generic industrial audit report-2-24-15

North America l Europe l Africa l Australia l Asia

Energy Audit Report

Prepared for:

M Industries, Inc.

D Facility

Dec 17, 2014

M Industries – Dynacor Facility Energy Audit Report Executive Summary

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................... 4

Baseline Energy Use ..................................................................................................................... 7 Electricity Use ............................................................................................................................ 7 Natural Gas Use ......................................................................................................................... 8 D’s Energy End-use Breakdown ................................................................................................. 9 Energy Efficiency Measures and Recommendations ............................................................... 11

Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) Details ..................................................................................... 12 EEMs for Current Implementation .......................................................................................... 12

EEM-1 Synthetic Hydraulic Fluid...................................................................................... 12 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 12 Measure Description ............................................................................................ 13 Savings ................................................................................................................. 13 Installed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 13 Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................ 13

EEM-2 Energy Star/Miser on Vending Machines ............................................................. 13 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 13 Measure Description ............................................................................................ 14 Savings ................................................................................................................. 14 Installed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 14 Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................. 14 Background Information ...................................................................................... 14

EEM-3 Extend LED Lighting to the Rest of D Parking Lot .................................................. 14 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 14 Measure Description ............................................................................................ 15 Savings ................................................................................................................. 15 Installed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 16 Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................. 16

EEM-4 Convert Diesel Generators to bi-fuel Adding Natural Gas ................................... 16 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 16 Measure Description ............................................................................................ 16 Savings ................................................................................................................. 16 Installed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 17 Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................. 17 Background Information ...................................................................................... 17

EEM for Future Implementation When Replacing or Adding Molds ........................................ 18 EEM-5 All-Electric Auburg Versus Husky Hydraulic Mold ................................................. 18

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 18 Measure Description ............................................................................................ 18 Savings ................................................................................................................. 21 Installed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 21 Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................ 21 Background Information ...................................................................................... 21

Energy Cost Savings EEM (No reduction in energy or carbon emissions) ................................ 22 EEM-6 Forklift Battery Off-peak Charging ........................................................................ 22


2

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 22 Measure Description ............................................................................................ 22 Savings ................................................................................................................. 23 Installed Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 23 Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................. 23 Background Information....................................................................................... 24

D Interval Meter Data Appendix A:

Additional Electronic Documentation Appendix B:

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures .................................................................................. 6

Table 2: D Historical Electricity and Natural Gas Use ............................................................................. 7

Table 3: Twelve Electric Billing Meters ................................................................................................... 8

Table 4: D Exterior Lighting Baseline and Proposed Energy Use and EEM Cost Estimate .................... 15

Table 5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy Use .................................................................................... 20

Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy Use ...................................................................................... 20

Table 7: Electric Versus Hydraulic Molds .............................................................................................. 22

Table 8: Comparative Forklift Charger Test Results .............................................................................. 25

List of Figures

Figure 1: Total Energy by End-Use for D ................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2: D’s Electricity Consumption by End-use ................................................................................ 10

Figure 3: D Gas Energy End-use ............................................................................................................ 10

Figure 4: Metal Halide and LED Exterior Lamp ..................................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Power Draw of Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold ....................................................................... 19

Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold ...................................................................... 20

Figure 7: Sample Electric Bill for One M Place Campus ........................................................................ 24

Figure 8: D Meter# ####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012 .......................................................... 26

Figure 9: D Meter# #####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014 ........................................................ 26

Figure 10: D Meter# #####683 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012 ...................................................... 26

Figure 11: D Meter# #####683 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014 ...................................................... 26

Figure 12: D Meter# ####3085 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012 ...................................................... 26

Figure 13: D Meter# 141643085 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014 .................................................... 26


3


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Overview

The objective of this building evaluation and report is to provide M Industries, Inc. with a technical

and economic strategy to understand energy use by D and its operating systems and practices, to

achieve greater energy efficiency, and reduce energy use while maintaining productivity.

This audit was conducted in accordance with ASHRAE’s Energy Audit Guidelines for Commercial

Buildings and included a thorough review of the mechanical and electrical systems, maintenance

practices and operating procedures. After review of the audit report by building management and

staff, First Carbon Solutions staff will meet with M to develop a strategy for implementation of the

recommended measures.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Table 1 shows the energy cost savings for six (6) energy efficiency measures (EEMs) identified for D.

It outlines three groups of recommended energy efficiency measures (EEMs): immediate; upon

upgrade; and reduction of energy cost.

The first group of four EEMs can be implemented immediately. They will reduce the electricity use by

5,274,529 kWh/year, a 23.4% reduction in electricity purchased from the grid. However, because of

the on-site electrical generation, the amount of natural gas actually will increase by 403,758 therms

per year an increase of 96%, almost doubling the current gas use. Fortunately, the cost of natural gas

is so much lower than the cost of electricity there is a reduction in D’s energy cost of 15.7% or

$289,656 per year.

