Industrial Process Energy Waste

7/24/2019 Industrial Process Energy Waste

1/12

xecut ve summaryOver 5% of the 3.35 Billion square foot US federalgovernment building footprint consists of industrialfacilities used for production or manufacturing. Thesefacilities are often inefficient and waste energy. Theinherent energy-related process problems are fixableand solutions are affordable. However, a pragmaticapproach must be adopted to address the cultural,technical, and financial challenges. This paper reviews

proven strategies for overcoming these obstacles.

by Robb Dussault, PEM and Colonel (retired) Douglas P. Wise


2/12

Strategies for Reducing Industrial Process Energy Waste in Federal Facilities

Schneider Electric White Paper Revision 0 Page 2

The federal government spends over $7 Billion each year 1 on energy to power its facilities.This energy feeds a huge footprint of 3.35 Billion square feet across nearly 400,000 diversebuildings and helps ensure the mission effectiveness of over 100 agencies. By comparison,Wal-Mart of America supports approximately 8,500 buildings representing a total of 589Million square feet. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), much of the

federal portfolio reflects an infrastructure based on the business model and technologicalenvironment of the 1950s 2 and is therefore inefficient and costly to maintain.

In the domain of federal government facility energy management, low hanging fruit such asoffice building lighting, HVAC, and domestic water systems have already been optimized. Thenew frontier for further improvement will be blazed by agencies and departments prepared totake on depots, maintenance facilities, and industrial sites. With an industrial facility footprintof over 130 Million square feet and energy intensity as high as 100 times the averagecommercial building, the potential for positive energy savings and accompanying greenhousegas emissions reductions in these buildings is significant.

Surprisingly, the greatest hurdle to achieving higher energy efficiency at these sites will notbe technical, but will be cultural and financial. To break down the built-in energy waste and

ease cost frustrations, strategies must involve three fundamental elements:

1. Tailored methods of measuring, monitoring and reporting energy use

2. Leveraging data as actionable intelligence to make decisions and predict outcomes

3. Innovative approaches to funding projects.

This paper identifies key drivers and common barriers to addressing energy waste withinfederal facility industrial processes and offers proven strategies to reduce that waste withoutsacrificing quality of output.

Recognition that opportunities exist to foster process energy consumption reduction in federalindustrial facilities is one issue. Successful deployment of an efficiency improvement programis another question. Several fundamental barriers must be overcome in order to foster realprocess energy management changes. Like most successful initiatives, it takes a top-downapproach that begins with awareness and which introduces elements that enable culturalchange as well as a shift from traditional financial and operational paradigms.

The paragraphs below identify common barriers and offer strategies for overcoming thosebarriers.

Barrier: Organizational structures

Most energy managers come from a mechanical or facilities management background. Theymay not have been given the authority to influence process change and may not have it

defined within their scope of work. Oftentimes energy and facilities managers report througha different hierarchy than do process managers.

Strategy: Create visible inertia

If energy objectives are established at the highest leadership levels (as they often are), theorganization will need to create a sense of urgency that is felt at the plant level. The energymanager can help this cause through visibility and reporting. Establishing easily understood

1 Presentation by Cynthia Vallina, OMB/EOB, Managing Sustainability through OMB Scorecard,GovEnergy 2011, Aug 2011

2 US Government Accountability Office High Risk Series: Federal Real Property Jan 1 2003.

Introduction

Overcomingprogramdeploymentbarriers

The new frontier forfurther improvement willbe blazed by agenciesand departmentsprepared to take ondepots, maintenancefacilities, and industrialsites.


3/12



energy performance indicators (EnPIs), setting achievable objectives against theseindicators, and making progress visible helps build an energy culture that changes behavior.Larger departments can standardize EnPIs across the enterprise to enable comparisonbetween facilities, creating a basis for cross-business challenges and best practiceexchange.

Barrier: ROI expectationsManufacturing organizations are accustomed to capital equipment payback periods of 18-24months which can easily be demonstrated through increased production throughput orreduction in labor hours. Rate of return on energy projects, in contrast, require specialconsiderations to be able to justify investments

Strategy: Link energy efficiency to gains in production efficiency

Process-related energy efficiency initiatives can be linked to overall gains in productionefficiency. Equipment that runs less often and at slower speeds, for example, will tend tobreak down less and cause fewer unplanned work stoppages. Less usage implies less cost.Process audits can determine if some machines are needlessly running at certain times of theday or night. Computer generated dashboards that link energy use to production data areextremely effective at highlighting short and long term ROI (see Figure 1 ). For moreinformation on this topic, download the Schneider Electric white paper Energy ManagementImpact on Distributed Control Systems (DCS) in Industrial Environments .

