PRACTICAL ELECTRICAL ENERGY CONSERVATION ON INDUSTRIAL SITES - ARTICLE 1: LIGHTING

A Mercury Vapour (MV) security light on an industrial site.

My post on electrical energy saving garnered a lot of interest, so I thought I’d get into a little more detail on the types of areas I typically investigate when looking for electricity savings on industrial sites. 

This is the first in a series of posts which will each explore how to approach energy conservation in individual areas at industrial facilities. In this post I’ll look into the issue of lighting, but stay tuned for future posts which will feature electricity-saving insights in other generic areas where electricity is used as an energy carrier.

Lighting generally incurs a significant cost for industrial sites, principally because industrial sites are large in extent. It is also often a surprisingly overlooked area in terms of electricity savings, probably because process energy requirements are typically believed to be far higher than lighting requirements. If your site operates a battery of induction furnaces, don’t expect lighting to make up a big proportion of your bill, but for light industries (no pun intended), lighting could easily be responsible for up to half of the total electricity bill. The proportion is however not important, it’s the absolute cost. Remember also that in many instances, lighting contributes to maximum demand and you need to consider this in assessing potential savings.

As with all electrical energy consumption, it is useful to think in terms of "kWh" when considering the energy aspects of lighting. The “kW” portion refers to the amount of power consumed by the lights concerned, while the “hrs” portion pertains to the running hours for the lights. Reducing either one of these aspects of energy consumption reduces the amount of energy used, the costs of this energy and the emissions associated with lighting on your site.

Reductions in” kW” (i.e. the power consumption of lighting) are achieved through the use of energy-efficient technological options and the complete elimination of unnecessary lighting, while reductions in “hrs” are arrived at by asking simple questions regarding whether lights could be used for fewer hours in the day. If you think of reducing lighting energy requirements in these terms, you can be logical about things and can generally find low-hanging fruit through a simple plant walk-through. As with all sustainability issues, lighting opportunities will involve a combination of technology, behaviour, work practices, applied standards and other inputs, but never technology only. 

It is of course vital that you ensure that no matter the solution chosen, the minimum lighting levels (as measured at the work surface) required to operate safely are achieved. The colour rendering capabilities of the light provided are also important in some industrial environments, for example where plant operators need to be able to clearly discern changes in colour e.g. for product quality checks.

The first thing I typically do when assessing lighting opportunities is to measure lighting levels throughout the site (using a hand-held light meter) and to conduct an inventory of the lighting solutions that are currently in place. This inventory should include:

•  The type of lights in place;
• Their number and location (including spatial arrangements) in each area;
• The contribution of light sources such as windows and skylights – these do not consume energy, and  should always be your first choice option in terms of alternative lighting;
• Switching arrangements for all light sources – I am constantly surprised by how often this obvious opportunity is ignored, with huge areas unnecessarily being lit up simply because the work area actually needed is operated with the same switch as for other areas;
• The power consumption of the individual electrically-powered light sources – remember to include the  power consumption of ballasts for light sources such as fluorescent lamps and mercury vapour lamps;
• The design output (in lumens) of the various light sources;
• The condition of the lights i.e. are they clean, are there visible differences in light output for individual luminaires? etc;
• The conditions experienced in the area e.g. is it a dusty environment, is it wet etc? I recently did some work in an industry involving extensive stacking of materials, which led to widely varying light conditions depending on where material was stacked relative to light sources.  Here wall-mounted light-sources are inappropriate, for example.

If you do the above assessment, you will be in a position to conduct an evaluation of the energy consumption associated with each area annually, based on power requirements and time of operation, noting also which areas need to operate under varying conditions e.g. during the day and at night, in which case your measurements should be done under these conditions also.

