Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Today’s Energy Challenges: How Did We Get Here, and How Do We Regain Control?

In retrospect, June 11, 2007, may be a huge milestone in the advancement of industrial energy efficiency. On that day, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) announced its intention to promote energy efficiency to its 300-plus member companies. To do this, NAM signed a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The goals are “to assist manufacturing facilities to initiate and implement energy management programs; to adopt clean, energy-efficient technologies; and to achieve continual energy efficiency and intensity reduction improvements.” The partnership aims to promote the vast collection of energy-efficient technologies, diagnostic tools, and reference materials developed or sponsored by DOE. Prominent among these items are steam-related technologies and, of course, mechanical insulation.

This is a remarkable event for a couple of reasons. One is the fact that NAM, as a member-driven advocacy association, engages industry at its corporate levels. This means that the energy efficiency message is being introduced to top-level decision makers, not just engineering and maintenance staff. Also of note is that NAM has historically advocated more energy production, rather than conservation. NAM’s recognition of the need for efficiency resources is an indicator of just how challenged manufacturers are by today’s energy markets.

How effective will NAM’s outreach be? The answer to that question varies with the receptiveness of each individual member company. Implementing efficiency means investing money, making some procedural changes, or both. These things do not happen without leadership, nor do they happen without untangling the issues—mechanical and organizational—that allow energy waste to happen. In other words, an organization’s ability to become energy efficient depends in part on understanding what makes waste possible in the first place.

How Does Waste Happen?

How does a plant become energy inefficient? Much of it has to do with the degradation of production assets over time, coupled with the emergence of newer, more efficient technologies. The reasons are also human in basis. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is the justification for long-entrenched work habits that become default procedures. Certain habits that save time and effort may be in place at the expense of greater energy consumption. These practices had little consequence when energy was cheap. However, the tradeoffs between time and money change as energy prices escalate. In most cases, equipment operators never see the bill for the energy they use, nor do the accountants paying the bill always understand how energy is used in their facilities. Reconciliation of energy costs is usually secondary to a plant manager’s need to meet production targets.

A facility’s investment in productive assets is a long-term commitment to a certain vintage of technology. Large, fixed assets will operate for years or even decades. This includes equipment like boilers, furnaces, and air compressors. In addition to these assets, most facilities operate complex production systems that employ a wide variety of smaller equipment, such as pumps, fans, and motors. Compared with the larger assets, these smaller components are more easily replaced. However, the design of the overall system in which they were installed is not as easy to change. Industries typically conduct multiyear planning cycles to organize major facility upgrades and system changes. Planning cycles allow facility managers to avoid frequent disruptions to their production schedules. These cycles take years to conduct and involve a number of considerations, including energy costs. This partially explains why many manufacturers do not respond immediately to proposed energy improvements, even if incentives are involved.

Over time, equipment operators begin to use energy in ways that engineers and other technicians never anticipated. These “services” represent industry’s unintended energy demand (and waste). Here are some examples:

  • Budget defense. Many organizations now maintain the fiscal habit of developing next year’s budget based strictly on the previous year’s performance. In other words, the department that successfully decreases its expenditures this year can actually be penalized with a smaller budget next year. While few managers actively promote waste, many more simply will not challenge it. They can then confidently prop up their funding request for the coming year’s budget. In terms of energy use, this again means running machines unnecessarily, using fuel-rich combustion settings, and ignoring losses attributable to steam or compressed air distribution leaks.
  • Comfort and convenience. Here is an example: Workers may use compressed air—an expensive plant utility—to perform work that could be performed just as effectively by a brush or broom. In some instances, a less expensive utility like flash steam could supplant the use of compressed air. An egregious example comes from one clever factory employee who “air conditioned” his work station with streams of compressed air, which he enjoyed by simply tapping several nozzles into overhead air distribution lines.
  • Proof of effort. In today’s competitive, cost-sensitive economy, a worker’s survival can depend on keeping busy, or at least appearing to keep busy. This may explain why many operators prefer to leave certain machines running, even when there is no work in process. Motor drives, pneumatic tools, and other factory machinery all make a distinct noise. A manager can detect what machinery is running without having to look—it can be heard. The sound implies, “Yes, we are busy.” The energy wasted by machines that run unnecessarily is of no consequence to the worker—the energy cost is not reflected in his or her paycheck. However, energy provides a very valuable service to the operator who wishes to maintain the appearance of being busy.
  • Safety. Lighting obviously contributes to the safety of working environments. Lighting “services” also are used to make a space more welcoming. It can become a habit to leave lights on regardless of the space—in storage rooms; break rooms; and, worse, in rooms that are already lit with natural daylight. As power becomes more expensive, these habits must be reconsidered. Sensors and programmable controls are readily available to make the decisions that humans cannot (or will not) make.

The take-away is that attempts to control energy use will almost always run afoul of someone’s dependence on the service that energy provides. Managers attempting to reduce energy waste must recognize and overcome the need to use energy for unproductive reasons.

How Can a Company Improve Its Energy Position?

Energy management starts with delegation. Many plant managers will put the energy burden squarely on the shoulders of one person, as if that individual can do it all. How can one person control energy costs when consumption reflects the daily decisions made by operations, maintenance, engineering, and finance staff? The energy manager might get great ideas from workshops, conferences, trade press, and professional networks, but no one else from the facility is picking up the same messages. The energy manager easily becomes a maverick, swimming against the tide of a facility’s disinterest (or worse).

This underscores the need for teamwork. A major hurdle to overcome is the interdepartmental rivalries that are usually fueled by competition for budget dollars. Energy managers must somehow overcome the “silos” of departmental authority. It is not uncommon, for example, for a procurement director to refuse to pay $10,000 for an energy audit that will identify many times that amount in potential financial savings for the company.

The key is for the energy manager to demonstrate to other department managers “what’s in it for them,” should they cooperate with a facility-wide energy management effort. More specifically, it is necessary to demonstrate how energy efficiency’s net benefits will filter down to a facility’s bottom line. This means overcoming departmental resistance to spending a dime that, in reality, will result in the entire organization’s saving a dollar.

The successful energy manager’s agenda becomes a hub from which win-win solutions are distributed to the departmental silos. The management team then works collectively, creating a whole value that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Just as industrial engineers can use tools developed by the DOE and others, top managers have a “toolkit” at their disposal. These tools are risk, time, and money. Use of any two of those three tools can be minimized, but it will be at the expense of the third.

For example, if the investment of time and money is minimized, a greater risk is assumed by simply not dealing with the root causes of energy waste and volatile energy prices. It means doing little, cheap, one-time projects, and switching fuels or fuel suppliers. By doing as little proactive energy management as possible, a company remains at the mercy of forces external to the organization, including changing technology, regulations, and volatile energy markets.

What if a company minimized its risk and investment of time? This can be done primarily by pursuing big capital projects (assuming that new equipment can do the work instead of people). But, of course, the big-project approach takes big money.

And if a company minimized its risk and investment of money? This can be done if the company is prepared to invest a lot of time. If, for some reason, the budget will not support the purchase of new, more efficient equipment, then the focus needs to be on the way people use and maintain current equipment. In short, this approach requires a culture change. Companies should be prepared to spend a lot of time boosting staff awareness of the energy-cost consequences of their daily work habits. They also must be prepared to encounter resistance. Energy managers will need to persuade and influence people, fostering and promoting success stories whenever they can be cultivated.

Forward-thinking companies will respond to NAM’s promotion of energy efficiency by changing the way they use energy. They likely often will begin by rethinking work habits and procedures. They will make an inventory of the “gap” between the efficiency of current assets and that of the best available assets. A business plan will establish financial energy metrics—monitored as least once per month—to guide the timing and amount of investments. They will document and replicate their success stories, and demonstrate direct contributions to the bottom line.

Top managers will discover quickly that energy use is as much a human issue as it is a mechanical one. To ignore the human component of energy cost control is to invite business risk. Awareness engenders accountability; and with accountability, companies have the motivation to actively manage energy risk.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

The 2030 Challenege
Acting Now To Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Since buildings are responsible for almost half of all U.S. energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually, stabilizing emissions in the building sector and reversing them to acceptable levels over the next 10 years is critical to any attempt to address global warming and climate change. As a key stakeholder in the building sector, the construction industry and its suppliers have a major role in determining the success of any U.S. effort to bring its GHG emissions under control.

Often the best solutions to a crisis are overlooked or ignored because they are not new or sexy. Such is the case with global warming. The most effective, cheapest, and least damaging solution to this crisis involves practices and methods that are readily available. Good design and efficiency have been used for centuries to create buildings that work with the landscape instead of against it, and have only recently fallen by the wayside in the wake of plentiful, cheap fossil fuels.

