RAPID ASSESSMENT OF THE VIABILITY OF MOTOR REPLACEMENT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Motors driving centrifugal pumps at a water purification plant

Induction motors are prevalent on every industrial site, and are typically responsible for a sizable portion of the total electrical energy consumed (reportedly up to 40%, but it depends heavily on the industry concerned). As technology regarding their construction has moved forward, they have become more efficient, meaning that the amount of energy supplied to an induction motor for the equivalent amount of work performed has reduced. It is widely accepted that most of the life-cycle costs associated with owning an induction motor are due to energy consumption rather than the capital and maintenance costs of the motor itself. Sites with older motor populations can therefore benefit from replacement of older motors with newer, more efficient designs.

Motors are generally classified as being either of standard, high/improved or premium efficiency, with various different standards in use which are not necessarily equivalent (if interested, you can find out more here).

In some parts of the world, minimum efficiency levels are regulated. In the European Community, high efficiency motors became mandatory for new installations in 2011, for example, with stricter standards planned for 2015 and beyond. Various financial incentives are also in place in different parts of the world – in South Africa, the national power utility provides incentives for motor replacement on condition that the motor being replaced is destroyed.

The issues around motor efficiency are diverse, and extend beyond their design characteristics. To begin with, on-site measurement of efficiency is not typically done, and hence the assessment of an existing motor’s efficiency is in most instances an intelligent guess. While the design efficiency of an existing motor is generally available from manuals, and is sometimes displayed on the motor’s nameplate, this efficiency could have changed over time, particularly if the motor has been re-wound. Since in general we are talking about a decrease in efficiency here, using the design efficiency is nevertheless a conservative measure when calculating the benefits of replacement. Note also that the efficiencies quoted are based on full-load conditions. If a motor is poorly loaded, the impacts on efficiency can be very significant, as shown by the typical load-efficiency curve illustrated below.

It is clear that in this example, at loadings of less than 50% efficiency levels fall dramatically. While such loadings are uncommon, I have observed them on occasion, particularly for larger motors. It should however be considered that the illustrated relationship does depend also on motor size, with larger motors able to maintain higher efficiencies at lower loadings.

Use of variable speed drives complicates the efficiency issue further. VSD’s (also called variable frequency drives) contribute to losses directly themselves (these are of the order of 1-3%), but motor speed reduction (caused by the motor operating at lower frequencies than rated) also causes a reduction in motor efficiency. You can find more information in this article. The full-load efficiency levels of new motors are determined according to standard tests and manufacturers are expected to meet the defined efficiency standards in order to classify a motor as being within a specific efficiency class.

Let’s explore a few simple (understanding from the above that it’s not that simple) relationships to illustrate how efficiency increases contribute towards reduced energy consumption.

Motor efficiency% = η = output power (at the shaft) / input power (from the energy source) x 100%. For a given level of output power (OP), an energy-efficient motor requires less input power (IP) than a standard-efficiency motor.  

For any motor, OP = η x IP / 100 (with efficiency in %) and therefore, since we can assume that in evaluating opportunities to install energy-efficient motors the process being driven requires a specific amount of power,  η_standard x IP_standard / 100 = η_new x IP_new / 100

From IP = OP x 100 / η, the change in input power requirements arising from the use of energy efficient motors, ΔIP, is given by: 

ΔIP = OP x 100 x (1/ η_standard – 1/ η_new)               

    = η_standard x IP_standard x (1/ η_standard – 1/ η_new)

So, for a motor drawing an input power of 50 kW, with an efficiency of 92.7% and with a replacement motor of 95% efficiency available, the power savings would be of the order of ΔIP = 92.7% x 50 x (1/92.7 – 1/95) = 1.21 kW.

This is the input power under average conditions, since the power draw of a motor varies with time, particularly under transient conditions like start-up, and also as a function of the specific processes in which the motor is employed. A motor driving a bandsaw will draw different amounts of power depending on the material being cut and the condition of the blade, for example.

The amount of energy saved is the power saving multiplied by the time over which the savings are realised. While motors run continuously in some plants, in most cases you will need to determine the running hours. The energy savings in the case of our example, were this motor to run continuously, would be of the order of 1.21 kW x 24 hours/day =  29 kWh/day. The value of these energy savings would depend on local tariff structures, and there may also be demand savings associated with replacement. 