With this baseline in hand, you can now begin to assess alternative solutions, which could entail:

• Behaviour change, encouraging the use of lights only when needed – my advice is to look at the issue holistically. For example,  I was once told by a plant operator that the only reason he left the 400W Mercury Vapour lamps on during the day in his work area during winter was because the lights provided a source of warmth - there were deficiencies in the building envelope which encouraged this behaviour;
• Minor technological change e.g. motion detectors (be sure to only use these with the appropriate lights e.g. fluorescent lights will have a shortened lifespan if constantly switched on and off), and/or changes to switching arrangements;
• Use of daylighting as far as possible – I’m often amazed at how little this is done in a sunny country such as South Africa, even at factories that run in the daytime only. Transparent polycarbonate sheeting is not very expensive, can be made to order in terms of dimensions and can be used for roofing and other parts of building envelopes to provide natural light;
• A reduction in the number of lights used (this may mean rearranging existing lighting) or their individual light output where lighting levels are excessive;
• Employment of higher-efficiency alternatives (this is an area in constant flux, so you may want to do some research of your own or consult a few specialist vendors to understand the landscape before you make choices regarding solutions)

Generally a combination of these approaches is required to arrive at the optimal solution for a site.

The issue of technology tends to be quite interesting given how dynamic the lighting sector is, and in practice I see many sites that feel compelled to adopt the newest options available when making lighting changes. This is not necessarily the best way forward, and in my humble opinion it is far better to use tested technologies. Given that lamps are basically consumables, this is one area in which you really do need to look at life cycle costs, and here I’m not necessarily talking about externalities, but simple life cycle economics. You need to choose the right lights for the right applications so that you don’t shorten lamp life, and be very aware of the lifespan of the lamps concerned when they are employed in design conditions, since the costs of regular replacement can very easily wipe out the energy efficiency gains.

One last comment about lighting is that taking a “big bang” approach can be risky due to the potential for a large financial outlay for technologies which may not perform to your requirements. Making carefully considered changes in individual areas over time is a good way to assess different lighting options and ultimately make better future choices. It is also possible to make incremental improvements using existing light fittings, which reduces the costs of implementation significantly. For example, CFL replacements for mercury vapour lamps are now readily available (you will need to assess light output of the CFL's to ensure sufficiency, and also bypass the control gear on the MV fittings) as are replacement fluorescent tubes with higher lumen output and lower energy requirements than older models, but which can be used with older fittings. You can therefore take a portfolio approach to lighting upgrades, minimising your risks while achieving meaningful savings should you wish to get your feet wet before taking the plunge.

WHAT REALLY DRIVES SHOP FLOOR CHANGE?

Effecting real and lasting change in organisations is a challenge for managers worldwide. Transforming shop floor work practices is particularly daunting, but essential for organisations pursuing operational excellence and sustainability. A lot has been written about the subject of change, and there are a number of popular models and approaches employed by organisations as they try to implement change. Most of these seem well thought out and relevant, and are designed to deal with common pitfalls of poor change management. Yet so many organisations struggle to get benefits from change programmes, and worse, when trying to implement anything new, seem to lose the foundation they had hoped to achieve with the last change initiative they implemented. The first rather obvious problem lies in some of the terminology I've employed in this post so far – we tend to view change as a “programme” or an “initiative”.  It then becomes a project with a beginning and an end, implying that when it’s done we can move on to the next thing. We then wonder why our employees are no longer practicing desired behaviours when the "programme" is over. Jim Womack of the Lean Enterprise Institute refers to these “programmes” as “stickers” or “decals” that are pasted on top of the organisation, but are not evidence of real change.

The second problem with the “programme” mentality is that the change we are trying to achieve is viewed in isolation from other aspects of our business. So, for example, we try to achieve movement towards participative problem solving, but have divisive staff structures or conflicting reward systems that, in the context of Kurt Lewin’s “Force Field Analysis” model, are strong opposing forces to change. In addition, different specialist functions, each with their own agendas, all impose their various individual change programmes on hapless shop floor employees at the same time. Besides the fact that these programmes sometimes work against each other, employees are overloaded with new work practices, morale declines and none of the intended changes take root.