Clearly, proper insulation plays a key role in ensuring that a building is efficient. It is essential that those in this industry bring insulation, as well as other materials and building methods that contribute to a building’s efficiency, into the discussion on climate change. Issues that must be addressed include not only the operating energy saved due to proper insulation, but also the type and amount of energy it takes to make the material. Proper insulation also plays a key role in meeting The 2030 Challenge, a global initiative issued by Architecture 2030. This initiative calls for all new buildings and major renovations to reduce their fossil-fuel GHG-emitting consumption by 50 percent by 2010, and for all new buildings to be “carbon neutral” by 2030. The 2030 Challenge specifically calls for the following:

  • All new buildings, developments, and major renovations should be designed to meet a fossil-fuel, GHG-emitting, energy-consumption standard of 50 percent of the regional (or country’s) average for that building type.
  • At a minimum, an equal amount of the existing building area should be renovated annually to meet a fossil-fuel, GHG-emitting, energy-consumption performance standard of 50 percent of the regional (or the country’s) average for that building type.
  • The fossil-fuel reduction standard for all new buildings should be increased in the following increments:
    • 60 percent in 2010
    • 70 percent in 2015
    • 80 percent in 2020
    • 90 percent in 2025
    • Carbon-neutral by 2030 (using no fossil-fuel, GHG-emitting energy to operate)

These targets may be accomplished by implementing innovative sustainable design strategies, as well as by generating on-site renewable power and/or purchasing (20-percent maximum) renewable energy and/or certified renewable energy credits. Design and efficiency can play the largest roles in achieving the goals of The 2030 Challenge. According to Architecture 2030, most developments and buildings can be designed to use only a small amount of energy at little or no additional cost through proper planning; siting; building form; insulation; glass properties and location; shading; material selection; and by incorporating natural heating, cooling, ventilation, and day-lighting strategies. The additional energy necessary to maintain comfort and operate equipment can be supplied by renewable resources, such as solar, wind, biomass, and other viable carbon-free sources.

The 2030 Challenge has been adopted and supported by numerous organizations, states, cities, and design firms, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors (Resolution number 50); American Institute of Architects; U.S. Green Building Council; the states of Illinois and New Mexico; the counties of Sarasota, Florida, and Fulton, Georgia; the international firms of Perkins & Will and HKS; and many others. All of those involved in deciding the energy footprint of buildings are encouraged to adopt and implement The 2030 Challenge within their areas of influence.

In addition to practicing and encouraging good design methods, those who wish to make a difference must also address the processes that are causing harm, or their efforts will not make a difference. Reducing GHG emissions is one of the key steps to avoiding catastrophic climate change worldwide, yet there are 151 conventional coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards in the United States. Seventy-six percent of the energy produced by these plants will be used to operate buildings. According to Edward Mazria, founder of Architecture 2030, “People across the United States are investing large amounts of time, resources, and money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change, but if they allow conventional pulverized-coal plants to continue being built in the Untied States, all of their efforts are for naught.”

To bring this point home, Mazria explains that in just one year, the CO2 output of a conventional pulverized-coal plant negates the benefits of planting 30 million trees. He notes that “the annual CO2 emissions of a large conventional pulverized-coal plant would also negate the efforts of adoptees of The 2030 Challenge to reduce by 50 percent the fossil-fuel energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of approximately half a million existing residences.”

According to Mazria, the next steps are congressional action on conventional pulverized-coal plants and an updated national Building Energy Efficiency Code Standard that incorporates the new benchmarks and 2030 Challenge targets, along with the financial incentives to implement the Standard.

To learn more about The 2030 Challenge and the work of Architecture 2030, please visit www.architecture2030.org.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Starting at the Top
An ambitious new energy program targets the world’s largest cities

On May 16, 2007, former President Bill Clinton announced the creation of a landmark global energy program. This Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program is a project of the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), which helps cities reduce their energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This program is a joint initiative, with participation from four of the world’s largest energy service companies (ESCOs), five of the world’s largest banks, and 16 of the world’s largest cities. The goal of the program is to create a coordinated effort to significantly cut energy consumption levels in buildings by providing both cities and private building owners with access to the necessary funds to retrofit existing buildings with more energy-efficient products. In a typical building, this will lead to a 20- to 50-percent energy savings.

“Climate change is a global problem that requires local action,” said President Clinton. “The businesses, banks, and cities partnering with my foundation are addressing the issue of global warming because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s good for their bottom line. They’re going to save money, make money, create jobs, and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once.”

According to www.clintonfoundation.org, buildings are responsible for more than 50 percent of GHG emissions in most cities and more than 70 percent in mature cities like New York and London.

Big Beginnings

The initial 16 cities that have agreed to participate in the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program and offer their municipal buildings for the first round of energy retrofits include Bangkok, Berlin, Chicago, Houston, Johannesburg, Karachi, London, Melbourne, Mexico City, Mumbai, New York, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Tokyo, and Toronto. These cities have agreed to work with the Clinton Foundation and its experts to develop programs to make their municipal buildings more energy efficient. They will also provide incentives to commercial building owners to retrofit their buildings with energy-saving technologies. The retrofit program will be consistent with, and work within, city procurement and tendering rules.

CCI and its partners will help train local workers on the installation and maintenance of energy-saving and clean energy products. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) have agreed to help coordinate these programs. Other features of the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program include the following:

  • Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Inc., Siemens, and Trane will conduct energy audits, perform building retrofits, and guarantee the energy savings of the retrofit projects.
  • ABN AMRO, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS will arrange $1 billion each to finance cities and private building owners to undertake these retrofits at no net cost, doubling the global market for energy retrofit in buildings.
  • These banks will work with energy efficiency finance specialist Hannon Armstrong and CCI to develop effective mechanisms to deploy this capital globally. Cities and building owners will pay back the loans plus interest with the savings generated by reduced energy costs resulting from the building retrofits.
Clinton Climate Initiative

The Foundation’s CCI program was launched in August 2006. CCI is working with the C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, an association of large cities dedicated to tackling climate change, to develop programs to reduce GHG emissions. Cities contribute approximately 75 percent of all heat-trapping GHG emissions to the atmosphere, while only comprising 2 percent of land mass.

CCI helps enable its partner cities to reduce energy use and GHG emissions in the following ways:

  • by creating a purchasing consortium that pools buying power of cities to lower prices of energy-saving products;
  • by calling on top experts in areas like building efficiency, clean transportation systems, renewable energy production, waste management, and water and sanitation systems for technical assistance in developing and implementing energy and emissions-reducing programs; and
  • by creating and deploying common measurement and information flow tools that participating cities can use to establish a baseline on GHG emissions, track the effectiveness of their emissions reduction programs, and share what works and what does not work with each other.

Additional steps that cities or other facilities can take to reduce energy consumption and employ cleaner energy include the following:

  • Create building codes and standards that include practical, affordable changes that make buildings cleaner and more energy efficient.
  • Conduct energy audits and implement retrofit programs to improve energy efficiency in municipal and private buildings.
  • Install more energy-efficient traffic and street lighting.
  • Implement localized, cleaner electricity generation systems.
  • Develop bus rapid transit and non-motorized transportation systems.
  • Use clean fuels and hybrid technologies for city buses, garbage trucks, and other vehicles.
  • Implement schemes to reduce traffic, such as congestion charges.
  • Create waste-to-energy systems at landfills.
  • Improve water-distribution systems and leak management.

The C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group includes Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Beijing, Berlin, Bogotá, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Caracas, Chicago, Delhi, Dhaka, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Houston, Istanbul, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Karachi, Lagos, Lima, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Manila, Melbourne, Mexico City, Moscow, Mumbai, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney, Toronto, Tokyo, and Warsaw.

For more about CCI, please visit www.clintonfoundation.org. To learn more about the C40 Large Cities Climate Leadership Group, please visit www.c40cities.org.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Mittal Steel
Another Successful Case Study From the Save Energy Now Program

Through the Save Energy Now (SEN) program, the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) helps industrial plants operate more efficiently and profitably by identifying ways to reduce energy use in key industrial process systems. This particular case study is interesting because Mittal Steel had a large number of uninsulated hot water tanks that are used for pickling and rinsing. These tanks are maintained at approximately 175°F by steam and have a total surface area of approximately 50,000 square feet. The SEN Energy Savings Assessment (ESA) determined that a modest amount of insulation in these tanks would save roughly $400,000 in energy costs.

Mittal Steel is one of the most advanced and progressive steel companies. Weirton plant is a fully integrated facility, but it has been in a state of flux. Consequently, it is currently operating at less than half of its capacity. This has a great impact relative to energy usage, because if the company goes toward full capacity it will be far more efficient. It will be able to use all of its boilers and do a significant amount of cogeneration. However, if it were to shrink further, it may be able to operate with just one boiler. Currently, it is operating with two boilers, which is more than what the facility needs. The boilers currently have to be blown down occasionally. Also, the furnaces must be turned on and off once every week. As a result of all this, it is difficult to estimate the possible savings on a permanent basis.

