Energy Savings for Fiberglass Insulation and Composite Manufacturing

October 10, 2016

As the cost of electrical energy continues to rise, fiberglass insulation and fiberglass composite manufacturers are looking for ways to reduce power consumption—energy lost in transmission.

Water-cooled transformers are an integral part of reducing energy consumption and overall material costs, while increasing productivity and quality. However, to fully assess and arrive at supported quantitative energy saving data, it is best to examine a complete installed system, rather than its individual components. Therefore, although measuring the capabilities of each individual component may at times seem the logical approach, measuring total system electrical resistance is the best way to assess energy savings.

Calculating Energy Savings

There are several ways to calculate energy savings. But only by considering all the five aspects of charges for electrical power, can factual numbers be measured. The five aspects of cost are:

  1. Real Power—kW (The rate at which power is generated)
  2. Reactive Power—kVAR (Wasted generated power)
  3. Total Power—kVA, also known as Apparent Power (The rate at which power is consumed)
  4. Peak Demand (Sustained power availability for a specified period of time)
  5. Power Factor (The ratio of real power to total power)

Water-Cooled vs. Air-Cooled Transformers

One way to assess the savings of a system is to compare air-cooled vs. water-cooled transformers as a byproduct of using high current applications with low secondary voltage from the transformer. The water-cooled transformer, smaller in terms of kW rating, and installed as part of the system, allows for closer location to the electrical power source, eliminating energy losses in Real Power (kW) and Reactive Power (kVAR). This allows the system to function at full specifications, while consuming less power.

Application Documented Savings

On a 40 Unit (transformers) installation comparison of air-cooled vs. water-cooled systems, the water-cooled system’s primary current was lower, while power factor was higher with a cost per kW per year reduction of 30% per unit.

Return on Investment

Not taking into consideration savings in reduced cabling, smaller circuit breakers and control size, increased quality due to less harmonics, the side-by-side comparison of the two systems shows a return on investment (ROI) of 7 to 1 for the water-cooled system.

 

To download the complete Energy Savings Study showing the comparison between Air-Cooled and Water-Cooled transformer systems, fill out the form below.

Energy Savings Study