A further problem I see with the “programme” approach is that it leads to a “tick the box” mindset where the bigger concern becomes outputs rather than outcomes. There is generally some kind of “masterplan” organisations are encouraged to follow, at the end of which supposedly lies the achievement of the desired change. Training is typically a large part of the change process. The plan generally does not include good change management practice, but is rather about the tools and techniques people need to be able to use to solve problems, monitor processes and the like. The use of audits to validate that change has indeed taken place is evidence of a common challenge: people tend not to use the desired approaches of their own volition i.e. without being “chased up”. This means that the process is actually unsustainable.

When wanting to implement change, it is therefore, to my mind, clear that we need to take a “systems view” and ensure good organisational alignment to the change. It makes little sense to pursue a change that is in conflict with the culture of your organisation, for example, even if the approach has seen widespread success in other environments. Change at the shop floor either means change throughout the organisation or change at the shop floor to fit the prevailing organisational environment. The table below outlines possible desirable shop floor end states and the types of opposing forces that could exist both at the shop floor and at other levels in the organisation.

TABLE: EXAMPLES OF FORCES OPPOSING CHANGE

Possible desired end states at shop floor	Examples of opposing forces at shop floor and management level
Innovation	Bureaucratic, paper-based shop floor management systems and the need for multiple management approvals for individual changes.
Disciplined use of processes	Lack of structured interactions between management and shop floor
Cross-functional teamwork	Disparate accountability/responsibility/skill levels between team members with poor links to reward
Lifelong learning	Lack of occupational training and capacity building solutions and opportunities
Accountability for performance	Poor distinction between management and shop floor performance outcomes
Seamless communication	Autocratic management who don’t want the “bad news”

Successful change demands that management continuously scan the work environment (and the broader environment that impacts on the workplace) for such opposing forces and take concrete steps to mitigate their impact. Some of these forces may represent significant challenges that cannot be dispelled with the wave of a wand. The rewards, for example, of changing an autocratic management style (a daunting change process in itself, I know) before implementing a participative philosophy at the shop floor are worth the additional time spent in fixing the environment before attempting the desired change.

Kurt Lewin and John Kotter, both recognised change management experts, have suggested 3 distinct phases in any change initiative:

• Defrost / unfreeze the current situation
• Establish a new level through deliberate action
• Cement group life at this new level / anchor the change

Kotter’s model has seven steps which incorporate these 3 generic change processes:

1. Establish a sense of urgency - this is about convincing a large proportion of the workforce (Kotter recommends 75%) that the change is necessary

2. Elicit executive and peer sponsorship - form a guiding coalition of leaders outside of the established hierarchy to lead the change at all levels

3. Create a vision for change - show the workforce where the change is taking them

4. Empower employees to implement change - establish the ground rules and give employees authority

5. Establish short term goals - milestones along the way keep employees committed. The vision will take some time to achieve, and short-term wins will maintain momentum

6. Encourage additional changes - the short-term wins are stepping stones, not an end in themselves

7. Reinforce changes made as permanent - link successes to organisational success and embed the “new ways” through training and continuity. For this to work, you will have had to have analysed the organisation and neutralised opposing forces early in the design phase of the change intervention.

A webinar I had the pleasure of “attending” highlighted the following interesting aspects of shop floor change (with some poetic licence on my part):

• “It is easier to act oneself to a new way of thinking than to think oneself to a new way of acting.” Changing behaviour requires taking concrete actions and demonstrating the benefits of a new way of thinking.
• "Implementing change is not something that can be given to somebody" – for example a resident lean expert or a consultant – it has to happen where you want the change to take root and there has to be ownership there.
• "The change has to be linked to business performance through a scorecard" - change for change’s sake is useless if it does not deliver business benefit.
• "In focusing on results, the manner in which the results are achieved is also important". Results should come from the sustainable resolution of problems, not short-term solutions that ultimately lead to other problems.
• "To get away from fire-fighting while trying to implement change, direct the change initiative at the fires". If you are implementing TPM or Lean, and are struggling with breakdowns, direct kaizen events towards reliability problems, for example.
• "Shop floor change has to be a personal experience". Training is fine, but there is more to be gained from doing. Workshops demonstrating the application of principles e.g. lean tools are a good way to get the shop floor on board.
• "Metrics should include things which show that you care about people" e.g. safety. This helps buy-in.

