LIEN Annual Report 2012.66864.shortcut

LIEN Annual Report 2012.66864.shortcut
EMPOWERING
BUSINESSes,
energising
Resources.
Large Industry Energy Network (LIEN)
Annual Report 2012
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
2
Contents
3
Introduction
4
A message from the Minister for   Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources
6
CEO Introduction
8
LIEN Membership, Development
and Benefits
10
Network Activities for LIEN Members
12
Energy Awards 2012
15
Energy Agreements Programme
16
Company Profiles
20
Abbot Ireland Diagnostics Division Sligo
22
CG Power Systems Ireland
24
Dairygold Food Ingredients
26
Glanbia Ingredients Ireland
28
GlaxoSmithKline Ireland
30
Pfizer
32
EPS Group
34
Aviva Stadium
36
Results and Targets
38
Results Summary
39
Members and Targets
40
About SEAI
84
Members List
86
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
2012 – At
a glance
LIEN members by
sector in 2012
Food/Drinks 52
Pharma/Chem 41
Other 41
Healthcare 17
Electronics 11
> An estimated 580 GWh of energy savings were
achieved through the implementation of specific
energy savings measures by LIEN members
> The LIEN network as a whole recorded a loss in
energy performance of 0.3%, primarily due to
significant reductions in outputs for a small
number of the larger LIEN members
> With the exception of the Electronics and PharmaChem
sector, the level of output increased across all sectors in
2012, following the trend in 2010 and 2011
> The output from the Healthcare sector has increased
continuously since 2007. Food/Drinks and
‘Other’ sectors have increased outputs
continuously since 2010
Drivers for Energy
Saving Projects (kWh)
Energy Management Systems 72%
Other Driver 17%
Not Defined 11%
> Energy Management Systems such as
ISO 50001 continue to be the main driver
for energy saving projects
> There are 162 companies in the LIEN, representing
over 17% of the National Total Primary Energy
requirement (TPER)
4
17%
2012 Overall Energy Performance
LIEN Members represent 17% of all
energy use in Ireland.
5
LIEN Total Primary Energy Requirement
26,000 GWh
Energy Gains (Loss) due to Energy Performance
(70) GWh
National Total Primary Energy Requirement (TPER)
156,889 GWh
LIEN as Percentage of National TPER
17%
Total CO2 Emissions
5,650,964 Tonnes
CO2 Avoided due to Energy Performance Gains
(15,258) Tonnes
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
A Message from
the Minister for
Communications
Energy and Natural
Resources
The experience and know-how in energy
management that the LIEN, with SEAI’s
assistance, has developed in the last
18 years is impressive. It keeps paying
dividends and progress is sustained year
after year.
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, but it does not
come free. That is why we must reduce our energy use
and cut down on waste, so that we reduce our energy
bills, make our energy system more sustainable, and
minimise our greenhouse-gas emissions.
Economic competitiveness and success are closely
associated with energy efficiency. For example, it
is no coincidence that countries that are resurgent
in manufacturing and are increasing their share of
manufactured goods globally have a strong focus on
energy efficiency, as well as renewable energy.
6
Section One – Foreword
Since energy plays such a critical role in our economy,
high energy prices, the volatility in world oil markets and
our excessive dependence on fossil fuels make energy
efficiency an obvious policy imperative.
Energy efficiency is the foundation of a sustainable
economy, a truth recognised at EU level in 2012 with the
adoption of the Energy Efficiency Directive. Transposition
in Ireland is on track for completion by June 2014.
Under the Directive, Member States will be obliged to
find ways to encourage domestic customers to use less
energy, to incentivise business customers to invest in
energy efficiency, and to ensure that the funding is in
place to allow the public sector to act as an exemplar.
The issue of financing is a live issue – it is important that
both public sector and commercial organisations can
access affordable finance. During the Energy Ministers’
Council that I chaired in Dublin during Ireland’s 2013
EU Presidency, there was wide agreement that in order
to achieve the level of investment required the private
sector needs to see the value of energy efficiency
projects and part of the role of governments will be to
set up the frameworks that allow the market to function
competitively. The National Energy Services Framework
that I recently launched is our policy response to this
objective. It is underpinned by an Energy Efficiency
Fund and will provide a robust process for nurturing
investment-ready projects.
The benefits of investing in efficiency improvement
measures greatly outweigh the upfront costs. We’ve
faced considerable financial difficulties due to the
economic downturn, but the best way of reducing our
exposure to energy bills is by taking steps to reduce
our energy usage. By doing so, both businesses and
households can save money, while improving comfort in
the case of households, and increasing productivity and
competitiveness in the case of businesses.
7
The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan states,
in its “2020 Vision”, that “Irish business will be known
internationally for embracing energy-efficient practices,
innovation and competitiveness." To achieve this vision,
the Government is continuing to provide procurement
guidance and tax incentives to encourage companies
to buy the most efficient equipment. The Better
Energy Workplaces Scheme has helped to raise the
competitiveness of Irish business by delivering savings in
an affordable way for both public and private enterprise.
It also supports the energy service and utilities providers’
business goals relating to energy demand reduction.
SEAI, meanwhile, offers a great range of networking,
training and advisory services that help organisations
to reduce energy usage, while our largest energy users
are undertaking best international practice in energy
management. It is very encouraging to see the Large
Industry Energy Network (LIEN) continuing to make
substantial progress, and contributing so strongly to
our target of 20% energy savings across the economy
by 2020. The experience and know-how in energy
management that the LIEN, with SEAI’s assistance, has
developed in the last 18 years is impressive. It keeps
paying dividends and progress is sustained year after
year.
The benefits are multiple. The energy efficiency
achieved through energy management and continual
improvement ensures operational cost savings, industrial
productivity, competitiveness, sustained employment
and job creation.
In these times of acute challenges, I congratulate the
LIEN members on their great achievements.
Pat Rabbitte, T.D.
Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
1
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
CEO
Intro
The Large Industry Energy Network (LIEN)
brings together over 160 of Ireland’s largest
industrial and commercial companies.
Among the most innovative enterprises in
the country, they share a goal of reducing
energy use, costs and CO2 emissions. Their
search for solutions advances best practice
standards and strengthens competitiveness.
8
Section One – CEO Introduction
“The network is a national and,
indeed, international model for
engaging in focused, and effective
activities, taking action and
implementing innovative solutions
that result in measurable savings.”
In nearly twenty years of existence, the network has
grown steadily with members now represents over
17% of total primary energy requirement (TPER). What
makes the LIEN remarkable is the way in which members
renew their efforts year after year, seeking continual
improvement. Since its inception the founding member
companies have achieved, on average, energy savings
of 28%.
The member results for 2012 were strong against a
backdrop of increased output across most sectors and an
estimated €40 million in energy savings were achieved.
This reduction in energy usage and CO2 emissions
achieved, improves the competitiveness of LIEN
members particularly in challenging economic times.
While indigenous industry comprise the majority of LIEN
membership, the active participation and track record of
multinational organisations, particularly in the medical,
pharmaceutical and ICT sectors, improves Ireland’s
international reputation as a place to locate and invest.
The LIEN’s achievements come about through the
combination of many activities supported by SEAI,
including networking, sharing experiences, challenges,
new opportunities and best practice. Members gain
significantly from the influence and encouragement of
peers and can save not just energy but often many years
of research time.
The implementation of
energy management
systems, supported
through our Energy
Agreements Programme
(EAP), has accelerated
the progress in energy
performance since 2005.
9
The implementation of energy management systems,
supported through our Energy Agreements Programme
(EAP), has accelerated the progress in energy
performance since 2005. EAP members, representing
about half of the LIEN, have demonstrated exemplary
performance in global terms and their work on new
initiatives greatly benefits the LIEN overall. A total of
77 organisations participate in the EAP. Given the great
success of the programme, we expect continued growth
in the years ahead.
We at SEAI are proud of the way in which the LIEN has
become one of the world’s leading sustainable energy
networks and the way in which its members contribute
so strongly to national energy objectives. The network is
a national and, indeed, international model for engaging
in focused and effective activities, taking action and
implementing innovative solutions that result in
measurable savings.
Congratulations to all those who have contributed to
the LIEN’s success. I have no doubt that it will continue
to lead the way by uncovering new sustainable energy
opportunities.
Brian Motherway
Chief Executive
SEAI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
LIEN Membership,
Development
and Benefits
The Large Industry Energy Network has not only
grown over its nearly twenty years, it has achieved
an impressive reduction in energy usage and CO2
emissions. LIEN members are thus making
a strong contribution to the CO2 reduction targets set
out in the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan.
LIEN Membership
180
30
160
Membership
120
20
100
15
80
60
Figure 1: Increase in LIEN
membership 1995-2012,
with members’ total primary
energy requirement (TPER)
10
40
5
20
0
0
1995
1996 1997
1998 1999
2000 2001
2002
LIEN
10
2003 2004
2005
2006 2007
TPE
2008 2009
2010
2011
2012
TPER (GWH)
25
140
Section One – LIEN Membership, Development and Benefits
A total of 162 of Ireland’s largest industrial and
commercial companies are now members of
the network. They account for over 17% of
Ireland’s TPER.
In 2012, the accumulated energy avoidance
of their energy requirement, based on
each company’s respective base year,
was approximately 28%.
It is for such achievements that the LIEN,
established in 1995, has a strong reputation as
a unique, highly pragmatic energy forum for
Ireland’s leading industrial companies – and
one in which members renew their efforts year
after year to ensure continual improvement.
Members share the goal of reducing energy
waste, related costs and CO2 emissions, seeking
efficiency gains in cross-cutting technologies
such as compressed air, heat generation,
lighting and use of waste heat.
Members know that investing in energy
management is very cost-effective in that it
reduces their operating costs and strengthens
their competitiveness.
Member companies come from a wide range
of industrial and commercial sectors, engaged
in many different business activities, with an
interest in driving continuous and sustained
improvements in energy efficiency.
Developing The Network
LIEN membership is open to companies with
an energy bill of around €1 million. The current
average energy spend of LIEN companies is
around €8 million. As members of the LIEN,
they commit to:
>D
eveloping a management
programme for energy use
> Setting and reviewing energy targets
> Undertaking an annual energy audit
>P
roducing an annual
statement-of-energy accounts
In 2012, the network
welcomed 11 new members:
> Amgen Technology (Ireland)
> Aviva Stadium
> Becton Dickinson & Company Ltd
> Creganna
> Dunnes Stores
> GE Healthcare Ireland
> Johnston Mooney and O’Brien
> Medite Europe Limited
> Merck Millipore Ltd
> Microsoft Datacentre (Grangecastle)
> Musgraves
Some LIEN members moved from reporting
within the LIEN to reporting under the Public
Sector Monitoring & Reporting programme:
> Bord na Móna Energy Ltd
> Dublin Airport Authority
> Iarnród Éireann
> Tyndall National Institute
Within the LIEN network, support from
industry peers contributes to in-house
knowledge and expertise. Meanwhile, SEAI
continues to expand its support activities. It
organises workshops, seminars and site visits
for LIEN members every year so that they learn
from specialists, including energy experts, and
fellow energy managers.
The Energy Agreements Programme, a subset
of LIEN, is a highly successful example of the
SEAI supports. It has built up a huge body of
knowledge about energy saving techniques,
and it facilitates the replication of these at
host sites.
11
How Members Benefit
Companies are increasingly aware that
energy efficiency is crucial. The price of fossil
fuels is volatile. The demand for energy to
support economic growth keeps rising. We are
all under pressure to reduce carbon emissions.
And energy use is crucial to a company’s cost
structure and operating model. A general
transition to a more energy-efficient, lowcarbon economy is one of the most crucial
economic shifts that is currently taking place,
while, at the company level, it is essential to
ensure competitiveness and success, or
even survival.
LIEN members benefit in multiple ways from
the network:
> They can take advantage of the LIEN’s
accumulated energy expertise and
knowledge base
> They save a huge amount of research
time through the pooling of knowledge
and experience
> They identify energy-saving
opportunities and techniques much
more rapidly and at lower cost than if
they were working individually
> The return on their
investments is maximised
> Publication of their achievements
raises their reputation as environmentally
responsible operators
Energy efficiency can be viewed as a
low-cost energy resource. If companies
unlock the value in energy savings, they
gain a strong cost advantage when
competing at home or internationally.
However, to realise as much as possible of
their energy saving potential, organisations
must take a systematic approach and set
concrete targets for improvement.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Network
Activities for
LIEN Members
Highlights of 2012 were the 2nd International
Conference on the Global Impact of Energy
Management Systems, with accompanying
Poster Exhibition, the annual SEAI Energy
Show and Sustainable Energy Awards.
12
Section One – Network Activities for LIEN Members
A wide variety of events and activities
were organised in 2012, including seminars
and workshops addressing key issues.
SEAI consults with LIEN members to ensure that it
keeps up to date with their current needs as well as
the practical needs of industry, and organises support
activities accordingly. Members of the LIEN network
host many of the events, which enhances their impact.
potential global impact of ISO 50001 and the evolution
of the new energy standards." The conference featured a
range of international energy experts, with the following
sessions and speakers:
National policy and programme support
Provided insights into different regions and economies
to promote and support the energy management
system (EnMS) approach:
Closely integrated with SEAI’s wider energy
programmes, these customised events and activities
include workshops, site visits, seminars and conferences.
The overall purpose is to disseminate information so
as to encourage and enable wider replication and the
achievement of additional energy savings in industry.
> Vida Rozite, IEA
Key events in 2012 were:
Long-term strategies to
develop capability and impact
Explored new and transformative approaches that
maximise the contribution that energy management
programmes and ISO 50001 can deliver:
APRIL
2012 Energy Show
The 2012 Energy Show, Ireland’s national
sustainable-energy exhibition, showcased
developments in energy technologies and practices
across Irish industry – with the theme "Open Up to
Smart Energy Solutions." The seminar programme
included the following presentations:
> Smart Grid – Preparing for the future
> Commercial Bio Energy –
Investing in Fundable Projects
> Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) –
the necessity for all future energy saving projects
> The Built Environment –
Redefining zero-energy buildings
> CIBSE Master Class – Building Services
Engineering Design and the latest practices
> Renewable Heat – Changing the
way we think about energy
MAY
LIEN event: 2nd International Conference on the
Global Impact of Energy Management Systems:
Creating the Right Environment for ISO 50001
Held in Dublin’s Mansion House, this international
energy conference was opened by Lord Mayor of
Dublin Andrew Montague. International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) Secretary General Rob Steele
delivered the keynote address on "Reflections on the
13
> Julia Reinaud, IIP
> Marco Matteini, UNIDO
> Paul Scheihing, US Department of Energy
> John O’Sullivan, SEAI
> Aimee McKane, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
EnMS experiences: country
reviews with future insights
Provided an overview from countries where energy
management systems have been successfully adopted
in national programmes; including insights on ISO 50001
integration and programme development:
> Thomas Bjorkman, Swedish Energy Agency
> Hille Hyytia, Motiva
> Geng Wang, CNIS
Synergy with other policy measures
Reflection by senior policymakers with different strategic
approaches on how the ISO 50001 standard fits with
existing measures; consideration of energy efficiency
policies in different regions:
> Erik Gudbjerg, Lokalenergi
> Chad Gilless, EnerNOC
> Albert Dessi, Department of Resources,
Energy and Tourism, Canberra
>KK Chakarvarti, Bureau of Energy
Efficiency, New Delhi
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
MAY
LIEN Exhibition Poster Display
at the International Conference on
the Global Impact of Energy
Management Systems
This Poster Exhibition accompanied the SEAI
International Conference (outlined earlier)
and the ISO Technical Committee meeting in
Dublin. SEAI invited LIEN members to develop
posters for display on the following themes:
Experiences of ISO 50001
implementation and certification
Focused on an organisation’s implementation
and certification experiences, using lessons
learned during the implementation and
management processes, organisational
change impacts and the resulting energy
performance improvements.