Objective of the Energy Savings Assessment

The objective of the ESA was to accomplish the following:

  • understand the plant process;
  • take an in-depth look at some key process heating opportunity areas;
  • brainstorm about challenges and come up with possible solutions;
  • discuss process heating; and
  • demonstrate the use of the Department of Energy (DOE) Process Heating Assessment Software Training (PHAST) tool as an analysis aid for making measurements and collecting data.
Focus of the Assessment

The ESA focused on the following areas:

  • Walking beam furnaces
  • Picklers
  • No.9 tandem
  • Cleaning lines (tin mill)
  • Batch annealing (BA)
  • Continuous annealing (CA)
Approach of the ESA
  • Make an introductory presentation regarding objectives and purpose.
  • Understand management concerns.
  • Take a plant tour.
  • Understand the plant equipment and decide which equipment should be the focus.
  • Make measurements and/or collect data.
  • Communicate process heating basic concepts to relevant Mittal personnel.
  • Discuss and train the Mittal staff in the proper use of the DOE-PHAST tool.
  • Come up with solutions to the problems identified.
General Observations of Potential Opportunities
  • Total plant natural gas usage for the base year, 2005, was 5 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) at an average cost of about $11.33 per million Btus (MMBtus).
  • The impact of fuel cost is large and proportional to the cost of natural gas, taken as $10 per MMBtu for this analysis.
  • Three of the opportunities identified are expected to be near term; two of the opportunities identified are expected to be medium term.
  • The estimated percentage of plant natural gas savings from near-term opportunities is 5 percent; the estimated savings from medium-term opportunities is 5 to 10 percent.
Natural gas was used in:
  • Walking beam furnaces. Actually, a mixture of natural gas and air called mixed gas, which is 70-percent natural gas, was used.
  • Boilers. These used 40-percent natural gas and 60-percent fuel oil.
Steam was used in:
  • Turbo generators.
  • Building heat. About 120,000 pounds per hour (lb/hr) were used during winter months.
  • Wash tanks. Making hot water for these tanks in the tin mill (BA and CA) and strip mills took about 270,000 lb/hr (about 180,000 lb/hr in a tin mill and about 90,000 lb/hr in a strip mill).
Observations From the Strip Mill

1. Walking Beam Furnaces (WBF)

  • Cooling water flow was 3,964 gallons per minute (gpm) per furnace; Tin equals 150°F and Tout equals 180°F, which translates to 59.6 MMBtu per hour (MMBtu/hr). This is equal to about $596 per hour, since only one furnace is operational. This is low-grade heat, but it can be used instead of steam to heat the building.

2. Picklers

  • Acid and rinse tanks are maintained at 175°F by steam. However, these tanks are not insulated.

3. No.9 Tandem Mill

  • Rolling oil and Morgoil (which is 6-percent oil and the rest water) are heated to about 140°F by steam. The facility can use the WBF hot water instead of steam.

4. Mixed Gas

  • Natural gas is 1.04 MMBtu per thousand cubic feet (MCF); mixed gas is 0.72 MMBtu/MCF, or about 30 percent air by volume. This is too rich to burn at room temperature.
Observations From the Tin Mill

1. Batch Annealing (BA)

  • Forty percent of the product is BA, and the rest is continuous annealing (CA). BA has 33 bases and 13 furnaces with a hydrogen and nitrogen atmosphere. Steel rolls are stacked in four rows that are each four rolls high.
  • There are 25,000 tons per month in BA.
  • Furnaces are open fire and are not recuperated.
  • There is a lot of hot and clean air above the BA furnaces that could be ducted or blown to other parts of the plant for space heating.

2. Continuous Annealing (CA)

  • About 30,000 lb/hr of steam are used for all three CA lines.

3. Cochran Hot Water Heater

  • This hot water heater supplies all three of the CA lines. It provides 1,800 gpm of water at 200°F (that’s 600 gpm per line). It also uses 120 MMBtu/hr. This consumes 110,000 lb/hr of steam.

4. Cleaning Lines

  • In both BA and CA, water at 180°F to 190°F goes down the drain. It can be used to preheat fresh water before using steam. This is a total loss of fresh water added to Cochran heaters.
  • All tanks everywhere are uninsulated. Surface temperature is 140°F; water temperature is 185°F. The loss equals 170 Btus per square foot per hour. It is recommended to insulate these tanks with a suitable insulation system. Due to a very large exposed surface area, this loss is quite significant.

While all of the above are possible recommendations that the company must consider, recommendations that were analyzed are summarized below.

Description of Recommendations

1. Schedule the one walking beam furnace (WBF) that is operating and make additional improvements. About 560 MMBtus are stored in the WBF, and it loses heat at a rate of about 8 MMBtus/hr. This shuts the WBF down 3 days a week and costs $12,000 per week—$6,000 per week x 2 (operating efficiency). Hence, every effort should be made to schedule shutdowns two times a month rather than four times a month; this saves $24,000 per month, or $288,000 per year.

Other improvements include closing the opening in WBF 1, increasing the combustion air temperature, and reducing the wall losses. These amount to 38 MMBtus/hr, or $1.824 million per year.

2. Use waste heat from WBF cooling water. WBF cooling water flow is 3,964 gpm per furnace. This water is recirculated after cooling in an air-to-water heat exchanger from 180°F to 150°F. This represents about 59.6 MMBtus/hr per furnace, which equals $596 per hour or approximately $3 million per year, even when operating 4 days a week. This hot water can be used to heat the building, which is currently steam heated, and can also be used to heat rolling oil and Morgoil. There is company resistance in doing so because of the question, “What if even one WBF is not operating?” To realize these savings, the company has to install a flexible system that can switch from steam to hot water. However, it seems that the most optimum solution is to operate one WBF 24-7.

3. Recuperate the BA furnaces. The recuperators on BA furnaces are not working. If the combustion air is preheated to 600°F, calculations (see Figure 1) show that 18.93 percent natural gas savings are possible. Monthly usage for BA furnaces is 29,676 MMBtus, or 41.22 MMBtus/hr. As shown in Figure 1, this yields a savings of $681,740 per year.

4. Reduce steam usage to make hot water in the tin mill. In both BA and CA at 180° to 190°F, water goes down the drain. This is a loss of both water and its heat content. This water can be used to preheat fresh water before using steam. This hot water is made in a Cochran water heater that heats 1,800 gpm water to 200°F. This consumes 110,000 lb/hr of steam, or approximately 120 MMBtu/hr. If the supply water to the Cochran heaters is heated to 120°F, it will save approximately 50 Btus per pound of energy. With 1,800 gpm or 901,304 lb/hr of water supply, the savings are approximately 45 MMBtu/hr, which yields $450 per hour or $393,690 per year. If just half of this was realized, the savings would be almost $200,000 per year.

5. Insulate hot water washing tanks everywhere. The surface temperature of these tanks is 140°F, and heat loss is approximately 170 Btus per square foot per hour. A conservative estimate of the total surface area of these tanks is 50,000 square feet. This results in a heat loss of 8.5 MMBtus/hr. A simple solution of insulating these tanks is recommended. Implementation costs will be very low. Assuming half of the heat loss can be saved, a savings of $371,280 per year can be achieved with this step.

This article has been reprinted with permission from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). To learn more about the DOE’s Save Energy Now program, please visit www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow.

Figure 1
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Kyoto + 10: Carbon Credits and the Countdown to Compliance

There is no end in sight to the debate over global climate change: Is climate change a bad thing? If so, how bad is it? What causes it? Should we do something about it? What is the best course of action to take?

For businesses, the challenge is to quantify the benefits of reducing energy usage in terms that stakeholders can support—profit versus loss.

For the environment, the challenge is to quantify the risks of increasing energy usage in terms that motivate both the developed countries, with their high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and standards of living, and the developing countries, which are industrializing to raise their standards of living.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of climate change, energy efficiency is something everyone can get behind because it is good for the environment and for business. The insulation industry has been saying this for years.

The Kyoto Protocol

In 1997, at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, members of the United Nations voted to amend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international environmental treaty. The amendment, which became known as the Kyoto Protocol, mandates the reduction of GHG emissions by participants and establishes severe compliance penalties for countries that fail to meet their reduction goals.

What makes the Kyoto Protocol unique is the “carrot and stick” approach it takes to enforcement. Essentially, the Kyoto Protocol created a new, global financial market using carbon credits that countries can earn by reducing emissions. These credits then can be traded like any other commodity on an international exchange.

To date, 170 countries have entered into the Kyoto Protocol. Those countries are responsible for 61 percent of the world’s GHG emissions. Twenty-four countries—including the United States—refused to enter into the Kyoto Protocol. Together, the 24 non-participating countries are responsible for 39 percent of the world’s GHG emissions; the United States alone is responsible for 25 percent.

Increase Efficiency, Decrease Emissions

Because of the way treaty compliance is measured, the Kyoto Protocol is often thought of only in terms of decrease in emissions. In fact, what the amendment calls for is an increase in energy efficiency.

There is an old saying in the plumbing industry: When a pipe bursts, you don’t fix it by mopping the floor. By the same token, if you are manufacturing under the Kyoto Protocol, you do not reduce GHG emissions at your plant by making improvements to the tops of the smokestacks. Instead, you reduce pollution by examining the first step in your manufacturing process (and every step that follows), performing inspections and maintenance, eliminating waste, giving new technologies a try (even if the older technology works “just fine”), and then going back to step one and doing it all over again.

For years, advocates of “lean manufacturing” have touted the benefits of committing to continuous improvement. But it was not until the Kyoto Protocol put a price tag on emissions that many manufacturers began managing energy efficiency the way one manages labor, materials, and other budget line items.