Barrier: Production priorities As operators of federal industrial processes are continually pressured to increase output ,quality and, in some cases profitability, energy projects are often misunderstood asdistractions from these goals, and in some extreme cases, are thought to actually serve asa barrier to advances in productivity.

Strategy: Establish and leverage meaningful metrics

The current metrics that underpin federal and executive order goals are based on energy useper square foot of facility. This metric does not lend itself well to raise awareness, drivecultural change, or make a business case for industrial energy and water conservation

Sample dashboard collectsenergy data across thebuilding and centralizesinformation in one or moreuser interfaces


4/12



investment. A suggested metric to help focus industrial energy and water conservation effortsis one that is based on dollar cost per unit of industrial output. This metric can help driveconservation and efficiencies across all product lines within the industrial sector and helpsubstantiate many energy and water conservation projects.

Metrics such as KWh per widget, per gallon or per ton are how typical production materials

and labor are measured. The same concept applies to energy. Meter data and productiondata, already available in Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems orproduction databases, are linked together. In the composite processing operation exampledepicted in Figure 2 , energy is expressed in kWh per ton of material produced.

With the view in Figure 2 , the energy manager can quickly and easily detect a problem whichwould not normally be apparent using standard energy metrics. In the case of Figure 2 , moreenergy is being consumed, per ton of material produced, for the past 2 weeks than in weeksprior. The sites overall energy may actually be lower over this time period becauseproduction rates are lower, which would have normally prohibited this problem from beingdetected until the end of the fiscal year. With the view in Figure 2 , the problem is immediatelyapparent. The energy manager can quickly diagnose issues using similar graphs to detectenergy use by raw material source, work crew, or any other process variable.

Barrier: Lack of visibility into process energy usage

As the old saying goes, You cant manage what you dont measure. Many sites lack propermetering and visualization tools. Other sites or individual buildings may be metered, but theylack the granularity necessary to pinpoint specific process inefficiencies within the largerscale production.

Strategy: Meter and Audit

Data is required to substantiate the fact that energy and water conservation is needed. Asimple way to collect this data is to expand the implementation of facility audits andinstallation of meters. Meter installation will allow the accurate collection of energy usagewithin specific industrial areas to help determine opportunities with the highest ROI. This

Figure 2Operational level dashboarddisplaying energy in thecontext of production output


5/12



includes audits and metering of major industrial processes. Focused industrial audits willstandardize identification of energy and water conservation opportunities.

Installing meters and providing operators and stakeholders with visibility into energy usage,has proven to drive behavior change and can generate savings. This is attributed to theHawthorne Effect, a phenomenon whereby individual behaviors may be altered as a result

of the individuals knowing that they are being studied. These savings quickly erode if theindividuals realize that the meter data is not being used. To maximize energy savings, themeter data must be used to drive action.

Barrier: Budget constraints

Federal budgets operate at many levels and most have limitations and restrictions on howmuch can be spent on facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. Under some circumstances,leadership can interpret efforts to improve energy and water conservation as contradictory totheir mission of providing products to their customers (i.e., energy and water conservationefforts will only slow down their throughput of mission-critical assets). In addition there is theimpact of sequestration, which, when enacted in March 2013 resulted in 7% across the boardcuts to federal discretionary funding (which represents approximately $85 Billion in fiscal year

2013 and a total of $1.1 Trillion if it remains in effect through 2021).

Strategy I: Institute a financial line item for energy waste

The financial controller, who is always interested in cost savings, should be enlisted as anactive supporter of energy reduction initiatives and not be viewed as a potential obstacle toproject deployment. A first joint step would be to establish a line item for energy wastewithin the financial tracking reports. Use the overall efficiency metric from the energyassessment and apply it to the energy budget. These budget entries should be divided intotwo lines: Budget for Energy Used and the Budget for Energy Wasted. The Budget for EnergyWasted provides not only accounting and management visibility, but becomes a mutual targetfor reduction. The energy manager can then propose projects based on ROI standards thatare different from other investments.

Strategy II: Leverage private sector financingThe challenge of launching energy initiatives within government organizations and agenciescan best be summarized in the phrase It takes money to save money. This paper presentsseveral strategies and techniques for reducing process energy waste, but most of thesesolutions must somehow be funded.

