Generic Industrial Audit Report-2-24-15

North America l Europe l Africa l Australia l Asia
Energy Audit Report
Prepared for:
M Industries, Inc.
D Facility
Dec 17, 2014

M Industries – Dynacor Facility
Energy Audit Report Executive Summary
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................4
Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................... 4
Baseline Energy Use.....................................................................................................................7
Electricity Use............................................................................................................................ 7
Natural Gas Use ......................................................................................................................... 8
D’s Energy End-use Breakdown................................................................................................. 9
Energy Efficiency Measures and Recommendations............................................................... 11
Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) Details.....................................................................................12
EEMs for Current Implementation .......................................................................................... 12
EEM-1 Synthetic Hydraulic Fluid...................................................................................... 12
Existing Conditions............................................................................................... 12
Measure Description............................................................................................ 13
Savings ................................................................................................................. 13
Installed Cost Estimate......................................................................................... 13
Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................ 13
EEM-2 Energy Star/Miser on Vending Machines ............................................................. 13
ExistingConditions............................................................................................... 13
Savings ................................................................................................................. 14
Measurement and Verification (M&V)................................................................. 14
Background Information...................................................................................... 14
EEM-3 Extend LED Lighting to the Rest of D Parking Lot.................................................. 14
Savings ................................................................................................................. 15
EEM-4 Convert Diesel Generators to bi-fuel Adding Natural Gas ................................... 16
Savings ................................................................................................................. 16
EEM for Future Implementation When Replacing or Adding Molds........................................ 18
EEM-5 All-Electric Auburg Versus Husky Hydraulic Mold ................................................. 18
Savings ................................................................................................................. 21
Measurement and Verification (M&V) ................................................................ 21
Energy Cost Savings EEM (No reduction in energy or carbon emissions)................................ 22
EEM-6 Forklift Battery Off-peak Charging........................................................................ 22

2
Savings ................................................................................................................. 23
BackgroundInformation....................................................................................... 24
D Interval Meter DataAppendix A:
AdditionalElectronicDocumentationAppendix B:
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures.................................................................................. 6
Table 2: D Historical Electricity and Natural Gas Use ............................................................................. 7
Table 3: Twelve Electric Billing Meters ................................................................................................... 8
Table 4: D Exterior Lighting Baseline and Proposed Energy Use and EEM Cost Estimate.................... 15
Table 5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy Use.................................................................................... 20
Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy Use...................................................................................... 20
Table 7: Electric Versus Hydraulic Molds.............................................................................................. 22
Table 8: Comparative Forklift Charger Test Results .............................................................................. 25
List of Figures
Figure 1: Total Energy by End-Use for D ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: D’s Electricity Consumption by End-use ................................................................................ 10
Figure 3: D Gas Energy End-use............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4: Metal Halide and LED Exterior Lamp..................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Power Draw of Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold....................................................................... 19
Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold...................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Sample Electric Bill for One M Place Campus........................................................................ 24
Figure 8: D Meter# ####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012.......................................................... 26
Figure 9: D Meter# #####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014........................................................ 26
Figure 10: D Meter# #####683 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012...................................................... 26
Figure 11: D Meter# #####683 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014...................................................... 26
Figure 12: D Meter# ####3085 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012...................................................... 26
Figure 13: D Meter# 141643085 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014.................................................... 26

3

4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Overview
The objective of this building evaluation and report is to provide M Industries, Inc. with a technical
and economic strategy to understand energy use by D and its operating systems and practices, to
achieve greater energy efficiency, and reduce energy use while maintaining productivity.
This audit was conducted in accordance with ASHRAE’s Energy Audit Guidelines for Commercial
Buildings and included a thorough review of the mechanical and electrical systems, maintenance
practices and operating procedures. After review of the audit report by building management and
staff, First Carbon Solutions staff will meet with M to develop a strategy for implementation of the
recommended measures.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Table 1 shows the energy cost savings for six (6) energy efficiency measures (EEMs) identified for D.
It outlines three groups of recommended energy efficiency measures (EEMs): immediate; upon
upgrade; and reduction of energy cost.
The first group of four EEMs can be implemented immediately. They will reduce the electricity use by
5,274,529 kWh/year, a 23.4% reduction in electricity purchased from the grid. However, because of
the on-site electrical generation, the amount of natural gas actually will increase by 403,758 therms
per year an increase of 96%, almost doubling the current gas use. Fortunately, the cost of natural gas
is so much lower than the cost of electricity there is a reduction in D’s energy cost of 15.7% or
$289,656 per year.
The contractor calculated net non-energy dollars savings to be a negative $-29,752 per year. The
savings due to reductions in labor, lamp and hydraulic oil for the molds were more than offset by the
added O&M cost of the electric generators as they will run 3,250 hours per year instead of less than
200 hours a year. Emissions from producing electricity on-site by burning natural gas are less per
kWh produced that the emissions emitted when the area grid produces electric power. The four
EEMs reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) by (3.22 million pounds) 1,462 metric tonnes.
The second group of EEMs has only one EEM that saves 1,543,362 kWh/year. It can be implemented
when D needs to add new injections molding machines. This EEM would save an additional 6.46% of
energy cost or $118,812 per year. There are no “non-energy” benefits. The energy savings will
reduce CO2 by (2.32 million pounds) 1,055 metric tonnes.
The EEM of group three does not save energy or reduce carbon emissions, but it does reduce energy
cost by taking advantage of the off-peak electricity rates which are 35% lower than on-peak rates. It
will reduce overall energy costs by about 1.1%.
If all six EEMs are implemented, electricity use will be reduced by 30.3% or 6,817,892 kWh/year.
Natural gas use goes up by 403,758 therms/year a 96% increase. However, the total annual energy
cost is reduced by $415,111. Unfortunately the additional use of the on-site electrical generators