A few things become apparent (or even self-evident) from the preceding analysis:

·  The bigger the efficiency differential, the better – generally,  the larger a motor is, the smaller is the efficiency differential, since larger motors tend to be more efficient than smaller ones;

·  The longer the running hours, the greater the amount of energy saved. Hence if you run a dayshift operation, expect it to be tougher to justify replacements, even for motors that run continuously;

·   Some measurement is needed to determine input power. While you can log the power drawn, simple spot checks are a useful starting point. If you measure only current and voltage, you will need to make assumptions regarding power factor in calculating the power drawn. This is the least-preferred approach, since like efficiency, power factor varies with motor loading. Alternatively you could measure power factor directly, together with the voltage and current. This would give an accurate indication of power consumption. Better still, hand-held clamp meters are available which measure power directly. 

Conducting such an exercise on a site with a large motor population is possible if you chip away at it over time. It is useful to have such information on record, and to track changes through periodic measurements. These checks could even be incorporated into your preventive maintenance programme, with input power draw triggering further investigations should there be an upward trend. If however you would like a first-order overview of energy-saving opportunities and their potential viability, here is an approach I use to rapidly review opportunities on industrial sites.

·    Construct a record of every motor on the site in terms of its power rating, full-load efficiency level (if available), full-load power factor and rated speed;

o If efficiency is not known, estimate it, either using a standard efficiency value, or correlations for older motors;

o The speed is required in order to calculate the number of poles. This is often indicated on the nameplate. If not, measure it with a tachometer. Often the poles are directly indicated, in which case you do not require the speed value;

·     Assume a loading value - I generally use 80%. At these loading levels, efficiency and power factor levels are typically close to what they would be at full load. Of course, actual loadings could be far lower or even higher;

·  Where a given motor size/speed combination is prevalent for a number of motors, conduct this analysis for just one, which will represent all of them;

·  Find the equivalent high and premium efficiency motors for each individual size/speed combination, and obtain rough prices for the replacement motors. You can generally get a price list from a motor manufacturer - take care to note if the motors are foot mounted or flange-mounted, since there is typically a fairly significant difference in price between equivalent-capacity motors with different mounting arrangements;

·   Determine your unique payback requirements – for example, do you require a payback within 3 years? Bear in mind that the average induction motor can be expected to have a useful life of 100,000 hours.

·  For each motor/speed combination, determine the annual running hours that will lead to a break-even situation over your payback time horizon, based on energy tariffs, energy savings arising from the efficiency differential and the costs of the motor. I use rough costs at this stage – it’s quite simple to construct a correlation between motor price and power rating for premium efficiency motors once you have accumulated a sufficient number of quotations. For simplicity, I don’t include maintenance costs at this stage, but you could do so.

·  Now compare these running hours to the running hours of your facility, the running hours of your individual processes and finally the running hours of individual motors within those processes. If the breakeven running hours exceed the motor’s expected running hours by a significant amount, further investigation is probably not promising. If however the breakeven hours are far lower, investigate further with measurements to determine actual loading and analysis. A firmer motor price could also be obtained by asking a supplier to quote for the specific motor concerned. Recalculate with this firmer data and make a decision.

Wondering how to calculate those breakeven hours?

Annual Energy savings = ΔIP x Running hours/annum x Cost/unit energy

 =η_standardxIP_standardx(1/η_standard–1/η_new)x Running hours/annum x Cost/unit

By setting these annual energy savings to a value which offsets the cost of the replacement motor over the chosen time horizon (e.g. 5 years), the running hours required annually to achieve this can be calculated. Use of a spreadsheet and the goal-seek function is a simple way to do this for multiple motors. An example is outlined in the table below for a sample of 9 power/speed combinations.

