Industrial Distribution’s sister magazine, IMPO (Industrial Maintenance & Plant Operation), recently deployed a survey to its 38,000 online readers to get a better feel for their purchasing intentions when it comes to energy efficient or green products. Does sticker shock prevent plants from investing in energy savings?
One thing we’ve learned since 2010 is that manufacturers are ramping up their spend when it comes to energy efficiency. In 2010, nearly 52 percent of respondents to this survey said they planned to purchase new equipment based on energy efficiency in the following six months. In 2011, 57 percent said the same, and our 2012 results showed another increase to 62 percent. This incremental increase likely has its roots in an improvement in overall industrial spending, but it’s also important to note the precision towards which manufacturers are evaluating these capital investments. Energy efficiency is perhaps becoming a more critical feature when businesses assess the needs of their operations, as an ‘every penny counts’ attitude dominates thinking patterns.
This attitude may translate further into what our survey respondents consider their priorities when it comes to equipment. Even with 62 percent planning to invest in the coming months, only eight percent of the total base put energy efficiency as a first priority. For more (60 percent), this feature is important, but not at the expense of other issues. This may relate back to overall product cost, but could also include vendor relationships, usability, or maintenance concerns. What hasn’t changed in the past several years is the group that says energy efficiency is its lowest priority — still lower than one percent, a figure steady throughout the life of the survey. For many — nearly 28 percent — energy efficiency is a consideration, but they find it becomes eclipsed by other concerns considered more pressing.
When it comes down to the energy hogs within a plant, the usual suspects have emerged. For many survey respondents, things like air compressors, pumps, and valves, as well as general plant environment-type products (HVAC, fans, lighting, etc.) take top billing when it comes to energy efficiency concerns. While these two categories shared the spotlight, motors and drives were not far behind in terms of what survey respondents considered their least energy efficient.
Readers suggest that the inefficiency behind this category within their own plants relates back to it being too expensive to replace existing equipment in exchange for more energy efficient models, something 52 percent of respondents claimed. This was the overwhelming reason our survey respondents cited, followed by a distant 20 percent who said it was simply the “natural quality” of the product. One respondent cited a system that runs full throttle, 24-7, and others cited the age of the equipment as it’s primary downfall. One respondent said, simply, “Most equipment is not low energy use,” indicating a surrendering to what some consider these “natural” qualities of equipment and their inability to work efficiently.
Ultimately, the majority of our group looks for an ROI (including energy savings) of one to two years, which may influence their desire to replace some more expensive or complex equipment in favor of a more efficient model.
Only seven percent say they have not purchased any equipment recently. Of the rest, 69 percent said their recent purchases were based “in part” on their energy efficiency, with nearly ten percent saying these purchases were “wholly” based on this, and 14 percent saying “not at all.” Of those who have purchased any equipment recently, half said it was in motors and drives. Another 48 percent spent money on plant environment type equipment, 33 percent on pneumatics, and 21 percent on fluid handling.
Looking at the other end of the sustainability spectrum, we asked IMPO readers their thoughts on consumables, specifically their interest in purchasing green or organic products, or those derived of recycled/recyclable materials. If available in these forms, survey respondents showed interest in the following areas:
• Cleaning supplies (59 percent of respondents)
• Towels/wipes (57 percent)
• Degreasers (46 percent)
• Absorbents (44 percent)
• Lubricants (36 percent)
• Paints/coatings (31 percent)
18 percent of our survey respondents claimed to be uninterested in any products of this type in green or eco-friendly versions.
From a capital equipment standpoint, 60 percent of respondents say that they’re looking to upgrade to greener models of their plant environment equipment – cited previously as a problem area. Motors and drives come in second, followed by pneumatics. The same segment of respondents who said they were disinterested in green consumables (18 percent) also said they were not looking to upgrade any of their existing capital equipment in favor of greener or more energy efficient models (See Figure 2). Write-in answers in this category include things like boilers, fans, cookers, welders, and motion sensors.
IMPO’s readership is comprised of plant and maintenance management personnel in medium to large sized manufacturing facilities in North America.