In this scenario, easily implement able mitigation ideas as listed above can help manufacturers save energy while also achieving their bottom line. But it is to be noted that on top of such enhancements to the manufacturing systems, regular review and assessment of emerging technologies is also imperative, as it is prudent to keep pace with technological developments. This process entails project teams with industrial firms “to conduct hands-on energy assessments and provides training opportunities in plant energy management practices”. In doing so, industrialists maintain their competitiveness in all domains “through strategic energy management, including the use of energy-efficient technologies”. In the long run, this aids industrial manufacturers reduce expenditure and pollutant emissions (Mitra, 2007).
Similarly, a systematic action plan for industrial energy conservation will include the following components:
1. Track your energy bills
2. Evaluate equipment operating practices and identify pieces of equipment that represent the big uses of energy
3. Identify no- or low-cost projects to save energy
4. Get management support
5. Form an energy team at your plant
6. Develop an ongoing strategy for continuous improvement. (Mitra, 2007)
As a matter of fact, there are strong incentives for implementing the above discussed strategies in all industrial plants and facilities. For example, the price of gasoline has been rising steadily over the last few years. This same increasing spiral in utility expenses has been impacting other areas of the economy as well. The following passage states some of the reasons for implementing conservation plans:
“Since 2000, the cost for natural gas has more than quadrupled – going from a range of $2.00 to well over $8.00 per mm Btu! The price of electricity is closely linked to the price of natural gas, and has almost quadrupled over this same period. For example, cost for natural gas and electricity at for a University campus that was $30 million in 2004 had risen to be over $60 million in 2006, based on market pricing currently available. Without the significant improvements in efficiency that have been made in recent years, expenses for electricity and natural gas alone would be close to $75 million.” (Hendron, 2006)
The United States is the largest consumer of energy in the world. The federal buildings and facilities alone account for more than $20 billion in expenditure. On top of this, more than $3.5 billion is allocated for energy for these facilities and almost $200 billion for remuneration and benefits to employees. This presents legislators and planners to apply sustainable energy producing/consuming technologies and practices on a substantial scale in order to extend the benefits to non-governmental residential energy consumption as well. With so much to gain in terms of “energy, environmental, and economic benefits, it is not surprising that many federal agencies have developed policies to promote sustainable design and operation. In particular, federal policy calls on agencies to implement the following actions:
- Maximize the potential of the site;
- Minimize the energy and resource consumption;
- Protect and conserve water;
- Use environmentally preferable products and materials;
- Enhance indoor environmental quality; and
- Optimize operational and maintenance practices.(from www.epa.gov/greenkit/q5_energ.htm, 2007)