RATED MOTOR SIZE (KW)	NO. OF POLES	EXISTING MOTOR   η %	FULL LOAD POWER DRAW (KW)	ESTIMATED AVERAGE INPUT POWER @ 80% LOADING (KW)	PREMIUM MOTOR   η %	SAVINGS OVER 5 YEARS (RANDS)	ESTIMATED MOTOR REPLACEMENT COST (RANDS)	ANNUAL RUNNING HOURS REQUIRED (HRS)
0.75	4	72.1	1.04	0.83	82.5	3900	3900	12392
1.1	4	75	1.47	1.17	84.1	4100	4100	10765
2.2	4	79.7	2.76	2.21	86.7	4700	4700	8787
2.2	6	77.7	2.83	2.27	84.3	4700	4700	8834
3	6	79.7	3.76	3.01	85.6	5240	5240	8415
3	4	81.5	3.68	2.94	87.7	5240	5240	8390
7.5	4	86	8.72	6.98	90.4	7590	7590	7450
11	4	87.6	12.56	10.05	91.4	9500	9500	7582
15	4	88.7	16.91	13.53	92.1	11800	11800	7876

In the calculations in the table, the annual running hours are varied such that for each motor, the savings achieved over a 5-year period are equal to the costs of replacement with an energy-efficient motor, assuming a motor loading of 80% for the existing motor. 

If for example, this site operated for 24 hours a day and for 340 days of the year, total operating hours would be 24 x 340 = 8,160 hours/annum. A glance at the required running hours quickly shows that motors of 7.5 kW, 11 kW and 15 kW should be investigated further. These investigations should involve determination of actual power consumption through measurement, a determination of actual running hours and an assessment of financial viability based on these measurements. In fact, this analysis could be extended to include motors from 2.2 kW in size given that these are relatively close in terms of breakeven running hours.   

As regards the other motors, the overall situation could change (assuming the efficiency differential remained constant) if power prices increased to a higher level, if motor prices decreased and/or if running hours increased. The exercise should also be periodically repeated to account for improvements in motor efficiency arising from technological advances over time.

You could make your approach more comprehensive than the one proposed by assuming a loading level of 100%. This would increase the savings potential due to motor replacement and widen the net in terms of the number of motors that would require detailed measurement. In my experience, motors in most factories tend to be loaded at levels below 80%, so this is just an arbitrary value I have chosen.

A final point: motors form part of a larger system, and before pursuing energy-efficient motor options, don’t lose sight of opportunities such as reductions in running time, installation of more efficient drive systems (belts, chains, gearboxes etc.) where applicable, and increases in the efficiency of the equipment being driven e.g. a different mixer design may require less power to achieve the same degree of mixing. Each system being driven should be examined in its entirety, with energy-efficient motors being a component of that analysis. 

 

5S – SO MUCH MORE THAN A HOUSEKEEPING TOOL

Most of us who have worked in industrial settings for any length of time and have been involved in continuous improvement initiatives would have seen the implementation of the 5S system. Typically elaborated as “sort, set in order, shine, standardise and sustain” (or other “S’s” of that ilk), the approach is typically associated with physical housekeeping, and is a subset of the broader TPM philosophy which spawned the Lean movement. Organisations typically follow a regimented set of steps in “implementing 5S”, often missing the point in the process.

If we are to unlock the true value of 5S, we need to think more deeply into the origins of the approach. In doing so, it soon becomes obvious that here we are dealing not only with a tool for neatening up the shop floor environment, but a powerful management philosophy which, if successfully implemented, can in itself deliver fundamental productivity improvement. This was indeed not intended to be simply a bunch of steps to follow for cleaning up a messy shop floor, but an overarching way of operating, from the top of an organisation to the bottom. Let me explain.  

The first S, SEIRI, is about organisation. It refers to sorting the necessary from the unnecessary. Often, managers allow the hangovers from previous initiatives to remain on their agendas, cluttering the management landscape. Soon daily routine comprises a hotchpotch of unrelated activities, only half of which add any real value. Defunct meeting structures are allowed to continue, unnecessary meetings are held, the wrong people are involved in meetings…the list goes on. Since so much time, money and effort has been invested in these various programmes, we often have a hard time letting go. Take time out to ask yourself what you are trying to achieve, and then sort your management activities to support your objectives. Anything not in support of these objectives must be considered unnecessary and discarded.

The second S, SEITON, concerns neatness. It refers to having “a place for everything and everything in its place”. When trying to manage issues across a broad spectrum, it becomes so easy to lose track of what needs to be done. Things fall through the cracks and often a last-minute charge is needed to catch up. A prime example would be the type of activity witnessed in the days before an audit. There are a few simple things you can do to establish a measure of routine. Schedule different types of activities for different days of the week, and stick to this schedule. Try to get the managers who report to you to do the same, to gain alignment and establish a common “drumbeat” for managerial activities. Map out all of the meetings and forums in your area of influence across the various levels in the organisation, and get these to complement each other. Reduce duplication as much as possible. Soon the limited resources at your disposal will become aligned and you will be able to better apply your efforts to where they can have the most impact.

