Energy Efficiency in the food and drink industry Energy Efficiency in the food and drink industry The road to Benchmarks of Excellence Hans Even Helgerud - New Energy Performance AS (NEPAS) g gy ( ) Marit Sandbakk - Enova SF ECEEE 2009 La Colle sur Loup 2 June 2009 La Colle sur Loup, 2 June 2009 04.06.2009
F Food and drink sector d d d i k t • Typical SME sector � 2 200 companies in Norway � 45 % with less than 5 employees • Important sector p � 19 % of total employment in industry � Important sector in terms of value added • Energy issue � Energy use: 4,7 TWh/year (5,7 % of total in industry) � Energy cost: 0,26 Billion Euro (12,8 % of total in industry) � Energy savings will contribute to better profit and environment 04.06.2009
A App Approac roach h h an and d d d me meth th d l th thodology ogy • Study worked out in close cooperation with trade organisation • System boundary is set around the factory fence • Energy use = Purchased energy + Internal generated energy – Sold energy • No changes in input (raw material) and output (end products) • Potential is based on proved available technology � New technology will increase energy saving potential � N t h l ill i i t ti l � Implementation will decrease energy saving potential • Estimation is based on a twelve step “bottom-up” approach p p pp 04.06.2009
St Step 1: Division into sub-sectors 1 Di i i i t b t Marine hatcheries Grain and starch 4 % Oil and fat Division based on the 3 % 4 % official classification Fish products Fruits and vegetables g 24 % 5 % system (Standard Industrial Classification) Beverages 6 % Animal food 1 2 % Meat products 1 6 % Other food products 1 3 % Dairies 1 3 % Source: Energy Statistics Norway 2007 gy y 04.06.2009
Step 2: Historical energy use Step 2: Historical energy use Example: Meat processing industry (SIC 10.1) 800 800 700 600 Oil 500 Gas GWh 400 District heating Electricity (unpriority) Electricity (unpriority) 300 Electricity (priority) 200 100 100 - 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 • Average energy use for three last years is used as baseline Source: Energy Statistics Norway 2007 Source: Energy Statistics Norway 2007 04.06.2009
Step 3: Energy accounts Step 3: Energy accounts Estimate energy use based on purpose Lighting Other processes 6 % 13 % Ventilation S Sources: Sector-studies, S t t di 12 % Motors in processes Compressed air energy audits and 7 % 3 % spec c specific knowledge o edge Pumps 1 % 1 % Space heating 12 % Water heating Figure: Estimated energy use Figure: Estimated energy use 22 % 22 % based on purpose within the Boiler house 8 % dairy-sector (SIC 10.5). Cooling/freezing 16 % 16 % 04.06.2009
Step 4 and 5: Measurelists Hydraulick: Lighting: � Hydraulick on demand/speed control � Efficient light source � Booster/accumulator � � HF system HF-system � Reduce stand-by pressure � Efficient lighting fixture � Light on demand/control system Space heating: � Upgrade building construction (insulation etc) Ventilation: � � Radiant heating Radiant heating � � Reduce ventilation demand Reduce ventilation demand � Controlling room temperature � Efficient ventilation solution � Utilize waste heat � Ventilation on demand/VAV � Heat recovery Boilerhouse: � � Utilize waste heat Utilize waste heat Compressed air: � Hot water reduction � Stop air leakage � Insulation of pipes, valves and boiler system � Right operating pressure � Recuperate flue gas and condensate � Optimal air treatment components � Optimal operation of boiler � Compressed air on demand/speed control p p � Improvement in steam system � New efficient boiler Pumps: � Speed control of pumps Energy management: � Energy efficient motors � Worked out energy related targets and plans gy g p � � Right pump size and operation Right pump size and operation � Carried out actions for awareness and training � Implemented procedures for optimal operation and maintenance � Implemented procedures for energy optimal design and procurement � Implemented procedures for monitoring and measurement 04.06.2009