5
increases annual O&M cost so non-energy benefits are negative by $-29,752 per year. With the six
EEMs, D’s total net cost reduction is $385,359. The total net CO2 reduction for the six EEMs is (5.54
million pounds) 2,517 metric tonnes.
To implement all six EEMs, the estimated investment cost is $417,707 which will be recovered in
1.1 years. This does not include any state, federal or utility incentives or tax advantages.

6
Table 1: Summary of Energy Efficiency Measures
EEM # Measure Name
KWh/yr
Savings
Therm
savings
Net Energy
Dollar
Savings
Total Dollar
Savings w/Non-
energy Benefits
Estimated
Dollar cost
Simple
Payback
(years)
1
Shell Tellus S4 ME46 Synthetic
hydraulic fluid
104,396 0 $8,037 $15,571 $23,826 1.5
2
Energy Star/Miser on vending
machines
9,000 0 $693 $693 $1,790 2.6
3
Extend LED Lights to Rest of
Parking Lot
91,133 0 $7,016 $25,500 $93,325 3.7
4
Convert diesel generators to
bi-fuel adding natural gas
5,070,000 -403,758 $273,911 $218,141 $178,846 0.8
Totals 5,274,529 -403,758 $289,656 $259,905 $297,787 1.1
5
All-electric Auburg Vs Husky
Hydraulic (Assumes adding
10% more molds, 1,246 tons
1,543,362 0 $118,812 $118,812 $109,620 0.9
6
Forklift Battery Off-peak
charging
0 0 $6,643 $6,643 $10,300 1.6
Future EEMs that could be implemented when equipment needs to be replaced or business expands
These four EEMs can be implemented at Dynacor immediately to achieve energy cost savings
This EEM reduces energy cost but does not save energy or reduce carbon emissions

Facility
Energy Audit Report D’s Baseline Energy Use
7
BASELINE ENERGY USE
D is located at the M headquarters campus. D’s total annual energy expenditure is $1,840,000.
As shown in Table 2 below, historical electricity use at D has averaged 22,512,696 kWh/year over the
last two and a half years. The natural gas use averaged 420,696 therms per year over the same
period. Converting the electricity and natural gas energy to British thermal unit (Btus), the total
energy use is 119 million Btus per year.
The natural gas is 35.4% of the total Btus of energy and electricity is 64.6%; however, in energy
dollars, natural gas is only 5.8% ($106,785) and electricity is 94.2% ($1,733,696) of D’s total energy
cost.
Table 2: D Historical Electricity and Natural Gas Use
Electric Use (kWh) Natural Gas Use (Therm)
2012 2013 2014 Average 2012 2013 2014 Average
Jan 1,930,852 2,136,039 1,732,635 1,933,175 76,672 81,460 50,025 69,386
Feb 1,728,829 1,838,589 2,174,727 1,914,049 63,606 79,576 47,974 63,719
Mar 1,870,195 1,506,637 1,790,601 1,722,477 39,533 66,867 31,617 46,005
Apr 1,792,484 1,899,179 1,501,372 1,731,012 17,835 34,883 10,420 21,046
May 1,878,650 2,124,515 2,068,740 2,023,968 6,371 11,515 0 8,943
Jun 2,029,609 1,941,340 1,671,457 1,880,802 2,757 5,328 0 4,042
Jul 1,951,131 1,600,428 1,808,497 1,786,685 3,097 5,458 0 4,278
Aug 1,695,660 2,016,028 0 1,855,844 5,861 5,334 0 5,598
Sep 2,144,000 1,750,996 0 1,947,498 16,156 23,750 0 19,953
Oct 1,812,511 1,593,100 0 1,702,805 47,313 48,937 0 48,125
Nov 2,269,764 2,119,493 0 2,194,629 62,786 54,285 0 58,535
Dec 1,906,868 1,732,635 0 1,819,751 84,411 57,723 0 71,067
TOTAL 23,010,553 22,258,979 12,748,028 22,512,696 426,396 475,116 140,036 420,696
TOTAL ENERGY USE IN KBTU 118,905,448
ENERGY USE INDEX(KBTU/SF/YR) 253.7
Electricity Use
Electricity use at D is provided by ComEd and Constellation Energy. The overall campus bill is
consolidated with readings from 12 electric meters as shown in Table 3. The three meters
highlighted in green (meter numbers 1, 2, and 3) all serve the D facility.
Electricity at D represents approximately 65.2% of the total electric energy but it has a combined
peak demand of 2,755 kW or 91.1% of the total billing demand.