The third S, SEISO, refers to cleaning and polishing. The aim is not just to make the environment look good, but to expose problems through close inspection. The philosophy is that if problems can be dealt with at this micro level, far bigger problems will be prevented. It is about being proactive. The message from a management perspective is that attention to detail is essential. Merely demanding high performance from your staff without an understanding of the true nature of problems will not deliver results. This does not imply that people must not take ownership of their responsibilities and that you, as the leader, will solve all of their problems. It means instead that you will have empathy for those you lead, allowing you to take a more balanced view around resource allocation, when to back off and give people space and also when to drive harder because complacency has set in.  

You can only deal with the little problems if you are close to the detail. In my humble opinion, the visionary leader who inspires his people with no sense of the detail is inappropriate in a manufacturing and operations environment. You do need to inspire your subordinates, but you also have to have a sense of the detail. It is a rare animal who can successfully do both, but in my experience these types of individuals make the best managers.  Shigeo Shingo emphasised the Japanese management approach, which is for managers to be responsible for performance and workers to be responsible for processes. Managers therefore need to map out the processes which drive performance, with subordinates responsible for the execution of these processes, improving them over time. A manager who is not detail oriented cannot execute on this philosophy.

The fourth S, SEIKETSU, refers to standardisation. At management level, employees are naturally strong-willed and often very innovative. To establish effective routine however, best practices need to be assimilated and followed by everyone. The more certainty you can create, the better the environment becomes for controlled innovation of the kind that adds sustainable value to your business. That means that “bad” management behaviours are simply not tolerated, and everyone on the team has a clear understanding of his/her contribution. All departments need to play by similar rules, for example. If performance standards are vastly different between departments, resentment quickly builds and morale suffers. Standardisation need not mean the same hard standards or specifications for everyone. On the contrary, at management level one needs to be able to assess and appreciate differences between sites, departments and jobs. The standardisation referred to here is a standard amount of stretch in the objectives of each department, site or individual. Everyone should feel equally challenged. This is difficult to do, but for starters, root out glaring discrepancies in standards. Engage with those at the rock face to understand individual operations in more detail and keep an open mind. Management will be viewed as being more objective, and commitment from the lower levels will increase.

The fifth S, SHITSUKE, concerns the aspect of discipline. It is around maintaining established standards. This S is not a stand-alone activity, but permeates all areas of a 5S implementation. If managers display a lack of discipline, don’t expect much more from those lower down the ladder. To gain discipline, individuals need to have a clear understanding of their roles in the business and the importance of what they have to be disciplined about. While management can largely define operating frameworks at shop floor, (though this is changing as teams become more empowered), at management level there is a measure of negotiation involved. People need to buy in to routine – they will not just fall into an unthinking regimen of management activities. There has to be a clear view of the bigger organisational picture and how management activities fit into and drive overall performance. Communicating this vision and how it is to be achieved is the job of senior management.

In summary then, management can benefit immensely by regarding 5S as a central philosophy, the key aspects of which are:

• A sense of order is essential for improved productivity
• Total participation is critical for success
• Focus on the basics and the bigger issues will be more apparent and easier to solve
• Be proactive rather than reacting after the fact
• Follow procedures and standards – short cuts could be costly. Be consistent as a leader.

5S is often viewed as one of the first stages of a lean manufacturing change process on the shop flooor. Consider its principles as the foundation for a world class management approach also.

Thoughts on Freshwater Salinity

"Salinisation" of freshwater resources refers to an increase in the content of inorganic salts, measured as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in ppm, or expressed as a conductivity value (mS/m). Natural freshwater will always contain some level of dissolved inorganic species, but it is when concentrations of these constituents become elevated that water users experience problems.

Elevated salinity imposes costs on industrial water users in a number of ways, just a few examples of which are:

·         Scaling of heat transfer surfaces;

·         Reduced cycles of concentration for cooling towers and boilers;

·         Increased treatment costs for applications such as boiler feed water production and other processes requiring soft water;

·         Interference with biochemical and chemical processes;

And it’s not only industrial users who are impacted. Farmers suffer from reduced crop yields and domestic consumers experience problems with household appliances such as irons and kettles. Elevated salinity levels also impact on aquatic fauna and flora and can modify the receiving environment significantly. What then are the causes of elevated salinity, and what can we do about the problem?