The contractor calculated net non-energy dollars savings to be a negative $-29,752 per year. The

savings due to reductions in labor, lamp and hydraulic oil for the molds were more than offset by the

added O&M cost of the electric generators as they will run 3,250 hours per year instead of less than

200 hours a year. Emissions from producing electricity on-site by burning natural gas are less per

kWh produced that the emissions emitted when the area grid produces electric power. The four

EEMs reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) by (3.22 million pounds) 1,462 metric tonnes.

The second group of EEMs has only one EEM that saves 1,543,362 kWh/year. It can be implemented

when D needs to add new injections molding machines. This EEM would save an additional 6.46% of

energy cost or $118,812 per year. There are no “non-energy” benefits. The energy savings will

reduce CO2 by (2.32 million pounds) 1,055 metric tonnes.

The EEM of group three does not save energy or reduce carbon emissions, but it does reduce energy

cost by taking advantage of the off-peak electricity rates which are 35% lower than on-peak rates. It

will reduce overall energy costs by about 1.1%.

If all six EEMs are implemented, electricity use will be reduced by 30.3% or 6,817,892 kWh/year.

Natural gas use goes up by 403,758 therms/year a 96% increase. However, the total annual energy

cost is reduced by $415,111. Unfortunately the additional use of the on-site electrical generators


5

increases annual O&M cost so non-energy benefits are negative by $-29,752 per year. With the six

EEMs, D’s total net cost reduction is $385,359. The total net CO2 reduction for the six EEMs is (5.54

million pounds) 2,517 metric tonnes.

To implement all six EEMs, the estimated investment cost is $417,707 which will be recovered in

1.1 years. This does not include any state, federal or utility incentives or tax advantages.


6

Table 1: Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures

EEM # Measure NameKWh/yr

Savings

Therm

savings

Net Energy

Dollar

Savings

Total Dollar

Savings w/Non-

energy Benefits

Estimated

Dollar cost

Simple

Payback

(years)

1Shell Tellus S4 ME46 Synthetic

hydraulic fluid104,396 0 $8,037 $15,571 $23,826 1.5

2Energy Star/Miser on vending

machines9,000 0 $693 $693 $1,790 2.6

3Extend LED Lights to Rest of

Parking Lot91,133 0 $7,016 $25,500 $93,325 3.7

4Convert diesel generators to

bi-fuel adding natural gas5,070,000 -403,758 $273,911 $218,141 $178,846 0.8

Totals 5,274,529 -403,758 $289,656 $259,905 $297,787 1.1

5

All-electric Auburg Vs Husky

Hydraulic (Assumes adding

10% more molds, 1,246 tons

1,543,362 0 $118,812 $118,812 $109,620 0.9

6Forklift Battery Off-peak

charging0 0 $6,643 $6,643 $10,300 1.6

Future EEMs that could be implemented when equipment needs to be replaced or business expands

These four EEMs can be implemented at Dynacor immediately to achieve energy cost savings

This EEM reduces energy cost but does not save energy or reduce carbon emissions

Facility Energy Audit Report D’s Baseline Energy Use

7

BASELINE ENERGY USE

D is located at the M headquarters campus. D’s total annual energy expenditure is $1,840,000.

As shown in Table 2 below, historical electricity use at D has averaged 22,512,696 kWh/year over the

last two and a half years. The natural gas use averaged 420,696 therms per year over the same

period. Converting the electricity and natural gas energy to British thermal unit (Btus), the total

energy use is 119 million Btus per year.

The natural gas is 35.4% of the total Btus of energy and electricity is 64.6%; however, in energy

dollars, natural gas is only 5.8% ($106,785) and electricity is 94.2% ($1,733,696) of D’s total energy

cost.

Table 2: D Historical Electricity and Natural Gas Use

Electric Use (kWh) Natural Gas Use (Therm)

2012 2013 2014 Average 2012 2013 2014 Average Jan 1,930,852 2,136,039 1,732,635 1,933,175 76,672 81,460 50,025 69,386

Feb 1,728,829 1,838,589 2,174,727 1,914,049 63,606 79,576 47,974 63,719

Mar 1,870,195 1,506,637 1,790,601 1,722,477 39,533 66,867 31,617 46,005

Apr 1,792,484 1,899,179 1,501,372 1,731,012 17,835 34,883 10,420 21,046

May 1,878,650 2,124,515 2,068,740 2,023,968 6,371 11,515 0 8,943

Jun 2,029,609 1,941,340 1,671,457 1,880,802 2,757 5,328 0 4,042

Jul 1,951,131 1,600,428 1,808,497 1,786,685 3,097 5,458 0 4,278

Aug 1,695,660 2,016,028 0 1,855,844 5,861 5,334 0 5,598

Sep 2,144,000 1,750,996 0 1,947,498 16,156 23,750 0 19,953

Oct 1,812,511 1,593,100 0 1,702,805 47,313 48,937 0 48,125

Nov 2,269,764 2,119,493 0 2,194,629 62,786 54,285 0 58,535

Dec 1,906,868 1,732,635 0 1,819,751 84,411 57,723 0 71,067

TOTAL 23,010,553 22,258,979 12,748,028 22,512,696 426,396 475,116 140,036 420,696

TOTAL ENERGY USE IN KBTU 118,905,448

ENERGY USE INDEX(KBTU/SF/YR) 253.7

Electricity Use

Electricity use at D is provided by ComEd and Constellation Energy. The overall campus bill is

consolidated with readings from 12 electric meters as shown in Table 3. The three meters

highlighted in green (meter numbers 1, 2, and 3) all serve the D facility.