Facility
8
Table 3: Twelve Electric Billing Meters
Figure 8 through Figure 13 in Appendix A shows how each of the three D meters uses electric energy
every 30 minutes for several typical days of the week for two different years. For August 2012, the
data is plotted for a Monday, a Tuesday, a Saturday and a Sunday; whereas, for July 2014 the data is
plotted for a Monday, a Tuesday, July 4th holiday on a Friday, a Saturday, and a Sunday.
The most striking difference between 2012 and 2014 is the wider range of energy values.
D’s Boiler Meter has a tight range with kW varying from a low of 400 kW at noon Monday 8/6/2012
to a high of 600 kW at 5:00 AM Sunday 8/12/2012. The range for 2014 is from a low of 400 kW at
4:30 AM Monday 6/30/2014 to a high of 815 kW at 8:30 AM Tuesday 7/1/2014. The range in 2012
was only 200 kW, but in 2014 the range was 415 kW.
D’s Chiller Meter shows a significant change from 2012 to 2014. In 2012, the energy use was
essentially flat for weekdays and weekends. Usage varied from a low of 650 kW to a high of 740 kW,
a range of less than 90 kW. However, in 2014, the range widened significantly with the low going
lower to 470 kW on Sunday 7/6/2014 and the high going higher to 800 kW on Monday 6/30/2014.
The range in 2014 widened to 330 kW more than 3.5 times wider than in 2012.
D’s Injection Molding Machine meter has the highest energy use of the three meters. The range of
energy demand has also widened for this meter with 2012 going from a low of 850 kW at 14:30
Sunday 8/12/2014 to a high of 1410 at 14:30 Monday 8/6/2012. In 2014, the range was from a low
of 660 kW at 3:00 AM Saturday to a high of 1500 kW at 13:00 Monday 6/30/2014. The 2012 range
was 560 kW compared to the range in 2014 of 840 kW.
For the three meters, combined peak demand has grown from 2,970 kW in 2012 to 3,110 kW in
2014. This translates to a 4.7 % increase over two years or about 2.5% per year.
Natural Gas Use
North Shore Gas provided natural gas data for two meters,1 (57.2%) and 2 (42.6%). Unlike electricity
data which is available in 30-minute intervals, natural gas metering is limited to monthly data.

Facility
9
D’s Energy End-use Breakdown
Energy use at D’s warehouse and manufacturing facility has been broken down into multiple end-
uses based on engineering judgment, field metering and data logging. This breakdown assures that
when estimating energy savings, the calculations are applied to a specific portion of the total energy,
thus preventing overly optimistic energy savings estimates. Total energy use is provided as BTUs, so
that gas and electricity can be compared on an equitable basis.
As mentioned above, electricity accounts for 64.6% of total energy use, while natural gas use
accounts for 35.4% of energy. Due to the very low cost for natural gas on an energy cost basis,
natural gas is only about 5% of D’s energy bill in dollars. Therefore, the focus of the energy audit is
on electricity savings.
As shown in Figure 1 below, the majority of D’s total energy in Btus (48.0%) is used by the injection
molding machines and the process cooling system for the molds. The next largest energy user is
natural gas for Space Heating (31%). The Compressed Air System is expected to use about 8% of the
energy, and the HVAC fans and cooling are estimated to use 5%. The gas-fired service water heating
is also about 5% of the total energy use. Lighting energy is estimated to be very small at 2% and the
warehouse forklift battery charging system uses 0.72% of the total energy.
Figure 1: Total Energy by End-Use for D

Facility
10
Figure 2 shows electricity use at D broken down by end-using equipment. The molds and process
cooling use 74.8% of the total electricity. The compressed air system uses about 12% of the
energy and HVAC Fans and cooling use 8.1%. Lighting is 3% and the forklift battery charging is
about 1.1% of electricity use.
Figure 2: D’s Electricity Consumption by End-use
Figure 3 shows that a small portion, 13.2% of the natural gas is estimate to be used for service
water heating based on summer gas use when the boilers are not operating. 86.8% is used by the
three space heating boilers.
Figure 3: D Gas Energy End-use