A cri tical solution to address this issue, in this era of declining discretionary budgets , is topursue private sector financing. The federal government has identified several financingmechanisms associated with infrastructure improvements to help alleviate the capital coststhat are often necessary to realize energy efficiencies. Energy Savings PerformanceContracts (ESPCs) are one such common vehicle. For more information on how thesecontracts benefit energy efficiency initiatives, see the Schneider Electric white paper entitledLeveraging Performance Contracts to Reduce Process Energy Use in Federal Facilities .Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), GSA Schedule 84, and ESPC ENABLE are alsovehicles that have been developed to support and encourage government based energyefficiency initiatives.

Since the energy crisis of the 1970s, congress and presidents have recognized the need tocurtail energy costs of federal agencies. The goal has been to not only reduce the burden on

American taxpayers, but also to promote environmental stewardship, and to lead the nationtowards energy independence. Over the years, federal policy has continued to expand,transform, and focus on conservation within federal facilities. Two main pieces of legislation

Key driver forchange:Consumption

The federal governmenthas identified severalfinancing mechanismsassociated withinfrastructureimprovements to helpalleviate the capital coststhat are often necessaryto realize energyefficiencies.


6/12



drive energy and water conservation in federal facilities: the Energy Independence andSecurity Act (EISA) of 2007 and Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13514. Table 1 belowhighlights some of the key requirements of these two policies. For more information on theseand other policy drivers see the Schneider Electric white paper, Enacting an Energy Management Lifecycle Approach in Federal Facilities .

Despite multiple efforts and projects, government facilities have only achieved 21% of theEISA 2007 target as of 2012 (target is 30% by 2015). Over the past three years, mostgovernment agencies have fallen well behind and are continuing to trail the 3% per yearimprovement goal. Significant opportunities exist to conserve and realize additional monetarybenefit through process energy-related savings.

A large portion of federal facili ty energy consumption results from operation of non -realproperty assets. This includes energy and water consumed by process energy (PE) assets,

which the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers(ASHRAE) defines as follows: Energy consumed in support of manufacturing, industrial orcommercial processes not related to the comfort and amenities of building occupants. 3

Industrial facilities are a subset of process energy assets and are defined by the Federal RealProperty Council as b uildings specifically designed and primarily used for production ormanufacturing, such as the production or manufacture of ammunition, aircraft, ships,vehicles, electronic equipment, fish production, chemicals, aluminum, and magnesium. Included are buildings that house utility plants or utility system components such as pumpstations or valves. 4 The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) defines industrialfacilities or industrial energy (IE) as High -intensity processes or mission-critical applicationsthat are not the traditional creature comforts of the building (e.g., heating, cooling, lighting,domestic hot water, etc.) .5

Specific examples of industrial energy applications include assembly / disassembly, avionicstesting, engine testing, composite construction, chemical / parts cleaning, heat treatment,painting / paint removal, plating, metal working, non-destructive inspection, foundries, weldingshops, controls / electronics testing and repair, loading, assembly, and packing of munitions.

3 ANSI/ASHRAE?IESNA Standard 90.1-2001 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-RiseResidential section 6.3.3.1.

4 FY2010 Federal Real Property Report, Appendix B Predominant Use Categories and Definitions forBuildings

5 Federal Energy Management Program:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/news/news_detail.html?news_id=11696

Goal EISA EO 13514

Reduce energy intensity(BTU / sq ft) vs. 2003

3% / yr (begin 2008)

30% by fiscal year 2015 -

Reduce industrial water intensity - 2% / yr vs. 2010 base20% by fiscal year 2020

Increase building performancestandard for new buildings and majorrenovations

Reduce fossil fuel use50% by fiscal year 2015and 100% by fiscal year2030

New buildings in design beginning fiscalyear 2020 must be net zero; Must meetfederal high performance memorandumof understanding (MOU)

Reduce GHG Emissions - By fiscal year 2020,Scope 1& 2: 28%Scope 3: 13%

Table 1Federal governmentenergy and waterconservation targets


7/12



These environments are commonly found in US Navy shipyards and platform depots, the Armys munitions, helicopter, and heavy vehicle / tank depots and arsenals , the US AirForces platform depots and wind tunnels; and the Department of Energys industrialcomplex, just to name a few.

Volatile energy prices and their impact on production costs are key drivers for process andenergy efficiency in industrial environments. Energy sources most often used in industrialprocess facilities face a risk of short-term price volatility. For example, natural gas wellheadprices increased 4-fold from 2000 through 2006 6 (see Figure 3 )

Processes that are powered directly from natural gas, or from electricity that is generated vianatural gas, would suffer proportional swings in operating costs. Similar risks are evident withother fuel sources, such as oil or coal. Electricity prices have also been known to fluctuate asmuch as 10% year-to-year 7 (see Figure 4 ). These swings may be triggered by foreignincidents, economic crisis, or natural disasters, few of which can be predicted or controlled.Mitigating energy dependency, can offer significant cost control advantages.