What struck me about the webinar was that the issues raised by the panelists in implementing change all sounded very familiar, yet the experts had worked mostly in the United States and Europe. In South Africa we often talk about our diversity, and cultural differences are sometimes raised as a potential barrier to change. Considering the similarity of the challenges I have faced in my career with those of change agents in other countries, I am convinced that there is nothing in our wide variety of local cultures that is a dominant opposing force in the context of workplace change. We all seem to be facing the same major issues. If anything, diverse cultures should be viewed as a strength, supporting innovation.

There is one other key reason I personally believe to be behind the failure of many shop floor change management exercises. It is a subtle, yet crucial misinterpretation of what empowerment of the shop floor means. Allow me to explain. A key aspect of Japanese management philosophy is a clear divide between the roles of workers and managers. While the overall philosophy is one of participation and problem solving at source, it is management’s role to provide structure to the shop floor. This means that managers have to play an intimate role in developing shop floor work practices and systems. This has nothing to do with workers being lazy and expecting things to be done for them, and everything to do with the skill sets of managers as compared to workers. The problems workers solve and the processes they improve must be appropriate to their skill level.

It is wrong to expect workers to develop all of the management systems on the shop floor, and to be capable of solving all problems in what are sometimes very complicated technical environments. Yet this is precisely what some organisations expect as an outcome from shop floor change. There is a view that an empowered shop floor should be able to solve any problem, and be so actively involved with continuous improvement that they should drive every aspect of organisational performance. Management’s role then becomes one of “providing an enabling environment”. This is indeed one of the roles of management, but certainly too nebulous to be of primary significance.

The implications for managers are that they roll up their sleeves and get into the detail of what drives performance at shop floor level. This means that the job is not only about leadership and inspiring good performance, but also about technical proficiency and the application of that proficiency to the design of shop floor systems and structures. Of course, none of this can be done without the intimate involvement of shop floor personnel, but the point is that management must take responsibility for development of these systems. When managers feel that this level of detail is beneath them, and that they are in the organisation to look after the “big picture”, the signs of failed shop floor change are often readily apparent.   

PRODUCT-RELATED FACTORS WHICH IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY

Quality management at source reduces rework and 

environmental impact. Manufacturing is however only 

one aspect of a complex product life cycle.

The products produced by industrial organisations have a marked impact on their environmental footprints. Understanding these impacts requires review of the life cycle of each product, from the time it is conceived until the time it is ultimately disposed of. Ideally, life cycle considerations should be at the heart of organisational decision-making, since it is through designing products to be sustainable that the biggest gains can be made rather than through optimising existing processes. In this post I will explore this thinking further and illustrate, with examples, the impacts of products on sustainability.

The individual stages of the physical life cycle of a product are as follows:

• Sourcing of raw materials
• Manufacturing
• Distribution
• Use/consumption
• Disposal

Before this physical life cycle can be effected, the product concerned has to be designed and developed. This is arguably the most crucial phase for any product, since decisions made here flow through to every phase of the physical life cycle. There are also of course strategic decisions to be made as to which types of products to produce, with these decisions having not only environmental impacts, but also social and economic ones. Industries such as the tobacco industry and even the cellular telephone industry, where radiation impacts are a matter of much discourse, are cases in point. While these complex issues are not the subject of this post, the point is that organisations need to take a life-cycle view of product matters if they intend to take sustainability issues seriously. Let’s explore the different elements of the product life cycle to better assess how each impacts on an organisation’s environmental footprint.