Members featured under this theme:
> Abbott Ireland Pharmaceutical Operation
> Tyndall National Institute
High-impact projects arising
from the EnMS process
Focused on exemplar projects implemented
as a result of the energy management process.
Posters emphasised the added-value of the
EnMS; identifying and prioritising project
opportunities, implementation and the
ongoing performance verification process.
I nfluencing the organisation –
attitude, behaviour and change
Focused on the ISO 50001 implementation
process, its effective operation and the
opportunities that require organisational
change in order to maximise benefit. Posters
highlighted experiences of organisational
change and the change management process
that led to significant results benefits for the
organisation.
Members featured under this theme:
> Roadstone Wood
> Google
> Aurivo
> Pfizer – Newbridge
Measuring the energy performance
improvement and added benefits
brought by an EnMS
Focused on the additional contributions that
an EnMS delivers compared with expected
normal business performance. Provided
insights into the methodologies used to
determine performance improvement as
well as the measurement and verification
of energy savings.
Members featured under this theme:
> Pfizer – Lougbeg
> Pfizer – Lougbeg
I ntegrating ISO 50001 in
management system frameworks
Focused on alternative strategies to implement
and operate the ISO 50001 EnMS within other
management system frameworks; outlined
what approaches are being taken to integrate
management systems, including continual
improvement and effectiveness.
> Nypro
Members featured under this theme:
> Astellas
> Boliden Tara Mines
Members featured under this theme:
> LEO Pharma
> Heinz
> Depuy Ireland
> Allergan Pharmaceuticals
Energy service
company experiences
Focused on the experiences of Irish and
international companies delivering energy
management services.
The poster display by LIEN members
provided a valuable added dimension to
the conference and ISO technical meeting. It
offered delegates and authors the opportunity
to exchange views on a variety of practical
applications of EnMS.
October – LIEN seminar & site visit:
Ireland’s Energy Market, Ardnacrusha
Hydroelectric Power Station
A popular and well-attended annual seminar,
held in 2012 at the Ardnacrusha Hydro Electric
Power Plant, celebrating its 85th anniversary.
The seminar featured topics of interest relating
to regulatory and policy issues, pricing trends,
energy suppliers, demand-side units and
energy procurement strategy. LIEN members
were taken on a site tour.
November – LIEN seminar:
Renewable Energy Applications
for Large Industry
This seminar reviewed successful renewable
energy projects carried out by LIEN & Energy
Agreements Programme members. It focused
on project presentations by companies on
major renewable energy installations,
followed by a site tour of the Astellas
Killorglin, Co. Kerry facility.
Presentations:
> Anaerobic Digester Biogas CHP
installation – Kerry Ingredients, Listowel
> Biomass boiler installation to
supply site thermal load – Astellas, Killorglin
> Geothermal Process Cooling
– Vistakon, Limerick
> Wind turbine installation to reduce purchase
of grid-supplied electricity – Astellas, Killorglin
14
Section One – Network Activities for LIEN Members
Sustainable
Energy Awards
November 2012
Since its establishment in 2004, the annual event for the Irish business community has been
growing each year
in participation and significance. The 2012 award entrants reported energy
savings of €23 million, based on their energy management initiatives.
LIEN members were represented as follows:
Energy Efficiency Award –
Small/Medium Energy User
Outstanding Leadership in Energy
Management Award – Major User
Winner: Recordati Ireland Ltd
Winner: Tyndall National Institute
Energy Efficiency Award –
Major User
Finalist: EPS Group
Renewable Energy Systems Award
Winner: EPS Group
Winner: Astellas Ireland Co. Ltd. (Kerry plant)
Finalists: Abbott Ireland, Cootehill
Dawn Meats
IBM
Energy Sustainability in the
Built Environment Award
Integrated Energy Management
Award – Major User
Winner: MSD Ireland (Ballydine)
Finalist: EMC2 Information
Systems International
15
Finalist: Tesco Ireland
Sustainable Energy
Innovation Award
Winner: Tesco Ireland
Finalists: Diageo Ireland
Dawn Meats
2
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Energy
Agreements
Programme
Organisations can reduce energy-related costs
and emissions by applying a strong, strategic and
systematic approach to energy management. The
Energy Agreements Programme (EAP) assists large
energy users in achieving this through engaging
in energy efficiency measures above and beyond
business as usual.
16
Section Two – The Energy Agreement Programme
Launched in May 2006, the EAP is a subset
of the LIEN. SEAI provides tailored supports
consisting of advice, networking and
financial supports.
As part of the EAP, organisations enter into a
voluntary agreement whereby they implement
and maintain a certified Energy Management
System (EnMS) and complete an average of
one Special Investigation per year.
Special Investigations are feasibility studies
that focus on significant energy users. Energy
efficiency opportunities are identified and
registered. They involve a ‘deep dive’ on
specific technologies, equipment or processes,
and thus enhance the EnMS process.
Organisations generally achieve immediate
energy cost savings through ‘low-hanging
fruit’ and easily identifiable opportunities.
The Special Investigations then reveal
further more challenging energy
saving opportunities.
Programme Strategy and
Supports for Members
The EAP strategy is that each member
organisation meets the requirements of the
voluntary agreement and is then encouraged
by the programme activities to carry out
voluntary projects.
In signing an Energy Agreement with SEAI,
the organization commits to make the
necessary efforts to obtain (and retain)
certification to the EnMS ISO 50001 standard
and to reduce its energy-related emissions.
This means devoting sufficient resources
to obtain the standard within 12 months
(maximum 24 months) and then use the
EnMS to maximise energy savings in both
the short and long term.
Programme activities and supports are
designed to stimulate the development of the
members’ energy management programmes.
Programme Supports
Agreement Support Managers
(ASMs) provide:
> Advice, mentoring and assessments
> Support in implementing and
operating an EnMS
> Working with members to maximise
energy performance through engaging
with the organisation’s work programmes
> Gap Analysis
Special project initiatives: planned to
support members in activities relating to
significant energy users. These initiatives focus
on new methodologies, specific technologies
and industry sectors. Guidance notes, case
studies and reports are produced so that the
knowledge gained in the projects can be
shared, replicated and applied.
Special investigations: these focus on
significant energy users, going beyond routine
energy efficiency assessments. To ensure
continued uncovering of opportunities, SEAI
keeps developing processes, methodologies,
specific technologies, and industry sectors.
Successful actions and approaches are
analysed, standardised and disseminated to
the members of LIEN.
Networking activities: tailored workshops,
networking events, seminars and conferences.
These are a core part of the EAP. SEAI works
closely with members to make sure that
the activities reflect the practical needs
of industry, so they are varied each year
depending on programme needs and
topics of particular interest.
Energy Efficiency Networks
Special Working Groups (SWGs) are part of
the Special Initiatives under the (EAP). They
focus on specific technologies, initiatives and
areas of interest to members.
Members are drawn from the EAP and LIEN,
and supported by SEAI-appointed experts.
17
A number of SWGs have evolved into
sector-focused energy networks that bring
together companies with shared objectives,
while facilitating further dissemination and
application of outputs from the previous
working groups.
Data Centre Energy Network
The Data Centre Energy Network (DCEN) is the
successor to the Data Centre Strategic Working
Group (DC SWG) set up by SEAI in 2009 as a
focus group to highlight energy efficiency best
practice and to drive energy efficiency projects
in Irish data centre facilities.
Its terms of reference listed the following
areas of interest:
>Energy Performance Indicators (EnPis)
- identifying the most appropriate
measurements for energy management
in data centres
> Contracts and Energy Efficiency – the
energy performance parameters from
an outsourcing perspective
> IT infrastructure and Energy Efficiency –
initiatives to optimise the energy efficiency
of servers, storage and networks
> Functional Impacts and Influences –
understanding the impact of energy
efficiency in utilities, IT demands,
Marketing and Sales and Customers
> New Developments – dissemination
of evolving technologies and
methodologies from external sources:
- Similar networks in other countries,
EU research, Intelligent Energy
Europe (IEE)
- Green Grid, IDA cloud
computing initiative
- Energy competence centre
funded by IDA and Enterprise Ireland
> Implementing ISO50001 in Data Centres
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Network benefits
The participant companies have undertaken
multiple initiatives since 2009, implementing
better air management and installing new cooling
infrastructure in a retrofit context.
The current focus of the group is to understand
the latest developments in technologies and
methodologies that could be applied to increase
energy efficiency and reduce their considerable
energy costs.
Network members
The DCEN participants represent a variety of
backgrounds where the data centre is (i) internal
infrastructure, (ii) core business or (iii) ancillary
business. Members include Bank of Ireland, BT,
eBay, EMC, IBM, Intel Corporation, Interxion,
Microsoft and Vodafone. The DCEN is open to
new members.
18
Activities to date
In 2012, the DCEN organised two half-day
seminars, the first in April and the second
in November.
The April seminar, hosted by Microsoft, focussed
on the latest research and trends in better energy
management and increased energy efficiency,
and the benefits arising from new developments
in Direct Current (DC).
The November seminar, hosted by Bank of Ireland,
centred on recent electricity market changes in
the area of emergency demand response, Data
Centre Infrastructure Management (DCIM), and
implementing ISO 50001 in data centres.
Section Two – The Energy Agreement Programme
Commercial Buildings Energy Network
The Commercial Buildings Energy Network
(CBEN) caters for companies in the LIEN with
significant commercial buildings assets.
The network is a natural progression for
companies that participated in an SWG that
focused on energy usage in the commercial
building sector. With the assistance of a
technical panel, activities were undertaken
on behalf of members such as site audits,
special investigations, case studies and
research around operations, maintenance,
benchmarking and retro-commissioning
of buildings. The members met on three
occasions and cited their desire to participate
in a knowledge sharing network.
Network members
The network has an expanded membership,
including companies such as Google, Tesco,
Bank of Ireland, Eircom, Aurivo, Irish Rail, Citi,
the DAA, Aviva Stadium, IBM, Vodafone and O2.
Activities to date
The network had its first gathering when
Tesco hosted the group and provided a tour
of an operational ‘zero carbon’ store, during
which discussions focused on LED lights and
their lux levels, automated controls and their
reliability, the optimisation of natural lighting,
recycling fridge cool air, systems to stop heat
escaping, and the application of CHP driven
by biofuel. This set the scene for all members
to share their experiences and challenges
in respect of energy management in their
particular facilities. The half-day visit provided a
rare opportunity to listen to a group of energy
managers in the sector. SEAI representation
gave an overview of the LIEN and the impact
its members are having on reducing energy
consumption nationally.
Network benefits
As well as knowledge-sharing and networking,
benefits (or potential benefits) include:
> Stimulating energy reduction activity that
may not have happened otherwise, or at
least not in the short term
> Providing a structured approach for
unrelated companies to work as a
group on common energy issues
> Exploring the large commercial buildings
sector to determine the main opportunities
> Creating and documenting deliverables,
and producing outputs, which can be
replicated or used by others, without them
having to duplicate development effort
> Uncovering possible strategic approaches
in energy management that can be
standardised to enable a longer-term and
wider spread reduction of energy use
> Exploiting links to other SEAI programmes
and uncovering compatibilities with
other SEAI support structures (e.g.
Special Investigations)
Activities to date
The report and best practice work pulled
together by the last F&D SWG has been
disseminated to member companies. The
network will aim to drive replication and
implementation of opportunities identified in
previous Food & Dairy Special Working Group.
If there is sufficient interest and commitment
from members, benchmarking for similar
processes may be carried out.
Network members
There are 49 companies eligible for
membership of the Network, across the
food industry in Ireland.
Benefits
Benefits of joining the network include
sharing of information, access to best
practice in the industry and a collaborative
approach to problem-solving.
Targeted areas identified for
energy savings include:
1 Heat Recovery
2 Optimised Drying & Heat Treatment
3 Energy Efficient Design
Food and Dairy Energy Network
The Food and Dairy Energy Network was set
up to continue the work carried out by a Food
and Dairy SWG. There has been a huge amount
of investment in the food and beverage sector,
with major expansion in many parts of the
industry driven by increasing international
demand. There has also been increasing focus
on sustainable food production, driven by
Origin Green and supply-chain initiatives by
major customers. In this context, the network
aims to drive implementation of best practices
for the sector.
19
4 Effluent Treatment Optimisation
3
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
COMPANY
PROFILES
This section consists of a number of company profiles, in which
a wide variety of energy efficiency projects and achievements
are presented. These range from the implementation of
energy management, use of CHP and Anaerobic Digestion
to compressed-air, energy-efficient design projects and the
application of the Delta learn-by-doing approach. All the
initiatives resulted in a substantial reduction in energy use,
carbon emissions and energy costs.
20
Section Three – Company Profiles
21
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Abbott Diagnostics Sligo
Abbott Diagnostics Sligo finds the remedy for long-term
energy efficiency.
Abbott Diagnostics is a global leader of in-vitro diagnostics with
around 70,000 institutional customers in more than 100 countries.
Its diagnostic products include a broad range of innovative instrument
systems and tests for hospitals, reference labs, blood banks, physician
offices and clinics.
Abbott established its first Irish diagnostics
manufacturing facility in the Finisklin Business Park in
Sligo in 1994 to manufacture blood-screening products
and reagents. This impressive manufacturing facility has
expanded eight times, and now spans nearly 170,000
square feet over a nine-acre site.
The site is the second largest diagnostics manufacturing
facility for Abbott worldwide. A research & development
centre has been established to support the development
of pioneering new products.
Energy Strategy Implemented
Abbott's diagnostics manufacturing facility in Sligo
signed up to the Energy Agreements Programme (EAP)
in 2010 and achieved certification to ISO 50001 in
September 2013.
The Sligo facility
is the second
largest diagnostics
manufacturing
site for Abbott
worldwide.
In 2010, the facility implemented a
comprehensive energy strategy to
improve energy efficiency and reduce
carbon emissions. A detailed energy
audit was commissioned to identify
where energy was being used, what
were the biggest energy users and
where the most potential for energy
saving lay. The audit focused mainly on significant energy
users and concluded that the site offered a number of
energy saving opportunities that could greatly reduce its
cost base and environmental footprint.