Think Globally, Act Locally

Since Kyoto, the concept of carbon credits has taken hold in ways few would have imagined. Although the United States government did not sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, many people in the United States have joined the carbon credit revolution.

State governments have taken steps toward addressing their most critical environmental concerns by implementing Kyoto-inspired “cap-and-trade” systems. The state sets a cap on a certain pollutant and then gives businesses whose processes create that pollutant a chance to reduce emissions, get under the cap, and earn credits. Businesses that exceed the cap can purchase these credits to avoid pollution penalties.

Under a cap-and-trade program, a business that invests in energy efficiency can see a relatively short-term cash return on that investment through the sale of credits, in addition to long-term savings on energy. This encourages businesses to try new “green” technologies and methodologies that stockholders might not have supported on the basis of long-term efficiency alone. On the other hand, a business that does not invest its working capital in energy efficiency can take that cash to market instead, and negotiate for the purchase of credits as it would negotiate for the purchase of any other material used in the manufacturing process. The flexibility of cap-and-trade systems makes them appealing to both demand- and supply-side economists.

The Kyoto Protocol has inspired energy efficiency programs at the local level, too. In the United States, 532 city mayors—representing more than 66 million Americans—have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (USMCPA), pledging to:

  • strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land use policies to urban forest restoration projects and public information campaigns;
  • urge their state governments and the federal government to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the GHG emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol (by 2012, reduce emission levels to 7 percent less than they were in 1990); and
  • urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan GHG reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system.

USMCPA-participating cities are not told how to reduce GHG emissions. However, many of these cities have seen the value of cap-and-trade at the international, national, regional, and state levels, and have applied the concept on a smaller scale.

The most significant aspect of these grass-roots energy efficiency efforts in the United States is that they are often not led by governments or even by environmental activists, but by businesses looking at the bottom line. This should come as no surprise to anyone who saw the most recent Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which shows American businesses spending more than $94 billion each year on energy. Looking for ways to meet stockholders’ profit expectations, managers may hope for a drop in energy costs, but few would be willing to gamble their jobs on it. Instead, forward-thinking managers are looking at ways to use energy more efficiently to reduce expenditures and leave more dollars in the profit column. By participating in cap-and-trade programs, manufacturers can share some of the costs for improving energy efficiency at their facilities.

An Opportunity for Insulation

The popularity of cap-and-trade programs continues to grow, both in the number of participants and in the creativity of the programs being implemented. These programs are being adapted to meet the needs of diverse communities and industries. The insulation industry also has an opportunity to grow in this new environment on many levels.

  • At the state level: Many state governments have a cap-and-trade program of some kind, and nearly all of the remaining states are considering one. The business climate in each state (rural versus urban, agricultural versus manufacturing, importing versus exporting, etc.) can help predict the type of cap-and-trade program that will work best there. Making sure elected representatives see business as a resource when they evaluate energy efficiency legislation is a good way to advocate insulation’s role in a cap-and-trade solution.
  • At the local level: In reaching their MCPA goals, many municipalities now require that new government buildings meet the certification standards of the U.S. Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org). For some cities, this mandate includes schools, hospitals, firehouses, and civic arenas—not just office buildings. Green construction has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry in which insulation plays a key role. Industry insiders can find out who is sitting on their mayor’s MCPA advisory committee and make sure the insulation industry is represented. Insulation experts are a valuable resource for those committed to energy-efficient construction.
  • At the business level: By keeping up to date on all regional, state, county, and city energy efficiency initiatives, insulation end users can answer questions about the role of insulation in these programs. It is beneficial to help both clients and employers participate in cap-and-trade programs, even if participation is voluntary. It is not just a cost-savings opportunity; being a good corporate citizen provides a “halo effect” for businesses within the communities.
  • At a personal level: Another unexpected result from the Kyoto Protocol is the degree to which people have adopted the concept of cap-and-trade in their lives. Several websites help calculate “carbon footprints”—the impact of each person’s lifestyle choices (such as driving to work, living in a poorly insulated house, using non-recyclables, etc.) on the environment. These sites explain possible “offsets”—actions one can take to reduce GHG emissions, such as planting trees or using renewable energy. The goal of footprint calculators is to help people become “carbon neutral,” or to offset their individual footprints entirely. The number of ways available to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions is surprising. This could be an attention-getting tool for promoting insulation as a means of increasing energy efficiency within industry.
Kyoto + 10

The countries that entered into the Kyoto Protocol have had 10 years to get their cap-and-trade programs up and running. Beginning next year, Kyoto moves into its enforcement phase: Developed countries must have reduced their GHG emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels. For many countries, such as those in the European Union, this can mean a reduction of approximately 15 percent from what their GHG emissions were forecast to be in 2008. Developed countries can purchase carbon credits from developing countries, which have no GHG emission-reduction goals but instead earn credits for “clean development” projects that are implemented under the Kyoto Protocol. If a developed country fails to reach its GHG emission-reduction goal, it must make up the difference and then reduce emissions another 30 percent as a penalty.

Not everyone is a fan of carbon credits or cap-and-trade programs. Some business leaders say these programs add a whole new layer of compliance reporting to industries that already feel overburdened by regulation. Some environmental activists believe that framing the climate-change debate in terms of dollars and cents—instead of right and wrong—detracts from environmental responsibility. Some public policy experts, skeptical of global warming, warn that Kyoto is a “global socialism initiative” to transfer wealth from free-market economies to the Third World. Some less-polluted countries argue that Kyoto does not go far enough to curb GHG emissions from major polluting countries. And some economists calculate the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits. Not surprisingly—given the complexity of the science, economics, and international relations involved—the Kyoto Protocol has neither unanimous opposition nor unanimous support.

It will be years before reliable data is available on the effects cap-and-trade programs have on reducing GHG emissions. If history is any indication, there will never be agreement on the cost benefits, regardless of how much data is collected. What is clear, though, is that Kyoto is the first international environmental treaty based on the assumption that for any energy efficiency solution to be effective, it must appeal to the business community as stewards for stakeholders as well as stewards for communities.

The insulation industry has credibility on both sides of the climate-change debate. Cap-and-trade programs offer the opportunity to leverage that credibility in ways that will be good for business and the environment.

References
  1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659716
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

It Takes Energy To Save Energy
Case Study: Insulation upgrades at Crucible Specialty Metals produce immediate savings

Crucible Specialty Metals, as the name suggests, operates a specialty steel plant in Syracuse, New York. The plant makes a large variety of specialty metals, including tool steel, high-speed steel, marine applications, and stainless steel. Much of the plant was constructed in 1902 and has been in operation since that time.

Making specialty steel products takes a great deal of energy. With the sharp increases in energy costs, including the natural gas needed to fire the plant ’s furnaces and steam boilers, it was getting very expensive for the company to manufacture its products. The plant ’s location in upstate New York did not help. Winter temperatures can reach well below 0°F, and winds can average around 10 miles per hour (mph), with peak winds over 50 mph.

Snapshot of the Plant ’s Situation

Ram Kondapi, chief project engineer, and Gary Schueler, senior project engineer, started looking for energy-saving projects to reduce the plant ’s energy usage. What they found was more than 1,800 feet of steam piping with insulation systems in poor condition. This piping ran from ½ inch up to 12 inches. Most of it was completely bare, and the rest was in poor condition. The insulation conditions were aggravated further by the condition and design of most of the buildings on the site. Piping installed in buildings normally benefits from warmer ambient temperatures, little or no wind, and no water contamination from rain. But Crucible Specialty Metals was not that fortunate. Its buildings were mostly uninsulated brick structures, built years ago (many around 1900). In several cases, the walls and roofs had large openings that exposed the steam piping to the full effects of the Syracuse winter weather.

An Effective Plan of Action

With help from the New York State Energy Development and Research Authority (see “Sidebar 2: NYSERDA Offers Energy-Saving Expertise”), work began on upgrading the company ’s steam-piping insulation systems in late 2004, starting with the insulation on one of the plant ’s most challenging lines: a large steam header located in a high, elevated pipe bridge that crossed a multitrack railway separating two of the manufacturing buildings. Once that difficult job was complete, the rest seemed easy in contrast. By the end of 2005, the new fiberglass insulation systems had been installed on about 46 percent of the piping.

“Steam is an expensive utility at Crucible,” explains Kondapi. “Due to the age of the facility, several unconnected buildings on a 60-acre site, and antiquated infrastructure, there is no piping available to return condensate to the boiler house. This, in combination with uninsulated steam distribution piping exposed to the harsh winters of central New York, led to investigation and study of energy efficiency measures. These measures were identified and prioritized in an engineering study funded by NYSERDA. Top priority was given to insulation of exterior steam piping with a monetary payback of less than a year that was subsequently implemented utilizing internal capital funds.”