Sourcing/Extraction of Raw Materials

Every raw material has its own environmental footprint, encompassing impacts on air, land and water. It is possible to estimate these impacts, but given the various pathways through which an individual material can be sourced, it should be understood that impacts are not definitive. For example, coal sourced from an underground mine will require more resources for its extraction than coal sourced from an open-cast mine. Published sources of information on factors such as embedded carbon for example should therefore be read in this context.

It is nevertheless possible to consider order of magnitude differences between materials, and to make decisions based on these in terms of limiting their impact. Such information is however not the only criterion in choosing materials and the following considerations are also important:

•  What is the cost of the material (total cost of ownership, not just  the purchase price)?
• Is the material renewable?
•  If not, how scarce is the material?
•  Is the material recyclable?
• Is the material biodegradable?
•  How hazardous is the material?
• What are the social impacts of using this material – for example, are there significant health impacts    for workers in the source industry or for consumers?
• Each material itself has a life cycle, which typically includes some processing – what are the impacts of this life cycle for individual materials?
• What downstream impacts does the material have – for example, some materials result in lower in-process yields than others by virtue of their inherent characteristics?

In some instances it is not possible to substitute one material with another without compromising the product, and in such cases manufacturers should explore comparisons between different producers, or using materials in proportions which minimise their impact wherever possible.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing phase of the product life cycle has the potential for significant impact, simply because it is generally energy-intensive, can produce a significant amount of waste and can be hazardous, both for employees and local communities. It is however by no means guaranteed that this is where the biggest impacts are. For example, some agro-processors use much more water during cultivation of crops than during their processing. 

On the whole however, manufacturing is very important due to the diverse nature of the environmental impacts concerned, which include:

• Consumption of energy through various energy carriers, including electricity, coal, gas, oil and other fossil fuels;
• Consumption of a wide variety of materials, each with their own footprints – these obviously need to be utilised as efficiently as possible;
• Consumption of water – this water may be returned to the environment as vapour or as a liquid discharge, but in some cases may be permanently removed from the water cycle e.g. water bound in the ash dams of coal-fired power stations;
• Pollution of water resources – where treatment of water takes place, there is generally a hazardous waste stream which requires safe disposal, and hence continues to impose risk;
• Pollution of the air – hazardous pollutants from manufacturing activities can cause immediate health risks, but can also enter the food chain through deposition on land and water;
• Pollution of land – land pollution can result in the destruction of otherwise useful land areas and pose serious risks to human and animal health. Where the land concerns interacts with the aquatic environment, or where pollutants are volatile, the pollution can be dispersed widely;
• Risks to consumers – use of critical materials, contamination during manufacturing or manufacturing defects can injure consumers or pose serious health risks;
• Occupational health risks – these vary by industry, but exist in just about all industrial environments. The range of hazardous materials employees and local communities can be exposed to, even in seemingly benign industries, is staggering.

Driving sustainability on industrial sites requires strategic decision-making as well as superior operational competencies. While the product concerned plays a huge role in the environmental footprint of the site on which it is manufactured, there are generally a number of process options available to achieve the same end. For example, choosing chlorine dioxide bleaching over elemental chlorine bleaching has a marked impact on the amount of persistent organic pollutants (such as dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls) produced by the pulp and paper industry.

Operational excellence implies that less waste is produced, and hence, for a given process scheme, organisations with superior competencies will have smaller footprints than those that are wasteful.

Distribution/Transport

Distribution encompasses transport and storage of product, and is another area that can be significantly influenced by product design. For example, a product requiring refrigeration or heating during distribution will have a larger energy footprint than one which does not. Where this is unavoidable, clearly the most efficient ways of doing so should be sought. The transport of product can also be facilitated by designs that promote efficient stacking, thereby ensuring that the mass of product transported per individual load is maximised.

The mode of transport chosen is also important – rail is known to produce lower emissions than road transport, for example. Within individual modes, efficiency differences can make a significant impact, and these are not driven by technology alone. For example, eco-efficient driving techniques can significantly reduce fuel usage, and when married to tracking technology as a management tool, can deliver large cost savings and emission reductions.

