ENERGY-EFFICIENT MOTORS – NOT NECESSARILY A NO-BRAINER

Induction motors are ubiquitous in industry and invariably

offer energy-efficiency opportunities. These opportunities are

however not necessarily in the form of viable motor

replacement options.

Induction motors are used extensively in industrial facilities, and consequently can be responsible for a significant proportion of energy consumption and demand. Older designs are inefficient, and there are now a range of motors available which require less input power (for the equivalent amount of shaft power) than these older designs. In many countries, the use of high-efficiency designs is becoming mandatory. This is not the case in South Africa, and in my experience the uptake of these motors remains quite low, despite sustained increases in electricity prices. This got me thinking about why this is the case, and in this post I will explore some potential reasons for the relatively poor penetration of these devices, and also what you need to consider when assessing motor replacement opportunities. I won’t get into issues of torque in this post, but will remind you of the fact that a motor’s torque characteristics are an important factor, and the torque requirements of the driven process must be well understood when assessing replacement options.

Motor efficiency refers to the ratio/percentage of input power to output or shaft power for a given motor. The efficiency values you will see on a motor’s nameplate are quoted for full-load conditions. Energy-efficient motors require less input power for a given amount of shaft power. However, it is wrong to speak of a motor having a specific efficiency level. As discussed in a number of previous posts, motor efficiency is a function of load, with load being the proportion of the motor’s capacity that is actually used. If a motor is poorly loaded, replacement with an energy-efficient alternative of the same capacity would yield lower levels of efficiency improvement than replacement with a standard-efficiency motor of the correct capacity. Hence for poorly-loaded motors, correcting the loading problem is a higher priority than motor replacement.

Running hours are important, since the more hours that a motor runs, the more energy can be saved (remember that energy = the product of power and time). The energy savings are the product of the input power differential between the existing motor and its replacement and the running hours: Energy savings = (kW_existing – kW_replacement) x running hours. Clearly, even where a large power differential exists, if running hours are low, energy savings will be low, and the costs of replacement become difficult to justify.

As outlined above, if you can find motors with long annual running hours and which are well-loaded, high-efficiency replacement options should be further investigated. However, motor efficiency is not the only driver of operating cost for induction motors. A further consideration is the difference in power factor between the existing motor and the replacement motor. Power factor is the ratio of real power (in kW) to apparent power (in kVA). The lower a motor’s power factor, the higher the flow of current to the motor for a given real power requirement, and the greater the line losses (also called I²R losses) incurred in operating the motor. For a site that does not have power factor correction systems installed, a motor with a lower power factor (which could be a replacement motor with higher efficiency than the existing motor) will result in increased demand charges as well as some energy losses (these are typically small) due to the increased current flow in the site’s internal distribution system. A reduction in both of these costs can be achieved through the use of local capacitors close to the motor. Sites that have power factor correction systems installed at the point of supply will experience reduced site demand levels, but will not reduce I²R losses in their distribution systems, since excess current will still flow between the capacitor banks and the motor. For such sites, motor efficiency gains are still generally a bigger economic driver than these efficiency losses, particularly when you consider that it is the difference in power factor that is of interest, not only the power factor of the replacement motor.

The above are however not the only important issues when considering motor replacement. Something to bear in mind is that high-efficiency motors tend to operate at slightly higher speeds than standard-efficiency models, due to reduced slip. For fixed speed applications, this can have significant consequences for energy consumption. For example, for centrifugal pumps and fans, flow is proportional to speed, but power varies with the cube of speed. Small increases in speed can result in significant power increases for motors used in these applications. The situation could therefore be one in which the high-efficiency motor uses less energy than a standard-efficiency equivalent would have used for the same output power, but with this benefit negated by operation at a higher output power than was the case before the replacement. Such a situation is only acceptable where the increased power output is actually required, or can be managed - for example through reductions in operating time. How big a problem could this be? Consider a motor replacement option with a speed that is 1.3% faster than a standard-efficiency motor. Input power would increase such that P_final = P_initial x (speed_final / speed_initial)³ = P_initial x (1.013 x speed_initial / speed_initial)³ = P_initial x 1.013³ = 1.04 x P_initial, which is a 4% power increase! This could easily match or exceed the efficiency differential.

 

One final thought is that motors are part of systems, and system efficiency is the product of the efficiency levels of the individual components of the system. No matter how efficient a motor is, if it is driving an inefficient machine or process, replacement of the motor will have a limited impact on the efficiency of the system. For example, an inefficient motor driving a machine producing products in which only 50% of production meets specification with the balance ending up as scrap cannot be considered a high-leverage energy efficiency opportunity.  Not until the scrap problem has been resolved. This highlights the relationship between operational excellence and sustainability on industrial sites, something I will explore more in future posts.