Senior management decided to progress the design of
the energy saving solutions from the global energy team
and the project came to fruition in 2011. The project, in
three phases, focused on the following potential savings:
Phase 1: The potential for savings from the integration
of two adjacent manufacturing facilities in the Finisklin
Business Park was addressed. As these had largely
separate utility systems as a result of the phasing,
construction and business criticality of the systems
during site development, considerable opportunities
for rationalisation of energy usage were identified.
In particular the major utilities such as steam, hot
water, compressed air and chilled water presented
opportunities in terms of increased generation and
distribution efficiencies from integration and general
efficiency improvements. The areas addressed were:
> Gas-fired low pressure hot water (LPHW) boiler
installation to allow substantially more efficient and
cost-effective generation of hot water for space heating.
This replaced steam with hot water, making the heating
system more efficient.
> Interconnection of the Base and Atlas Facilities steam
networks to allow consolidation of steam generation in
one boiler house. Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) was chosen
to replace diesel as the primary fuel for efficiency, cost
and environmental reasons.
> Efficiency upgrade to the LPHW pumping system for
the site, ensuring that circulated water volumes were
proportional to the heating demand.
> Integration of the two chilled-water generation
and distribution systems to allow chilled water to be
generated in, and distributed from, the most efficient
generation system.
> Efficiency upgrade to the chilled water pumping
system, ensuring that circulated water volumes were
proportional to the cooling demand.
> Integration of the process and heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) cooling loops to reduce
distribution costs.
> Integration of the Base and Atlas compressed-air
networks to prioritise the use of the most efficient air
compressors and dryers on the site.
22
Section Three – Company Profiles
Phase 2: After completion of Phase 1, the loads on
the chilled-water system were concentrated in the
Atlas plant room. The chilled-water production for the
site consisted of two air-cooled Trane units providing
a cooling capacity of 1,250 kilowatt (kW) each. These
chillers operated at a coefficient of performance (COP)
of 2.5 to 3.5. Phase 2 proposed replacement of the
air-cooled chillers with a higher-efficiency water-cooled
chiller and cooling tower arrangement, delivering a COP
between 5.0 and 7.5 over its capacity range, to reduce
operating costs. All HVAC units were modified to allow
implementation of free cooling. Further improvements
to the HVAC system included the calculation of dynamic
setpoints, introduction of destratification fans in
warehouses, and installation of actuated dampers in the
meeting rooms linked to the lighting PIRs to allow airflow rates to depend on occupancy levels.
Phase 3: The installation of the water-cooled chiller and
cooling tower resulted in a site profile that matched the
characteristics of a heat pump, whereby LPHW at 66 ºC
and chiller cooling water (CW) are cooled simultaneously.
The heat pump acted as a cooling tower to reduce the
CW water heat rejection load and used this rejected heat
to produce LPHW at 66 ºC.
23
Key Factors in Success
Innovation and continuous improvement in energy
management are key factors in the successful
implementation of energy efficiency projects at Abbott
Sligo. Since the site signed up to the EAP in 2010,
a significant reduction in the LIEN EnPi performance
was achieved in a short timeframe. This was driven
by a focused EnMS, which resulted in certification to
ISO 50001.
EnPi Trend
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010
2011
2012
Energy Performance Indicator
- Improvement Trend
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
CG Power Systems Ireland
CG Power Systems energy project has ‘dramatic’ results.
The CG Power Systems Ireland Ltd factory in Cavan was established
in 1977 for manufacture of distribution transformers for the electricity
industry. The site has two facilities, Metal Parts and Assembly,
employing 465 people. Customers include a broad spectrum of sectors
in the energy market: utilities, renewables (solar, wind and biomass),
industrial, energy performance contractors (EPC), nuclear, oil and gas.
The company has an ISO 50001 EnMS
and is working on projects and improved
operational controls to enhance energy
performance. Annual energy consumption
is over 18 GWh, more than 60% of
which is LPG.
Improve
Project Focused on
Largest Gas User
> Fitting a heat recovery system on the
main exhaust stacks to preheat the
intake air to the burner
The Paint Plant was focused on as the
largest gas user on site, with an annual
usage of 7.4 MWh/year, costing over
€500k in LPG gas – 65% of annual gas
consumption. The team followed a
process of Define, Measure, Analyse,
Improve, Control (DMAIC).
Define
CG Power Systems Ireland –
Gas Consumption
Paint Plant 65%
AAP Drying Ovens 21%
Metal Parts Heating 9%
AAP Building Heating 5%
> Gathered information from oven
manufacturers about air circulation in
ovens and required air changes
Control output variables by:
> Reducing and controlling exhaust
extract using variable-speed drives
> Fitting fully modulating efficient burners
> Fitting automated doors to
control spillage from the oven
Control
New process controls were implemented
and work methods adapted for the new
regime. The improvement has been verified
as part of the measurement and verification
process for energy improvements.
Issues Encountered
> Found that no manufacturers contacted
had carried out any modifications to
control or recover heat air-to-air from the
exhaust system to preheat the oven
> Sourcing a company to take on heat
recovery air-to-air at 200°C on this scale.
CG had to take a lead to implement
the technology
> Worked with the paint suppliers
regarding curing requirements,
vapours emitted and recommended
extraction rates
> Automated doors – a number of attempts
were needed, including the options
of air knifes and electrically controlled
doors before settling on mechanically
controlled doors as the best solution
Analyse
The heat usage was analysed to find where
losses were and where value was added.
Measure
Actual losses were measured and found to
be of the order of 639 kW, costing almost
€250,000 per year, so any reduction in this
would yield significant benefits.
24
> Achieving a consistent balanced
extraction was a challenge and during
commissioning this was adjusted a
number of times
Section Three – Company Profiles
Benefits Arising from Project
> Substantially reduced gas usage and
cost in paint plant – exhaust heat
reduced by 50%
> Cleaner air feeding into burner/oven
> Reduced building heating cost as paint
plant was drawing air from the factory
building, made up with extra outside
air which had to be heated to maintain
factory floor temperature
> Thermal energy required to heat oven
reduced by 38% for Jan-Nov 2013
> Total annual savings arising from oven
improvements: 2,700 MWh thermal and
340 MWh electrical on full year basis,
equivalent to 788 tonnes CO2
> Improved process control due
to modulation burners
> Improved employee environment
“The implementation of
energy waste reduction and
recycling wasted heat on CG
Power System's paint curing
ovens has had dramatic
benefits for both the business
and the environment”
25
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Dairygold Food Ingredients
Dairygold project meets processing and energy needs
while ensuring cost-effective waste water treatment.
Dairygold Food Ingredients (DFI) is a part of Dairygold
Co-Operative Society Ltd, formed in 1990 with the merger of
Ballyclough Co-operative Creamery Ltd and Mitchelstown
Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd.
DFI is one of Ireland’s leading dairy
manufacturing companies, with over 400
employees. It operates four milk processing
plants in Munster, two of which are situated
in Mitchelstown – Castlefarm and Clonmel
Road. The Castlefarm facility is one of the
biggest powder manufacturing plants of its
kind in Europe. The Clonmel Road facility is
now the biggest single-line cheddar plant
in the European Union. Annual output
from the two Mitchelstown facilities is
over 100,000 tonnes.
Background
In recent years DFI has worked closely
with SEAI, developing energy management
projects and infrastructure. Dairygold joined
SEAI’s Energy Agreements Programme in
2010 and was quickly certified to EN 16001,
and then achieved the ISO 50001 standard.
In line with Dairygold’s energy
management and continuous
improvement programmes, it has set
targets to reduce energy usage through
projects, capital investment monitoring and
awareness campaigns. The ending of milk
quotas in 2015 and anticipated increase in
milk volumes required Dairygold to plan
for a substantial increase in milk processing
capacity. The projected increase in milk
volumes would produce more process
wastewaters and therefore lead to an
increased treatment capacity requirement.
DFI’s anaerobic treatment project provided
a solution to the processing, environmental
and energy needs while at the same time
providing cost-effective treatment capacity.
The project, completed in 2012, involved
the construction and commissioning of
a 45,000m3 anaerobic digester for
wastewater treatment.
26
Project Description
One of the principal rationales for
Dairygold’s technology choice was energy
consideration. The other was to choose
a technology that met the BREF and EPA
guidance for Best Available Technology
(BAT). The anaerobic treatment process
meets both objectives. The process
provides lower biomass yields than
conventional aerobic processes and
allows for higher loading rates. The
production of biogas as a side-product
of the wastewater treatment process
is an additional advantage.
Anaerobic digestion (AD)
Anaerobic digestion is the natural
breakdown of organic materials to
methane, carbon-dioxide gas and a
nutrient-rich sludge. The system operates in
the lower end of the mesophilic range (20
to 30oC. Biogas generated during treatment
is used to maintain the operational
temperature within this range if required.
Excess biogas is used to displace fossil-fuel
usage through the production of steam
in a secondary boiler. The excess steam
represents 6% of monthly steam usage
at the Castlefarm facility across the
summer peak season.
The anaerobic treatment is installed as
a pre-treatment step for biodegradable
organic waste streams. Dairygold’s
anaerobic digester operates as a continuous
above-ground low-rate anaerobic reactor.
Additional nutrient removal of nitrogen
and phosphorus is achieved through the
existing aerobic Biological Nutrient
Removal (BNR) systems.
Section Three – Company Profiles
The AD process at Dairygold
The digester pre-treats the process
wastewater from Dairygold’s production
facility prior to entering the biological
nutrient removal (BNR) system. The process
wastewater arises from powder and cheese
production. The reactor anaerobically
digests a high percentage of the raw
wastewater biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD)
“DFI’s anaerobic treatment
project provided a solution to and total suspended
solids (TSS) loadings, while
our processing, environmental converting the degradable
and energy needs while at the organics in the wastewater
to energy-rich biogas and
same time providing costa small amount of waste
effective treatment capacity.”
biomass (sludge).
The reactor releases a
high-quality anaerobic effluent to feed
the downstream BNR system, with
average BOD removal of 90%.
Heat exchangers are used to recover heat
from the treated effluent, which is used to
preheat the influent entering the digester.
The reactor is completely covered with a
specialised floating geomembrane cover,
which collects the generated biogas. Gas
production is intimately linked to the BOD
loading on the reactor.
The biogas produced during the AD
process is used in a dual-fuel boiler to
produce hot water to heat the reactor.
Surplus biogas is used for supplementing
heating requirements in a plant boiler. The
surplus gas represents 107 therms of gas
(or 3,135 kWh) per 1,000 kg of COD treated,
of which 70% is sent back to the factory
for reuse.
27
Future Plans
Dairygold plans to complete further energy
projects in 2013 through to 2015, including:
> Installation of economisers on
boilers at Clonmel Road
> Water conservation projects
Energy-efficient design (EED) is part of the
Niro 3 spray dryer project. For example,
the design features heat recovery on the
exhaust air thermal energy; recovered heat
from the evaporator secondary condensate
steam will be used to preheat the incoming
milk to the evaporator, and mechanical
vapour recompression has been selected to
reduce energy usage and operating cost.
These projects will have a substantial effect
on energy consumption and help to move
DFI towards a carbon-neutral and more
energy-efficient manufacturing process.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Glanbia Ingredients Ireland
Glanbia’s Delta way achieves alpha results.
The Glanbia Ingredients Ireland Ltd (GIIL), Ballyragget
multi-purpose dairy processing plant was established
in 1966 in Co. Kilkenny and has been expanding ever
since. Ballyragget is Europe’s largest integrated dairy
processing facility. GIIL processes a broad range of
dairy ingredients, including about 30% of the Irish
milk pool, and employs 320 people.
Background
Energy management
As energy represents 40% of controllable
costs, both fuel prices and energy efficiency
are crucial to future competitiveness. In the
context of the EU Emission Trading Scheme,
GIIL strives to reduce carbon emissions.
The Delta Way
The GIIL Delta Programme was rolled out
in 2011. Delta adopts Lean principles and
tools to maximise customer value while
minimising waste, whether excess carbon,
loss in energy efficiency or loss of product.
The goal is to ensure a perfect valuecreation process, with zero waste across
all production processes and activities.
The Delta approach requires the
involvement of all departments. It assumes
a Learn by Doing approach, involving
everyone from management to the
shopfloor worker. Delta objectives are
accomplished through processes such as:
> 3M (Meet, Manage & Measure) – to
align GIIL strategy through engagement,
monitoring performance to ensure
targets are met, and managing for
today while improving for tomorrow
> Local Improvement Programme (LIPS) –
a forum for reviewing both short-term
reactive issues and longer-term proactive
planning, ensuring follow-through that
drives final resolution
“Our mission it to process our
suppliers' growing milk volumes and
maximise sustainable value in global
markets for all our stakeholders.”
28
> Focused Improvement Programme (FI)
– to solve specific issues, using
structured problem-solving
Section Three – Company Profiles
300
84,000
82,000
250
GWh per Product Tns
2.5
80,000
78,000
200
2.0
76,000
150
74,000
72,000
100
1.5
1.0
70,000
68,000
50
0.5
66,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Production Tonnes
The graph above illustrates the increase in
production output (
), 2005–2012.
Over the same period, the amount of carbon
emitted (
) fell following the introduction
of the low-carbon energy efficiency
management system in 2007.
Project Description
The most significant energy users (SEUs) on the
Ballyragget site are the whey and utility plants,
which is why GIIL, Ballyragget focused on these
plants and processes in 2011 and 2012. With
much success in reducing associated energy
consumption, GIIL, Ballyragget addressed
other general areas to reduce energy
consumption, including:
Refrigeration
SEAI supported a project under the Better
Energy Workplaces scheme, which improved
control of the refrigeration plants. This project
improved the coefficient of performance
(COP – the ratio of cooling provided
over the power consumed) by 30%,
with a corresponding reduction in
power consumption.
Compressed air
Compressed air is an SEU on site. Under
the Delta/Lean programme, compressed-air
leakage control was the focus of maintenance
staff. This programme yielded a 10%
improvement in compressed-air
power consumption.
2010
2011
64,000
2012
0.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
CO2 Emissions
Condensate return
Pipework and valves were installed to
maximise boiler-feed condensate.
Surplus-product condensate collection was
maximised for heat recovery and reuse in
flushing and washing cycles, thus reducing
fresh water demand.
Future Plans
Insulation
An extensive, ongoing insulation programme
includes fitting of insulation wraps or jackets
on steam valves and other in-line equipment.
The re-insulation of the boiler-feed tanks
reduced energy use in the boiler-house.
> Increased metering on
significant energy users
HVAC
HVAC control has been linked to production
status in several areas to minimise runtime
and optimise critical parameters such as air
temperature, pressure and humidity.
> Investigations into most efficient
lighting options
Lighting
Continuing installation of motion and
daylight sensors has reduced lighting
costs in several areas of the plant.
On-farm sustainability programme
In the Life Cycle Analysis of a dairy product,
up to 90% of all emissions are contributed on
farm. The Open Source Dairy Sustainability
Programme will help to ensure that our
farmers are the most efficient they can be in
the production of milk, remain economically
viable and continuously improve performance
under the heading of sustainability.
VSDs
VSDs were installed at several locations to
reduce the electrical load drawn by motors.
All motors on the new plants installed in
2013 have been fitted with VSDs.