Natural fluctuations in salinity occur due to interactions between water and natural geological formations, for example when an aquifer overflows and discharges into a watercourse, or when rainfall leaches salts out of rock formations and seepage into river systems occurs. Hence certain geographical areas are prone to having periods in which salinity levels are higher than elsewhere. Water management authorities often employ strategies such as releases of water from fresher sources to dilute the salinity to ensure that users receive water of acceptable quality, though this may not always be possible.

Agricultural activity is a further cause of salinity increase, with the main issue here being the leaching of salts from geological formations as well as the leaching of inorganic fertiliser components from soil, both as a result of irrigation.  Land use practices such as the manner in which fields are ploughed can exacerbate the situation and also magnify the impacts of the interactions between local geology and precipitation. More efficient irrigation techniques help to reduce return flows to local watercourses and reduce the quantity of salts leached from underlying rock. Fertiliser and land use practices should therefore also take salinisation impacts into account.

Industries and mines can contribute significantly to salinisation. For example, inorganic chemicals such as acidic and basic solutions used for cleaning in the food industry increase effluent salinity, as do cooling tower blow downs. The pulp and paper industry, with its use of inorganic chemicals for processes such as bleaching and causticising is another of many industries which can impact on the salinity of local water resources. In the case of mines, mine water is in close contact with geological formations, and mineral processing produces saline effluents by its nature, due to the size reduction of the ore and consequent intimate contact with water typical in the industry, not to mention the inorganic chemicals employed. Heavy water-intensive industries such as power generation, iron and steel production and mining also tend to make extensive use of un-lined dams, from which water seeps through rock formations and increases in salinity, ultimately emerging and finding its way into local rivers. The discharge of cooling tower blow downs into such dams means that in some instances the water is saline to begin with.  Phenomena such as acid rain can also increase the salinity of surface and groundwater. Acid rain occurs when sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides arising from the combustion of fossil fuels like coal are contacted with water in the atmosphere, forming acidic precipitation.

The processes required to reduce the salinity impacts of industrial concerns are expensive, and will themselves produce waste streams of a saline nature that will have to be safely disposed of. A hazardous waste storage facility is generally required. The integrity of such facilities must of necessity be of the highest standard, but one has to wonder if this is really a sustainable solution.

So we see that salinity has many impacts, and that water users that contribute towards salinity problems are also impacted upon by salinity problems, though these impacts are generally a result of the activities of those upstream of them. We come across many industries that do not measure the salinity of their incoming water or assess the impact they are having on the salinity of receiving watercourses. With measurement of salinity being such a simple matter, make a point of understanding the cost of salinity to your organisation and your contribution to the salinisation of downstream water resources, and consequent impacts for local communities and other users. Pay careful attention also to the nature of the salinity you produce. Often with industrial processes, the chemicals associated with salinity (e.g. heavy metals and/or persistent organic pollutants) are more harmful than the salinity itself.

Opportunity Knocks for Sustainability-focused Industrial Organisations

The current uncertainty in the economic environment sees many industrial organisations with a significant amount of cash on their balance sheets. Bearish on growth, organisations seem paralysed as to decision-making regarding investments. Organisations which do not have cash  but have access to funding at favourable rates are also loath to invest in the current climate. Building a new factory right now would no doubt be a brave move, but in my view there is an enormous investment opportunity right under the noses of owners of industrial concerns which is largely going untapped: investments in organisational sustainability.  

Projects which save an organisation money while also benefiting the environment are highly desirable, since they have direct relevance to two of the three “pillars” of sustainability. Of course, should these savings be invested in growth, there could be further social benefits through job creation, thereby completing the picture. Sustainability aside however, make no mistake that what we are talking about here is simply good for business, and should be on the radar of any industrial organisation seeking to compete in what is a very trying economic climate.

For clarity, here are a few examples of the types of projects I am talking about:

Ø  Projects which save electrical energy, such as lighting retrofits, installation of energy-efficient induction motors, improvements in refrigeration and heating performance or the appropriate use of variable speed drives;

Ø  Projects which save thermal energy (ultimately fuel-saving projects) such as boiler optimisation and other steam system projects;

Ø  Projects which reduce raw material consumption – these typically have enormous financial benefits as well as very significant life cycle benefits;

Ø  Projects which reduce water consumption and effluent discharges;

Ø  Projects which reduce emissions – most if not all of those above do this too!