Electricity at D represents approximately 65.2% of the total electric energy but it has a combined

peak demand of 2,755 kW or 91.1% of the total billing demand.


8

Table 3: Twelve Electric Billing Meters

Figure 8 through Figure 13 in Appendix A shows how each of the three D meters uses electric energy

every 30 minutes for several typical days of the week for two different years. For August 2012, the

data is plotted for a Monday, a Tuesday, a Saturday and a Sunday; whereas, for July 2014 the data is

plotted for a Monday, a Tuesday, July 4th holiday on a Friday, a Saturday, and a Sunday.

The most striking difference between 2012 and 2014 is the wider range of energy values.

D’s Boiler Meter has a tight range with kW varying from a low of 400 kW at noon Monday 8/6/2012

to a high of 600 kW at 5:00 AM Sunday 8/12/2012. The range for 2014 is from a low of 400 kW at

4:30 AM Monday 6/30/2014 to a high of 815 kW at 8:30 AM Tuesday 7/1/2014. The range in 2012

was only 200 kW, but in 2014 the range was 415 kW.

D’s Chiller Meter shows a significant change from 2012 to 2014. In 2012, the energy use was

essentially flat for weekdays and weekends. Usage varied from a low of 650 kW to a high of 740 kW,

a range of less than 90 kW. However, in 2014, the range widened significantly with the low going

lower to 470 kW on Sunday 7/6/2014 and the high going higher to 800 kW on Monday 6/30/2014.

The range in 2014 widened to 330 kW more than 3.5 times wider than in 2012.

D’s Injection Molding Machine meter has the highest energy use of the three meters. The range of

energy demand has also widened for this meter with 2012 going from a low of 850 kW at 14:30

Sunday 8/12/2014 to a high of 1410 at 14:30 Monday 8/6/2012. In 2014, the range was from a low

of 660 kW at 3:00 AM Saturday to a high of 1500 kW at 13:00 Monday 6/30/2014. The 2012 range

was 560 kW compared to the range in 2014 of 840 kW.

For the three meters, combined peak demand has grown from 2,970 kW in 2012 to 3,110 kW in

2014. This translates to a 4.7 % increase over two years or about 2.5% per year.

Natural Gas Use

North Shore Gas provided natural gas data for two meters,1 (57.2%) and 2 (42.6%). Unlike electricity

data which is available in 30-minute intervals, natural gas metering is limited to monthly data.


9

D’s Energy End-use Breakdown

Energy use at D’s warehouse and manufacturing facility has been broken down into multiple end-

uses based on engineering judgment, field metering and data logging. This breakdown assures that

when estimating energy savings, the calculations are applied to a specific portion of the total energy,

thus preventing overly optimistic energy savings estimates. Total energy use is provided as BTUs, so

that gas and electricity can be compared on an equitable basis.

As mentioned above, electricity accounts for 64.6% of total energy use, while natural gas use

accounts for 35.4% of energy. Due to the very low cost for natural gas on an energy cost basis,

natural gas is only about 5% of D’s energy bill in dollars. Therefore, the focus of the energy audit is

on electricity savings.

As shown in Figure 1 below, the majority of D’s total energy in Btus (48.0%) is used by the injection

molding machines and the process cooling system for the molds. The next largest energy user is

natural gas for Space Heating (31%). The Compressed Air System is expected to use about 8% of the

energy, and the HVAC fans and cooling are estimated to use 5%. The gas-fired service water heating

is also about 5% of the total energy use. Lighting energy is estimated to be very small at 2% and the

warehouse forklift battery charging system uses 0.72% of the total energy.

Figure 1: Total Energy by End-Use for D


10

Figure 2 shows electricity use at D broken down by end-using equipment. The molds and process

cooling use 74.8% of the total electricity. The compressed air system uses about 12% of the

energy and HVAC Fans and cooling use 8.1%. Lighting is 3% and the forklift battery charging is

about 1.1% of electricity use.

Figure 2: D’s Electricity Consumption by End-use

Figure 3 shows that a small portion, 13.2% of the natural gas is estimate to be used for service

water heating based on summer gas use when the boilers are not operating. 86.8% is used by the

three space heating boilers.