Product Use/Consumption

Products should be safe to use and incur limited environmental impacts during their use/consumption. In fact, some products are positive from an environmental perspective, for example renewable energy technologies or waste-water treatment plants, to name a few.

Increasing resource costs are forcing consumers to consider environmental impacts more closely, and are driving efficiencies upwards as consumers seek to reduce energy consumption, water use and material usage. Eco-labelling is another trend that is driving sustainable consumer products, though such labels tend to be fairly narrow in focus, focusing exclusively on energy or water consumption and not pollution potential, for example. 

The table below outlines some of the impacts associated with the use of a selected group of products, for purposes of illustration.

PRODUCT	IMPACTS ARISING FROM USE
Washing machine	Electricity and water consumption, chemical consumption, pollution of water resources/loading of wastewater treatment plants
Instant coffee	Electricity and water consumption, materials required to facilitate use (sugar and milk), generation of wastewater, water and chemicals required to wash dishes after use, empty container to be disposed of once coffee is finished.
Motor vehicle	Fuel consumption, emissions, contamination of land (oil leaks), life cycle impacts arising from routine maintenance, tyre consumption, oil consumption, water consumption
Blue jeans	Same qualitative impacts as washing machine when washed

Some complex products are comprised of a number of other smaller products, which are used as the overall product is used, and each of which have their own impacts arising from use. Motor vehicles and their components are examples of such products.

What should be clear from the above is that product design plays a major role in the nature and extent of the impacts arising from use. Strategies for limiting these impacts include:

• Designing products to consume less energy, water and materials, to be inherently safe and to produce as little pollution as possible
• Educating consumers such that the frequency of resource-hungry and polluting activities is minimised e.g. switching off electrical appliances when they are not in use

Product Disposal

Some products (e.g. food products) are consumed during use. Such products are therefore not disposed of after use, though there may be waste streams arising from their use which require disposal. Examples would be the containers in which the food was packaged. Other products are disposed of in their entirety after use, a prime example being consumer appliances. Disposal has environmental impacts, most of which depend on the materials out of which the product and its packaging are constructed.

In general, the higher the level of recyclability of these materials, the better. Many materials are also biodegradable, though there will be emissions generated during their degradation. In some instances (and particularly in the case of anaerobic biodegradation), these emissions could be captured and used as fuel for activities such as power generation and heating, in which case their impact would be ameliorated.

In the case of critical materials (examples would be materials such as persistent organic pollutants, asbestos, silica, mercury and lead, among others) the human/animal health and environmental impacts are serious and disposal has to be managed carefully. In many cases such materials can be recovered for reuse, while in others, they are being phased out of use e.g. PCB’s in transformers or asbestos in roofing products, in which case safe disposal becomes the more likely option.

    

What then are the key take-outs from this post?

• Products have an enormous impact on the environmental footprint of an organisation's activities;
• Impacts are not necessarily highest in the manufacturing phase;
• The earlier on in the product life cycle you intervene, the better the opportunity to decrease downstream impacts. The design stage offers the highest leverage for limiting life-cycle impacts;
• Material choice is crucial, not only because each material has impacts associated with sourcing it, but also because materials influence product life cycle impacts significantly;

There are significant challenges facing organisations that take a life-cycle approach to product management. The issues pointed out in this post do not refer to any of the business challenges against which product-related sustainability challenges need to be balanced. The reality of business is that manufacturers are typically not held accountable for life-cycle impacts, making short-termism a very real threat to sustainability efforts downstream of the distribution phase of the product life cycle. 

It is vital to get actively involved in downstream product management, where there are opportunities for manufacturers to gain direct financial benefits. An example would be the reuse of containers, as practiced by users of steel drums. With the costs of reconditioned drums typically being significantly less than the cost of new drums, life cycle impacts are reduced in tandem with a reduction in input costs. The reconditioning industry also creates jobs. Finding more win-win situations like this one should dominate the thinking of sustainability-focused industrial organisations and those responsible for the policy and regulatory environments.