29
As per the Origin Green Charter, GIIL
Ballyragget has set targets to reduce
energy consumption on site by 1% per
tonne of product year on year up to 2020.
Planned energy efficiency projects for
2013 and 2014 include:
> Replacement of pasteurisers with
more energy-efficient pasteurisers
> Further condensate recovery
> Focus on operational factors
affecting energy consumption
GIIL will ensure that at least 90% of our farmers
(4,300) have been audited by March 2015 in
order to establish a baseline for the GIIL Open
Source Dairy Sustainability Programme, under
the headings of Animal Health & Welfare,
Carbon Emissions, Energy Efficiency, Water
Efficiency, Waste Reduction, Biodiversity and
On-Farm Health & Safety. These audits will be
independently assessed.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
GlaxoSmithKline Ireland (GSK)
GSK no longer losing 90% of energy used in
generating compressed air.
GlaxoSmithKline, is one of the world's leading research-based
pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. The Cork facility
is a strategic global new-product introduction site. There is a
highly automated manufacturing facility, as well as an R&D
pilot plant at Currabinny. It is the primary production site for
a number of GSK’s top selling drugs.
Background
GSK’s Currabinny manufacturing site uses compressed air
for a wide range of instrumentation and process control
purposes, and to supply breathing air for plant operators.
In 2012 the compressed-air systems used 8% of the site’s
total electricity supply at an annual cost of €217,711, with
CO2 emissions of 957 tonnes. The Cork site has already
achieved a 51% reduction in CO2 emissions since 2006
with help and support from SEAI, and is committed to
achieving further year-on-year reductions.
SEAI and GSK Cork had identified the compressed-air
system as a priority for savings in contributing to
these goals.
Project Description
In common with many sites, the compressed-air plant
had developed incrementally over the years with
changes in plant requirements. This resulted in a legacy
of eight compressors in two locations, each serving
separate instrument-air and breathing-air systems.
This resulted in:
> Increased electricity consumption
due to poor compressor efficiency
> Inefficient use of compressor capacity to
meet the demands of separate instrument
air and breathing air systems
> Varying levels of compressed air dryness
Approximately 90% of energy used in generating
compressed air is lost as waste heat. The original
compressors gave no opportunity to recover any
of this lost energy.
Project evaluation
A strategic plan was required to meet the long-term
compressed-air requirements of the site in the most
energy-efficient way.
30
A User Requirement Specification was developed,
working with SEAI and other specialists; main
requirements for the new system were identified:
> Single high efficiency compressor to serve
both breathing air and instrument air systems
> VSD for optimum matching of compressor output
to combined instrument and breathing air demand
> Metering of air output and electricity consumption
> Recovery of waste heat from compressor
to reduce site gas consumption
> Consistent dryness, with dew point of -40 oC
across all systems
A load analysis was carried out to determine the
optimum capacity for the new compressor, and to
confirm that variable-speed operation with a single
compressor would be the most efficient way to meet
the combined air demand pattern. This showed that a
single compressor with a variable output between
15m3/minute and 45m3/minute would be best. The most
efficient of the existing compressors would be retained
for backup.
The most efficient air drying technology was determined
to be a steam regenerated desiccant system. This is also
less carbon-intensive than using electricity. A large part
of GSK Cork’s site steam is generated from a waste heat
boiler, of which the output often exceeds site demand
during the summer.
Using recovered heat
A compressor with heat recovery can deliver a
proportion of its total waste heat at up to 60oC without
significantly affecting compressor efficiency. A review to
identify which site heat load would be most compatible
with heat output from the compressor identified the
make-up water to the steam boiler as the optimum
solution. Make-up water replaces condensate that
cannot be recovered from some of the site’s processes
and condensate lost from the return system. Using the
compressor’s waste heat to preheat the boiler make-up
water would reduce gas consumption by the gas-fired
steam boiler.
Section Three – Company Profiles
The Project evaluation predicted that:
> A new single air compressor to feed the instrument
air and breathing air systems would reduce electricity
consumption by 370,868 kWh
> The heat recovery system would reduce
annual boiler gas consumption by 899,257 kWh
The projected combined annual energy cost saving
would be €76,266, with additional non-energy savings
of €13,125.
The total capital cost of the project would have been
€683,700, with a payback period of eight years. SEAI
provided a capital grant for 33% under the Better
Energy Workplaces (BEW) scheme, which enabled
GSK to proceed with the project.
Implementation and verification
The new compressor and heat recovery system were
installed and commissioned at the end of 2012.
Energy savings for the compressor were verified by
comparing metered electricity consumption during
similar periods in 2012 and 2013.
“The project was highly successful.
We achieved greater energy
and cost savings than predicted,
saving €118,152 – with a payback
of less than four years.”
The comparison showed an average
reduction in electrical load from 260 kW
to 171 kW, with a saving of 34% and a
predicted annual saving of 721,728 kWh,
double the 17% saving predicted in the
project evaluation.
The air metering and electricity consumption data for the
new compressor showed an average efficiency of 6.5 kW
per m3/minute, in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specification. Therefore it appears that the combined
efficiency of the original compressors was worse than
assumed in the project evaluation, at around 8.2 kW per
m3/minute.
31
Heat recovered from the compressor was evaluated by
monitoring the flow of make-up water to the boiler, and
the temperature increase provided by the heat recovery
system over 12 months.
The average heat recovery over the year was 85 kW
compared to a prediction of 112 kW in the project
evaluation. The shortfall in predicted heat recovery was
due to a reduction in boiler make-up water requirements,
which occurred as a result of work done to improve
condensate return, and reduce steam consumption.
Benefits
Overall, the project has been a great success, providing
energy and cost savings greater than predicted.
Projected Savings
Electricity
Actual Savings
kWh
Cost
kWh
Cost
370,868
€39,486
721,728
€76,842
Gas
899,257
€36,780
689,103
€28,184
Total
1,270,125
€76,266
1,410,831
€105,027
The total actual energy and non-energy savings achieved
of €118,152, along with the reduced capital spend due to
the SEAI BEW grant, has resulted in a payback of 3.8 years.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Pfizer
Pfizer Little Island compressed-air
success is widely replicable.
Pfizer is one of Ireland’s leading employers and the largest
pharmaceutical sector investor and employer. It has a rich
tradition of innovation and expansion over forty years,
and employs over 4,000 people across eight locations.
32
Section Three – Company Profiles
Instantaneous
Power (kW)
Annual Energy
Consumed (kWh)
Annual
Energy Cost (€)
CO2 Emissions
(Tonnes)
Old Fixed
Speed Compressor
110
963,600
96,360
515
New VSD Compressor
78
683,280
68,328
365
Savings
32
280,320
28,032
150
Table 1: Project energy and carbon savings
Pfizer Little Island in Co. Cork was the first site in
Ireland to be certified to the IS 393 Energy Management
standard, in 2006. It transitioned to international
standard ISO 50001 in 2012.
Pfizer Little Island approaches sustainability and hence
energy efficiency as an inherent part of the company’s
successful future. As part of the ISO 50001 programme,
the site continuously seeks out opportunities to reduce
its carbon footprint.
Benefits of Project
Background
Under the energy management system, significant
energy users (SEUs) are regularly reviewed and
monitored. As part of this work, compressed air was
identified in 2010 as an SEU that consumed over 7%
of site electricity consumption.
“The energy management
work at Pfizer Little Island
can be summarised in the
site formula for success:
Continuous Improvement
& Innovation = Sustainable
Business Excellence”
In December 2011 a new variable speed drive (VSD) air
compressor was installed in place of one of the older
compressors. This project was part-funded under the
SEAI Better Energy Workplaces (BEW) grant scheme.
The new compressor uses an Intellisys controller to vary
the speed of the compressor to precisely match the
site compressed-air requirement, thereby avoiding the
wasted energy associated with running a fixed-speed
compressor unloaded.
The supply of oil-free compressed air is
essential for smooth and safe operation of
the production processes; thus it is not only
an SEU but also a critical utility in terms of
process operations. This is true not only for
Pfizer Little island but also for many other
pharmaceutical and manufacturing sector
companies. Hence, improvement work in
this area is highly replicable both internally
in the Pfizer group of companies in Ireland
and abroad and in the wider sector.
Project Description
The supply of compressed air was provided by three
132 kW fixed-speed screw-type oil-free air compressors,
installed in 1999. The average instantaneous energy
consumption of the air compressors was 110 kW.
A survey of the air compressor operation revealed that
the oldest of the compressors spent approximately
85% of the time loading. This meant that for 15% of the
time the compressor was operating in unloaded state
inefficiently. During this time the compressor was still
consuming around 30 kW of instantaneous power. In
addition to the cost associated with this energy waste,
the site faced the future costs of overhauling this ageing
equipment.
33
This project has resulted in an overall reduction
in compressed-air average instantaneous power
consumption from 110 kW to 78 kW. This equates
to a reduction of over 150 tonnes in CO2 emissions
per annum.
The new VSD air compressor is fitted with a hybrid
permanent magnet (HPM) motor. HPM motor technology
combines the reliability of a permanent magnet rotor
with the strength of salient stator coils. The weight of the
motor is much less than that of a traditional induction
motor, which means it can be directly attached to the
bull gear shaft of the compressor. This arrangement
eliminates the energy and maintenance costs associated
with the friction inherent in motor bearings.
The HPM motor can start and stop as frequently as low
air demand dictates. Traditional induction motors of
this size have a typical minimum start-stop frequency of
three times per hour. This is a major restriction; it means
that a traditional VSD air-compressor induction motor
needs to run unloaded during periods of low usage.
This is not the case with the HPM motor; in periods of
particularly low air consumption, the VSD air compressor
will stop and start as required – yielding even more
energy and cost savings.
In addition to the energy savings, the cost of
overhauling the older compressors has been
avoided as these machines are now only run in
standby mode; hence their running hours have
been greatly reduced and their service life extended.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
EPS Group
Tullamore WWTP - a new level of energy efficient design
practice in a wastewater treatment plant build & operation.
The EPS Group is the largest fully Irish-owned environmental
engineering company in the country. It provides water and
wastewater treatment and pumping solutions. Clients range
from homeowners to large multinational and municipal
authorities. It operates in Ireland, the UK and mainland
Europe, and exports to over 30 countries worldwide.
GROUP
Background
Project Description
The EPS Group formed a high-level
committee in 2009 – the EPS Energy &
Environment Committee – to reduce
energy usage and promote the drive to
use and conserve energy as a provider of
sustainable water solutions throughout its
operations in Ireland and abroad.
The contract for the 45,000 PE (population
equivalent) capacity Tullamore WWTP and
80,000 PE Sludge Treatment Centre was
awarded to an EPS/SIAC consortium in April
2010. The project is being operated by EPS
Operations for the next 20 years on behalf
of Offaly County Council.
EPS implements a company-wide Energy
Policy, inclusive of suppliers, and adheres
to an Energy Management Plan at all levels.
It was the first company in its industry to
achieve ISO 50001 accreditation.
The sewage entering the treatment plant is
converted into clean water well below the
European standards; the rate of recycling of
the incoming sewage is over 99.9%.
Lifecycle costs focus
It was decided to effect the design of
the Tullamore Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) with whole lifecycle costs
in mind and to future-proof the plant to
easily accommodate future integration
of emerging technologies. This meant
instilling the knowledge learned through
trials into a new design philosophy for
the company, through education of
design staff and investigation of
alternative technologies.
‘Energy Efficient’, ‘Adaptable’ and
‘Operator Friendly’ were the key principles
communicated to the design team. Each
element of plant selected was compared
for lifecycle costs against multiple other
options. The operations staff were deeply
involved in the design process so as to
improve the user-friendly nature of the
final design.
The plant is innovative primarily because
of the design-stage energy awareness
principles and innovative technologies
used. These include energy reduction
measures developed by EPS Group in other
plants such as the Dundalk and Drogheda
WWTPs – recognised by Green Awards and
the SEAI Sustainable Energy Awards.
At Tullamore, online tracking and trending
of load consumption enables regular plant
efficiency reviews while high-efficiency
aeration, preliminary treatment solutions
and energy generation systems from the
anaerobic digesters make this plant top
of its class.
Innovative features of project:
> 3mm intake screens with zero wash
water requirement operating on minimal,
demand-only, operational configuration
> Intensive drying and shredding facility
to minimise screening waste and
transport requirements
> Batch sand-washing to minimise
consumption and eliminate
external water usage
34
Section Three – Company Profiles
“The success of the Tullamore
project has cemented our business
model – having energy efficiency
systems throughout all aspects
of our organisation.”
> Diffused aeration system with
automatic self-cleaning controls
to minimise efficiency losses
> Systemised external site lighting wired
through SCADA system to allow remote
and flexible control options
> High-efficiency pumps commonly using
IE3 electrical motor; many large pumps
are VSD-operated
> High-efficiency medium-voltage
transformer on mains power supply
to minimise electrical losses
> Stepped use covered storm tank
to minimise cleaning requirements
> All process water required is
produced on-site and UV-treated
> Tertiary filtration stage that
operates only when required
Benefits of Project
> Individual reception and storage
facilities for importing non-indigenous
wastes or sludges to allow maximum
flexibility and control as well as
system protection
> Two 955m3 anaerobic digester tanks with
external mixing and recirculation as well
as integrated dome membrane roofs for
maximum biogas creation and storage
with minimal footprint
> Water-resistant high-efficiency
insulation used on underground
digester recirculation lines to
minimise heat loss
The Tullamore plant was jointly
entered and shortlisted in the
2012 Engineers Ireland Excellence
Awards – Environmental
Infrastructure category. The
site was also shortlisted for The
Environmental Award in the SEAI
Sustainable Energy Awards 2013.
> High-efficiency CHP dual fuel-type
generators capable of operating duty/
standby or duty/duty if operator chooses
to operate treatment plant on natural gas
as well as biogas; synchronised power
supplies allow for flexible power sourcing;
hot water provides heating for digesters
(and future pre-heating for sludge
thermal dryer)
35
The broader benefit is that the verification
of this project moved the energy efficiency
culture change (that has been so successful
in EPS Group operations divisions) into the
company’s design and tendering offices.
These changes culminated in being
certified with ISO 50001 and CEMARS
certification for ISO 14064 through
Achilles for Carbon Footprint tracking.
Apart from the savings, the ability to
reduce tender quotations for design,
build & operate contracts is critical for the
company’s sustainability. In addition, the
techniques and experiences used in this
project have enabled the company to fully
understand the upcoming EPC & ESCOtype contracts currently seeking a foothold
in this industry.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Aviva Stadium
Aviva Stadium scores high in energy efficiency measures.
The Aviva Stadium in Dublin is home to the Ireland rugby
and Republic of Ireland football teams. The 63,000m2
stadium, completed in 2010 at a cost of €410m,
has a seated capacity of 51,700.
36
Section Three – Company Profiles
“The single most compelling reason for implementing
ISO 50001 is that energy costs are the second highest
expense in the stadium.”
Eamonn Williams, Technical Services Engineer
The stadium has won a number of design awards,
including those from the Royal Institute of the Architects
of Ireland and the Royal Institute of British Architects,
and is Ireland’s only UEFA Category 4 / Elite Stadium.