Facility
11
Energy Efficiency Measures and Recommendations
Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM) are listed in Table 1 on page 2. The EEMs are in three groups
according to timeframe for implementation (immediate, future equipment upgrade and cost savings
only). Within each group the EEMs are arranged with the shortest simple payback first. Below, each
EEM is described in greater detail, including some of the baseline data that was gathered by THE
CONTRACTOR during the audit process with a definition of how the energy savings were determined,
how the costs were estimated, and how the final recommendations were derived.
A brief recommendation on how to measure and verify the energy savings after implementation is
also included. These Measurement and Verification (M&V) methods are recommended in
accordance with the International Performance for Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)
guidelines. The recommended EEMs were determined based on a combination of cost, magnitude of
savings, and reasonableness of implementation.
Potential EEMs were evaluated after the site survey and collection of data necessary to perform the
technical and economic analyses. This evaluation was completed to ASHRAE Level II standards
through spreadsheet analysis. It is recommended that complex measures be further evaluated to
Level III standards prior to implementation. Of particular concern is the actual cost data from
vendors which is needed before the electric or gas utility can prepare an estimate of their incentive
for each EEM. As a result, the costs provided here do not reflect bids or incentives.

Facility
Energy Audit Report Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) Details
12
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE (EEM) DETAILS
To assess energy savings associated with each measure, the baseline for consumption was compared
individually to consumption totals calculated for each measure. The baseline for equipment was
obtained from monthly utility bills for natural gas and electricity. For electricity 30-minute interval
was also reviewed to see how energy use has varied by hour and day type over that last 2.5 years. In
some cases additional energy data was gathered by the contractor using data loggers. In particular
data was gathered on the warehouse lights, the compressed air system, and the injection molds.
Energy consumption associated with each measure was then assessed individually based on the
technical performance of new equipment and then compared to the corresponding baseline in order
to determine energy savings. Energy cost savings were determined using the projected energy
savings and the average energy rate from natural gas and electricity bills.
Many potential EEMs were analyzed but only those meeting the requirement for a 4 year or shorter
simple payback are presented. Prior to implementation, it is essential to get approved vendor bids
for the energy efficiency improvements. Bids are required before the utility can provide incentive
estimates.
The following assumptions were used in calculating the savings:
1. Building energy usage patterns remain relatively unchanged in the near future. (No significant
occupancy change and/or space conversion.)
2. Energy costs remain relatively stable.
3. Operation of building systems remains relatively unchanged (unless change is related to a
recommended EEM).
An economic analysis was performed for each measure using historical cost estimates from similar
projects and pricing solicited from vendors. The cost savings from both energy savings and non-
energy benefits were divided by implementation costs in order to get a simple payback for each
measure.
EEMs for Current Implementation
Of the five EEMs, three are considered worthy of immediate consideration and should be submitted
to vendors for bids.
EEM-1 Synthetic Hydraulic Fluid
Existing Conditions
The audit of the molds indicated that only three molds (#24 - 1000 ton, #19 - 400 tons, and #22 - 400
tons) are currently using Shell’s Tellus S4 ME46 synthetic hydraulic fluid. A report in August 2012
documented a test that Shell Oil ran on D’s Mold#24, a Husky 1000 ton unit. A copy of Shell’s report
is included in Appendix B.

Facility
13
The Shell report over-estimated the baseline energy use of the 1000 ton mold it tested, reporting it
used 6,220,000 kWh/year or 6,220 kWh/ton. Given that there are 31 injection molding machines
with a total capacity of 12,459 tons, the total energy use for just the molds would be 77.5 million
kWh/year, more than three times D’s entire electricity use of 22.5 million kWh/year.
The auditor obtained a more reasonable baseline energy use of 1,352 kWh/ton-year, derived from
seven days of field metering Mold#17, a 120 ton Husky.
Measure Description
It is recommended that M consider replacing the standard hydraulic oil with Shell’s Tellus S4 ME46
synthetic hydraulic fluid in molds that do not currently have the synthetic oil. Four molds (numbers
17, 20, 3, and 4) are able to accept the synthetic oil. These molds add up to a total of 1,520 tons of
clamping power. Energy savings and cost are calculated per ton of clamping power so the savings can
be scaled up if there are more molds that can begin using the synthetic oil.
Savings
The Shell report used a true rms ammeter to measure the power draw of Mold#24 before with
standard oil and after with synthetic oil. The measured power reduction was 5.08%. Using baseline
energy use of 1,352 kWh/ton and the power reduction of 5.08%, the energy savings is 68.7
kWh/ton-year. The total savings for the four molds will be 104,396 kWh/year. Shell’s report also
suggested that non-energy benefits would include increased lubricant life of three years versus one
year, increased pump life, and decreased cycle time leading to increased productivity. The longer life
of the oil has non-energy dollar benefits since the oil does not have to be replaced every year. The
value of the energy savings at $0.077/kWh would be $8,037. The non-energy benefit of reduced
labor and avoided standard oil purchases is $7,534 per year for total dollar savings of $15,571.
Installed Cost Estimate
The incremental cost to buy the synthetic oil is $15.68/ton. For 1,520 tons of molds, the total oil cost
is $23,826 for a simple pay back of 1.5 years.
Measurement and Verification (M&V)
To properly verify the energy savings, a simple spot check of power reduction would not be
sufficient. It requires power sensors (CTs) to be installed on the electric service and data for 1 to 2
weeks with the old oil pre-test and 1 to 2 weeks with the synthetic oil post-test. This longer test will
account for any reduction in production time as well as lower power draw.
EEM-2 Energy Star/Miser on Vending Machines
Existing Conditions
Most cold beverage and hot snack vending machines in D do not have Energy Star/Miser controls to
turn off the compressors and lights when no one is around, resulting in energy waste.