In early 2006, the task of determining if the plant was saving any energy fell to Schueler. He first looked at natural gas consumption; this was the fuel used for the steam boilers. Surprisingly, Schueler could not see a significant reduction. With a bit of investigation, he realized the amount of gas that was potentially saved was a relatively small component of the total natural gas used because a large amount was used in direct-fired furnaces for the manufacturing of specialty steel products. Schueler then looked at steam usage from 2000 to 2005, and it told a clearer story. Figure 1 shows the plant’s monthly steam consumption from 2000 to 2005.

At first glance, it doesn ’t look like the 2005 steam consumption was significantly different from the previous years ’. However, taking into account that many of the steam pipelines are shut down during the summer months and most of the insulation upgrades were not done until the second half of 2005, the chart looks more interesting. Figure 2 shows steam usage for 2005 to be significantly lower than in previous years. The average steam usage for corresponding months in 2000 to 2005 was 46.9 million pounds versus 30.3 million pounds of steam for 2005 usage—a savings of almost 36 percent.

Solid Investment, Big Returns

Using 3E Plus® shareware software (see “Sidebar 1: The Power of 3E Plus®”), the actual annual benefits from these insulation upgrades over a complete year were calculated. The following are the results of this analysis:

  • Projected energy savings: Approximately 7.8 million British thermal units (Btus) per year
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction: 1.1 million pounds of this greenhouse gas per year
  • More than 2,200 pounds of nitrogen-oxygen (NOX) compounds class of regulated emissions, which includes greenhouse gases (GHG) and gases that influence the mixing ratio of GHG
  • Projected payback: 9 months1

The results speak for themselves. Crucible Specialty Metals initiated an insulation upgrade project on its steam pipelines that saved a significant amount of both steam and money. The investment was returned in only 9 months (a projected return on investment of 131 percent). As an added benefit, the work made use of steam more controllable and will significantly reduce the facility ’s amount of GHG emissions simply by using less natural gas to heat the steam boilers, making this a true win-win for a progressive company.

“Now steam usage is continually monitored, and measures are taken to reduce steam loads where feasible. This information is presented and shared with upper management at weekly cost meetings to highlight the economic significance of one of the largest categories of energy users in the plant,” explains Joseph E. Nadzan, vice president of maintenance and engineering at Crucible.

References
  1. Based on natural gas costs of $6 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf)
Figure 1
Figure 2
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Carbon Offsets: The Next Hot Trend in Energy Savings

Insulation industry professionals are naturally interested in the latest news and trends in saving energy because insulation is a proven energy saver, and an easy way to reduce energy expenses and preserve the global environment. Many businesses have incorporated insulation, along with other environment-friendly approaches, into their strategic plans. For example, the Subaru manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana, was the first auto assembly plant to achieve zero landfill status: Nothing from its manufacturing efforts goes into a landfill—everything discarded is reused and recycled. Industrial Woodworking Corporation (IWC) recently announced that it has offset 100 percent of its carbon emissions from electrical and natural gas use, management’s air travel, and corporate vehicles through Carbonfund.org’s CarbonFree™ business program. Other CarbonFree partners with Carbonfund.org include Dell, Orbitz, and Lancôme.

These companies are taking voluntarily, proactive steps to reduce the global carbon load through conservation and carbon offsets, and many individuals are following suit. With carbon offsets, individuals or companies pay someone else to reduce, or “offset,” their greenhouse gas emissions because they are unable or unwilling to reduce their own emissions. A popular—and somewhat controversial—example is planting trees to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions. Several websites now allow people to pay money toward renewable energy efforts, such as wind energy farms or solar energy projects, to counterbalance their use of more traditional—and polluting—energy sources.

Here’s how it works:
  • Choose a reputable website that offers carbon offsets that are third-party verified to reduce the equivalent of the necessary amount of carbon dioxide pollution.
  • Calculate your carbon footprint by determining how much carbon dioxide you are responsible for emitting (in your home, car, or on airplane flights).
  • Select a carbon offset product based on the amount of emissions, translated to a dollar amount, that you want to counterbalance with your purchase. You can make the simple purchase online with your credit card.
When choosing carbon offsets, be sure to look for the following factors:
  • Transparency. The offset provider should clearly explain the energy projects it contributes to and offer tangible proof that those projects have a positive impact.
  • Additionality. It is critical that the offset contributions actually prompt an organization to do something it would not have done otherwise.
  • Verification. The most reputable carbon offsets have been independently verified by a credible third party. While there is no clear standard for validating carbon offset projects, the Gold Standard—based on Kyoto Protocol criteria, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world—is widely accepted. (For more information on the Kyoto Protocol and Japan’s new proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, please visithttp://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php.)
  • Project type. The best projects work toward developing alternative energy sources, such as wind or solar energy, to eventually replace more pollution-heavy energy producers.
  • Approach. The group providing the offset also should provide education. It should offer information on how to reduce your carbon footprint before you buy carbon offsets.1

Carbon offsets are a major trend among environmentally conscious public figures, including Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Cameron Diaz. At the 79th annual Academy Awards, presenters and performers received 100,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions from TerraPass’ suite of verified clean energy projects. Celebrity endorsements not only help reduce the carbon footprint of the world’s jet-setters, but they shed some spotlight on this popular new way to improve the environment.

The insulation industry focuses on energy savings every day. Now, that same level of responsibility is possible on a corporate or personal level. To calculate your carbon footprint or learn more about carbon offsets, visit the websites listed in Kyoto + 10: Carbon Credits and the Countdown to Compliance. As part of a broader effort to save energy and provide a greener future for generations to come, this energy-saving trend is definitely aligned with at least one major insulation industry goal.

References
  1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659716
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

A Good Business Move: Recycling Insulation Materials

Over the past few years, widespread attention has been given to “green” building and sustainability. Sustainability includes, at a minimum, both energy efficiency and recycling.

Industry leaders are addressing this topic much more frequently as interest in it expands. At the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) convention this past January, a seminar and two forums were offered on sustainable design and green topics. ASHRAE plans more programs on this subject in the future.

At the National Insulation Association’s (NIA’s) annual convention in March, two speakers addressed the specific role of insulation in sustainable design. The talks included a look at how thermal insulation can contribute to green buildings, as well as information on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)–certified buildings. The speakers noted that reducing energy use through greater efficiency is not enough: Society also needs to recycle materials to a much greater extent to achieve greater material use efficiency. Within the insulation industry, that means increased use of recycled materials in the manufacture of insulation and more recycling of insulation materials after their use.

Recycling Newspaper Into Cellulose Insulation

Possibly the most successful and well-known recycling effort in the insulation industry is the recycling of old newspapers into cellulose insulation. While primarily used as building envelope insulation, cellulose insulation uses a large percentage of recycled materials—reportedly in the 80- to 85-percent range. According to the Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association, in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), the industry produced 773,000 tons of cellulose insulation.

Recycling Raw Materials Into Mineral Fiber Insulation

Mineral wool insulation is typically a blend of rock wool and slag wool. Slag is what is left from coke and iron and is the predominant input material to most mineral wool insulation. If slag were not recycled, it would be sent to landfills, further aggravating the landfill problems that already exist. According to the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association’s (NAIMA’s) website (www.naima.org), in the past 10 years, nearly 11 billion pounds of recycled blast furnace slag have been used in the manufacture of slag wool insulation.

In the fiberglass insulation manufacturing industry, recycled scrap glass—mostly from bottles—is used as an input raw material. According to www.naima.org, in the past 10 years about 9.5 billion pounds of recycled scrap glass have been used in the manufacture of fiberglass insulation, making up about 40 percent of the input material. One fiberglass insulation manufacturer claims to have used 3.5 billion pounds of recycled glass during the past 10 years. As with unused slag, if the bottles were not recycled into fiberglass, they would be dumped in landfills.

The 2001 Insulation Outlook article titled “Recycling Fiberglass Insulation Into Commercial Board Products” (see www.insulation.org/articles/article.cfm?id=IO010701) described a fiberglass insulation recycling technology that converted post-industrial scrap material into usable fiberglass boards. In that wet process, post-industrial scrap fiberglass insulation was shredded, mixed with water to make a slurry, and then passed through a “head box” (similar to that used in making paper). There, it was drained on a conveyor chain, soaked with a chemical binder solution, dried, and pressed and cured in an oven into 4- or 5-foot-wide boards with a finished density in the range of 3 to 10 pounds per cubic foot (lbs/ft3).

This valiant effort to recycle post-industrial scrap was successful in making a quality product, but because of start-up problems, as well as marketing and sales issues (recycled products did not have the appeal and acceptance then that they do today), investors finally shut down the operation and auctioned off the equipment. Once the facility was shut down in 2002, most of the scrap fiberglass insulation material from the operation went to a landfill.

Recycling Fiberglass Ceiling Panels

Scrap fiberglass can be used for more than just fiberglass board products. One commercially successful reuse is as an input ingredient for fiberglass acoustical ceiling tiles. At least one manufacturer of these tiles—Armstrong World Industries based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania—uses old fiberglass ceiling panels, a form of acoustical insulation. This keeps the old ceiling tiles out of landfills and puts the material to good use.