Since its opening in May 2010, over 3 million ticketed
visitors have passed through the turnstiles for rugby,
soccer and concerts.
Energy efficiency was an integral part of the
design and construction of the stadium.
During construction,
In August 2013, Aviva
the demolished
Stadium became the
structures were broken
first stadium in the
up for use as hardcore
and sub-bases for the
world to achieve
ISO 50001 certification. new ones. The old top
soil was stripped, stored
and reused for the new
pitch. Blast furnace waste slag was used in the concrete
mix throughout to minimise the amount of cement used
and thereby reduce the energy required for concrete
production. The CO2 saving achieved is calculated at
4,000 tonnes, or 6,896,500 kWh of electricity.
A lighting control system, using intelligent control via
PCs along with PIR sensors, is used to centrally control
and monitor the 18,000 low-energy light fittings
throughout the stadium; lighting requirements can be
managed closely and kept as efficient as possible. Sports
lighting was carefully modelled, with glare shields and
long visors specified to minimise light spill from the
stadium bowl.
Heat Recovery
Each of the four diesel-powered 1,700 kVA generators is
fitted with heat recovery circuits capable of recovering
4 MW of heat to pre-heat hot water for bathrooms,
kitchens and the under-pitch heating system.
Energy-saving features of the building management
system include soft starters on all motors which ensure
longer life, more efficient operation and more economic
running of the ventilation and pumping systems. Other
elements of the services design include intelligent
controls to ensure that power-consuming systems
operate only when or as required; for example, escalators
will only run when people are using them, while HVAC
fans and pumps are VSD-controlled and will only run at
the rate that is required.
37
Water Conservation
Water is conserved through sensor taps and dual-flush
cisterns. Waterless urinals provide a minimum annual
saving of 400,000 litres. Rainwater is harvested from
the roof and used to irrigate the pitch, and also used
throughout the building to reduce demand on potable
water. The 320,000-litre tank is sufficient for about seven
days’ irrigation.
The focus on sustainability has continued into the
operational management of the stadium, which
has been operating to ISO 20121 since May 2013.
Implementation of an EnMS was a natural progression
for the stadium management. In 2012 the stadium joined
the SEAI Energy Agreements Programme and in August
2013 became the first stadium in the world to achieve
ISO 50001 certification.
EnPIs Identified
Through the ISO 50001 Energy Review process, the
stadium’s significant energy users were identified to
be Electrical Baseload, HVAC, DHW and Pitch Heating.
Energy performance indicators were identified to
measure the performance of these systems, and
SMART targets and objectives were established.
The site’s energy performance is monitored through a
comprehensive energy monitoring and targeting system,
which has been regularly expanded with the addition of
sub-meters for electricity and gas and heat-meters for
hot water. This system is also used to identify significant
deviations in consumption, which are then investigated.
In this way this system continuously assists with the
identification of opportunities for improvement.
Benchmarking
The Aviva Stadium energy policy commits to a process
of continuous improvement using benchmarking.
External benchmarking to SEU level, whilst difficult, is
extremely valuable in managing energy performance. To
achieve this, Aviva Stadium is initiating a benchmarking
programme with other stadia in the UK, Europe and USA.
Aviva Stadium participated in the LIEN Replication Project
Initiative and has implemented the HVAC operational
control in its preventative maintenance programme. This
tool has already identified several opportunities that will
be included in the 2014 Action Plan.
4
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
RESULTS
& TARGETS
This section summarises the overall energy
performance of LIEN members in 2012. It explains
the methodology used for the calculations together
with historical and sectoral comparisons and a
categorisation of energy saving projects.
Individual reports from LIEN Members detailing
their 2012 results and 2013 targets are also
contained in this section.
38
Section Four – Results and Targets
Methodology for LIEN Energy
Performance Calculation
Energy Performance Indicators (EnPIs)
are used to demonstrate the energy
performance of each LIEN member. The
EnPI is a normalised number, set to 100
in the year of joining (the baseline year).
The EnPI reflects the difference in energy
intensity between the current year and
the baseline year: an EnPI of less than 100
shows an improvement in energy intensity
whereas an EnPI of greater than 100 shows
an increase.
The year-on-year EnPI chart has been
prepared for each member (presented later
in report). The charts show the EnPI trend
since the company joined the LIEN and also
the target EnPI set for the forthcoming year.
Some commentary is provided with each
chart on the factors that influenced the
EnPI in the current year.
The year-to-year change in energy
performance for the LIEN as a whole is
reported using the principles of the Paasche
Method. The change is calculated for each
member by subtracting the actual energy
consumed in the reporting year from the
energy that would have been consumed
in order to produce the same output,
assuming the previous year’s energy
intensity had remained unchanged.
The summation of the change in each
member’s energy performance gives the
overall year-on-year energy saving, or loss,
for the LIEN as a whole.
To calculate the cumulative energy savings
achieved by the LIEN as a whole since its
inception, a similar methodology is used.
The change in energy intensity is calculated
for each member by subtracting the actual
energy consumed in the reporting year
from the energy that would have been
consumed to produce the same output,
assuming each company’s baseline-year
energy intensity had remained unchanged.
Again, the summation of these changes
gives the overall energy saving, or loss, for
the LIEN as a whole.
Calculating the energy performance of a
company and the LIEN as a whole using this
methodology means that all the factors that
influence a member’s energy performance
39
are captured, and not only specific energy
saving projects. For example, fluctuations
in the level of output, changes in quality
control, improvements in productivity and
all operational conditions will influence
overall energy demand and, consequently,
energy performance. While the LIEN
programme is focused on encouraging the
implementation of energy saving projects
and performing special investigations
of potential energy saving projects, it is
recognised that the opportunity to
improve or control energy performance
through operational control and
management of production-related
variables provides a significant contribution.
These activities are within the scope of
ISO 50001, which is central to the Energy
Agreements Programme.
However, the methodology does not
provide transparency on the root causes of
changes in the EnPI and what the drivers
were for the energy savings. Therefore, data
on specific energy savings measures is also
collected via the annual LIEN questionnaire.
This provides a bottom-up means of
calculating the energy savings achieved by
the LIEN and EAP members as a result of
specific energy savings measures.
Results Summary
The performance of LIEN members during
2012 is summarised in the table below:
2012 Overall
Energy Performance
LIEN Total Primary Energy
Requirement 2012 (GWh)
26,000
Energy Savings/Loss due to Energy
(70)
Efficient Gains/Losses 2012 (GWh)
National Total Primary Energy
Requirement (TPER) 2012 (GWh)
156,889
LIEN as percentage of
National TPER (%)
17%
Total CO2 Emissions
2012 (tonnes)
5,650,964
CO2 Avoided due to change in
Energy Performance Gains
(15,258)
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
In 2012, there was a reported loss in energy performance
of approximately 0.3% for the LIEN as a whole. This was
primarily due to reductions in the level of output of a
small number of the larger LIEN members which reduced
the overall energy performance. Even though the 0.3%
loss in performance equates to 70 GWh of additional
primary energy consumption, based on the specific
energy savings projects data reported by LIEN members,
it is estimated that energy savings of 580 GWh
could have been realised during 2012 through
the implementation of energy saving projects. That
is to say, if the energy saving projects had not been
implemented, the losses in energy performance
would have been even larger.
On average over the last five years, the LIEN has achieved
year-on-year energy performance improvements of
approximately 2%. Since its inception in 1995 the LIEN
and the founding member companies have achieved,
on average, energy savings of around 28%.
Compared to 2011, there was a drop in the national TPER
of approx. 2.7% for 2012. However in the LIEN there was
an increase in the TPER of the LIEN as a whole of around
6.1% due in part to the addition of 17 new members
during 2012. When the data is analysed on a member-bymember basis, on average, each company recorded
a 3.1% increase in energy consumption.
The LIEN members classified as industrial sector
account for about 50% of the industry primary
energy requirement reported in the 2012 National
Energy Balance. This, however, omits the energy
consumed by those members not classified as being in
the industry sector.
Energy Performance
The change in energy performance of the LIEN as a
whole presented in this report accounts for all the
influencing factors that either improve or erode energy
performance. The methodology employed is a top-down
calculation based on the change in energy intensity with
respect to the previous year or a baseline year. The yearon-year reduction in energy performance recorded for
40
the LIEN as a whole was 0.3% for 2012.
To quantify the energy savings attributable to measures
aimed specifically at improving energy performance and
reducing energy spend, data on specific energy savings
projects was also collected in the LIEN questionnaire.
For 2012, 61 companies reported specific energy saving
projects for which the savings were quantified. In total,
these projects saved a reported 217 GWh of primary
energy. It should be noted that the LIEN questionnaire
facilitates the reporting of only five specific energy saving
projects. There is no obligation to report every energy
saving measure implemented; thus the projects reported
do not necessarily represent a complete list of all such
measures implemented.
Nevertheless, if it is assumed that the data provided by
the 61 companies on specific energy saving measures is
representative of the energy saving projects undertaken
by all 162 members, then estimated energy savings of
approx. 580 GWh could have been achieved by the
LIEN as a whole.
Energy Agreement v LIEN-only
The Energy Agreements Programme (EAP) members are
typically larger energy consumers than the LIEN-only
members. In 2012, the 77 EAP members accounted
for 47% of LIEN membership and almost 71% of
energy consumption. Thus, the performance of EAP
members influences greatly the performance of the
LIEN as a whole. It is also the case that EAP members
are committed to the implementation and operation
of energy management systems (ISO 50001), which
is considered a more effective means of finding,
implementing and maintaining energy savings than
pursuing an internal energy management programme
only, as is the case with the LIEN-only members. EAP
members also receive more support than the LIEN-only
members.
In 2012, EAP members’ energy performance was better
than that of the LIEN-only members. EAP members
reported a 0.8% improvement in energy performance
Section Four – Results and Targets
LIEN Historic Energy Performance
40%
37%
% year-on-year
Energy Savings*
31%
33%
32%
28%
30%
20%
18.8% 18.6%
19.7%
15.6%
16.3% 17.5%
14.5%
14.2% 17.8%
15.3%
16%
10%
10%
9%
0%
3.3%
2.5%
0.8% 0.9%
0%
0.1% 0.5%
2.8%
0%
-3.1%
4.7%
3%
7%
5.3%
% Energy Saved
where 2000 is
taken as ‘base year’
% Energy Saved
where 2005 is
taken as ‘base year’
6.1%
5.5%
-1.1% -0.3%
-0.6%
0%
% Energy Saved
where 1995 is
taken as ‘base year’
-10%
‘95
Note: LIEN members
may elect to change
the activity metric used
to report output, e.g.
change from tonnes of
product A to tonnes of
product B. When justified,
this change can also
be applied historically,
which will affect the
energy intensity and
energy savings calculated
for previous reporting
periods. In 2012, a
large energy consumer
changed the metric used
to report output for the
years 2008 through to
2011; this affected the
energy savings for the
LIEN as a whole. Overall,
this change led to an
improved year-on-year
energy saving for 2007,
2008 and 2010 and a
reduced year-on-year
energy saving for 2009
and 2011.
‘96
‘97
‘98
‘99
‘00
‘01
‘02
‘03
‘04
whereas LIEN-only members reported a 3.7% reduction.
This is expected, given the additional supports available
to EAP members and their commitment to operate
energy management systems.
Historical Performance of the LIEN
The chart above illustrates the historical performance
of the LIEN over the 18-year period from 1995 to 2012.
It comprises four datasets:
1 Year-on-year energy performance change
(illustrated by bar series)
2 E nergy performance of LIEN members,
with 1995 as baseline
3 E nergy performance of LIEN members,
with 2000 as baseline
4 E nergy performance of LIEN members,
with 2005 as baseline
In the case of the year-on-year performance, only
those companies that reported in successive years are
accounted for. For the remaining plots which illustrate
the energy performance of the LIEN members relative
to a base year, again only those companies that reported
in the base year and in the subsequent years are taken
into account. This data is not affected by new companies
joining the network every year as the calculations only
take into account those companies that reported in
1995, 2000 or 2005.
41
‘05
‘06
‘07
‘08
‘09
‘10
‘11
‘12
The following observations can be made on the
data contained in the chart:
> The members who joined in 1995 have achieved
an improvement in energy performance of 28%, in
comparison to 1995. There was a notable decrease in
2009 resulting from reductions in output in that year.
Since 2009, the energy performance of this cohort of
companies has remained relatively static. However,
the energy performance declined in 2012, primarily
because of the reduction in the energy performance
of one very large energy consumer
> The group of members that reported in 2000 and also
in 2012 achieved savings in excess of 15% over that
period, when 2000 is taken as the baseline year
> The group of members that reported in 2005 and also
in 2012 achieved savings of almost 14.5% over that
period, when 2005 is taken as the baseline year. This
percentage saving is lower than in previous years
The LIEN group that has 2005 as a baseline year
is an important dataset. The EAP was launched in
2006 following the publication of the Irish Energy
Management Standard in 2005. During the period 2005–
2010, a large number of companies in this group would
have transitioned from LIEN-only to Energy Agreements.
The graph above shows that the energy performance,
across all three baselines, peaked in 2008 and has
either remained static or declined in recent years. LIEN
member companies have continued to report energy
saving projects annually in the LIEN questionnaire, which
suggests that the reduced energy performance is being
driven primarily by reduced output.
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Categorisation of Energy Savings by Technology or Project
In addition to providing the quantity of energy saved, LIEN members are also requested
to categorise energy saving projects in accordance with the Energy Venn Diagram. In
2012, the majority of projects (35%) were categorised by members under the heading
of Equipment.
Historically, Equipment-related projects have been the most popular, and this category
of project accounted for the largest percentage of energy savings in kWh. In 2012,
16% of projects were categorised as Operation & Maintenance. As can be seen in the
following pie chart, these accounted for 34% of energy savings. The increased share of
energy saving categorised as Operations & Maintenance arose due to two energy saving
projects carried out by one of the largest energy consumers in the LIEN.
Categorisation of Energy Savings
Projects (no. of projects)
Category
Average Payback (yrs)
Equipment 35%
Control 23%
Operations & Maintenance 16%
Process Change 8%
Operations and Maintenance
3
Energy Service
2.8
Energy Service 7%
Not Defined 7%
Other 3%
Housekeeping 1%
Process Change
2.8
Equipment
3.1
HousekeEnPIng
2.3
Control
2.4
For 2012, the above table shows the average payback reported for each category
of energy saving project.
Categorisation of Energy Savings
Projects (kWh)
Operations & Maintenance 34%
Equipment 27%
Energy Service 12.5%
Control 12.4%
Process Change 6.7%
Not Defined 3.7%
Other 3.5%
Housekeeping 0.1%
42
Section Four – Results and Targets
Summary of LIEN Data Analysis
Highlights from 2012
> The LIEN has grown to 162 companies in 2012 and now represents over 17% of
the national TPER. It is expected that the number of companies engaged in the
programme will increase again during 2013
> With the exception of the Electronics and PharmaChem sector, output increased
across all sectors in 2012. Output from the Healthcare sector has increased
continuously since 2007 and the Food/Drink and Other sectors have increased
output continuously since 2010
> An estimated 580 GWh of energy savings were achieved through the
implementation of specific energy savings measures by LIEN members
Summary of LIEN Data Analysis
Commentary
Food/Drinks 52%
Other 42%
Pharma/Chem 41%
Healthcare 17%
Electronics 11%
The number of members grew modestly in 2012. The LIEN now has 162 members.