S Step 6 and 7: Sort and adjust 6 S Step Input Process Output 6 6 K Knowledge about l d b t S Sort measurelist regard t li t d S Sorted measurelists t d li t logical priority on preferred order for with potential and measure implementation investment cost implementation implementation 7 Available energy Adjust specific potential Sorted measurelists audits, measurelists for measures that have with adjusted f from other countries th t i influence on each other i fl h th potential and t ti l d and specific investment cost knowledge 04.06.2009
Step 8 and 9: Map implementation rate • Web-based market survey among 664 companies (30 % response rate) (30 % response rate) � General information about the company, size employees etc. � Questions about barriers to energy efficiency Questions about barriers to energy efficiency � Questions about implementation rate of each measure � Completed (0 % remaining potential) � Partly completed (50 % remaining potential) � Not completed (100 % remaining potential) � Not relevant (0 % remaining potential) ( g p ) • Average sector implementation rate for all measures 04.06.2009
Step 10: Energy saving potential Energy saving potential for each measure (n) within the sub-sector is calculated by: is calculated by: P n = ( E el B1 * k i * p n ) + ( E term B1 * k i * p n ) n el , B1 i n term , B1 i n Where P = Total energy saving potential (electric + thermal) for measure n P n = Total energy saving potential (electric + thermal) for measure n E el,B1 = Electric energy used on energy block 1 E term,B1 = Thermal energy used on energy block 1 k = adjustment factor on implementation k i = adjustment factor on implementation p n = energy saving potential linked to measure n, where n is measure in measure list 04.06.2009
Step 11 and 12: Work out Step 11 and 12: Work out gra graphs hs Example: Bakeries Example: Bakeries Step 11: Sort the measure with estimated saving potential based on increasing specific investment cost. List accumulated energy saving potential Step 12: Work out graphs p g p 120 Results from bakery sector: Energy saving potential: 109 GWh/år (34 %) Energy saving potential: 109 GWh/år (34 %) 100 100 ing potential (GWh • 43 GWh electricity 80 • 66 GWh thermal energy Total 60 Electrical Thermal Thermal Energy savi 50 % av energy saving potential related 40 to general measure list 20 20 % economic profitable energy saving 20 % i fi bl i 0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 potential (pay-back less than 2 years) Investment cost (NOK/kWh) Accumulated energy saving potential corresponding to investment cost for the bakery sector 04.06.2009
Summary of study Summary of study • Energy saving potential: 1,3 TWh (30%) � 0,63 TWh electricity (28 %) , y ( ) � Hatchery- 0,67 TWh thermal energy (32 %) Beverages produced fish Other food for stocking products • 20 % economic profitable energy saving Meat products potential (pay back less than 2 years) potential (pay-back less than 2 years) Bakeries Bakeries • Obstracles: � Uncertainty regarding profitability/economic savings y g g p y g Animal food Fish products � Lack of investment capital/capital needed for other priorities � Lack of competence regarding possibilities Fruits and Grain and vegetables vegetables • strach Obstracles rating higer for small companies Dairies Oil and fat • Companies with energy management are rating obstracles lower and these companies ti b t l l d th i Energy saving potential separated in sub-sectors have a higher implementation rate linked to (% of total potential) measures 04.06.2009
Follow up project Follow up project Road to benchmark of excellence A three year programme have started up with four of the sub- sectors (meat-processing, bakeries, breweries and grain mill and starches) focusing on nettworking, energy management and benchmarking. Five steps approcach to benchmark of excellence based on the energy management loop: 1. Identify opportunities 2. Set targets 3 3. Energy action plan Energy action plan 4. Benchmark and monitor progress 5. Review 04.06.2009
Benchmark Benchmark New European Standard on Energy Management (EN 16001) Web-based benchmarking • National (www enova no/industrinettverk) (www.enova.no/industrinettverk) • International (www.bess-project.info) Figure: Example of BESS benchmark results – SEC of a bakery company 04.06.2009
Thank you for your attention helgerud@nepas.no Questions? www nepas no www.nepas.no Q 04.06.2009
Recommend
More recommend