Facility
14
Measure Description
The the contractor contacted the vending machine supplier Classic Group and Chicago Coffee & Tea.
They are very willing to do a detailed review of the number and type of vending machines at D and
M’s other Chicago area plants. They will determine how many machines are on-site and the related
cost to upgrade them to Energy Star/Miser.
Savings
Savings per machine are estimated to be 900 kWh/year which is 24% of the baseline energy use of
3,743 kWh/year for an average cold beverage vending machine. At the electric rate of $0.077/kWh,
the dollar savings for 10 vending machines at D is 9,000 kWh/year ($693/year).
The cost of each upgrade is estimated at $179 based on similar projects in the Pacific Northwest. The
total installed cost for 10 machines would be approximately $1,790 for a simple payback of 2.6 years.
It is likely that ComEd or Constellation Energy has an incentive available for this type of project. The
the contractor has experienced other utilities offering an incentive of about $90, cutting the payback
to 1.3 years.
This measure has been validated extensively by multiple utilities and savings are generally
accepted without M&V.
Background Information
M’s vending machines are provided by Classic Group and Chicago Coffee & Tea. Their contact is Jim
Carbone at 773-252-7000 Ext 609, e-mail: Jim@TheClassicGrp.com. They will provide a quote to M
to upgrade all of their vending machines, estimate of 50 to 70 units in the Chicago area.
There will be a charge to M for the upgrade. The equipment comes from USA Technologies, the
supplier of the Energy (Vending) Miser. The contact at USA is Scott Larkin 262-617-0221
SLarkin@USATech.com.
EEM-3 Extend LED Lighting to the Rest of D Parking Lot
Existing Conditions
The parking lot around D and the corporate office has some light that has been converted to LED
fixtures, but there are still 76 pole lights and 15 lights on the exterior walls of the buildings that
could be converted to LED. These metal halide fixtures draw 41.86 kW of power and use 152,789
kWh/year.

Facility
15
Table 4: D Exterior Lighting Baseline and Proposed Energy Use and EEM Cost Estimate
Existing Baseline Condition Proposed Measures
Fixture Type Lamp type
Connected
Load
(Watts)
Number
of
Fixtures
Total
Watts
Hours of
Operation
Baseline
kWh/yr
Lamp
type
Connected
load
Total
Watts
Hours of
Operation kWh/yr
Individual
Measure
Cost*
Total
Measure
Equipment
Cost
Pole Lights Metal Halide 460 76 34,960 3,650 127,604 LED 197 14,972 3,650 54,648 $ 1,100 $ 83,600
Bldg Exterior Metal Halide 460 15 6,900 3,650 25,185 LED 128 1,920 3,650 7,008 $ 800 $ 12,000
Totals 91 41,860 152,789 16,892 61,656 $ 95,600
* Measure cost is based on estimates from M the contractor Connextions
Measure Description
Table 4 above shows the existing number of fixtures and lamps and the installed Watts as well as the
current annual energy use. It also shows the proposed Watts and the proposed energy use as well as
the estimated cost of the lighting measures. The baseline energy use is 152,789 kWh/year and the
proposed energy use is 61,656 kWh/year. The savings are 91,133 kWh/year which reduce the annual
energy cost by $7,016. Shown below, Figure 4: Metal Halide and LED Exterior Lamp shows that only
the type of lamp has to be changed from metal halide to LED at a cost of $93,325. The LED has a
much longer life than the metal halide lamp which means fewer lamps need to be purchased and
less labor is needed to replace burned out lamps.
Figure 4: Metal Halide and LED Exterior Lamp
Savings
The total energy savings are estimated at 91,133 kWh/year, which has a value of $7,016 per year at
historic utility rates. The metal halide lamps lose 70% of their light intensity in 5,000 hours of
operation. LED lights maintain brightness of 87% and higher for 100,000 hours. This means the LEDs
will last about 20 years when metal halide needs to be replaced every other year. The halide lamps
cost $25 each, so for 91 lamps, that is $2,275/year. There is also additional labor savings from
avoiding the replacement of the halide lamps every two years. The labor savings is $16,209, based
on a labor rate of $75/hour and replacement of two lamps per hour. The total annual non-energy
benefit is $18,484 (lamp cost + avoided labor).