The Food/Drink, PharmaChem and Other sectors are the largest sectors, by member
numbers, in the LIEN.
The "Other" sector has grown steadily and is made up of a mix of retail, technology and
services industries, and some of the more traditional ‘heavy industries’, such as cement
manufacture and refining.
Response Rate
Commentary
There was an above average response rate for 2012 (87% Energy Agreements,
80% LIEN-only). This follows a particularly weak response rate for 2011 and
represents one of the highest response rates recorded.
Response Rate
(LIEN Only)
No. of Companies
Reporting 80%
Not Reporting 20%
Energy Agreements
No. of Companies
Reporting 87%
Not Reporting 13%
43
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Energy Performance – Sector Trends (Percentage Change in Energy Performance, by Sector)
Not Defined
Electronics
Healthcare
Food/Drinks
Pharma/Chem
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10
Average
-5%
2007
2008
0%
2009
5%
2010
10%
2011
15%
20%
25%
2012
Commentary
In general, energy performance gains have been made across almost all sectors. On average over
the last six years, each sector has seen a gain of between 1% and 6% (illustrated by the Average
bar).
The Electronics sector was a notable exception in 2009 and 2012. The magnitude of the loss in
performance during 2009 resulted in a loss in overall LIEN energy performance.
Similarly in 2012, the reduction in energy performance recorded in the PharmaChem and "Other",
as well as the Electronics sectors, contributed to the loss in energy efficiency for the LIEN as a whole.
44
Section Four – Results and Targets
Energy Consumption (Percentage Change in TPER, by Sector)
Other
Electronics
Healthcare
Food/Drinks
Pharma/Chem
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10
Average
-5%
2007
2008
0%
2009
5%
2010
10%
2011
15%
20%
25%
2012
Commentary
In general, there has been a reduction in each sector’s energy requirement, with the notable exceptions of:
> Healthcare sector for most years – on average over the last six years the sector has recorded an
increase of c. 2.4% in TPER
> Other in 2010 and 2011
> Food/Drinks in 2010, 2011 and 2012
Among companies in the Other sector, there was a very large decline in 2009 driven primarily by a small
number of very large energy consumers reporting reduced levels of output, which in turn reduced their
energy requirement. This greatly affected the energy requirement of the sector and the LIEN as a whole.
In 2012, the change in TPER for the Other sector increased by just 0.04%.
45
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Output (Percentage Change in Output, by Sector)
Other
Electronics
Healthcare
Food/Drinks
Pharma/Chem
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10
Average
-5%
2007
2008
0%
2009
5%
2010
10%
2011
15%
20%
25%
2012
Commentary
Unlike the energy performance and TPER plots, this plot shows the average change in output for those
companies that operate in each sector rather than the change for the sector as a whole. For example,
in 2012 in the Food/Drink sector, on average each company recorded an increase of 6% in output.
In 2012, most sectors, with the exception of Electronics and PharmaChem, recorded an increase in
the average member’s output.
On average over the last six years, 3 of the 5 sectors have recorded increases in output, with the
Healthcare sector recording the largest increases.
While members of the Food/Drink sector have, on average over the last six years, recorded a
marginal decrease in output, there have been increases in the last three years in a row –
reversing the trend of the previous three years.
46
Section Four – Results and Targets
Driver of Energy Saving Projects
Energy Management Systems 72%
Other Driver 17%
Not Specified
Commentary
Energy management systems and programmes were identified as the primary driver for the implementation of energy
saving projects. The percentage of the energy savings driven by energy management systems was higher in 2012 than
any previous year.
Project Categorisation
Operations & Maintenance 34%
Equipment 27%
Energy Service 12.5%
Control 12.4%
Process Change 6.7%
Not Defined 3.7%
Other 3.5%
Housekeeping 0.1%
Commentary
Project activity is categorised using the Energy Venn Diagram. The largest reported category was Operations &
Maintenance, which accounted for 34% of the reported energy savings. The average reported payback for Operations
& Maintenance-related projects was 3 years, which is, on average, the second longest payback period for any of the
project categories. On average, HousekeEnPIng has the shortest payback, followed by Controls.
47
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Historical Project Categorisation (Categorisation of Energy Savings Projects)
60%
% of KWh Saving
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007
2008
2009
Energy Service
Equipment
Operations & Maintenance
2010
2011
2012
Process Change
Control
Commentary
In 2012, there was a marked increase in energy savings from Operations & Maintenance
projects. The increase can be attributed to two energy saving projects reported by one
very large energy consumer.
If the energy savings reported for the two projects are excluded, Equipment would have
contributed 36% of energy savings and Operations & Maintenance 12%.
48
Section Four – Results and Targets
Dairygold Food Ingredients
Waste water treatment
49
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Abbott Ireland Diagnostics Division
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
63.0
100
86.8
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>The
>
2013 EnPI will be lowered through a
heat pump, using return water from chiller
to cooling tower (at 30 ºC) and generating
LPHW at 65 ºC.
>Further
>
improvements will be completed
on server rooms – free cooling.
TARGET: 63.0
72.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>AIDD
>
Sligo’s EnMS is built on 4 core pillars
– ‘reduce demand, invest in low-carbon
energy, enhance global citizenship and
foster an energy culture’ – which have
driven the implementation of multiple
energy efficiency projects.
>Projects
>
implemented in 2012: upgrades
on HVAC system, mainly free cooling,
upgrading HVAC controls, a high COP chiller.
RESULT: 72.2
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Abbott Ireland Ltd (Cootehill)
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
108.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>In
> 2012 absolute reduction in energy use
was achieved as were internal energy
targets (set against production volume).
Energy reduction was due to operational
changes and refrigeration and HVAC
project works.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
111.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>In
> 2012 absolute reduction in energy use
was achieved as were internal energy
targets (set against production volume).
Energy reduction was due to operational
changes and refrigeration and HVAC
project works.
RESULT: 111.3
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Abbott Ireland Ltd (Longford)
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Environmental
>
advantages were also
highlighted as achievable by converting the
boiler fuel source to LPG.
>This
>
will be a target project for 2013.
TARGET: 7.5
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
7.5
9.3
50
8.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Continued
>
focus on additional
opportunities to reduce energy
consumption. Early in 2012 specialised
energy consultants were employed to
generate a revised energy opportunities list,
based on current plant performance.
>From
>
this, additional efficiency projects
were identified, focusing on adoption
of additional free cooling on significant
manufacturing AHUs.
RESULT: 8.7
2013
Baseline year: 2006
AbbVie Ireland (formerly Abbott Ireland Pharmaceutical Operation)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
71.9
100
71.9
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Increased
>
Manufacturing and Technical
Operations activities.
>Major
>
plant expansion to be completed by
October 2013.
>Convert
>
to LPG LPHW project will deliver
fuel efficiency savings.
>Thermal
>
Oxidiser Heat Recovery project will
deliver fuel efficiency savings.
TARGET: 71.9
78.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Major
>
plant expansion under way will affect
electricity, kerosene and LPG usage from
February 2013.
>Manufacturing
>
and Technical Operations
activities increased in 2012 (e.g. HVAC
requirements from 24-5 to 24-7).
This increased electricity, kerosene and
LPG usage.
RESULT: 78.2
2013
Baseline year: 2007
50
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Allergan Pharmaceuticals Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
100.6
100
69.6
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
demand increasing due
to site expansion and increased
production output.
TARGET: 100.6
95.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Electricity
>
consumption increase by 3.8%
and natural gas increase by 12.1% over 2011
figures due to business expansion.
>Water
>
usage: no change over 2011 figures.
>EED
>
study completed for recently
constructed Coldstore and Seriscaffold
project and ongoing for new Biologics 2
plant project.
RESULT: 95.9
2013
Baseline year: 1998
Amgen Technology (Ireland)
150
100
138.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Operation
>
in Ireland being expanded, with
construction of c11,700 m2 manufacturing
and warehouse area.
>To
> minimise environmental impact of
the expansion, energy efficiency has
been designed into the new facility
through combination of cutting-edge
manufacturing technologies and traditional
energy-efficient building design.
TARGET: 138.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Amgen
>
established in Ireland at Dun
Laoghaire site in 2011. Energy consumption
kept stable through 2012, but addition of
construction site compound increased
overall site energy consumption.
>Variation
>
in production volumes and type
will make assessment of performance over
time difficult to achieve. Site focusing on
efficiencies of SEUs.
RESULT: 100.0
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2012
Arigna Fuels
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
75.0
100
85.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Based
>
on work done to date, continued
focus on short-term capital payback
projects and on control improvements,
to reduce rework.
>Rate
>
of progress on R&D projects could
affect EnPI in either direction.
TARGET: 75.0
77.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Gains
>
made in last few years from capital
investment and control and housekeEnPIng
are yielding continuous improvements.
>Increased
>
baseload energy usage from
R&D processes has negated some of the
improvements but EnPI of 77 achieved.
>Energy
>
consumption on thermal side
(oil and wood) reduced, mainly via process
improvements to reduce reworks.
RESULT: 77.3
2013
Baseline year: 2009
Arkil Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
108.0
100
90.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Re-insulation
>
of Bitumen piping.
>Installation
>
of time clocks on bitumen
storage tanks.
TARGET: 108.0
122.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Installed
>
VSD on tar plant main fan in
late 2012.
>Review
>
of control of production plant
took place, with future savings to be
implemented.
RESULT: 122.3
2013
Baseline year: 2009
51
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Arvato Digital Services Ireland
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
117.0
100
95.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>New
>
product launch.
>2012
>
HVAC project.
TARGET: 117.0
93.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>HVAC
>
upgrade.
>Reduced
>
volumes.
RESULT: 93.4
2013
Baseline year: 2009
Astellas Ireland Co Ltd (Dublin)
250
200
100
151.0
150
180.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Investigating
>
feasibility of heat recovery
from an operation on-site. Resources
needed for design and engineering works.
This will be main focus for energy in 2013.
Project will not contribute to energy savings
in 2013, but will lead to savings in future
years if implemented.
TARGET: 151.0
164.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Some
>
energy saving projects implemented,
but consumption rose due to additional
cooling requirements for operator comfort
in packing rooms.
>Plans
>
to install wind turbine cannot be
progressed, as Irish Aviation Authority
seems reluctant to facilitate project as
Astellas is on flight path for Dublin Airport.
RESULT: 164.7
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Astellas Ireland Co Ltd (Kerry)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
67.0
100
61.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Decreased
>
batch sizes in production.
>Increased
>
thermal consumption due to fuel
change. Wood-chip boiler installed; is less
efficient than oil boiler, so more fuel burned
to produce same amount of steam.
TARGET: 67.0
66.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Continued
>
use of EnMS and overall site
energy awareness.
>Decreased
>
batch sizes in production.
>Increased
>
thermal consumption due to fuel
change. Wood-chip boiler installed; less
efficient than oil boiler.
>Two
>
energy-intensive lines installed and
consuming energy, but are being validated
so producing no product.
RESULT: 66.6
2013
Baseline year: 2007
Aviva Stadium
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
95.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Completion
>
of M&T project will provide
greater visibility of energy consumption and
help identification of projects.
>Investigation
>
of feasibility of modifying light
fittings from metal halide HID lamps to
CFL lamps.
TARGET: 95.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Commencement
>
of ISO 50001
implementation project was main driving
factor in improving operational control
of SEUs and identifying opportunities for
improvement in 2012.
>Operational
>
control projects affected site
energy baseline.
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 2012
52
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Bank of Ireland
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
89.7
100
85.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Building
>
upgrades.
>Building
>
closures.
>ISO
> 50001.
TARGET: 89.7
90.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Business
>
operating hours.
>Climate
>
conditions.
>Building
>
upgrades.
>Building
>
closures.
RESULT: 90.7
2013
Baseline year: 2009
Baxter Healthcare SA
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
67.7
100
72.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Recover
>
heat from boiler blowdown.
>Hot
>
water reduction/awareness.
>Cooling
>
tower pump upgrades.
>Insulation
>
projects.
TARGET: 67.7
69.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Installation
>
of economiser on main steam
boiler, reducing natural gas consumption
of boiler.
>Upgrade
>
of raw water booster pump set
integrated VSDs and improved pressure
controls. Reduced electricity consumption
for raw water pumping by 60%.
>Identified
>
uninsulated sections of steam
condensate return piping and insulate.
>Replacement
>
of 4-tube T8 light fittings with
3-tube T5 light fittings.
RESULT: 69.8
2013
Baseline year: 1995
BD Medical
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
79.5
100
47.7
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Due
>
to wide physical product variety, EnPI
index is based on manufacturing cost rather
than physical output. With continuous
improvements, value of individual products
goes down. Thus increased output is not
reflected in increased value.
>Energy
>
saving efforts remain primarily
focused on facilities as design of
production processes is constrained by
validation issues.
TARGET: 79.5
79.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Due
>
to wide physical product variety,
EnPI index is based on manufacturing cost
rather than physical output.
>Oversized
>
process pump drive reduction
required changes perceived as sensitive –
and thus cautious approach. This resulted in
direct-drive energy reduction and reduction
in cooling effort.
>HID
>
lighting replaced by T5 fittings which
will last longer as well as give energy savings.
RESULT: 79.7
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Becton Dickinson & Company Ltd
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET: 98.0
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
98.0
100
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
productivity resulted in greater
plant use, and less energy consumption
during idle production time.
>As
> new assembly machines are brought
in, energy efficiency is a key deliverable,
resulting in lower compressed air and
electrical demand.
>Sustainability
>
targets set at business and
plant level. Targeted reduction of 30%
compared to 2008 will be achieved in 2014.
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 2012
53
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Boliden Tara Mines Ltd
150
139.7
100
133.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Investigations
>
progressing into potential
ESCO model to implement infrastructure
projects to optimise mine ventilation.
>Continued
>
focus on assessing energy
efficiency of suppliers and contractors as
part of maturing EnMS.
>Monitoring
>
and verification of site building
retrofits to assess energy efficiency
improvements in heating and lighting.
TARGET: 139.7
131.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Mine
>
continues to deepen to access ore
body, resulting in longer haul routes and
higher ventilation demand, requiring
increased fuel and electricity use.
>Continued
>
effort on minimising diesel
emissions underground and improving
ventilation efficiency to maintain
underground air quality and safety.
>Major
>
energy efficiency focus is on
optimising control of mine systems.
RESULT: 131.8
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd (Clonmel)
200
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
90.7
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Introduction
>
of new production lines.
>Boiler
>
energy saving opportunities.
>Cooling
>
tower pump optimisation.
TARGET: 90.7
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Energy
>
reduction projects increasing
in importance in tandem with need for
cost‑competitiveness, as sites are compared
within the network of a multinational
business.