Figure 3: D Gas Energy End-use


11

Energy Efficiency Measures and Recommendations

Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM) are listed in Table 1 on page 2. The EEMs are in three groups

according to timeframe for implementation (immediate, future equipment upgrade and cost savings

only). Within each group the EEMs are arranged with the shortest simple payback first. Below, each

EEM is described in greater detail, including some of the baseline data that was gathered by THE

CONTRACTOR during the audit process with a definition of how the energy savings were determined,

how the costs were estimated, and how the final recommendations were derived.

A brief recommendation on how to measure and verify the energy savings after implementation is

also included. These Measurement and Verification (M&V) methods are recommended in

accordance with the International Performance for Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)

guidelines. The recommended EEMs were determined based on a combination of cost, magnitude of

savings, and reasonableness of implementation.

Potential EEMs were evaluated after the site survey and collection of data necessary to perform the

technical and economic analyses. This evaluation was completed to ASHRAE Level II standards

through spreadsheet analysis. It is recommended that complex measures be further evaluated to

Level III standards prior to implementation. Of particular concern is the actual cost data from

vendors which is needed before the electric or gas utility can prepare an estimate of their incentive

for each EEM. As a result, the costs provided here do not reflect bids or incentives.

Facility Energy Audit Report Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) Details

12

ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE (EEM) DETAILS

To assess energy savings associated with each measure, the baseline for consumption was compared

individually to consumption totals calculated for each measure. The baseline for equipment was

obtained from monthly utility bills for natural gas and electricity. For electricity 30-minute interval

was also reviewed to see how energy use has varied by hour and day type over that last 2.5 years. In

some cases additional energy data was gathered by the contractor using data loggers. In particular

data was gathered on the warehouse lights, the compressed air system, and the injection molds.

Energy consumption associated with each measure was then assessed individually based on the

technical performance of new equipment and then compared to the corresponding baseline in order

to determine energy savings. Energy cost savings were determined using the projected energy

savings and the average energy rate from natural gas and electricity bills.

Many potential EEMs were analyzed but only those meeting the requirement for a 4 year or shorter

simple payback are presented. Prior to implementation, it is essential to get approved vendor bids

for the energy efficiency improvements. Bids are required before the utility can provide incentive

estimates.

The following assumptions were used in calculating the savings:

1. Building energy usage patterns remain relatively unchanged in the near future. (No significant

occupancy change and/or space conversion.)

2. Energy costs remain relatively stable.

3. Operation of building systems remains relatively unchanged (unless change is related to a

recommended EEM).

An economic analysis was performed for each measure using historical cost estimates from similar

projects and pricing solicited from vendors. The cost savings from both energy savings and non-

energy benefits were divided by implementation costs in order to get a simple payback for each

measure.

EEMs for Current Implementation

Of the five EEMs, three are considered worthy of immediate consideration and should be submitted

to vendors for bids.

EEM-1 Synthetic Hydraulic Fluid

Existing Conditions

The audit of the molds indicated that only three molds (#24 - 1000 ton, #19 - 400 tons, and #22 - 400

tons) are currently using Shell’s Tellus S4 ME46 synthetic hydraulic fluid. A report in August 2012

documented a test that Shell Oil ran on D’s Mold#24, a Husky 1000 ton unit. A copy of Shell’s report

is included in Appendix B.


13

The Shell report over-estimated the baseline energy use of the 1000 ton mold it tested, reporting it

used 6,220,000 kWh/year or 6,220 kWh/ton. Given that there are 31 injection molding machines

with a total capacity of 12,459 tons, the total energy use for just the molds would be 77.5 million

kWh/year, more than three times D’s entire electricity use of 22.5 million kWh/year.

The auditor obtained a more reasonable baseline energy use of 1,352 kWh/ton-year, derived from

seven days of field metering Mold#17, a 120 ton Husky.

Measure Description

It is recommended that M consider replacing the standard hydraulic oil with Shell’s Tellus S4 ME46

synthetic hydraulic fluid in molds that do not currently have the synthetic oil. Four molds (numbers

17, 20, 3, and 4) are able to accept the synthetic oil. These molds add up to a total of 1,520 tons of

clamping power. Energy savings and cost are calculated per ton of clamping power so the savings can

be scaled up if there are more molds that can begin using the synthetic oil.

Savings

The Shell report used a true rms ammeter to measure the power draw of Mold#24 before with

standard oil and after with synthetic oil. The measured power reduction was 5.08%. Using baseline

energy use of 1,352 kWh/ton and the power reduction of 5.08%, the energy savings is 68.7

kWh/ton-year. The total savings for the four molds will be 104,396 kWh/year. Shell’s report also

suggested that non-energy benefits would include increased lubricant life of three years versus one

year, increased pump life, and decreased cycle time leading to increased productivity. The longer life

of the oil has non-energy dollar benefits since the oil does not have to be replaced every year. The

value of the energy savings at $0.077/kWh would be $8,037. The non-energy benefit of reduced

labor and avoided standard oil purchases is $7,534 per year for total dollar savings of $15,571.

Installed Cost Estimate

The incremental cost to buy the synthetic oil is $15.68/ton. For 1,520 tons of molds, the total oil cost

is $23,826 for a simple pay back of 1.5 years.