Facility
16
The cost of purchasing LED lamps is estimated by Connexions at $95,600. The avoided cost of
purchasing the halide lamps replacements results in a savings of $2,275. The total cost of installing
LED lamps is therefore $93,325 (total LED purchase cost – halide lamp total purchase cost). The
labor cost of installing is neutral, as the LED and a new metal halide would be the same cost to
install. The energy savings ($7016) and non-energy savings ($18,484) is $25,500, which allows cost
recovery in 3.7 years.
This measure is very straight-forward and utilities do not generally require any M&V as long as the
number of fixtures and lamps are verified, it is usually assumed the nighttime hours are changing. If
a new time clock or other control such as a new photocell, then the hours of operation may have to
be verified.
EEM-4 Convert Diesel Generators to bi-fuel Adding Natural Gas
Existing Conditions
D has four on-site electrical generators of which three are operational. These three are about 1,500
kW and diesel fired. The generators are for back-up power and they rarely operate. Because of the
diesel emissions they are regulated and can run only a few hours per year for regular maintenance,
in emergencies when grid power is lost, and on-demand as requested by ComEd.
Measure Description
THE CONTRACTOR proposes installing conversion kits on these three generators to allow them to
operate with “bi-fuel,” using 30% diesel fuel and 70% natural gas. Such a conversion kit can be seen
on the diesel2gas web-site: http://www.diesel2gas.com/ This site has short video showing how the
retrofit kit works. Contact information for the manufacturer and the distributor closest to M are
included in the Background section below.
Savings
The the contractor estimates that D’s cost to self-generate electricity will be $0.052 per kWh. This
cost is 29.6% lower than the current electricity price for on-peak energy, which is $0.074/kWh. The
current off-peak electricity rate is $0.048/kWh, so it is not cost effective to self-generate during off-
peak hours. On-peak hours are 9:00 AM to 10:00 Pm on weekdays or 13 hours per day (65 hours per
week). Allowing for holidays, which are off-peak, there are 50 weeks per year or 3,250 hours per
year when the bi-fuel generators can run thus avoiding 5,050,000 million kWh/year of grid
purchased electricity. This is a 22.5% reduction in metered electricity for D. The annual cost savings
in electricity is $376,397.
However, the generators will consume 403,758 therms/year of natural gas beyond what D is
currently using 420,696 therms/year. The cost of the natural gas is subtracted from the electricity
cost savings. The current cost of natural gas is $0.254 per therm for a total added gas cost of
$102,486 per year.

Facility
17
The longer hours of operation will also add to the maintenance cost for more oil changes, repairs
and major overhauls. The added O&M cost is $55,770 and it is like a negative non-energy benefit
that has to subtracted from the net energy cost savings. D’s total cost to self-generate 5,050,000
kWh per year is $158,256 or $0.031. Including the added gas and O&M costs, the net annual cost
savings is $273,911 per year.
The the contractor found two sources for estimated cost to install the conversion kit, one was $100
per kW generator capacity and the other was $119/kW. Using the larger cost, the installed cost for
1,500 kW is $178,500. The simple payback is 1.6 years.
Because the expected electricity savings are very large, it IMPVP standards would allow the savings
to be verified by using several months of electric and gas billing data. After the conversion the
electricity bill will go down considerably as compared to the same months of billing data before the
conversion. The opposite is true for the gas bills as they will go up dramatically since the new gas use
will about three times the old gas use. The added O&M cost is less easy to verify as it may take a
couple years of pre and post O&M records.
http://www.diesel2gas.com/ Nice introductory video showing how the retrofit is installed and how it
works
Altronic 712 Trumbull Avenue, Girard, Ohio 44420; 330-545-9768 www.gti-altronic.com
Chicago Area Distributor: Sulzer Turbo Services, 422 Pine Street, Kalkaska, MI 49646
P: 231-258-2500; C: 231-564-1085 Scott Brooks; scott.brooks@sulzer.com
Four case studies of electric generators converted from diesel only to diesel+nat gas:
http://www.diesel2gas.com/projects/?page=4
 Cummin KTA-19 350 kW gen-set GTI Bi-fuel kit, series II-A16,
 CAT D349 800 kW gen-set , GTI Bi-fuel Kit, series III-C26
 CAT C-18 500 kW gen-set, GTI Bi-fuel kit, series II-B26
 CAT 3412 TA 380 kVA gen-set, GTI Bi-fuel kit, series I-A16

Facility
18
EEM for Future Implementation When Replacing or Adding Molds
EEM-5 All-Electric Auburg Versus Husky Hydraulic Mold
Existing Conditions
D has 31 molds and only one, the Auburg Mold#21 is all-electric. Literature mentions that all-
electric mold use less energy than hydraulic molds. Two molds, the Auburg Mold#21 (165 ton unit)
and the Husky Mold# 17(a 120 ton hydraulic unit), were both producing the same product during the
audit so it was an excellent opportunity to install metering equipment to compare energy use. If D
needs to replace or add more injection molding machines, they should be all-electric. THE
CONTRACTOR conducted field test of the energy use of and electric mold and a hydraulic mold. D’s
current all-electric mold used only 626 kWh/ton-year or 34% of the energy of a similar hydraulic
mold which used 1,851 kWh/ton-year doing the same work.
Measure Description
The contractor had an electrician install power measurement sensors, CTs (current transformers) on
one leg of the electric service to Mold#21 (the Auburg 165 ton) and to Mold#17 (the Husky 120 ton).
The power draw was measured every 2-minutes for 165 hours as shown in Figure 5: Power Draw of
Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold and Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold. Using this
data, the contractor was able to estimate the annual energy use of the two molds as shown in Table
5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy Use and Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy Use.