>Carbon
>
tax is extra burden on energy
cost base.
RESULT: 100.0
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2012
Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd (Cork)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
19.7
100
23.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Replaced
>
15-year-old R22 chillers with new
chillers in Q1 2013.
>2
> cleanrooms not in use in Q2 2013 as result
of business consolidation.
>Reduction
>
in site occupancy levels.
>Air-change
>
reduction to be implemented.
TARGET: 19.7
23.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Production
>
demand increased considerably
with transfer of new product from
another plant.
>Compressed
>
air control matched demand
to supply.
>Air-change
>
reduction proposal in
manufacturing areas.
>Ongoing
>
energy monitoring and reporting
to global facilities team.
>Thermal
>
energy project carried out.
RESULT: 23.3
2013
Baseline year: 2004
Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd (Galway)
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
37.4
50
43.4
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Improved
>
energy performance resulted in
2.2% kWhr reduction on 2011 electricity
consumption and 5% kWh reduction
in natural gas consumption, despite
manufacturing output increase.
TARGET: 37.4
42.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Improved
>
energy performance resulted
in 2.2% kWh reduction on 2011 electricity
consumption and 5% kWhr reduction
in natural gas consumption, despite
manufacturing output increase.
>Energy
>
costs increased due to market rates.
RESULT: 42.8
2013
Baseline year: 1999
54
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Bristol-Myers Squibb (Cruiserath)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
64.8
100
72.9
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continuing
>
changes in product mixes
continue to affect EnPI.
>Gas
>
reduction project completed Aug 2013;
good initial savings.
>Large-scale
>
energy projects being identified
in 2013 for implementation in 2014.
>Continued
>
focus on identifying and
resolving operational inefficiencies to
sustain present energy levels.
TARGET: 64.8
67.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Changes
>
in product mix affected EnPI.
>Gas
>
usage higher – 12% increase in heating
degree days.
>Implementation
>
of large-scale gas reduction
project affected gas usage.
>Electrical
>
usage lower than previous year;
overhaul of chillers and correction of
inefficiencies.
>Site
>
transitioned to IS0 50001.
RESULT: 67.8
2013
Baseline year: 2005
Bristol-Myers Squibb (Swords)
300
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
192.0
200
191.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continuing
>
production mix changes
affecting energy usage.
>Special
>
investigations and surveys
completed in 2012 and early 2013 are
transitioning to project concept, with
expected savings in 2014 if successful.
TARGET: 192.0
179.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Focus
>
continued in 2012 to identify new
energy reduction projects while sustaining
existing energy efficiency on site.
>Site
>
gas usage affected by increase
in heating degree days; up 12% on
previous year.
>Site
>
transitioned to ISO 50001.
RESULT: 179.2
2013
Baseline year: 1998
BT
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
89.6
100
91.6
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Further
>
efficiency programmes at
business‑case stage.
>These
>
will help to ensure sustainable
performance in line with emerging
market demands.
TARGET: 89.6
104.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Growth
>
in number of customers hosted
along with customers’ demand for more
electrical power. Computing appliances
has been counterbalanced by an ongoing
efficiencies programme incorporating
consolidation and virtualisation of internal
systems as well as driving down cooling
overheads.
>Efficiencies
>
programme has driven
down PUE.
RESULT: 104.3
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Bulmers Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
67.0
100
80.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Anticipated
>
increase in production activities
expected to help 2013 energy performance.
TARGET: 67.0
77.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Lower
>
manufacturing volumes puts
pressure on EnPIs due to overheads.
>Smaller
>
batches, due to higher mix of
products, more energy-intensive.
>More
>
beer bottling and pasteurisation add
to thermal load.
>Energy
>
management activities have
minimised effects of above factors.
RESULT: 77.0
2013
Baseline year: 2003
55
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Carbery Milk Products Ltd
150
100
66.6
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
67.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>2012
>
milk throughput down 6% on 2011.
>Product
>
mix variation negatively affected
energy consumption.
TARGET: 67.0
60.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>2012
>
milk throughput down 6% on 2011.
>Product
>
mix variation negatively affected
energy consumption.
RESULT: 66.6
2013
Baseline year: 1995
CG Power Systems Ireland Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
86.0
100
97.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Aim
>
to achieve ISO 50001.
>Encourage
>
involvement and responsibility
for energy at all levels.
TARGET: 86.0
88.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Identified
>
SEUs.
>Set
> up energy teams around SEUs.
>Carried
>
out projects on SEUs in line with
BEW and in conjunction with building
CGPSIE EnMS.
RESULT: 88.2
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Charleville Foods
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
85.4
100
63.7
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
efficiency continues to be high
priority. New projects identified through
energy audits will be implemented in 2013.
>Continued
>
energy awareness.
TARGET: 85.4
90.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Weekly
>
focus on energy usage – part of KPI.
>Energy
>
management team established;
regular meetings.
RESULT: 90.0
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Citadel100 Datacentres Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
95.0
100
100.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Strategy
>
being developed to optimise
both lifecycle and environmental impact of
cooling plant.
>This
>
plan is to be staged over 3 years
(estimated).
TARGET: 95.0
95.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>2012
>
was a very good year; operational
parameters of colos raised.
>Utilisation
>
factor of central plant and colo
occupation increased.
RESULT: 95.3
2013
Baseline year: 2008
56
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Citi
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
83.0
100
89.6
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Next
>
biggest challenge is to address
lighting systems.
>LED
>
technology being embraced;
fluorescent and CFL lighting systems to be
retrofitted in coming months.
TARGET: 83.0
85.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Citi
> Environmental Expo run for its 4th year,
for one day, with around 40 environmentrelated exhibits.
>Intention
>
was to promote environmental
experience through competitions, info
booths, environmental tips, awareness
campaigns, environmental documentaries/
movie clips.
RESULT: 85.0
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Connacht Gold Ltd (Shannonside)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
94.0
100
91.2
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Refrigeration
>
system optimisation project.
>Process
>
cooling load reduction.
>Condensate
>
recovery project.
TARGET: 94.0
95.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Use
>
of LEAN metrics throughout
organisation.
>Compressed
>
air leak-reduction programme.
>Dryer
>
throughput optimisation project.
RESULT: 95.7
2013
Baseline year: 2006
Connolly’s Red Mills
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
115.5
100
97.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Reduced
>
consumption per tonne produced
due to dryer grain compared to 2012.
>Increased
>
output due to longer winter.
TARGET: 115.5
113.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Dryer
>
retrofit influenced energy
consumption. Smaller, more energyefficient dryer installed for seed drying and
larger one moved to a feed drying area.
>Other
>
efficiencies achieved through
improved operational control of SEUs.
>Wet
>
harvest in 2012 influenced fuel
consumption. Grain at higher moisture
required more drying.
RESULT: 113.6
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Covidien (Athlone)
57
150
50
0 ’95
’12
Baseline reset: 2002
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
2012
91.0
100
81.8
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Insulation
>
of steam valves/flanges
and boilers.
>Reduction
>
in set pressure of main air
compressor.
>Due
>
to planned product change with
associated higher energy intensity, EnPI
is expected to rise considerably in 2013.
Strong energy reduction programme will
help offset some of energy-related effects of
this in the years ahead.
TARGET: 91.0
80.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Energy
>
monitoring system introduced;
measurement and monitoring of energy
performance on a weekly basis.
>Plant
>
boilers upgraded to gas condensing
boilers (from oil boilers) in mid-2012.
Improved efficiencies contributed to drop
in energy intensity.
>Contributor
>
to drop in energy intensity
is identification and repair of leaks in air
compressor system.
RESULT: 80.5
2013
Prior data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Creganna
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
97.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
savings of c3% over the next 12
months expected as Energy Team becomes
established and gains in effectiveness.
>Joining
>
LIEN will increase knowledge of
energy conservation and networking
opportunities for key energy
management personnel.
TARGET: 97.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Structured
>
approach to energy
management has begun, based on SEAI
Energy MAP methodology.
>Energy
>
team established; targets for energy
conservation are being set.
RESULT: 100.0
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2012
Dairygold Co-Op Society
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
54.2
100
56.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Anaerobic
>
digester will be fully
commissioned in 2013 and deliver
energy savings.
>Production
>
capacity will increase in 2013
and this is expected to improve EnPI.
>Development
>
of Niro 3 project will increase
dryer capacity; modification to cheese lines
has improved throughput.
>Economisers
>
installed on two boilers.
TARGET: 54.2
53.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Anaerobic
>
digester (45,000m3) installation
improved thermal energy efficiency.
>Comprehensive
>
external Energy Audit
Report completed in 2012.
RESULT: 53.3
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Danone, Macroom (formerly Nutricia Infant Nutrition Ltd)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
49.0
100
73.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
efficiency continues to be improved;
services of SEAI being availed of to get
further ideas for energy efficiency register.
>Full
> ISO 50001 certification hoped for
in 2013.
TARGET: 49.0
75.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>In
> 2012, new dryer commissioned; with
best-practice energy saving technologies.
Plant viewed by Danone as crucial to its
worldwide target of reducing carbon
footprint by 30% between 2009 and 2013.
>In
> November 2011 changed from oil-fired
to natural gas burners; new boiler also
installed.
>Economiser
>
installed on boiler to preheat
make-up water to boiler.
RESULT: 75.1
2013
Baseline year: 2009
EnPI Dawn Meats (Grannagh)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
47.6
100
60.2
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
efficiency continues to be high
priority; new projects identified through
energy audits will be implemented in 2013.
>Continued
>
energy awareness for
management teams and employees.
TARGET: 47.6
50.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Weekly
>
focus on energy usage – part of KPI.
>Energy
>
management team established;
regular meetings.
RESULT: 50.2
2013
Baseline year: 2010
58
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Depuy (Ireland) Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
76.0
100
106.9
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
efficiency continues to be
high priority.
>Efficiency
>
improvements planned for
implementation in 2013 will further
improve energy performance.
TARGET: 76.0
76.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Strategy
>
based on 3 pillars: Cost, Usage and
Sustainability.
>kWh/unit
>
shipped performance
improvement as new production
equipment brought onsite over last year is
now producing product.
>J&J
> position on climate change is that it
is real; thus sustained, long-term action
taken to address GHG emitted as result of
operations.
RESULT: 76.1
2013
Baseline year: 2007
Diageo Ireland (Kilkenny)
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET: 94.9
150
0 ’95
’12
2012
94.9
50
98.6
100
93.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Recognised
>
thermal savings are brought
about readily with management of steam
supply lines.
>Management
>
of CO2 recovery forecast allows
system to be placed in standby for periods
when small gas recovery volumes predicted.
>Site-wide
>
drive to reduce small users,
marginal increase of production setpoints
to reduce electrical pump and motor
running costs.
RESULT: 93.6
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Diageo Ireland (St James’s Gate)
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
47.4
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>New
>
production facilities expected to be
built and operational by autumn 2013.
>ISO
> 50001 methodologies will help sustain
energy savings already made and integrate
new production plants into operations in
efficient way.
TARGET: 47.4
47.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Major
>
investment announced for
St. James’s Gate: build new brewhouse,
install additional fermentation vessels,
and provide additional utilities to support
brewing processes.
>Certification
>
to ISO 50001 achieved in
Q1 2012. This keeps focus on driving
efficiencies in a systematic way.
RESULT: 47.4
2013
Baseline year: 1997
Diageo Ireland (Waterford)
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
150
100
85.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Boiler
>
feedwater optimisation project.
>Installation
>
of VSDs where applicable.
>Production
>
recipes streamlined. More
product for less energy consumption.
>Roaster
>
afterburner burner box replaced
and upgraded.
RESULT: 85.9
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2006
59
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Donegal Meat Processors
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
85.8
100
98.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Method
>
used to heat 82 ºC, 72 ºC and 45 ºC
degree water changed from oil-fired steam
boilers to direct gas-fired water boiler.
>Fine-tuning
>
of this system expected to
deliver further savings.
TARGET: 85.8
92.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Changed
>
in mid-year from oil-fired steam
boilers to direct gas-fired water boiler.
>Monitoring
>
of power, gas and water
installed.
RESULT: 92.6
2013
Baseline year: 2005
eBay-PayPal
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
98.0
100
94.2
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continued
>
increased head count should
improve EnPI targets.
>Consolidation
>
of night-shift activity into
reduced number of buildings, allowing for
shutdown of environmental controls.
>Replacement
>
of obsolete chiller with
latest chiller technology introducing
‘free cooling’ element.
TARGET: 98.0
100.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Upgrading
>
BMS systems to raise early
warning plant issues and provide clearer
building energy management reports.
>More
>
engagement with Facilities partners
on targeting downward EnPI. This will
form a strong consideration for budgeting,
maintenance planning and capital
expenditure.
RESULT: 100.8
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Edenderry Power Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
98.0
100
125.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>ISO
> 50001 system using revised list of
SEUs is providing clearer indication of
achievable projects.
>Main
>
improvement factor for 2013 will be
reduced carbon output due to increasing
level of biomass used.
TARGET: 98.0
103.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Incoming
>
fuel difficulties: milled peat wetter
than anticipated due to poor harvesting
weather in summer 2012.
>Increased
>
levels of biomass; now ~20% on
energy content basis. Dry biomass fuels
offsetting some difficulties with main milled
peat fuel.
>Transition
>
to ISO 50001 resulted in
renewed focus on EnMS and clearer, more
effective system.
RESULT: 103.1
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Eircom
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
82.4
100
86.8
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Ongoing
>
audits carried out to identify
additional energy savings projects.
>Energy
>
awareness campaign to continue.
TARGET: 82.4
83.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Energy
>
savings projects in areas of air
conditioning, heating and IT implemented
successfully.
>Energy
>
awareness raised by companywide
intranet campaign and road show at
major sites.
RESULT: 83.9
2013
Baseline year: 2008
60
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Elan Pharma
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
No influencing factors provided.
RESULT: 525.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET: 500.0
600
500.0
525.1
400
200
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1997
EPS Group
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
95.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Replacing
>
onsite pumps with higherefficiency alternatives.
>Onsite
>
lighting will be replaced with higherefficiency alternative.
>Aeration
>
system will be replaced and
higher-efficiency blowers will be installed.
TARGET: 95.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Replaced
>
2 inefficient pumps with 2 resized
higher-efficiency alternatives operating
on VSDs.
>Aeration
>
system replaced with higherefficiency alternative. Blowers resized and
replaced with higher-efficiency alternatives.
>Inlet
>
pumping levels optimised and aeration
piping pressure corrected, leading to onsite
energy saving.
RESULT: 100
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Eli Lilly SA
250
200
150
100
205.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Process
>
reheat modifications.
>Reduction
>
of gas usage in emission
abatement equipment.
>Compressed
>
air-leak survey and repair.
TARGET: 205.0
205.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Installation
>
of economisers during
switchover from HFO to natural gas.
>Process
>
control measures.
>Lighting
>
controls.
RESULT: 205.5
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1995
EMC Information Systems International
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
42.0
100
56.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Transitioned
>
to ISO 50001 from EN 16001.
>Chiller
>
electronic expansion valves.
>Further
>
HVAC optimisation projects.
>Management
>
of energy by SEUs.
