Energy managers are aware of the fact that energy efficiency targets and action plans require reference values and a well-designed measurement system.
There is a trap here however, the managers are willing to walk into.
Do you want to know how to avoid the pitfall?
A CUSTOMER WHO REALLY WANTS TO MEASURE
I visited a utility company last month, which operates a couple of hundred of unmanned, remote sites.
They only measure the total electric energy consumption of each site. During our consultation they decided that they wanted to develop their measurement network, they would like to have more detailed data on the status and energy consumption of their machines per site.
A LOW-INVESTMENT APPROACH
In a meeting with the IT manager and the energy manager of the company I asked them what their requirements regarding an enhanced measurement system are. “We are contemplating a low-budget approach. Since we have a lot of similar remote sites, we should install the measurement system at one or two of our sites. After a couple of months, we will remove the system and will move it to another one of our sites. This way we can capture a representative picture of our sites and we can work with this profile further on,” answered the IT manager.
At first glance it seems to be a superb strategy. Is it really a good one?
Well, it depends.
It depends on the goals you want to achieve with your measurement system.
COST / BENEFIT
“OK,” I said, “it sounds good. Just one question. Have you considered what you lose with this strategy? If you apply a moving-kit-like measurement system for your sites then you won’t be able to leverage the features of a stationary system like:
- Comparing the performance
of similar units real-time and searching for differences automatically,
- Storing timelines
and detecting deviations,
- Receiving warnings
when the preset values are exceeded,
- Identifying and storing deterioration patterns for breakdown prevention.
You also will abandon the opportunity to intervene remotely and switch on/off circuits by command.”
“Yes, you’re right,” he said. “I think however that the cost savings will counterbalance the losses in features.”
“Have you obtained a detailed proposal for the system yet? And for the
installation and removing processes? No? Then how can be sure about the total
cost of ownership?”
I went on, “What if we examine another possible strategy where you deploy stationary measurement systems and all the features of such systems will be at your disposal. The cost of this scenario is an issue, I know, but if you calculate with a three year roll out of the system installation? Altogether the net worth of your investment may be higher in this case.”
CONCLUSION
I know it’s obvious, still it’s worth touching the main points of the story above.
Especially if you don’t have a clear, detailed picture of your goals and not-goals,
- develop as many scenarios as you can,
- assign the scenarios detailed data (available features, not-available features, CAPEX, OPEX, net worth…),
- when evaluating, give the features, technical parameters extra weight, compared to the financial issues’ weight. It can be difficult to amend or substitute missing technical features in the long run.
BONUS: let the potential suppliers develop your scenarios. Let them work.
Leave a Reply