Facility
19
Figure 5: Power Draw of Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold

M Industries – Facility
Energy Audit Report
Table 5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy Use
Auburg 165 ton Bin 2-minute periods
0-10 Amp 10 - 30 A 30+ Amps 2-Min int
425 4384 1384947
8.6% 88.6% 2.8%% runtime
7.6 11.8 26.1kW
5,721 91,242 6,384 103,347 kWh per year
5.5% 88.3% 6.2%percent of annual energy
Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy Use
Husky 120 ton Bin 2-minute periods
0 to 24 24+ to 45 45+ 2-Min int
352 4230 365 4947
7.1% 85.5% 7.4%% of period
18.2 24.8 39.0kW
11,373 185,582 25,193 222,148kWh per year
5.1% 83.5% 11.3%percent of annual energy
Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold

Energy Audit Report
Figure 5: Power Draw of Auburg 165 ton Electric Mold and Table 5: Auburg Calculated Annual Energy
Use show that the Auburg all-electric mold during 7 days of monitoring pulled between 10 and 30
Amps for 88.6% of the time. For 8.6% of the time, power dropped below 10 Amps. The annualized
energy use came to 103,347 kWh/year, for the 165 ton mold.
Figure 6: Power Draw of Husky 120 ton Hydraulic Mold and Table 6: Husky Calculated Annual Energy
Use show that during the monitoring period, the hydraulic mold pulled between 24 and 45 Amps for
85.5% of the time. For 7.1% of the time, power dropped below 24 Amps. The annualized energy use
came to 222,148 kWh/year, for the 120 ton mold.
When the energy use for the Auburg electric mold is normalized per ton, the annual energy use is
626 kWh/ton-year. The Husky hydraulic mold’s normalized annual energy use per ton is 1,851
kWh/ton-year, more than three times as much.
Savings
The estimated savings by using an all-electric mold would be 1,225 kWh/ton-year. At $0.077/kWh,
the cost savings for an electric mold would be $94.30 per ton-year. Assuming D added 10% or 1,246
tons of new molds, the energy savings from all-electric molds would be 1.54 million kWh/year with a
cost savings of $118,812 per year.
An all-electric mold costs about $109,620 which is comparable to an equivalent hydraulic mold
costing $114,200. Assuming the typical average size mold is 400 tons, the all-electric mold cost
would be $274/ton and the hydraulic mold would be $285.50/ton. The incremental cost for all-
electric mold would be $87/ton.
If M were to add 1,225 tons of new molds, the total incremental cost would be $109,620 and result
in a savings of $118,812 for a simple payback 0.92 years.
Measurement and verification would be done the same way that THE CONTRACTOR did the field
testing, installing electric power sensors and gather data while two matched machines did the same
work.
A discussion of the savings from an electric mold is provided by Auberg Tech Talk at web site:
http://www.arburg.com/fileadmin/redaktion/Mediathek/today/ARBURG_today40_2009_680276_e
n_GB/?page=22#. The all-electric Allrounder’s has regenerative braking and it uses energy-efficient
drives which can save up to 30% by slowing the motor when the mold is in the cooling mode.
Additionally, a May 2007 article at web site http://www.ptonline.com/articles/electric-hydraulic-or-
hybrid-what%27s-the-rightinjection-press-for-you says that all-electric molds cost 20% more but can
save 30% to 70% of the energy. One example quoted is: “Apex purchased an electric machine for
$150,000 and received a $35,000 rebate check from the utility. A hydraulic machine of similar size
cost $110,000 to $120,000. So the rebate erased the price premium.”