The company’s website (www.armstrong.com) states that since the start of its recycling program, it has recycled almost 11 million pounds of fiberglass ceiling tiles into new fiberglass ceiling tiles. The website also asserts that the company has reduced CO2 emissions by 11.2 million kilograms, saved 12.3 million gallons of potable water, reduced landfill waste by 24.5 million pounds, reduced electrical energy use by 34.3 million kilowatt-hours (kWh), and reduced virgin raw materials by 245 million pounds. These numbers should inspire other successful insulation recycling programs within industry.

Armstrong has undertaken a number of recycling projects. A supermarket chain is recycling 2 million square feet, or 600 tons, per year through the company’s recycling program, for example. In Florida, an office park being refurbished is recycling 25 tons of old acoustical ceiling panels, turning them into new ceiling panels. The new ceiling panels have 79-percent recycled content.

A New York City corporate headquarters for a large pharmaceutical company, which is being renovated, is in the process of recycling 160,000 pounds of old fiberglass ceiling panels into new ones.

Recycling Plastic Foam Insulation Materials

Another company, Rastra (www.rastra.com) recycles plastic foam insulation, such as polystyrene, into structural building blocks used for houses and other buildings. It makes insulated concrete forms (ICFs) from cement and post-consumer plastic foam. Rastra claims to have 85-percent recycled content (by volume) in its block product. The high percentage of polystyrene content by volume gives the ICFs a higher R-value than regular concrete block, which in turn increases the overall wall R-value. Its standard steady-state R-value per inch is reported to be 1.73, giving each 14-inch-thick block an R-value of 24.2. The manufacturer claims that the effective R-value is considerably higher—as high as 46 in the Arizona desert—due to daily temperature swings.

Rastra reportedly is recycling almost 200 tons per year of plastic foam insulation material at its Albuquerque, New Mexico, plant and will soon be opening a second plant in Columbus, Ohio.

The Future of Recycling Insulation Materials

The manufacture of mineral wool and fiberglass insulation is energy intensive. Any materials that can be recycled, without requiring the melting of input materials, can save large quantities of energy otherwise used to melt and fiberize the materials. The manufacture of plastic foam insulation materials, while not energy intensive from a thermal perspective, is material intensive in terms of using petrochemical feedstock (such as chemicals made from crude oil). Prices of natural gas, crude oil, coal, and nuclear fuel have tripled in the past 5 years. As these prices continue to increase, recycling becomes even more attractive financially.

With growing concerns about global warming—which results from the release of CO2 into the atmosphere—recycling is a way to reduce energy use for the manufacture of construction and building materials. When recycling of insulation materials is combined with the increases in energy efficiency realized by thermal insulation in buildings and industrial processes, the contributions to a more sustainable society can be enormous. In the next 5 years, new insulation recycling projects likely will be developed and commercialized. The insulation industry will increasingly contribute to a more sustainable society, which will increase its value to the world.

That is good for business!

Figure 1

A recycling technology once converted discarded fiberglass insulation into acoustical and thermal insulation board products.

Figure 2

Ceiling panels like these can be made from older, recycled fiberglass ceiling panels.

Figure 3
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Save Energy Now Program Gets Results

Through the Save Energy Now (SEN) program, the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) helps industrial plants operate more efficiently and profitably by identifying ways to reduce energy use in key industrial process systems. The ITP cosponsors these assessments through a competitive process. The DOE promotes plant-wide energy-efficiency assessments that will lead to improvements in industrial energy efficiency, productivity, and global competitiveness, while reducing waste and environmental emissions.

This case study looks at the Bayer Corporation, which is the largest subsidiary in the Bayer Group, with some 23,200 employees working at more than 50 locations in the United States. The Bayer Polymers1 New Martinsville, West Virginia, plant has 16 production units and employs 950 workers. The plant produces more than 1.2 billion pounds of chemical intermediates, polyurethane materials, food-grade hydrochloric acid, and iron-oxide pigments each year.

The Bayer Corporation’s plant-wide energy assessment focused on the technical and economic evaluation of existing utility systems. The assessment also identified areas—such as insulation, boiler, steam, compressor, and motor-driven pump systems—that could benefit from modifications and upgrades. Improvements in these systems, as well as their accompanying energy and cost savings, can be replicated in other industrial plants. In this case, the DOE contributed $87,000 of the total $181,000 for the assessment, which took place in the spring of 2001. The project evaluation process was unique in that the company had obtained very favorable rates for electricity, even by West Virginia’s favorable standards in the industrial sector. Even so, the company found strong economic justification for several projects that would reduce either electricity or fossil fuel consumption.

The projects, when complete, will reduce the amount of fossil fuel that is burned and leaked, saving the company an estimated 236,000 million British thermal units (MMBtu), or an estimated $1.16 million annually, based on an average cost of fossil fuel. Certain other projects will save the company 6.3 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical energy. All of the projects are potentially applicable to other chemical manufacturing facilities, and most of the projects have potential applicability to other industries.

Assessment Approach

The plant-wide energy-efficiency assessment focused on the technical and economic evaluations of existing energy systems in the plant utilities that could benefit from equipment modifications, leak reduction, heat recovery, improved control systems, additional insulation, and burner adjustments.

The systems that were evaluated included those using significant quantities of natural gas (NG), electrical power, and chemically treated water. Reducing production of nitrogen oxide (NOX) and carbon dioxide (CO2) was also a high priority. The assessment team consisted of the Bayer Corporation’s director of utilities and maintenance, the manager of utilities, and a member of process engineering. The review was a joint effort of these management experts and an assessment team from West Virginia University (WVU). The Bayer team prepared a list of energy-efficiency concerns and discussed them with the WVU team. During the summer of 2001, the WVU team made regular site visits to collect necessary energy-use and management data at the plant. The assessment focused on boiler-system operation, insulation needs, steam leaks, steam-system condensate, compressed air, and motor performance.

The WVU team then conducted a detailed analysis of the data, which focused on component-level specifics (heat losses in pipes, flanges, tanks, cooling towers, and valve spool pieces specific to each boiler). The WVU team issued a report in July 2002 describing the analysis and several proposed projects. The utility management staff noted high-priority items (steam and compressed gas leaks) with less than 1-month payback and acted on those immediately.

Impressive Results

To ensure that all project goals were met, the Bayer team wanted to: 1) identify significant energy savings and attractive payback, and 2) proceed based on environmental criteria. The company is interested in reducing the production of NOX and CO2, which is frequently an outcome that accompanies energy conservation projects. The Bayer plant operates with a 25-megawatt electric load and is the second largest user of NG in the state. The total annual cost for imported utilities is more than $15 million. The Bayer team recognized that even a small improvement in the efficiency of the plant’s main energy consumers—boilers and large pumps—could create a significant savings.

The plant-wide energy-efficiency assessment identified several attractive projects based on the above criteria. Figure 1 provides a list of five projects that Bayer plans to submit internally for implementation. For each project, the table indicates expected project costs, estimated annual savings, and expected payback periods. The greatest annual energy savings will come from boiler burner replacements, increased condensate return, and a portion of Project 5 that reduces the number of NG leaks (discussed below).

Projects Identified

The following discussion provides details of the selected energy-efficiency projects developed during the plant-wide assessment. Because of the similar basic utility processes used in chemical plants, all of the projects are highly applicable to other chemical plants. In addition, these projects seek to improve common utility systems (boilers, steam, compressed air, and motors), so the projects are replicable in many other industries.

Project 1—Burner Replacement

The plant-wide evaluation of boiler operations found that the NG-fired burners in four boilers, as well as the combined NG- and hydrogen-fired burners in two boilers, were not the newer, high-efficiency designs. These designs produce a controlled, slow-burning, low-temperature flame that produces less NOX and CO2. Using a newer burner could increase efficiency by 2 percent. Replacing the burners would yield an energy savings of 74,800 MMBtu per year (MMBtu/yr) and an 8.46-million-pound annual reduction of CO2.

Project 2—Condensate Return

The WVU analysis showed that by increasing the amount of condensate returned to the boilers, the company would pay less for makeup water, save NG in the initial heating of the makeup water, and save the chemical and treatment costs for the makeup water. There would be a small savings from discharging less water into the sewer system. Increasing the condensate return may require separators or filters to remove contaminants and additional piping. Increasing the condensate return from the present 30 percent, or 30,000 pounds per hour (lb/hr), to 75 percent, or 75,000 lb/hr, will produce an overall energy savings of 66,600 MMBtu/yr and a 7.53-million-pound annual reduction of CO2.

Project 3—VSDs on Pumps

The utilities department at the Bayer plant provides cooling tower water to various designated users. The cooling towers’ performance depends on the weather and the needs of the users. At any given time, no more than 60 percent of the users connected to each cooling tower station are operating. Because the 12 motors used in the four cooling towers (three per tower) are all at constant speeds, maximum flow is continuously supplied to all users regardless of individual needs. The plant assessment analysts knew that variable speed drives (VSDs) could adjust flow based on demand and save money by reducing electrical energy consumption and electrical demand charges. The VSDs would provide smoother control; softer starts; and reduced noise, component maintenance, and friction heating of the coolant. Providing 12 VSDs to the towers to control six 75-horsepower (hp) motors and six 200-hp motors would yield total electrical energy savings of 4.64 million kWh annually (a rough but conservative estimate) and a 10.2-million-pound annual reduction of CO2.