Measurement and Verification (M&V)

To properly verify the energy savings, a simple spot check of power reduction would not be

sufficient. It requires power sensors (CTs) to be installed on the electric service and data for 1 to 2

weeks with the old oil pre-test and 1 to 2 weeks with the synthetic oil post-test. This longer test will

account for any reduction in production time as well as lower power draw.

EEM-2 Energy Star/Miser on Vending Machines

Existing Conditions

Most cold beverage and hot snack vending machines in D do not have Energy Star/Miser controls to

turn off the compressors and lights when no one is around, resulting in energy waste.


14

Measure Description

The the contractor contacted the vending machine supplier Classic Group and Chicago Coffee & Tea.

They are very willing to do a detailed review of the number and type of vending machines at D and

M’s other Chicago area plants. They will determine how many machines are on-site and the related

cost to upgrade them to Energy Star/Miser.

Savings

Savings per machine are estimated to be 900 kWh/year which is 24% of the baseline energy use of

3,743 kWh/year for an average cold beverage vending machine. At the electric rate of $0.077/kWh,

the dollar savings for 10 vending machines at D is 9,000 kWh/year ($693/year).


The cost of each upgrade is estimated at $179 based on similar projects in the Pacific Northwest. The

total installed cost for 10 machines would be approximately $1,790 for a simple payback of 2.6 years.

It is likely that ComEd or Constellation Energy has an incentive available for this type of project. The

the contractor has experienced other utilities offering an incentive of about $90, cutting the payback

to 1.3 years.


This measure has been validated extensively by multiple utilities and savings are generally

accepted without M&V.

Background Information

M’s vending machines are provided by Classic Group and Chicago Coffee & Tea. Their contact is Jim

Carbone at 773-252-7000 Ext 609, e-mail: [email protected]. They will provide a quote to M

to upgrade all of their vending machines, estimate of 50 to 70 units in the Chicago area.

There will be a charge to M for the upgrade. The equipment comes from USA Technologies, the

supplier of the Energy (Vending) Miser. The contact at USA is Scott Larkin 262-617-0221

[email protected].

EEM-3 Extend LED Lighting to the Rest of D Parking Lot

Existing Conditions

The parking lot around D and the corporate office has some light that has been converted to LED

fixtures, but there are still 76 pole lights and 15 lights on the exterior walls of the buildings that

could be converted to LED. These metal halide fixtures draw 41.86 kW of power and use 152,789

kWh/year.

mailto:[email protected]




15

Table 4: D Exterior Lighting Baseline and Proposed Energy Use and EEM Cost Estimate

Existing Baseline Condition Proposed Measures

Fixture Type Lamp type

Connected

Load

(Watts)

Number

of

Fixtures

Total

Watts

Hours of

Operation

Baseline

kWh/yr

Lamp

type

Connected

load

Total

Watts

Hours of

Operation kWh/yr

Individual

Measure

Cost*

Total

Measure

Equipment

Cost

Pole Lights Metal Halide 460 76 34,960 3,650 127,604 LED 197 14,972 3,650 54,648 $ 1,100 $ 83,600

Bldg Exterior Metal Halide 460 15 6,900 3,650 25,185 LED 128 1,920 3,650 7,008 $ 800 $ 12,000

Totals 91 41,860 152,789 16,892 61,656 $ 95,600

* Measure cost is based on estimates from M the contractor Connextions

Measure Description

Table 4 above shows the existing number of fixtures and lamps and the installed Watts as well as the

current annual energy use. It also shows the proposed Watts and the proposed energy use as well as

the estimated cost of the lighting measures. The baseline energy use is 152,789 kWh/year and the

proposed energy use is 61,656 kWh/year. The savings are 91,133 kWh/year which reduce the annual

energy cost by $7,016. Shown below, Figure 4: Metal Halide and LED Exterior Lamp shows that only

the type of lamp has to be changed from metal halide to LED at a cost of $93,325. The LED has a

much longer life than the metal halide lamp which means fewer lamps need to be purchased and

less labor is needed to replace burned out lamps.

Figure 4: Metal Halide and LED Exterior Lamp

Savings

The total energy savings are estimated at 91,133 kWh/year, which has a value of $7,016 per year at

historic utility rates. The metal halide lamps lose 70% of their light intensity in 5,000 hours of

operation. LED lights maintain brightness of 87% and higher for 100,000 hours. This means the LEDs

will last about 20 years when metal halide needs to be replaced every other year. The halide lamps

cost $25 each, so for 91 lamps, that is $2,275/year. There is also additional labor savings from

avoiding the replacement of the halide lamps every two years. The labor savings is $16,209, based

on a labor rate of $75/hour and replacement of two lamps per hour. The total annual non-energy

benefit is $18,484 (lamp cost + avoided labor).