Energy Audit Report
Another article at web site http://www.htiplastic.com/news/hydraulic-vs-electric-injection-mold-
machines has data presented in Table 7: Electric Versus Hydraulic Molds. The article notes, “The
difference in unit cost is readily apparent when a hydraulic machine is replaced by an equivalent
electric machine. With tight, repeatable control of operations, the product is produced with less
material and fewer additives, dramatically reducing waste. Independent functionality in electric
machines means multiple tasks can run simultaneously, resulting in much faster cycles. Additionally,
electric machines have no consumables, such as oil and filters, which must be periodically replaced.
Operating cost also is significantly lower due to the substantially smaller power requirements of an
electric machine.”
Table 7: Electric Versus Hydraulic Molds
ELECTRIC Vs HYDRAULIC COMPARISON
Supplier Clamp Tonnage
Material,
Shot Wt.,
Cycle Time
Energy Consumption
Electric Hydraulic Hybrid Electric Hydraulic Savings
Engel
220 220 220
15% GF PBT
12.2-sec
cycle
0.259
kwh/kg
material
0.353 kwh/kg
material 26.6%
Milacron
935 880 —
29-oz part,
17.9-sec
cycle
99.6kw 167kw
40.4%
Sumitomo 198 198 —
16-sec cycle
(estimated) 6.23kw 23.1kw 73.0%
Energy Cost Savings EEM (No reduction in energy or carbon emissions)
EEM-6 Forklift Battery Off-peak Charging
Existing Conditions
The D warehouse has electric forklifts with a battery charging station. The D charging station is an
EnerSys Enforcer SCR Charge Control. This system has the ability to delay charging until off-peak
hours. The existing charger is an SCR which has low energy efficiency (81% to 88%). If it needs to be
replaced, more energy efficient models such as the High frequency charger (91% to 92%) are
available. http://www.enersys.com/EnForcer_SCR_Chargers.aspx.
Measure Description
Delay charging until off-peak rates apply, thereby using less expensive energy. Another opportunity
is to add a solar photovoltaic system on the warehouse to provide day time battery charging. These
systems are not cost effective without substantial incentives, however these projects are perceived
positively as a demonstration of commitment to sustainable energy. And they can receive significant
state, federal and utility incentives.
D currently receives electricity from Constellation Energy through ComEd’s distribution system.
There are two rates: On-peak is $0.07424/kWh and off-peak is $0.04788/kWh. M’s average electric
rate is $0.077 which includes other charges such as transportation cost and demand charges.
Figure 7: Sample Electric Bill for One M Place Campus shows on-peak energy use of 1,092,809
kWh/month and off-peak use of 1,592,781 kWh/month for a total of 2,685,590. On-peak energy use

Energy Audit Report
is 40.6% and off-peak use is 59.4%. On-peak time is 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM and any electrical energy
use shifted from on-peak to off-peak will save 35.5% of the dollar cost. Since batteries store energy,
they can be charged at night after 10:00 PM and be ready for the morning shift.
Savings
Assuming there are 45 forklifts and each uses 5,600 kWh/year to charge batteries, the total energy
use for charging is 252,000 kWh/year. Based on on-peak day time rate ($0.07424/kWh), this costs D
$18,708 per year. If this load can be switched to off-peak rate ($0.04788/kWh) the cost would be
reduced to $12,066 per year. The total annual energy cost savings would be $6,643 per year.
It is likely the existing battery charging system, which is newer, can be adjusted to use off-peak rates.
This would result in non-upfront cost in a simply payback that can be instantaneous. If the charging
system cannot be switched and needs to be changed, the estimated cost to change the charging
station is $10,300. At a cost of $10,300, the simple payback would be 1.6 years.
There is no need for M&V on this EEM.

Energy Audit Report
Figure 7: Sample Electric Bill for One M Place Campus
The link below provides information on upgrading forklift battery charging and discusses using solar
to charge the batteries. It suggests that a forklift consumes about 5,600 kWh/year but upgraded
systems could reduce this to 2,400 kWh/year:
http://wmich.edu/mfe/mrc/greenmanufacturing/pdf/Posters/Borroughs%20Poster.pdf
The link below takes you to a Southern California paper on off-peak forklift charging, “SCE hoped to
demonstrate that customer bills can be reduced substantially by moving the charging function off-
peak, with annual savings from $300 -$500 per forklift (5 kW charger used daily).”
http://www.lifepo4.info/Battery_study/Articles_on_V2G/Electric_Forklift_and_Non-
Road_EV_Fleets_-_Demand_Response_and_Load_Management_Strategies.pdf
Table 8 below shows Comparative Forklift Charger Test Results from a Pacific Gas & Electric paper
from the web site below:
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/moneybacksolu
tions/gr ocery/fb_ib/forklift_battery_charger_fs.pdf

Energy Audit Report
Table 8: Comparative Forklift Charger Test Results

Energy Audit Report
Appendix A:
D Interval Meter Data

Energy Audit Report
Figure 8: D Meter# ####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012

Energy Audit Report
Figure 9: D Meter# #####908 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2014

Energy Audit Report

Energy Audit Report
Figure 12: D Meter# ####3085 Typical Daily Energy Profiles 2012

Energy Audit Report

Energy Audit Report
Appendix B:
Additional Electronic Documentation

Energy Audit Report
The items listed below are data sets too large to be included in the body of this report. They are
provided to M in electronic format.
 Energy Calculation Excel Workbooks
 Utility Bills and Interval Data
 Vendor List
 Product Literature
 Logger Data
 Audit Photographs
 Field Notes
 Background Energy Studies and Reports

Generic Industrial Audit Report-2-24-15

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Generic Industrial Audit Report-2-24-15

Similar to Generic Industrial Audit Report-2-24-15 (20)

Generic Industrial Audit Report-2-24-15