Project 4—Compressed Air System Optimization

A limited assessment of the compressor system at the Bayer plant identified one partially loaded compressor that frequently vents up to 500 standard cubic feet per minute of compressed air. This venting occurs when the inlet throttle of the compressor attempts to balance the system supply to the actual plant demand. The WVU team recommended replacing this 800-hp centrifugal compressor with a 400-hp reciprocating compressor. The new compressor would supply the required compressed air flow, but at nearly half the rated power, and no compressed air would be wasted. This should yield total electrical energy savings of 1.53 million kWh annually and reduce electrical demand charges. The reduction in electricity usage will reduce annual CO2 emissions by 3.34 million pounds.

Project 5—Four Low-Cost Projects

The following low-cost projects each will provide a payback for the plant in just 1 month or less:

  • Insulating steam system components, including pipe saddles, flanges, boiler end covers, and lines where needed
  • Repairing steam leaks in overhead lines
  • Adjusting the fuel-to-air ratio in Boiler 7 for a 1-percent efficiency improvement (based on combustion efficiency tables)
  • Repairing compressed gas leaks (air, NG, and nitrogen)

Repairing the NG leaks alone will save approximately $321,000 per year. The second greatest savings—$70,000 per year, or 14,300 MMBtu/yr—will come from insulating the steam system components. The four low-cost projects together are projected to prevent 95,000 MMBtu/yr of lost heat energy and reduce CO2 emissions by 11 million pounds annually.

The DOE’s SEN program has completed more than 200 energy assessments—including this one for Bayer—and has identified energy cost savings of $485 million. The program will complete more free energy assessments in 2007. Through SEN, the DOE’s ITP helps industrial plants operate more efficiently and profitably by identifying ways to reduce energy use in key industrial process systems.

This article has been reprinted with permission from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). To learn more, visit www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow.

Figure 1
NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Insulation Maintenance: How to Justify the Money

Those who regularly work with thermal insulation know that given the high cost of energy today and the high cost of dealing with corrosion under insulation (CUI), properly installing and maintaining insulation is of utmost importance. However, at any industrial facility—whether it is a power plant, an oil refinery, a pulp and paper mill, a chemical plant, or a food-processing plant—facility management faces many challenges every day, and insulation maintenance gets mixed in with all the rest. As a result, insulation problems often fall to the bottom of the list. This is because, for management, the primary objective is to keep the facility operating and producing whatever it produces (electricity, heating oil, gasoline, ethylene, paper, food, etc.), and the link between insulation maintenance and production may be hard to see.

How can management be made to understand the importance of properly maintaining insulation so that it functions the way it was originally engineered? What can be done to get management to budget the money needed to maintain the insulation properly?

Start With the Basics

It is critical to go back to basics and answer the question, “What is the purpose of the insulation on the pipes and/or equipment?” As emphasized in the National Insulation Association’s (NIA’s) National Insulation Training Program (NITP), that purpose could be one or more of the following:

  • Condensation control (for below-ambient service temperatures)
  • Energy efficiency
  • Freeze protection
  • Personnel protection
  • Process control and efficiency

Sometimes overriding all of those is the need to mitigate CUI, a costly problem that can lead to plant shutdown if not addressed. Once the purpose of insulation at your plant is understood, it is a lot easier to understand the link between insulation maintenance and plant productivity.

Wasted Energy From Missing or Damaged Thermal Insulation

In the May 2005 issue of Insulation Outlook, an article titled “How Many Barrels of Oil Can Mechanical Insulation Save?” estimated that if all damaged or missing insulation at U.S. oil refineries was repaired, replaced, or reinsulated, the equivalent of 585,000 barrels of oil per year could be saved. (See www.insulation.org/articles/article.cfm?id=IO050505 for more details.) This savings equates to two-thirds the estimated average output of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, if it was opened up to development and was operating at full production. Although these figures are only estimates, the conclusion is certain: The energy waste that results from missing or damaged insulation on an industrial facility can be huge when considered collectively for all of North America—or for the entire world.

An Insulation Survey

Management often thinks insulation lasts forever. If metal jacketing does not look damaged or degraded, people often assume that the insulation is performing well. If the metal jacketing and the insulation beneath it are damaged on only 5 percent of the pipes, management is often willing to overlook it. The reasoning behind this is that if 5 percent of the insulation needs replacement, the heat loss is just 5 percent higher than it would be otherwise. They assume 5 percent is not worth worrying about.

Most people tend to think linearly. Unfortunately, heat loss is not linear. Thermal insulation can last a long time, but it does not last forever.

With an insulation survey, one can take an inventory of the condition of the insulation and those areas that need replacement. Clearly, there needs to be a systematic way of taking this inventory. (See www.insulation.org/training/ieap for information on NIA’s Insulation Energy Appraisal Program, which teaches a standardized approach to conducting insulation energy appraisals.) Further, if either energy efficiency or process control is a role for the insulation, then the appraisal gives a method of quantifying the results in British thermal units (Btus) of energy saved per year and thereby calculating dollars of energy saved per year. By taking each scope separately (such as a pipe of a certain size and temperature), one can quantify the amount of any energy loss and the dollar value of that energy loss.

Brian Niemi of Dupont Engineering Services (DES) conducts insulation appraisals for various clients. At one chemical plant, DES identified approximately 11,000 details (places requiring insulation replacement or repair), with a total area of 45,000 square
feet. This included many valves and flanges that had been left uninsulated, resulting in enormous unnecessary heat loss and safety hazards (due to the high temperatures, which can cause burns). The total estimate to replace this insulation was about $2.2 million, or $200 per detail, including costs for removal and disposal of old insulation, new insulation materials, labor to install, scaffolding where necessary, and other ancillary costs.

Since this facility normally spends only $300,000 to $400,000 annually for insulation maintenance, the $2.2-million estimate was more than the facility owners were prepared to spend at one time. Consequently, DES prioritized the details in terms of heat loss (a function of the process temperature, the area of the detail, and the condition of any existing insulation). Facility management was then able to focus on the work that would save the greatest amount of energy before moving on to the details, which would give slightly less bang for the buck. While it would have been ideal for all 11,000 details to be addressed immediately, the reality is that the facility owners did not have sufficient resources, such as an on-site maintenance crew, and they did not have access to all areas at the same time. By prioritizing the work, facility management got all of the work done over time.

In one chicken-processing facility, DES surveyed the insulation on pipes that handled liquid fat, which would clog the pipes if it solidified due to low temperatures. Clogged pipes had posed a problem at the facility in the past. In this case, DES recommended that a heat-trace system be added to the pipes, with sufficient insulation thickness to limit heat loss and maintain the chicken fat in a liquid state. The economics were straightforward: Replace the insulation with new insulation, and keep the plant operating without interruption. The consequences of insulation failure were simply too great to allow it to happen.

Niemi notes that in some facilities with extensively degraded insulation, DES may recommend a high compressive strength insulation as a replacement for lower compressive strength material. For example, where horizontal pipes are frequently stepped on, resulting in damage to a softer insulation with thin aluminum jacketing, DES may recommend the use of either calcium silicate or expanded perlite insulation with thicker steel jacketing. DES’ energy analysis details the energy savings that result from this insulation system upgrade.

CUI vs. Energy Savings

Many industrial facilities—particularly oil refineries and petrochemical plants located near the ocean or a sea, or in areas where it rains a lot—suffer from both CUI and energy waste when insulation becomes damaged. When insulation systems age or become damaged, the caulk sealant cracks and the metal jacketing can open up gaps where rainwater—which may contain salt—intrudes. If the insulation is an absorbent type and the service temperature is relatively low (below 300°F), then CUI can result. The heat loss from wet insulation may be as much as 10 times that for dry insulation. This can be a constant battle at older facilities because the caulk used to seal metal jacketing embrittles with time, and the metal jacketing itself may get dented, opening gaps and admitting water.

To prioritize maintenance work at refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, owners typically perform a risk assessment of the piping and equipment. These assessments help prioritize the most important items from the perspective of plant operation and/or plant safety. This risk assessment can be used to identify those areas where insulation needs to be repaired or replaced sooner rather than later since problems, such as CUI, can result in a partial facility shutdown or, worse, in a pipe or equipment leak.

To mitigate CUI, many refinery owners apply immersion-grade coatings to all piping and equipment that operate continuously at temperatures below 300°F. Some owners also require the use of non-absorbing insulation materials for all service temperatures. While the practice of using non-absorbing insulation is not prevalent everywhere, it is becoming increasingly common at facilities located along the Gulf Coast.

With today’s high energy costs, which make up approximately half the operations and maintenance costs at a typical refinery, maintaining insulation is a matter of economics. However, damaged insulation does not usually stop a facility from running. Operators simply increase the heat input to maintain process temperatures as required. Many Gulf Coast refineries have had to increase the heat input during and immediately after heavy rains to compensate for water absorbed into the insulation at their facilities. One oil company engineer notes that it can take at least 3 days to dry out absorbent insulation following heavy rains at the company’s Gulf Coast refineries. So even for pipes and equipment operating at temperatures above 300°F, where CUI is less likely to occur, energy waste from wet insulation is always a concern with water-absorbing insulation.

