Industrial Utility Efficiency
Given that compressed air leak management programs are meant to save energy, reduce CO2 emissions, and generate ROI, DENSO’s Maryville, Tennessee, manufacturing facility can definitively say it has scored a trifecta when it comes to results – and reaped benefits beyond hard numbers alone.
This metal fabrication and machining facility produces high-quality precision-built products. Over the years, the plant has grown and there have been several expansions to the current location. The company currently spends \$227,043 annually on energy to operate the compressed air system. This figure will increase as electric rates are raised from their current average of 9.8 cents per kWh.
EnergAir’s unrivalled expertise in compressed air management is helping to save in excess of \$50,000 per year at Whirlpool Corporation’s Ottawa, Ohio production facility. Whirlpool is the largest global manufacturer of home appliances and employs almost 70,000 people in more than 60 production and technology centres around the world. The Whirlpool plant in Ottawa manufactures a market-leading range of trash compactors, chest freezers, upright freezers and refrigerators.
Boeing Canada Winnipeg (BCW) has been recognized with the best improvement project of 2013 within the Boeing enterprise worldwide. A cross-functional project team including BCW staff, Manitoba Hydro technical support, and design engineers from Alliance Engineering Services, Inc. used innovative high-pressure storage to reduce the required size of their air compressors and save substantial utility energy and demand charges.
This is a food processing plant where processes and standards are controlled by FDA to AIB standards. Annual plant electric costs for compressed air production, as operating today, are \$116,765 per year. If the electric costs of \$3,323 associated with operating ancillary equipment such as dryers are included, the total electric costs for operating the air system are \$120,088 per year. These estimates are based upon a blended electric rate of \$0.085/kWh.
Most of us understand each individual has a unique DNA combination. Compressed air is very similar, each compressed air system should be uniquely designed so the system performs in harmony. Properly managing the compressed air system requires an investigative audit to understand the nuances of the system and identify the most effective solution(s) for efficiency. Not investigating the system, before selecting improvements, would be like consenting to surgery without having an exam. Yet, this frequently occurs in businesses operating compressed air systems.
As you walk past the “sandblasting cabinet” back in the corner of the plant running alone and without the need for monitoring, does the thought of operational costs enter your mind? When it does, are you happy knowing the cabinet is automatic and does not need a full-time operator? Then, did you say to yourself, I wonder how much that abrasive media costs? How long does it last? Is this a more cost competitive alternative? Is there something that might last longer?
Over many years of reviewing industrial compressed air production machinery, of many types and styles, there is one common thread or complaint; “push-to-connect pneumatic tubing connections/fittings are a continual source of compressed air leaks and production interruptions.” Probably seventy-five to eighty percent of push-to-connect type tubing fittings use flexible tubing selected for lower material cost and assembly rather than an alternate appropriate hard metallic tubing.
Compressed air reliability has been the obsession of both factory personnel and service providers for a number of years now. Constant availability of high quality air can be absolutely critical to maintaining efficient plant production. Most modern factories operate reliable compressed air systems – and more recently have also begun to focus on the efficiency of those systems. The objective of this article is to use a few real-life case studies of already reliable compressed air installations to illustrate the potentially huge economic benefits of also improving system efficiency.
Chemical plants, due to their size and complexity, pose many challenges to the efficient and reliable operation of a compressed air system. There are so many places for hidden opportunities to be found in these large industrial complexes. We are normally dealing with several large centrifugal and rotary screw air compressors scattered across the complex. We encounter sites with well over thirty (30) desiccant air dryers of different types. Compressed air leaks can be found almost at will across the vast lengths of compressed air piping. Add to this the fact they are outdoor installations exposing all compressed air system components to the extremes of summer and winter. As you can imagine, it is a big task to simply understand the system.
This paper mill currently spends \$1,747,000 annually on energy to operate the compressed air system at their plant located in the southwestern region of the U.S. The set of projects recommended, in this system assessment, could reduce these energy costs by \$369,000 or twenty-one percent (21%). Estimated costs for completing the projects total \$767,900, representing a simple payback of 25 months. More importantly, these projects will improve productivity, quality and maintenance costs - many associated with poor compressed air quality.
