Green means integration, not just energy efficiency

As energy prices head for the stars and American businesses contract green fever, it’s tempting to overly focus on energy savings as a driver for greening your plants.

05/15/2008


As energy prices head for the stars and American businesses contract green fever, it’s tempting to overly focus on energy savings as a driver for greening your plants.

Yes, energy provides a tangible, measurable benefit to businesses and the environment when it is wisely consumed and managed. Using less energy (i.e., that which comes from coal, natural gas and oil) reduces emissions and extraction impacts on the environment. Yes, reducing our dependency on oil and natural gas imports increases energy security. And, yes, using less energy reduces operating costs and makes future O&M budgets less sensitive to fuel-price fluctuations.

However, green buildings are more about integrated solutions than single-issue resolution. In a drive to reduce energy, we stand to repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, when fresh-air inlets were jammed shut with 2x4s; when every other light was turned off; when thermostats were turned down so low during the heating season and too high during the cooling season that people got uncomfortable (and unruly). In striving to resolve those energy problems, we created the sick building problem, and as a result we spent much of the 80s and 90s confronting mold, VOCs and comfort complaints.

As green fever spreads deeper into the manufacturing industry, plant engineers are going to be increasingly called to the table when facility decisions are being planned. At least, that’s supposedly the blueprint of green building processes %%MDASSML%% to involve operators and facility engineers earlier in construction and renovation projects to result in more realistic designs and to empower operating staffs with training and resources to maintain high levels of building performance. Therefore, your voice will be critical for averting critical mistakes that could be made for the best of intentions.

So, if a drive for energy savings, under the banner of greening your facility or as a retrocommissioning effort, could result in measures that would result in a sick building, then you need to say something. Productivity could be worsened. Absenteeism could increase. Morale could be impacted, leading to increased churn among workers. And, taken to the extreme, lawsuits could be filed if health or safety is impacted to the point where one or more workers feels justified in pursuing recourse.

In the face of such a situation, plant engineers need to remind project teams that saving energy could save money on one end, but cost a lot more on the other. It’s important to remind them that relevant standards for indoor air quality and comfort need to be maintained. Remind project teams that in some cases, improving a facility could result in higher energy costs. For example, if a system was improperly designed or installed such that required cooling or heating were not being provided, and, when corrected, more energy was consumed. Such instances need to result in new baselines for energy consumption, against which future energy-conservation measures would be compared.

And, of course, when called to the table, it’s important to have your shortlist of energy-saving measures ready. And your list of water-saving measures, IAQ-improvement measures and measures for decreasing liquid and solid wastes, use of pesticides and harsh cleaning agents, etc. Being a model of “integrated solutions” would walk the triple-bottom-line that the greenies talk so much about, i.e., green buildings being good for people, the environment and for business.


Author Information

Michael Ivanovich is chief editor of Consulting-Specifying Engineer, a sister publication of Plant Engineering. A veteran in the buildings industry who focuses on HVAC, green buildings and controls, he served as chief editor of HPAC Engineering for 10 years before joining CSE and also spent time as a research scientist in the fields of indoor-air quality, energy efficiency and information technology for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and other research institutions.




No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2013 Leaders here.
The new control room: It's got all the bells and whistles - and alarms, too; Remote maintenance; Specifying VFDs
2014 forecast issue: To serve and to manufacture - Veterans will bring skill and discipline to the plant floor if we can find a way to get them there.
2013 Top Plant: Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Bring focus to PLC programming: 5 things to avoid in putting your system together; Managing the DCS upgrade; PLM upgrade: a step-by-step approach
Balancing the bagging triangle; PID tuning improves process efficiency; Standardizing control room HMIs
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.