Transcript FDF Energy Conference
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