6.5

3.0

2.0

7.5

7.0

4.0

3.0

1.0

1.5

-.20

0.5

-0.5

1.0

3.0

0 1.5

Weekly Degree Days = 85.0

Degree Days (To = 15.5

°C)

8.0

8.5

11.5

12.5

16.0

14.5

14.0

Auxiliary Data

 Hours Run Compressors Large fans Machinery  Process Parameters Temperature Pressures Raw materials

Setting Targets

Data Processing Options

 Spreadsheets  Databases  Statistics Software  Utility Software

Requirements of Data Processing

System should:  be easy to use  be flexible and extensible  link to existing data and systems  provide a powerful tool for identification and analysis of savings opportunities  provide true measure of performance  empower managers to improve efficiency  make individuals responsible

Preliminary Data Analysis

 For preliminary target setting  Preferably regression analysis  Requires familiarity with the process

Types of Target

 E = a (constant)  E = a + bP (single regression)  E = a + bP 1 + cP 2 + _ _ _ _  Non-linear relationship

E = Constant

18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Production Tonnes/day 120 140 160 180

Single Regression

Figure 4: UK5 Daily Pull vs Gas Use 56,000 54,000 52,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 44,000 42,000 40,000 4,000 y = 7.1393x + 14189 R 2 = 0.8658

4,200 4,400 4,600 4,800 5,000 Tonnes/week 5,200 5,400 5,600 5,800

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 R

Reactor 2 Production vs Steam Use

y = 0.4568x + 24.921

2 = 0.8853

20 40 60 80

Tonnes/day

100 120 140 160 180

Correlation Significance

Minimum value of

r

such that odds are 100 to 1 against it being due to chance N 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 r 0.767

0.641

0.561

0.506

0.464

0.425

0.402

0.380

0.362

Multi-Regression

 More than 1 variable  Try to keep to a maximum of three variables  Only use if you are sure of the relationship since regression is not very accurate on few data points

What Does Energy Use Depend On?

 Output/Input (Production, Work Content)  Plant running time  Temperature (Product, External)  Other factors Water content, Raw materials, Exothermic Reactions, Endothermic Reactions

Utility Dependency at a Dairy

Water vs Milk Throughput Bottle Wash Water (m 3 ) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Milk Throughput (000’s Litres)

Utility Dependency at a Dairy

Water vs Production Hours Bottle Wash Water (m 3 ) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Production Hours 35 40 45 50 55 60

Endothermic reaction

9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0

Unit 1 Production vs Natural Gas Use

y = -30.938x + 7126.9

R 2 = 0.6364

50 100

Tonnes/day

150 200

Reporting and Sustaining the Programme

Need for Reporting

 To keep people informed of their weekly performance (against Key Performance Indicators, regression targets)  To monitor long term progress  To create feedback on improvements made  To motivate people to improve

Reporting Frequency

 Weekly  Monthly  Quarterly  Annually

Typical Weekly Report for a Milk Processing Department Utility Account Centre

Finished Milk Water (m³) Milk Reception Water (m³) New Processing (m³) Process Floor Water (m³) Milk Reception Elec (kWh) New Process Elec (kWh) Milk Separator (kWh)

Departments Totals Actual Usage Target Usage Utility Cost (£)

582 622 154 781 43,300 8,250 6,570

-

494 728 150 624 40,865 7,480 6,580

-

1,030 1,136 282 1,428 5,044 964 764

10,648 Variation from Target % £

-17.8

14.6

-2.7

-25.1

-6.0

-10.3

0.2

-6.0

0

-632

-160 192 -6 -284 -284 -90

Typical Weekly Site Summary Report for a Diary Department

Processing Bottling Cartoning High Temperature Services

Site Totals Actual Usage (£) Target Usage (£)

10,648 5,076 7,168 5,706 10,944

39,542

10,196 5,248 6,976 6,216 10,720

39,352 Variation from Target % £

-6.0

3.3

-2.8

8.1

-632 172 -192 506 -2.1

-0.5

-224

-190

Monthly Report

 Summation of 4 or 5 weeks  In line with cost accounting procedures for monthly costing and monthly budgeting  Year to date variance also important

Trend Graphs

Energy Consumption

Energy (000’s KWh) 300 Target 250 Actual 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Week Number 8 9 10

Variance

Variance (000’s KWh/wk) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 1 2 3 4 5 6 Week Number 7 8 9 10

Cusum (Cumulative Sum)

TARGET (KWh) 210,000 225,000 220,000 210,000 230,000 240,000 230,000 220,000 220,000 225,000 ACTUAL (KWh) 200,000 210,000 210,000 200,000 235,000 250,000 240,000 235,000 230,000 230,000 VARIANCE (KWh) +10,000 +15,000 +10,000 +10,000 -5,000 -10,000 -10,000 -15,000 -20,000 -5,000 CUSUM (KWh) +10,000 +25,000 +35,000 +45,000 +40,000 +30,000 +20,000 +5,000 -15,000 -20,000

Cusum Plot

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 1 Cusum (£) 2 3 4 5 Week Number 6 7 8 9 10

(£)

Arc Furnaces Energy Savings

WEEK Cumulative sum of A SHIFT Cumulative sum of B SHIFT Cumulative sum of C SHIFT Cumulative sum of D SHIFT

Organisation for Action

All Levels have a Role

 Chief Executive Commitment, Leadership  Production Managers Holds departmental budgets  Chief Engineer Designs process, facilitates production  Energy Manager Investigates, monitors, facilitates  Line Personnel Use and save energy 14

Energy Management in Action

 Nominate an energy manager (project champion)  Establish an energy steering group  Set up energy improvement teams  Improve communication & awareness

The Tasks of the Energy Manager/Project Champion

 Promote projects within the company  Develop the action plan  Identify, train and co-ordinate teams  Discuss resources and timescales with senior management  Measure progress  Report frequently, simply and clearly  Promote project successes

Energy Steering Group

 Senior Management  Production Managers  Engineering Manager  Project Champion  Finance/Quality People

Steering Group Purpose

 To discuss weekly, monthly, quarterly performance  To discuss actions necessary to improve performance  To allocate specific tasks to members of the team  To assess success of actions  Meets every 1-2 months to review progress

Role of the Improvement Team(s)

 Monitor plant performance observation audits  Identify problem areas  Brainstorming sessions  Identify opportunities  Monitor implemented solutions  Meet every 2-4 weeks

Communication

Are staff aware of:  The site energy strategy?

 Energy usage on site and the associated costs?

 Energy reduction projects implemented?

 The impact of their own role on energy costs?

Typical Forms of Communication

 Training  Newsletters and magazines  Press  Posters and stickers  Videos  Presentations and briefings  Reports on actions and on progress  Public displays of achievements

Typical Problems

 Apathy  Lack of ownership and accountability  Lack of understanding of targeting process  Data errors  Lack of resources