6 http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm7 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/electricity.cfm

Key driver forchange: Impactof energy cost

Figure 3Some energy sources likenatural gas are both morevolatile in price and more

likely to be utilized inindustrial environments

Figure 4Fluctuations in US electricityprices will also impactproduction costs. Energyefficiency initiatives help tomitigate the effects ofvolatility


8/12



Energy costs can represent as much as 14% of production costs 8. A significantportion (80%) of energy used within surveyed government industrial faci lities wasfound to be consumed by the production equipment, and not the facilities 9 (seeFigure 5 ).

The US Navy manages shipyards, dry-docks, and intermediate maintenance facilities acrossthe country. These facilities repair and maintain their ships, submarines, and UnmannedUnderwater Vehicles (UUV). They also oversee numerous armament, ordnance, vehiclemaintenance, and repair facilities. All of these facilities and industrial processes can cut costsby implementing energy and water conservation improvements.

As an important first step, the US Navy completed an extensive analysis of their energyconsumption by category code and climate to establish benchmarks. As an outgrowth of thisassessment, it was discovered that 50% of their energy consumption fell within the domain ofmaintenance facilities. The assessment also identified other facilities with high energyreduction potential. These include metal fabrication, avionics, and painting / stripping facilities(see Figure 6 ).

The US Army oversees a large industrial complex; 23 installations exist as part of the US Armys organic industrial base, which includes 14 government-owned plants and 2 arsenals.This industrial base includes energy-intensive processes, such as nitrocellulose production,rubber products, and metal plating. The plants manufacture and repair ammunitions, and thearsenals manufacture and repair ordnance material. Work completed at these locationsincludes manufacturing, maintenance, and repair to gun tubes, gun mounts, other weapon-related items, and repair and upgrades to US Army vehicles and tanks. In addition, numeroustactical and equipment maintenance facilities (TEMFs) are operated by the US Army toservice and repair operations on different types of vehicle assets.

8 US Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Purchased Fuels and Electric EnergyUsed for Heat and Power by Industry Groups and Industries(http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t)

9 Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey End Uses of FuelConsumption, Table 5.3, 2006 End Uses of Fuel consumption, 2010. For industry codes 327, 331,332, 333, 335, 336. comparing "Direct Uses-Total Process" with a combination of "Direct Uses-TotalNonprocess" and "Conventional Boiler Use"

Examples offederalindustrial

processes

Figure 5Electricity use in relevantindustrial facilities: Processvs. non-process end use


9/12



Over 60% of these facilities and related infrastructure were built in the WWII era. Though thisindustrial complex is well maintained, significant inefficiencies exist. Equipment is past itsuseful life, and there are considerable opportunities to upgrade the industrial infrastructureand to realize energy and water conservation savings.

The US Air Forces industrial complex includes three Air Logistics Complexes (ALCs), ordepots, that complete maintenance, repair, and upgrades to the various platforms in theirinventory. Other industrial facilities include some of the countrys largest wind tunnels, hotand cold-weather test facilities, and service and repair depots for vehicle assets. The three

ALCs consume over $90 Million in uti lities annually with 60-80% of this load being processenergy and up to 50% of that directly tied to industrial energy use within the depots.Unmetered consumption estimates of one of the ALCs industrial complexes reflects that 74%of the electrical, 67% of the natural gas, 74% of the potable water, 83% of the steam, and64% of the chilled water is consumed by industrial activities. In addition, the ALC produces100% of the industrial waste water effluent.

A minor reduction of energy and water consumption in any of these areas greatly impacts thebase-load for the installation. As an example, a recent project at one ALC resulted in a $2.7Million per year energy savings and 330,000 gallons per day water savings. As theseindustrial complexes are major consumers of energy and water, their conservation efforts notonly significantly impac t the installations utility bills, but are also needle movers for federallylegislated and energy optimization goals.

Energy forecasting and predictive analytics As contextual energy data is compiled, the data can be best leveraged by creating an energyforecast model. Production throughput can be compiled with energy use to automatically builda forecast dependent on future production schedules. Being able to accurately anticipatefuture energy consumption enables the prediction of the peak demand. Energy procurementcontracts can then be adjusted to lower the peak demand threshold (represented by the solidhorizontal line in Figure 7 ), potentially reducing the cost of every kWh consumed.