Using non-absorbing insulation materials is one approach to preventing wet insulation and CUI. Another approach is to add a chemical inhibitor to the absorbent insulation during manufacturing. Such chemical inhibitors reduce the probability of corrosion by inhibiting the corrosive effects of chlorides from saltwater and other sources. Insulation with chemical corrosion inhibitors is available in the marketplace.

A new technology that helps avoid CUI when using absorbing insulation materials is self-adhering laminate jacketing—thick tape that comes in 36-inch widths to match the pipe insulation width. The jacketing can be effectively sealed to itself with overlaps along the lap joints and with a minimum of 4-inch-wide, self-adhering tape—of the same material as the jacketing—applied at butt joints, junctions, and penetrations. Self-adhering laminate jacketing requires minimal caulk sealants and is available in weather-resistant, chemical-resistant forms. Since it uses only a thin-coated aluminum foil as opposed to aluminum sheet, laminate jacketing also uses much less aluminum, which has skyrocketed in price over the past few years. The laminate jacketing is flexible and dent-resistant. Since the adhesion of the material to itself is so tight, this new technology promises to be an effective way of keeping water from intruding into absorbent insulation materials on above-ambient applications.

How Do Power Plants Handle Insulation?

Electric power plants’ number one priority is to produce electrical power at full capacity. More than half of U.S. power plants are fueled with coal, a relatively inexpensive fuel compared to heating oil or natural gas. It is almost always pulverized first; these plants are therefore called pulverized coal (PC) plants. Approximately 20 percent of U.S. electrical power comes from nuclear plants, which also use a relatively inexpensive fuel—usually enriched uranium. The role of insulation in these nuclear plants is to keep the operation running in a cost-effective, clean, and safe way.

Replacement or addition of insulation at power plants is usually part of a larger project, not part of an ongoing maintenance program. For example, when a plant adds certain air-quality control systems (AQCSs)—either scrubbers or selective catalytic reducers (SCRs)—boilers must be converted from operating at positive pressure to operating at negative pressure. This is done by using large suction fans to blow the polluted flue gases through the AQCS. First, the lagging and insulation must be removed. (The insulation is generally discarded, but the lagging may be reused.) After the structural retrofit, new insulation is installed onto the boiler sidewalls. This is typically a mineral fiberboard like the original insulating material. However, in some cases, the fiberboard is replaced by a pneumatically applied mineral fiber with a wet, uncured binder that can be more quickly blown and adhered to the irregular surfaces of the sidewalls before the lagging is reinstalled. In either case, the insulation is new.

PC power plants will continue to be retrofitted with new scrubbers and SCRs until all are compliant with the Clean Air Act. In the process, the boilers typically require structural reinforcement and insulation retrofit. This leads electric utilities to reinsulate boilers with insulation that will endure in the expected environment of high temperatures, vibration, and fly ash. It behooves utilities to assure that boiler insulation performs over time.

While there is some evidence of deteriorated mineral fiber insulation on boiler sidewalls, power plant owners can avoid many future problems by specifying the systems correctly in the first place. For example, fly ash gets all over everything at a PC power plant. Over time, it can get into the mineral fiberboards from the back side and saturate the boards. The weight of the fly ash, combined with boiler vibration, can accelerate insulation degradation. An effective way to avoid this problem at PC power plants is to add aluminum foil laminate on the hot side of the mineral fiberboard. Adding the foil increases the material costs, but extends the life and performance of the insulation boards.

Pipe insulation at PC power plants is usually indoors and so does not have water to soak up except when insulation jacketing is hosed down to remove the buildup of fly ash on the lagging and jacketing. In those cases, utilities try to prevent problems by ensuring that the jacketing lap joints are facing down and the seams are caulked.

Maintenance of Below-Ambient Applications

There are a variety of different types of ducts, pipes, and equipment that operate below ambient temperature. The primary purpose of the insulation in these cases is to prevent surface condensation and reduce energy use. The cost penalties of surface condensation vary from application to application, but having condensation within the insulation can be severe. For example, in typical indoor commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) applications, condensation can get into electrical equipment, run onto floors creating a safety hazard, or damage building materials. Wet insulation, in turn, performs poorly, possibly leading to condensation on the surface of the jacketing and energy waste. It can also increase the load on mechanical cooling equipment, possibly resulting in a compressor getting overloaded and burning out. In industrial applications, condensation may corrode the carbon steel onto which it drips, increasing maintenance costs. Overall, water condensation will create all sorts of costly operational headaches that the facility owner should make an effort to avoid.

Porous insulations, such as mineral fiber insulation, can be used on below ambient applications as long as they are covered with a low-vapor-permeance jacketing, referred to as a vapor retarder. It is prudent to use these systems on air-handling ductwork down to a moderate temperature of about 50°F. A drawback to this type of insulation system is that, over time, holes or other imperfections may develop in the jacketing and could allow water vapor intrusion that then condenses on the cold surface, resulting in wet insulation. Since such holes can easily be patched with self-adhering tape, periodic inspections should be conducted to identify and repair these spots before condensation problems develop.

For chilled temperatures below 50°F, such as chilled water pipes, and/or for a relative humidity (RH) above 90 percent, a more robust system—either from an overall low water vapor permeance perspective or a wicking capability—is required. A lower permeance jacketing should ideally be a zero-vapor-permeance material (called a vapor barrier) that is extremely well sealed to itself to prevent any water intrusion. These zero-permeance jacketing materials include both sheet plastic and a self-adhering laminate. For wicking capability, the wicking type of fibrous pipe insulation can provide performance free of vapor condensation problems on chilled water lines down to about 40°F in less than extreme humidity conditions. Both types of systems, however, must be well maintained to avoid water condensation problems.

When well maintained, closed cell foams, which have low vapor permeability values, are well suited for below-ambient systems with minimum maintenance problems. The thicker the insulation, the lower the vapor permeance (vapor permeance equals vapor permeability and thickness). In general, these closed cell foams perform well with chilled water systems and high relative humidity. However, all seams and butt joints must be well sealed. Breaks in the seals and gaps in the closed cell foam insulation material will allow water vapor to intrude; this water vapor, in turn, will condense. This condensation may take more time to develop than with a porous, fibrous insulation material, but with a constant high vapor pressure, it will eventually result in water accumulation in the insulation. This will compromise its thermal performance and lead to the types of condensation problems already mentioned.

For outdoor applications where weather protection is required and/or for very high vapor pressure differential indoor conditions, these closed cell insulation materials perform best when combined with a zero-permeance vapor barrier (as opposed to a vapor retarder). In an actual application, if such a vapor barrier jacket is used, it must be sealed completely to prevent water intrusion or water vapor condensation within the insulation. Certain sheet plastic materials and the new self-adhering, laminate jacketing materials—mentioned earlier for high-temperature systems—can simultaneously provide both weather and vapor barrier protection for below-ambient systems.

For extremely high humidity conditions combined with low operating temperature systems, located either indoors or outdoors, a zero-vapor-permeance system with redundancy will perform best. This can be achieved with at least 2 inches of inorganic cellular insulation covered with the appropriate vapor barrier jacketing. The jacketing should have zero vapor permeance, and the 2 inches of inorganic cellular insulation will have near zero vapor permeance. Further, this type of cellular insulation will not absorb water, should it somehow condense against the insulation. Such an insulation system, however, still requires maintenance to prevent moisture condensation over time. The jacketing must be periodically inspected for holes, and the inorganic cellular insulation must be periodically inspected for any physical damage that might reduce its thickness, leading to surface condensation.

Regardless of the insulation type or low-vapor-permeance jacketing, the insulation system for below-ambient applications should be well designed and well maintained. In most cases, if the insulation system is ignored and/or abused, eventually water condensation problems can occur. The penalty to the owner can be water damage to stored materials, building materials, and equipment, as well as mold growth, energy waste, and cooling system overloads.

The Bottom Line

Well-maintained thermal insulation reduces heat loss and saves money. Damaged insulation saves less money, and missing insulation saves no money at all. With crude oil at about $65 per barrel, delivered heating oil at $2.50 per gallon, and delivered natural gas at more than $10 per million Btus, every day spent ignoring damaged or missing insulation is another day of paying the high cost of wasted energy.

Two years ago, crude oil was trading at about $50 per barrel. Since then, crude oil has sold for as much as $77 per barrel, and now gasoline is selling for a record average price of $3.20 per gallon. People keep waiting for energy prices to drop, but even when prices drop for a few months, they jump up again to an even higher level than they were previously. This is no time to waste energy. Thermal insulation maintenance is easy and inexpensive when compared to energy prices. Those in the insulation industry need to help the managers of industrial facilities understand the economics of insulation.

Whether the motivation is to reduce energy use, to prevent CUI, or to maintain boiler temperatures, when it comes to thermal insulation and its maintenance the old saying, “Pay now or pay later,” is appropriate. The cost of not maintaining insulation correctly is too great for facility owners to ignore.