Ø  Projects which generate energy from waste streams;

Ø  Projects which reduce solid waste disposal costs and wastes to landfill through for example, recycling or processing of wastes;

Ø  ......you get the picture, the opportunities are endless....

Most of the organisations I work with do not have rigorous processes in place to identify, develop and implement these opportunities, simply because they are not really considered to be the core business of the organisations concerned. The thing is, as the operator of an industrial concern, you are privy to a wonderland of investment opportunities, some of which are unique to your organisation, but many of which are simply best practice. How then do industrial concerns go about finding, developing and implementing these opportunities? In my view this can only be achieved through a rigorous process which has to be continuous.

Have an entrepreneurial mindset

Your organisation can be viewed as the source of prime investment opportunities. Projects which conserve water, energy and materials, add value to waste and by-product streams and reduce regulatory penalties through improved compliance are everywhere. Your aim should be to establish a comprehensive portfolio of these opportunities which can become a live record of every possible conservation opportunity available. In much the same way as you would develop a pipeline of projects for business growth, you should be developing a pipeline of sustainability projects. Sustainability is both a moral imperative as well as a tremendous business opportunity!

Use a standard process to define and measure opportunities

Define the basic steps each project should follow and how you would like your sustainability projects to be measured. Measurement is not just about feasibility, but also about post-implementation performance.  Installing a common process and measurement system allows sustainability projects to be compared and prioritised. Align these processes as far as possible to other change control processes already in place within your organisation – the more integrated you can make sustainability projects, the more likely they are to be accepted and implemented. Note that we are not only talking about technology here, but also projects which involve skill development, changes in management systems/work practices, product and raw material modifications and other drivers of enhanced environmental performance.

Take a Systems Approach

Individual technologies are definitely useful, but analysing systems always yields far larger opportunity than a piecemeal approach. I once conducted a project for an organisation that was far into the process of designing a new effluent treatment plant. The capital and operating costs were going to be significant, but these needed to be incurred in order to meet regulatory requirements. Over the course of the project, we discovered a number of opportunities to conserve raw materials, which ultimately led to large reductions in effluent loading, and ultimately a far smaller effluent treatment plant. By taking an integrated view that considered the manufacturing process together with effluent treatment, costs were saved in both areas. A failure to do this could have resulted in a grossly over-sized treatment plant.

Scan the environment

What is your industry doing as far as sustainability is concerned? What new developments do your OEM’s have to offer? Are there new regulations on the horizon which could impose additional costs on your business? Are there specialist skills your organisation needs which are available in the marketplace? Are there financial incentives available from your government? By knowing what is out there you have a head start in terms of opportunities and threats.  

Develop a network of sustainability partners

Your organisation should build internal capacity as far as possible in terms of the skills necessary to pursue initiatives in resource efficiency and pollution prevention, but it is unlikely that all of the skills required will be available internally. Partner with others in achieving your sustainability objectives. These partners could be your raw material suppliers, OEM’s, suppliers of specialist measuring equipment, research institutions, consulting companies, sister sites within your organisation, financiers and others. If necessary put the requisite confidentiality agreements in place, but by working with leaders in the field you save yourself from reinventing the wheel and also reduce the lead time required to advance along your sustainability journey.

Review continuously

The issues which impact on these projects change continuously. Energy prices fluctuate. Water and waste management costs do too. Technology is evolving continuously. A solution which may not have been feasible a year ago could well be feasible today purely on the basis of the economics, or a new technological innovation could help break a hitherto impenetrable performance barrier. Once you have your portfolio of projects in place, keep going back to individual projects to reassess their viability.

These are just some of my preliminary thoughts on what for me is a fascinating subject. Think about it, your organisation could be sitting on a wealth of improvement opportunities, but may not be realising the benefits. The risks involved are typically lower than traditional financial investments, since in many instances tried and tested approaches can be employed. It is in any event possible to determine the risks of individual projects fairly comprehensively – something that can’t be said about investments in financial markets. And best of all, these projects benefit society, enhance reputation and are in essence the right thing to do.