16


The cost of purchasing LED lamps is estimated by Connexions at $95,600. The avoided cost of

purchasing the halide lamps replacements results in a savings of $2,275. The total cost of installing

LED lamps is therefore $93,325 (total LED purchase cost – halide lamp total purchase cost). The

labor cost of installing is neutral, as the LED and a new metal halide would be the same cost to

install. The energy savings ($7016) and non-energy savings ($18,484) is $25,500, which allows cost

recovery in 3.7 years.


This measure is very straight-forward and utilities do not generally require any M&V as long as the

number of fixtures and lamps are verified, it is usually assumed the nighttime hours are changing. If

a new time clock or other control such as a new photocell, then the hours of operation may have to

be verified.

EEM-4 Convert Diesel Generators to bi-fuel Adding Natural Gas

Existing Conditions

D has four on-site electrical generators of which three are operational. These three are about 1,500

kW and diesel fired. The generators are for back-up power and they rarely operate. Because of the

diesel emissions they are regulated and can run only a few hours per year for regular maintenance,

in emergencies when grid power is lost, and on-demand as requested by ComEd.

Measure Description

THE CONTRACTOR proposes installing conversion kits on these three generators to allow them to

operate with “bi-fuel,” using 30% diesel fuel and 70% natural gas. Such a conversion kit can be seen

on the diesel2gas web-site: http://www.diesel2gas.com/ This site has short video showing how the

retrofit kit works. Contact information for the manufacturer and the distributor closest to M are

included in the Background section below.

Savings

The the contractor estimates that D’s cost to self-generate electricity will be $0.052 per kWh. This

cost is 29.6% lower than the current electricity price for on-peak energy, which is $0.074/kWh. The

current off-peak electricity rate is $0.048/kWh, so it is not cost effective to self-generate during off-

peak hours. On-peak hours are 9:00 AM to 10:00 Pm on weekdays or 13 hours per day (65 hours per

week). Allowing for holidays, which are off-peak, there are 50 weeks per year or 3,250 hours per

year when the bi-fuel generators can run thus avoiding 5,050,000 million kWh/year of grid

purchased electricity. This is a 22.5% reduction in metered electricity for D. The annual cost savings

in electricity is $376,397.

However, the generators will consume 403,758 therms/year of natural gas beyond what D is

currently using 420,696 therms/year. The cost of the natural gas is subtracted from the electricity

cost savings. The current cost of natural gas is $0.254 per therm for a total added gas cost of

$102,486 per year.

http://www.diesel2gas.com/


17

The longer hours of operation will also add to the maintenance cost for more oil changes, repairs

and major overhauls. The added O&M cost is $55,770 and it is like a negative non-energy benefit

that has to subtracted from the net energy cost savings. D’s total cost to self-generate 5,050,000

kWh per year is $158,256 or $0.031. Including the added gas and O&M costs, the net annual cost

savings is $273,911 per year.


The the contractor found two sources for estimated cost to install the conversion kit, one was $100

per kW generator capacity and the other was $119/kW. Using the larger cost, the installed cost for

1,500 kW is $178,500. The simple payback is 1.6 years.


Because the expected electricity savings are very large, it IMPVP standards would allow the savings

to be verified by using several months of electric and gas billing data. After the conversion the

electricity bill will go down considerably as compared to the same months of billing data before the

conversion. The opposite is true for the gas bills as they will go up dramatically since the new gas use

will about three times the old gas use. The added O&M cost is less easy to verify as it may take a

couple years of pre and post O&M records.


http://www.diesel2gas.com/ Nice introductory video showing how the retrofit is installed and how it

works

Altronic 712 Trumbull Avenue, Girard, Ohio 44420; 330-545-9768 www.gti-altronic.com

Chicago Area Distributor: Sulzer Turbo Services, 422 Pine Street, Kalkaska, MI 49646 P: 231-258-2500; C: 231-564-1085 Scott Brooks; [email protected]

Four case studies of electric generators converted from diesel only to diesel+nat gas:

http://www.diesel2gas.com/projects/?page=4

Cummin KTA-19 350 kW gen-set GTI Bi-fuel kit, series II-A16,

CAT D349 800 kW gen-set , GTI Bi-fuel Kit, series III-C26

CAT C-18 500 kW gen-set, GTI Bi-fuel kit, series II-B26

CAT 3412 TA 380 kVA gen-set, GTI Bi-fuel kit, series I-A16

http://www.diesel2gas.com/

http://www.gti-altronic.com/


http://www.diesel2gas.com/projects/?page=4


18

EEM for Future Implementation When Replacing or Adding Molds

EEM-5 All-Electric Auburg Versus Husky Hydraulic Mold

Existing Conditions

D has 31 molds and only one, the Auburg Mold#21 is all-electric. Literature mentions that all-

electric mold use less energy than hydraulic molds. Two molds, the Auburg Mold#21 (165 ton unit)

and the Husky Mold# 17(a 120 ton hydraulic unit), were both producing the same product during the

audit so it was an excellent opportunity to install metering equipment to compare energy use. If D

needs to replace or add more injection molding machines, they should be all-electric. THE

CONTRACTOR conducted field test of the energy use of and electric mold and a hydraulic mold. D’s

current all-electric mold used only 626 kWh/ton-year or 34% of the energy of a similar hydraulic

mold which used 1,851 kWh/ton-year doing the same work.