What I've tried to show is that motor replacement on the basis of efficiency improvement is not a straightforward matter, and that hasty replacement without a considered analysis can actually lead to higher operating costs. Motor replacement is certainly not a "no-brainer" and calls into question moves to regulate motor efficiency standards.

Copyright © 2013, Craig van Wyk, all rights reserved

ALIGNING JOB ROLES TO SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES

Sustainability requires involvement at all levels,
not just by a project team. This involvement has to be well defined if it is to become meaningful.

Implementing sustainability is necessarily about change. It starts with a change in mind-set in the very upper reaches of management, where it is realised that from a strategic perspective, sustainability makes business sense, is essential for organisational survival and in fact is a strong source of competitive advantage. This realisation is then translated into concrete action, in order for the organisation’s sustainability goals to be realised. This includes a review of current operations, where often there are many positive organisational attributes that are already sustainable, but may not be recognised as such. Then of course there are those factors which are not sustainable and need to changed or phased out. Finally, there is the very structure of the organisation, which needs to be modified such that it has the capacity to adapt on an ongoing basis, on the understanding that becoming sustainable is not a project, but a process.

This process will involve changes in technology, changes in relationships with suppliers, customers, regulators and other stakeholders, revision of work practices, the development of new products and markets and fundamentally new ways of doing business. It cannot be about a few piecemeal projects that while positive in their own right, are not part of a broader transformation.  It will also be difficult to make sustainability “stick” if it is one of many other “initiatives” in the organisation. Instead, it should be integrated into everything the organisation does, sending a consistent message to all employees and stakeholders that this is the path that has now been chosen.

 

Warm and fuzzy messages do not in themselves bring about change. Yes, it is of course important for all employees within an organisation to understand why change is necessary, and the broader impacts of that change. It is however vital to understand exactly how different levels of the organisation will have an impact on sustainability performance, and then to build sustainable practices into job roles at all levels. Without this level of detail, it is difficult to make sustainability something “real”.

It is a good idea to engage employees on this issue, making them a part of the process of uncovering sustainable work practices. It is however the work of management to analyse each level of the organisation in detail, to assess precisely how every job impacts on sustainability, and then to build the infrastructure around each job to support sustainable work practices. This gives employees a point of departure, a foundation upon which to build new job roles that they can make their own. Of course, I’m referring hear to organisations that are participative in nature, which I think you have to be if you want to become more sustainable.

 

To give you an idea about the types of tasks and behaviours I’m talking about, below is an overview of how an issue like energy efficiency touches on the job roles of different groups of employees on an industrial site.

 SUSTAINABILITY AFFECTS EVERYONE – ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXAMPLE

STAFF	ROLE IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY	MECHANISMS FOR EFFECTING CHANGE
Executive management	Highlight energy efficiency as a strategic issue	Communication channels such as newsletters and site forums
	Set short, medium and long-term site-wide targets	Build into performance goals for managers and departments
	Provide resources for  attainment of targets	Budgeting processes
	Foster integration of sustainability	Include in all areas of operations at the strategic level
Middle Management and technical staff	Identify energy efficiency opportunities	Technical audits and facilitation of shop floor focus groups
	Improve work practices to enhance energy efficiency	Review of work instructions and procedures Training of staff on the energy efficiency issues within their control
	Optimise efficiency of existing operations	Plant settings that minimise energy use e.g. lower operating temperatures and pressures Preventive maintenance programme development and implementation to eliminate failures
	Modify equipment and source new technologies	Investigations into the efficiency of current equipment Research into technological alternatives Identification of alternative suppliers Justification of modifications and capital investments
Shop Floor staff	Operate equipment more sustainably	Addressing failures that may not affect throughput, but waste energy e.g. compressed air leaks Switching off of lighting and equipment when not needed Following agreed best operating practice rigorously
	Minimise defects and rework	Prompt action for quality problems that may lead to rework and wasted energy
		·         Etc…

The table is by no means comprehensive, and there are many other staff functions that are not shown here who all have a role to play. What the above is meant to show is that if you limit the scope of sustainability within an organisation to a few people and treat it as a project, opportunities are lost. There is a role for all employees to play, and it is up to managers to identify what that role is, and then to engage with employees to develop the role further. In doing so, use must be made of existing management infrastructure, and where there are already positive sustainability practices in play, these should be enhanced and reinforced.

This is not a “top-down” process. Senior management need to lead, this is true, but there should be mechanisms in place for continuous feedback from the strategic to the operational levels and back again. The entire organisation should be engaged in a conversation about sustainability, and prepared to modify plans and actions at all levels in response to results achieved. 

Copyright © 2013, Craig van Wyk, all rights reserved