Barriers for Energy Conservation (A management view)

1. Barriers for Energy Conservation(A management view) By: D K Singhal Chandpur Enterprises Ltd., Sumit Agarwal Shree Badri Kedar Papers Ltd.,

2. Attending Seminars: • In most of the seminars, intended for energy conservation, approximately half of the time is spent on over-emphasizing need for energy conservation. The presenters forget that the persons who are attending these seminars already are convinced that energy conservation is a must for them. As a seminar attendee most persons are interested to gain certain knowledge that can save some energy and hence some money in their plant.

3. In Seminars…. • Furthermore, most of the general nature data do not seem to be authentic, or, at least, seems doubtful. In a recent seminar, one presenter indicated India’s paper production to be 6.6 million ton, while other indicated the same as 7.7 million ton. On questioning, it was told that the data were taken from different studies by different agencies. • These data may be of some use for government officers, but a common attendee, is only interested in determining the possible savings opportunity in his plant, and suitable ways for achieving the same. • Wasting too much of time on such presentations, is a wastage of time and energy.

4. At the End of the Day: • Any management is interested to know from the attendee whether his attending the energy conservation seminar will be useful to the company or not. If yes, what would be the approximate amount of investment and what could be the gains.

5. Existing Trends: • Markets are very competitive, so conservation automatically becomes vital. • Under such situation, no management can overlook energy conservation. • Still, many approaches used by managers are techno-economically viable, but at the same time could prove not very acceptable. • Some such cases are illustrated here.

6. Case 1: Fan Pump VFD • In a small paper mill, the fan pump motor was of 75HP, drawing nearly 83Amps. • The system was running for past few years. • Management refused option of VFD due to high cost (approx. 3Lac).(Payback app. 3Months) • Manager revised situation and decided to have a VFD of lower rating costing nearly Rs. 2 Lac. • This was again turned down by management due to funds problem.

7. Without a VFD: • The manager was enthusiastic, and decided to us pulleys for rpm reduction. • As a result, load decreased to 54 Amps. • After some time, pulleys were changed again. • Load decreased to 40Amps. • (Payback app. 3days) • The manager demanded VFD again after a couple of month, indicating that he had already saved the money required for it. • The management reply was….

8. A simple question: Do you really need this?

9. Management Vision: • If you consider installation of VFD after reaching to 40 Amps as in previous case, payback period could be as high as 3-4 years. • For this mill, option A-B is better. But, had the mill operating at point B, should option B-C be followed? Investment: 10,000 Saving: 43Amp Payback: 3 days Investment: 3,00,000 Saving: 3Amp (Estimated) Payback: 3Years A B C Investment: 3,00,000 Saving: 46Amp Payback: 3Months

10. Comments: • This mill had no portable energy audit equipment, but hired an energy advisor for conducting audit, who recommended the VFD initially. • If a VFD is to work within a narrow speed range, please think twice…. Is it really required?

11. Management Policy: • Energy conservation must be practiced for saving, considering techno-commercial viabilities, and must be suitably planned. • Installation of energy efficient system should not be done just for others are doing so. • Always consider, “If there exists a low-cost midway?”

12. Case 2: Boiler Efficiency • In a small mill having a 5TPH boiler, management was worried about low efficiency. • An energy audit firm conducted detailed analysis of the system, and came up with an 80 page report after nearly one and a half month of plant study. • The major possible solutions recommended were:

13. After Energy Audit:

14. Layman's Approach: • At almost the same time, another mill nearby asked a one man consultant(?) for the similar problem, who suggested after just a walk through audit, to reduce ID fan rpm by changing pulley. • Opinions may differ, but, first mill, after hearing about this case feels second mill’s decision was a better one as consultancy fee and investment in first case was very high, while final results were almost similar.

15. For Small Mills: • It must also be noted that- • Mill-1 had delayed energy audit by nearly 10 month, as the audit fee seemed much higher to the mill. • Audit considered fuel properties that were prevailing at the audit time. In most of the small mills, there is a vide variation in fuel over the year.

16. Lack of Comparative Approach: • If we study BEE norms for the paper mills, data lack comparative approach. Any mill can look at its data and is supposed to decide where does it stand. But, if comparisons are made section wise, the managers concerned will obviously concentrate more towards their plants to achieve better results. • For example, if there are two papermakers, often the discussion is how much vacuum do you apply on your machine? The higher vacuum user gets motivated to use lesser vacuum automatically. But, total paper machine specific energy is not so regularly discussed by them.

17. Benchmarks: • Benchmarks must be simple and easy to grasp by management. • This is because “kWH/T” or “kg bagasse per ton” make better sense in management point of view than “GJ/T”. Many small mills do not even understand “GJ/T”. Though energy audit is not mandatory for small mills, yet, policy makers should not give attention only to large mills only. • A such simple benchmark being followed by papermakers is KVM of vacuum per daily ton of paper. KVM has been taken by the model number of a well known Indian vacuum pump manufacturer.

18. Inferences: • For small energy consumers, we need to develop low cost, simple and easy to use thumb rules in the first phase. • For example- • 1Amp saved = Rs.100/per day saving • Fan Pump ampere = Ton Per Day Production • ID Fan Amperage = 0.9 X Ton Per Day Fuel • After some time, when it is observed that at least a certain percentage of units has been able to obtain satisfactory results, the mouth publicity will spread results very soon to other mills also. • After most of the mills have achieved a certain benchmark, they will automatically get interested in implementing advance techniques e.g. energy auditing, process up gradation, automation of process operations etc. for better energy efficiency.

19. Thank You. D K Singhal deveshksinghal@rediffmail.com deveshksinghal@gmail.com Sumit Agarwal sumit_agarwal15@rediffmail.com