Measure Description

The contractor had an electrician install power measurement sensors, CTs (current transformers) on

one leg of the electric service to Mold#21 (the Auburg 165 ton) and to Mold#17 (the Husky 120 ton).

The power draw was measured every 2-minutes for 165 hours as shown in Figure 5: Power Draw of

Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold and Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold. Using this

data, the contractor was able to estimate the annual energy use of the two molds as shown in Table

5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy Use and Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy Use.


19

Figure 5: Power Draw of Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold

M Industries – Facility Energy Audit Report

Table 5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy Use

Auburg 165 ton Bin 2-minute periods

0-10 Amp 10 - 30 A 30+ Amps 2-Min int

425 4384 138 4947

8.6% 88.6% 2.8% % runtime

7.6 11.8 26.1 kW

5,721 91,242 6,384 103,347 kWh per year

5.5% 88.3% 6.2% percent of annual energy

Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy Use

Husky 120 ton Bin 2-minute periods

0 to 24 24+ to 45 45+ 2-Min int

352 4230 365 4947

7.1% 85.5% 7.4% % of period

18.2 24.8 39.0 kW

11,373 185,582 25,193 222,148 kWh per year

5.1% 83.5% 11.3% percent of annual energy

Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold


Figure 5: Power Draw of Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold and Table 5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy

Use show that the Auburg all-electric mold during 7 days of monitoring pulled between 10 and 30

Amps for 88.6% of the time. For 8.6% of the time, power dropped below 10 Amps. The annualized

energy use came to 103,347 kWh/year, for the 165 ton mold.

Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold and Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy

Use show that during the monitoring period, the hydraulic mold pulled between 24 and 45 Amps for

85.5% of the time. For 7.1% of the time, power dropped below 24 Amps. The annualized energy use

came to 222,148 kWh/year, for the 120 ton mold.

When the energy use for the Auburg electric mold is normalized per ton, the annual energy use is

626 kWh/ton-year. The Husky hydraulic mold’s normalized annual energy use per ton is 1,851

kWh/ton-year, more than three times as much.

Savings

The estimated savings by using an all-electric mold would be 1,225 kWh/ton-year. At $0.077/kWh,

the cost savings for an electric mold would be $94.30 per ton-year. Assuming D added 10% or 1,246

tons of new molds, the energy savings from all-electric molds would be 1.54 million kWh/year with a

cost savings of $118,812 per year.


An all-electric mold costs about $109,620 which is comparable to an equivalent hydraulic mold

costing $114,200. Assuming the typical average size mold is 400 tons, the all-electric mold cost

would be $274/ton and the hydraulic mold would be $285.50/ton. The incremental cost for all-

electric mold would be $87/ton.

If M were to add 1,225 tons of new molds, the total incremental cost would be $109,620 and result

in a savings of $118,812 for a simple payback 0.92 years.


Measurement and verification would be done the same way that THE CONTRACTOR did the field

testing, installing electric power sensors and gather data while two matched machines did the same

work.


A discussion of the savings from an electric mold is provided by Auberg Tech Talk at web site:

http://www.arburg.com/fileadmin/redaktion/Mediathek/today/ARBURG_today40_2009_680276_e

n_GB/?page=22#. The all-electric Allrounder’s has regenerative braking and it uses energy-efficient

drives which can save up to 30% by slowing the motor when the mold is in the cooling mode.

Additionally, a May 2007 article at web site http://www.ptonline.com/articles/electric-hydraulic-or-

hybrid-what%27s-the-rightinjection-press-for-you says that all-electric molds cost 20% more but can

save 30% to 70% of the energy. One example quoted is: “Apex purchased an electric machine for

$150,000 and received a $35,000 rebate check from the utility. A hydraulic machine of similar size

cost $110,000 to $120,000. So the rebate erased the price premium.”


Another article at web site http://www.htiplastic.com/news/hydraulic-vs-electric-injection-mold-

machines has data presented in Table 7: Electric Versus Hydraulic Molds. The article notes, “The

difference in unit cost is readily apparent when a hydraulic machine is replaced by an equivalent

electric machine. With tight, repeatable control of operations, the product is produced with less

material and fewer additives, dramatically reducing waste. Independent functionality in electric

machines means multiple tasks can run simultaneously, resulting in much faster cycles. Additionally,

electric machines have no consumables, such as oil and filters, which must be periodically replaced.

Operating cost also is significantly lower due to the substantially smaller power requirements of an

electric machine.”