Turning datainto knowledgeand action

Figure 6Facilities such as paintingand stripping depots havebeen targeted for energy and

process efficiencyimprovement


10/12



Once the predictive model is established, the operational energy management system can

enable the detection and analysis of energy events. An energy event is a condition thatcauses the actual energy to exceed the desired consumption level, even for an instant. Theenergy management system captures not only the time and date of each event, but also all ofthe relevant process variables associated with it. Within a short time, enough energy eventsare captured to perform a meaningful analysis with tools such as the chart in Figure 8 .

When analyzing Figure 8 , it becomes clear that energy events in this particularmanufacturing process are most often correlated with a process condition known as High millloading. Further analysis, using similar tools perhaps in combination with a manufacturingexecution system (MES), may reveal that the mill is being loaded improperly by a specificwork crew, which has adopted an unconventional work habit. Without analysis tools such asthese, it would never be apparent that this practice is increasing real operating costs in theform of energy consumption.

Figure 7Control of peak demandthreshold based on energyforecast

Figure 8Pareto analysis of energyevents by cause


11/12



Implement five process demand functions

Traditional facilities-based energy management programs are easy to understand andvisualize. Lights can be seen, air leaks can be heard, and steam temperature can be sensed.Energy efficiency for production systems, however, is more elusive, because automated toolsare required for gathering and analyzing data. These systems, however, are easy to deployand help to make energy consumption of process systems tangible and measureable.

The management of actions to control and reduce energy usage and cost within an industrialprocess can be summarized as five process demand functions:

Energy Event Management: Detection and analysis of process changes that causeconsumption to exceed forecast

Peak Demand Management: Minimization of peak demand that triggers higher rates

Scheduled Demand Management: Reduction of costs by shifting demand to low costtime periods

Idle State Management: Minimization of energy draw during idle process conditions

Demand/Response Management: Distribution of energy capacity back to the grid perrequest in exchange for incentives

For more information, see the presentation The Role of Dashboards in Managing the Energyof Production Systems , published for the Industrial Energy Technology Conference (IETC)2013. 10

Fine tune production and central utilities to reduce energy use Visualization and interpretation of data across multiple levels of an organization represents abest practice for maximizing production while minimizing energy use. Installation of such toolscan occur without radical changes in the existing process and without having to replace / orretrofit existing equipment. The data analysis capability can also help to evaluateopportunities to refine and retrofit existing processes and equipment in order to further reduceenergy consumption. This approach also helps streamline central utilities production anddistribution by right sizing and optimizing central systems that serve industrial processes suchas steam plants, chilled water plants, and compressed air plants.

10http://eclipse.modicon.com/85256CBB0074C0EF/C7720116867B3CFD85256CBC0068AD59/EDA68E67455B57A485257BC70071FDBC/$File/Robb%20Dussault-The%20Role%20of%20Visualization%20Systems%20in%20Managing%20the%20Energy%20of%20Production%20Systems%20Final%20Paper%2003_28_13.pdf?OpenElement


12/12



Industrial energy initiatives are one of several types of process energy programs that areleading a new wave of conservation measures. The challenges are real, but the strategiesand techniques to address these challenges are tested and proven. Process efficiency is alargely untapped savings resource that aids in the effort to meet government department andagency production, financial, and energy goals.

Prudent steps for launching an energy initiative include the following:

Identifying a trusted energy partner and advisor (recommended within1 month)

Assessing existing processes for potential energy waste reduct ion and efficiencyopportunities (within 3 months)

Soliciting qualified contractors for best-value proposals (within 6 months)

Robb Dussault, PEM administers the Energy Management Solutions portfolio for SchneiderElectrics US Industry Business Unit. He has 20 years of experience in technology development,application engineering, product/service management, global strategic account support andcommercial deployment for Industrial Automation and Energy Management systems. He holds aB.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, a Master of Science inManagement from NC State University, and maintains a Professional Energy ManagementCertification from the Institute of Energy Professionals.

Colonel (retired) Douglas P. Wise , is a former US Air Force officer who has served in a wide

range of civil engineering positions at base level, major command, and in the joint/combinedenvironment and has extensive deployment experience. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree i nCivil Engineering, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, and a Master of Science degree inEngineering and Environmental Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-PattersonAFB, Ohio.

*AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to our additional white paper contributors: Ellen Kotzbauer, BEP, US FederalGovernment Segment Manager, and Garrett Sloman, PE, CEM, Schneider Electric TechnicalWriter

Conclusion

About the authors

Industrial Process Energy Waste

Documents

Transcript of Industrial Process Energy Waste