Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Section 12L
Roadshow
Case Study
September 20161
• Who we are
• Project Case Study: Energy User 1
• What is important for you to know
• Questions
September 2016
Agenda
2
September 2016
Cova Advisory and Associates
3
• We are an advisory consulting firm specialising in Government Grants and Incentives.
• We also advise on matters related to green finance, as well as carbon and energy policies and strategies.
• We are a SANAS Accredited Measurement and Verification Inspection Body (EEMV0007)
• Cova has secured over R1 billion in after tax grants and incentives for clients in the last three years.
Tumelo Chipfupa
Director: Energy Team
Pieter de Villiers
Senior Energy Manager
September 2016
Case Study: Energy User 1
4
• Project: Increasing Manufacturing Capacity of
the Plant (expansion project)
• Two existing manufacturing lines
• The project includes the addition of a third
manufacturing line
• The new (third) manufacturing line includes
Installation of modern energy efficient equipment
Case Study: Energy User 1
5
Utilities
Machine 1
Machine 2
Machine 3
Manufacturing Line 2
Manufacturing Line 1
New Manufacturing Line 3
• Main energy sources used:
• Natural Gas
• Electricity
• Largest energy source is natural gas
• The biggest energy consumers on the manufacturing lines is
machine 1 and 2.
• Machine 1 and 2 consume more than 75% of the total energy
consumption.
• Metering:
• Natural gas – hourly data available
• Machine 1 and 2
• Whole site
• Electricity consumption – half-hourly data available
• Machine 1 and 2
• Whole Site
• No separate metering on in rest of manufacturing lines
and other plant areas
Case Study: Energy User 1
6
Utilities
Machine 1
Machine 2
• Measurement Boundary:
• The options for the measurement boundaries include:
• Whole Facility; or
• Retrofit Isolation
• A retrofit isolation approach with key parameter measurement
was chosen as measurement boundary option.
• Energy baseline models developed for each Machine separately
• Energy governing factors for Machine 1 and Machine 2 were
different
• Machines 1 and 2 account for over 75% of the overall site
energy consumption
• Robust baselines for Machine 1 and 2 is important
• Energy baseline model was developed for the remainder of the
site
Natural Gas
Electricity
Case Study: Energy User 1
7
Machine 1Raw Materials Production Output
Natural Gas
Additional Electricity
Possible Energy Governing Factors
• Production
• Moisture content in raw materials
• Ambient temperature
• Machine age / Insulation
• Product changes
• Each Machine’s energy drivers are Machine specific
Ambient Temperature (°C)
Moisture Content
Case Study: Machine 1
8
Machine 1: Multivariable Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics
R Square 0,92
Adjusted R Square 0,92
Standard Error 39,39
Observations 361
Significance F 2,36E-189
Coefficients P-Value
Intercept 976,54 2,76E-21
Mix of inputs -5,52 7,69E-73
Production 4,00 5,29E-75
Change in Product Type -17,51 0,002388
Machine Age -0,18 1,86E-08
Ambient Temperature -1,01 0,133
Humidity 0,01 0,922
Precipitation -0,33 0,40
Case Study: Machine 2
9
Machine 2: Multivariable Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics Baseline
R Square 0,79
Adjusted R Square 0,78
Standard Error 40,48
Observations 357
Significance F 2,55E-111
Coefficients P-Value
Intercept 837,92 1,40E-22
Mix of Inputs -4,74 4,68E-16
Production 2,41 3,83E-22
Change in Product Type -4,85 0,30
Machine Age 0,08 0,02
Ambient Temperature -0,15 0,80
Humidity 0,09 0,51
Precipitation -0,79 0,04
Case Study: Energy User 1
10
Machine 1 Model Fit
1 000
1 100
1 200
1 300
1 400
1 500
1 600
1 700
01-May-12 01-Jun-12 01-Jul-12 01-Aug-12 01-Sep-12 01-Oct-12 01-Nov-12 01-Dec-12 01-Jan-13 01-Feb-13 01-Mar-13 01-Apr-13
En
erg
y C
on
su
mp
tio
n
(GJ/d
ay)
Actual Energy Consumption (GJ/day) Calculated Energy Consumption (GJ/day)
1 200
1 300
1 400
1 500
1 600
1 700
1 800
01-May-12 01-Jun-12 01-Jul-12 01-Aug-12 01-Sep-12 01-Oct-12 01-Nov-12 01-Dec-12 01-Jan-13 01-Feb-13 01-Mar-13 01-Apr-13
En
erg
y C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
GJ/d
ay)
Actual Energy Consumption (GJ/day) Calculated Energy Consumption (GJ/day)
Machine 2 Model Fit
Case Study: Energy User 1
11
Rest of the Site: Production was not a good energy driver for the remainder of the site
y = -0.1433x + 963.31R² = 0.0283
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Site E
nerg
y C
onsum
ption (
exclu
din
g
Machin
es)
(GJ/d
ay)
Total Production (tonnes/day)
Electricity consumption for the remainder of
the site was assumed to be constant
Case Study: Energy User 1
12
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
Ene
rgy C
onsum
ption
(G
J/d
ay)
Project Energy Consumption Average Baseline Energy Consumption
In order to determine the Energy Savings – Average Baseline of Machine 1 and Machine 2 is compared with the
new machine, Machine 3
Machine 3 Energy
Consumption
Average Machine 1 and Machine 2 Energy
Consumption
September 2016
Case Study: Energy User 1
13
• Key challenges with the project:
• The energy savings expected was difficult to achieve, although the new equipment was more
energy efficient.
• The market demand for the product changed. When making a different product (due to the different
raw material mix), the new equipment did not operate as optimally.
• During the commissioning, the plant experienced problems. Under the conditions again, the new
equipment did not operate optimally.
September 2016
What is important for you to know?
14
• The quality of energy data is very important for building an energy baseline equation and determining
energy savings.
• Direct or online metering is more accurate.
• The more energy metering for different sections of your facility or equipment, the better.
• The more granular the data, the better (i.e. daily is better than yearly).
• Annual calibration of metering equipment is a requirement for Section 12L.
September 2016
Questions?
15
Tumelo Chipfupa
082 789 8915
Pieter de Villiers
082 614 0642
www.cova-advisory.co.za
Contact Us