Table 7: Electric Versus Hydraulic Molds

ELECTRIC Vs HYDRAULIC COMPARISON

Supplier Clamp Tonnage Material, Shot Wt.,

Cycle Time

Energy Consumption

Electric Hydraulic Hybrid Electric Hydraulic Savings

Engel

220 220 220

15% GF PBT

12.2-sec

cycle

0.259

kwh/kg

material

0.353 kwh/kg

material 26.6% Milacron

935 880 —

29-oz part,

17.9-sec

cycle

99.6 kw 167 kw 40.4%

Sumitomo 198 198 — 16-sec cycle

(estimated) 6.23 kw 23.1 kw 73.0%

Energy Cost Savings EEM (No reduction in energy or carbon emissions)

EEM-6 Forklift Battery Off-peak Charging

Existing Conditions

The D warehouse has electric forklifts with a battery charging station. The D charging station is an

EnerSys Enforcer SCR Charge Control. This system has the ability to delay charging until off-peak

hours. The existing charger is an SCR which has low energy efficiency (81% to 88%). If it needs to be

replaced, more energy efficient models such as the High frequency charger (91% to 92%) are

available. http://www.enersys.com/EnForcer_SCR_Chargers.aspx.

Measure Description

Delay charging until off-peak rates apply, thereby using less expensive energy. Another opportunity

is to add a solar photovoltaic system on the warehouse to provide day time battery charging. These

systems are not cost effective without substantial incentives, however these projects are perceived

positively as a demonstration of commitment to sustainable energy. And they can receive significant

state, federal and utility incentives.

D currently receives electricity from Constellation Energy through ComEd’s distribution system.

There are two rates: On-peak is $0.07424/kWh and off-peak is $0.04788/kWh. M’s average electric

rate is $0.077 which includes other charges such as transportation cost and demand charges.

Figure 7: Sample Electric Bill for One M Place Campus shows on-peak energy use of 1,092,809

kWh/month and off-peak use of 1,592,781 kWh/month for a total of 2,685,590. On-peak energy use

http://www.enersys.com/EnForcer_SCR_Chargers.aspx


is 40.6% and off-peak use is 59.4%. On-peak time is 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM and any electrical energy

use shifted from on-peak to off-peak will save 35.5% of the dollar cost. Since batteries store energy,

they can be charged at night after 10:00 PM and be ready for the morning shift.

Savings

Assuming there are 45 forklifts and each uses 5,600 kWh/year to charge batteries, the total energy

use for charging is 252,000 kWh/year. Based on on-peak day time rate ($0.07424/kWh), this costs D

$18,708 per year. If this load can be switched to off-peak rate ($0.04788/kWh) the cost would be

reduced to $12,066 per year. The total annual energy cost savings would be $6,643 per year.


It is likely the existing battery charging system, which is newer, can be adjusted to use off-peak rates.

This would result in non-upfront cost in a simply payback that can be instantaneous. If the charging

system cannot be switched and needs to be changed, the estimated cost to change the charging

station is $10,300. At a cost of $10,300, the simple payback would be 1.6 years.


There is no need for M&V on this EEM.


Figure 7: Sample Electric Bill for One M Place Campus


The link below provides information on upgrading forklift battery charging and discusses using solar

to charge the batteries. It suggests that a forklift consumes about 5,600 kWh/year but upgraded

systems could reduce this to 2,400 kWh/year:

http://wmich.edu/mfe/mrc/greenmanufacturing/pdf/Posters/Borroughs%20Poster.pdf

The link below takes you to a Southern California paper on off-peak forklift charging, “SCE hoped to

demonstrate that customer bills can be reduced substantially by moving the charging function off-

peak, with annual savings from $300 -$500 per forklift (5 kW charger used daily).”

http://www.lifepo4.info/Battery_study/Articles_on_V2G/Electric_Forklift_and_Non-

Road_EV_Fleets_-_Demand_Response_and_Load_Management_Strategies.pdf

Table 8 below shows Comparative Forklift Charger Test Results from a Pacific Gas & Electric paper

from the web site below:

http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/moneybacksolu

tions/gr ocery/fb_ib/forklift_battery_charger_fs.pdf



http://www.lifepo4.info/Battery_study/Articles_on_V2G/Electric_Forklift_and_Non-

http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/moneybacksolutions/gr%20ocery/fb_ib/forklift_battery_charger_fs.pdf

http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/moneybacksolutions/gr%20ocery/fb_ib/forklift_battery_charger_fs.pdf


Table 8: Comparative Forklift Charger Test Results


Appendix A:D Interval Meter Data


Figure 8: D Meter# ####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012


Figure 9: D Meter# #####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014


Figure 12: D Meter# ####3085 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012


Appendix B:Additional Electronic Documentation


The items listed below are data sets too large to be included in the body of this report. They are

provided to M in electronic format.

Energy Calculation Excel Workbooks

Utility Bills and Interval Data

Vendor List

Product Literature

Logger Data

Audit Photographs

Field Notes

Background Energy Studies and Reports

generic industrial audit report-2-24-15

Documents

energy starmiser

ds energy

baseline energy use

energy efficiency measures

asia energy audit report

measure description

summary of findings

d facility