ENERGY surveys and audits – deliberate studies to find energy-saving opportunities – can be done with three levels of depth and thoroughness, can look at three broad aspects of operations, and will generally adopt one of three approaches.
Depth and thoroughness
Let’s take depth and thoroughness first. Level 1 would be an opportunity scan. This typically has a wide scope, and is based on a walk-though inspection. It will use only readily-available data, and provide at most only rough estimates of savings with no implementation cost estimates. It will yield only low-risk recommendations (the “no-brainers”) but should identify items for deeper study.
Level 2 is likely to have a selective scope (based perhaps on the findings from a Level 1 exercise). It is best preceded by a desktop analysis of consumption patterns and relationships, which means first collecting additional data on consumption and the driving factors which influence it. It should yield reasonably accurate assessments of expected savings but probably at best only rough cost estimates. It can therefore provide some firm recommendations relating to ‘safe bets’ and otherwise identify possible candidates for investment.
Level 3 is the investment-grade audit. This may have a narrow scope – perhaps one individual project – and will demand a sketch design and feasibility study, with accurate assessments of expected savings, realistic quotations for implementation, sound risk evaluation and (I would recommend) a measurement and verification plan.
Next we will look at the three broad aspects of operations that the audit could cover. These are ‘technical’, ‘human factors’, and ‘procedural’.
Technical aspects will encompass a spectrum from less to more intrusive (starting with quality of automatic control and set points through energy losses to component efficiencies). In manufacturing operations the range continues through process layouts, potential for process integration and substitution of alternative processes.
Human-factors aspects meanwhile will cover good housekeeping, compliance with operating instructions, maintenance practices, training needs and enhanced vigilance.
Thirdly, procedural aspects will include the scope for improved operating and maintenace instructions, better plant loading and scheduling, effective monitoring and exception handling, and ensuring design feedback.
Approaches to the audit
The final three dimensions relate to the audit style, which I characterise as checklist-based, product-led, or opportunity-led.
The checklist-based approach suits simple repetitive surveys and less-experienced auditors.
Product-led audits have a narrow focus and exploit the expertise of a trusted technology supplier. Because the chosen focus is often set by advertising or on a flavour-of-the-month basis, the risk is that the wrong focus will be chosen and more valuable opportunities will be missed. Or worse still, the agenda will be captured by snake-oil merchants.
Finally we have the ‘opportunity-led’ style of audit. This is perhaps the ideal, although not always attainable because it needs competent auditors with diverse experience and will include the prior analysis and preliminary survey mentioned earlier.
These ideas, together with other advice on energy auditing, are to be covered in a new optional add-on module for my “Energy efficiency A to Z” course which explais a wide range of technical energy-saving opportunities. Details of all my forthcoming training and conferences on energy saving can be found at https://vesma.com/training.