In 2001, British business is going to be hit with a savage increase in
energy costs, currently estimated at 12%. This is the result of an
environmental initiative introduced by the government called the Climate
Change Levy, the function of which is to deliver on the carbon reduction
commitments made at Kyoto in 1997. What should you be doing now to offset
this new 'tax'?
The Climate Change Levy is viewed by industry and commerce as an
imposition. True, it is a tax by any other name, but looked upon in
another way, it is also a stimulus to be more energy efficient - and with
good reason. Presently, a vast amount of energy is wasted annually by
British industry. To illustrate this, electric motor and drive systems
account for almost two-thirds of industrial electricity consumption, at a
cost to industry of £3bn/year. Calculations show that as much as 40% of
this energy is not used to perform the function required and is therefore
wasted due to ineffective control. What this figure reveals is that there
is massive scope for savings right across industry, and In many cases the
savings accrued will easily offset the effects of the impending levy. The
question is where to start looking for the savings?
A number of energy intensive industries, most of which fall within the
new IPPC (Industrial Pollution Prevention and Control) directive, would
be eligible for an 80% reduction in the Levy, on condition that they met
binding targets for energy reductions, so they have a strong incentive to
reduce their energy costs. Around 40% of industrial electricity
consumption is used to power the ac motors that drive pumps and fans, the
majority of which are driven at constant speed. For reasons of low
original cost, variation in the system output is frequently achieved by
throttling or damping - an inefficient and imprecise method at best. In
addition to this, a substantial amount of this energy is wasted because
most fan and pump systems are oversized, usually due to too much
contingency planning in the system design, and this is further compounded
by the practice of rounding up to the next standard motor size.
Consequently, significant amounts of energy are expended unnecessarily,
and the operating cost of the system can be as much as 50% more than it
should be.
It doesn't have to be this way. Substantial overall savings in energy and
indirect costs can be realised relatively simply with the effective
application of variable speed ac inverter technology. Using a variable
speed drive to achieve a 15% reduction in fan motor speed can achieve as
much as 40% energy saving. Despite this, the take-up for ac inverter
drive systems remains low, and even when a two-year or less payback can
be illustrated, the proposal to fit a drive system often fails to go
ahead.
There appear to be three reasons for this. Firstly, the lack of resource
at engineering level, where the proposal starts and all too often dies.
There may be a saving to be had, but the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix
it' attitude means the project stays in the pending tray rather than
moving into the action tray. Engineering's job is to keep the wheels
turning, not necessarily to reduce running costs. Secondly, the main cash
saving incentive resides with the finance department, which often doesn't
know about the potential for energy saving, because no application is
made for capital funding. They also don't understand the technologies of
fans, pumps or drives and frequently find it difficult to believe such
substantial savings can be made.
Finally, there is the reluctance of British business and commerce to dip
into the capital budget to save in the revenue budget. Effectively, they
believe they cannot afford to save money! Curiously, the appointment of
Energy Managers in many large businesses does not seem to have stimulated
the uptake of energy saving drives, despite the