TARGET: 42.0
42.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Completion
>
of energy action plans led
to 9% reduction in electricity and 15%
reduction in gas consumption.
>Improved
>
EnPI despite increased output.
RESULT: 42.1
2013
Baseline year: 2005
61
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
129.0
100
92.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Introduction
>
of new products has resulted
in increased energy intensity per unit
produced.
>The
>
need to run demo/pilot production
runs for new products has resulted in
increased energy consumption.
TARGET: 129.0
109.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Fournier
>
Laboratories Ireland (AbbVie)
won 2012 Western Europe Region
Corporate Energy Management Award
from Association of Energy Engineers (AEE),
for EnMS.
>Energy
>
usage onsite was more variable in
2012 due to new-product introductions.
>EnMS
>
has allowed greater understanding
of changing load requirements of
new products.
RESULT: 109.8
2013
Baseline year: 2010
GE Healthcare Ireland
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
96.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Increase
>
in production by 2.1% forecasted
for 2013.
>Targeting
>
2% energy reduction for 2013.
TARGET: 96.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>In
> 2012 energy efficiency increased
by 15.5% due to energy management
activities.
>7
> energy projects executed in 2012.
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Genzyme Ireland Ltd
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
300
200
215.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>HVAC
>
optimisation – manufacturing and
support areas.
>CHW
>
conservation and flow reversal
mitigation.
>LPHW
>
consumption focus and boiler
demand/service.
RESULT: 215.8
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2005
Glanbia Ballitore
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
107.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>New
>
refrigeration plant installation
will improve energy efficiency in
process cooling.
>In
> 2013 focus on improving in-house EnMS
to continue.
TARGET: 107.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
air inlet temperature for boilerhouse.
>Carried
>
out steam trap survey.
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 2012
62
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Glanbia Drogheda
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
99.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Upgrade
>
of boilers to single high-efficiency
boiler should improve EnPI for 2013.
>Additional
>
metering and improvements to
energy monitoring system will also assist in
improving site EnPI.
TARGET: 99.5
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Reduction
>
in production volumes has led to
negative impact on site EnPI.
>EnMS
>
has continually assisted in reducing
energy consumption.
RESULT: 100.0
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2012
Glanbia Ingredients Ltd (Ballyragget)
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
46.0
50
47.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Lean
>
process embedded in site
management structure and energy targets.
>Additional
>
whey processing equipment and
higher-quality requirements will negatively
affect 2013 EnPI due to added electricity
demand, without additional increase in
production throughput.
>Planned
>
milk pasteurisation
investment in 2013 will improve unit
operational efficiency.
TARGET: 46.0
45.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Specific
>
energy consumption continued to
improve – by over 2% in 2012.
>Control
>
of main refrigeration plant and
cold stores.
>Improvements
>
in boiler feed water control,
maximising heat recovery.
>Delta
>
Lean programme rolled out across
site, with daily energy metrics being
developed for each area.
RESULT: 45.5
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Glanbia Ingredients Ltd (Virginia)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
79.0
100
77.7
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continuous
>
monitoring and reporting of
usage and awareness with managers have
resulted in improvements in overall plant
efficiencies.
>Lean
>
manufacture projects focusing on
energy losses.
TARGET: 79.0
80.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Continuous
>
monitoring and reporting of
usage and awareness with managers have
resulted in improvements in overall plant
efficiencies.
>Gradual
>
improvement in energy reduction
measures has resulted in improved energy
consumption per unit ratio.
RESULT: 80.3
2013
Baseline year: 1995
GlaxoSmithKline Ltd (Cork)
63
200
150
50
0 ’95
’12
Baseline reset: 2009
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
2012
56.4
100
99.2
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Performance
>
Management System will be
used to maximise savings from plant when
not required for production.
>Steam
>
and nitrogen dashboards will
be introduced to identify issues with
generation and distribution systems.
>Contract
>
for supply and installation of wind
turbine will begin.
>Work
>
will start on site strategy for achieving
energy carbon-neutral status.
TARGET: 56.4
96.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Good
>
progress made on energy reduction
in 2012: 7.6% reduction on 2011.
>Site
>
achieved ISO 50001 certification
during year.
>Planning
>
permission obtained for 3MW
wind turbine.
>SEAI
>
BEW funding to three projects:
air compressor with heat recovery,
air pre‑heater on incinerator, and improved
steam metering.
RESULT: 96.8
2013
Prior data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
GlaxoSmithKline Ltd (Dungarvan)
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Aggressive
>
targets of 8 ACPH being
investigated for implementation in ISO
Class 8 manufacturing.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
150
100
51.8
50
0 ’95
’12
30.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
No influencing factors provided.
RESULT: 51.8
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2001
Google Ireland
150
107.5
100
50
37.6
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Increased
>
output due to head count rise
from 2,000 to 2,150.
>Overall
>
site energy reduction set at 4% with
increased output.
>Additional
>
energy reduction of 1% on
baseload during redesign of office space.
TARGET: 107.5
81.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Operating
>
hours increased in line with
higher head count in 2012.
>Achieved
>
ISO 50001 certification across 8
EMEA sites.
>Energy
>
reduction target of 4% for 2012
achieved.
RESULT: 81.7
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2007
Green Isle Foods (Gurteen)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
83.0
100
90.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Implementation
>
of energy efficiency project
at effluent and water treatment plant.
>Ongoing
>
programme to replace obsolete
light fittings will improve energy efficiency.
>Continued
>
energy awareness programme.
TARGET: 83.0
88.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
production in 2012; due to
energy saving projects in previous years,
improved EnPI.
>Installation
>
of diffused aeration system at
effluent treatment plant.
>VSDs
>
installed on main water pumps.
RESULT: 88.0
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Green Isle Foods (Longford)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
105.0
100
95.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>EnPI
>
in 2013 should reduce due to increase
in plant volume.
>Further
>
efficiency improvements on 11.5"
product will also help reduce EnPI for 2013.
TARGET: 105.0
108.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Change
>
in product (10" to 11.5" product)
mix adversely impacted site EnPI.
>Electricity
>
consumption continues to
decrease due to ongoing internal projects.
RESULT: 108.0
2013
Baseline year: 2008
64
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Green Isle Foods (Naas)
150
100
91.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Slight
>
negative impact on 2013 EnPI due to
higher energy intensity on one product line.
>In
> 2013 use of satellite steam generators will
be investigated, to reduce current steam
transmission losses.
>ISO
> 50001 gap analysis completed.
TARGET: 91.0
90.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Drive
>
in 2012 to raise awareness of energy
consumption among all employees.
>Ongoing
>
project to analyse and optimise
usage of CHP plant.
RESULT: 90.8
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Green Isle Foods (Portumna)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
110.0
100
98.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Decreased
>
production volume will
negatively impact site EnPI.
>Management
>
maintaining focus on energy
management and energy reduction
throughout 2013.
TARGET: 110.0
106.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
production volume led to
improvement in site EnPI in 2012.
>Transition
>
in 2012 from heavy fuel oil to LPG
has improved efficiency.
RESULT: 106.4
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Gypsum Industries Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
98.5
100
91.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Further
>
heat recovery and process
modification should contribute to
performance in 2013.
>Similar
>
EnPI expected despite further falls
in production.
TARGET: 98.5
98.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Heat
>
recovery project and good
compressed-air operational controls
improvement have contributed to
performance.
>This
>
is in the face of reduced output due to
reduced building activity.
RESULT: 98.8
2013
Baseline year: 1999
Hewlett-Packard (Manufacturing) Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
112.0
100
77.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Contract
>
manufacturing energy
consumption to increase.
>Non-manufacturing
>
energy consumption
to increase.
TARGET: 112
104.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Focused
>
on energy reduction and control
strategy for production operations.
>Continuation
>
of energy management
focus for both manufacturing and
non‑manufacturing divisions across site.
RESULT: 104.0
2013
Baseline year: 1997
65
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
HJ Heinz Frozen & Chilled Foods Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
63.6
100
63.3
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Maintain
>
top management commitment to
environmental and energy policy.
>Internal
>
energy audits.
>SEUs
>
operation controls.
>Energy
>
metering system – EnMS.
>Energy
>
awareness among employees and
contractors.
TARGET: 63.6
64.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
process efficiency.
>Increased
>
environmental and energy
awareness and training across site.
>ISO
> 50001 standard.
>Internal
>
audits.
>Strong
>
commitment by top management.
RESULT: 64.8
2013
Baseline year: 1997
Honeywell Turbo Technologies
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
31.2
50
36.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Air-leak
>
identification and reduction
programme.
>Installation
>
of metering plan for all energy
sources and SEUs for gas and electricity re.
ISO 50001.
TARGET: 31.2
39.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Accredited
>
to ISO 50001; identification
of SEUs.
>Voltage
>
optimising on one transformer.
RESULT: 39.4
2013
Baseline year: 1997
IBM
200
150
100
35.1
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
38.2
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Increase
>
in electricity consumption
expected due to business expansion.
>Continuous
>
efforts in energy conservation
activities to meet corporate annual
challenge.
TARGET: 38.2
38.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Influencing
>
factors include increase in
energy consumption driven by business
expansion requirements.
>Efficiency
>
drivers include process control
changes plus equipment upgrade plans.
RESULT: 35.1
2013
Baseline year: 1999
Intel Ireland Ltd
66
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
67.0
100
48.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Facilities
>
commissioning of Fab 14 in
preparation for production is largest
influence on EnPI.
>Implementation
>
of chilled water heat
recovery in Fab 14, to displace incoming
natural gas for boilers.
>Continuation
>
of cross-site intelligent
lighting installation.
>HVAC
>
humidification system upgrade to
reduce requirement for compressed air.
TARGET: 67.0
52.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Continuation
>
of facilities upgrade in
Fab 10/14.
>Implementation
>
of cross-site intelligent
controlled lighting in office, plant
rooms and data centres has had large
positive impact.
>Chilled
>
water plant control upgrades target
one of the SEUs.
RESULT: 52.6
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Interxion Ireland Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
100.0
100
92.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Constant
>
monitoring and auditing of
mechanical and electrical infrastructure to
match performance with demand.
>As
> customer load grows further in
contracted space, overall efficiency and
design PUE will be achieved.
>Where
>
possible in older data centre,
retrofit projects are deployed to improve
efficiency, incl. lighting refits and Air Con
replacement projects.
TARGET: 100.0
112.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>As
> customer load grows in contracted
space, overall efficiency improves.
>Retrofitting
>
of more efficient HVAC and
lighting equipment in older data centre also
results in improved efficiency.
>Continued
>
fine-tuning of supply and
demand within infrastructure.
RESULT: 112.6
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Irish Pride (Ballinrobe)
150
100
116.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Reduced
>
production due to decreased
demand.
>Increased
>
gas usage due to colder outside
temperatures.
TARGET: 116.0
103.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Installed
>
new burner tubes in ovens, which
increased efficiency of heat distribution.
>Dispatch
>
boiler fuel changed from oil to gas.
>Replaced
>
28 x 58w fluorescents with 20w
LEDs; a number of sensors installed.
RESULT: 103.3
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Irish Pride (Taghmon)
150
100
95.6
50
0.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Separating
>
lighting circuits for better
control.
>Reduction
>
of cooler fan loads.
>Investigating
>
installation of additional
meters and M&T system.
TARGET: 95.6
98.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Power
>
perfector installed in early 2012.
>Production
>
up compared to 2011.
RESULT: 98.5
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
25.0
50
40.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Plant
>
output projected to increase again
in 2013.
>Centralisation
>
of key utilities such as
CHW system will enable reduced energy
consumption.
TARGET: 25.0
38.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Plant
>
output increased (including weekend
production), which allowed increased
energy consumption to be attributed to
increased volumes.
>1MW
>
CHP plant installed, which has
increased gas consumption but will reduce
energy costs.
RESULT: 38.5
2013
Baseline year: 1996
67
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Kepak
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
97.5
100
99.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Installation
>
of new natural gas boiler.
>Tallow
>
tank insulation.
>Fat
> plant heat recovery.
TARGET: 97.5
98.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>New
>
natural gas boiler with economiser
commissioned in November.
>Hot
>
storage tanks insulated.
RESULT: 98.1
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Kerry Foods Ltd (Shillelagh)
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET: 78.3
150
0 ’95
’12
2012
78.3
50
100.0
100
91.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Refrigeration
>
cost increases due to
implementation of 7-day work cycle.
>Heavy
>
fuel oil usage increase due to
implementation of 7-day work cycle.
RESULT: 91.4
2013
Baseline year: 2006
Kerry Ingredients & Flavours (Listowel)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
85.0
100
84.9
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Efficiency
>
upgrades undertaken in 2012 will
feed into improved energy performance
in 2013.
>Increased
>
focus on energy metrics being
used to drive efficiency.
TARGET: 85.0
86.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>2012
>
challenging from milk processing
perspective as season was more condensed
than usual, but energy efficiency projects
completed in previous years helped
to offset any major impacts on energy
consumption.
>Maintaining
>
ISO 50001 is keEnPIng focus
on continuous improvement in energy
efficiency.
RESULT: 86.0
2013
Baseline year: 2004
Kostal Ireland GmbH
68
150
50
0 ’95
’12
Baseline reset: 2010
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
2012
107.6
100
95.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continued
>
activities in all departments to
minimise energy usage.
>Proposed
>
upgrade works to replace
AHUs with more energy-efficient type,
incl. better air diffusion and air quality in
production areas.
>Consider
>
installation of more energyefficient lighting for production areas, which
will also improve lux levels.
TARGET: 107.6
108.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Power-down
>
procedures for production
equipment, with monthly audits.
>Improved
>
housekeEnPIng to ensure
effective use of HEVAC systems.
>Ongoing
>
compressed-air leakage
audits incorporated into manufacturing
PM system.
>Energy-efficient
>
lighting installed in
mezzanine storage area.
RESULT: 108.4
2013
Prior data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Kraft Foods Ireland Ltd (Dublin)
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
No influencing factors provided.
RESULT: 90.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
No influencing factors provided.
TARGET: 102.0
150
0 ’95
’12
2012
102.0
50
86.0
90.0
100
2013
Baseline year: 1997
Kraft Foods Ireland Ltd (Kerry)
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
86.3
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Implementation
>
of energy saving
opportunities will reduce energy
consumption and cut CO2 emissions.
>Ongoing
>
high-level management
commitment to energy reduction.
>Reduced
>
production volumes will make it
difficult to achieve energy targets.
TARGET: 86.3
86.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
production volumes had positive
influence on energy targets in 2012.
>Ongoing
>
savings realised from recent
upgrade projects.
RESULT: 86.3
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1997
Kraft Foods Ireland Production Ltd (Tallaght)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
75.0
100
74.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Drive
>
to reduce baseloads using
CI/LSS tools.
>Drive
>
to reduce loads with demand-based
instead of time-based scheduling.
TARGET: 75.0
75.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Completion
>
of low-cost Lean Six Sigma
(LSS) project in CW distribution system is
helping deliver improvements across loads
and COP.
>As
> part of Continuous Improvement (CI)/
LSS, internal Energy Team being relaunched
with new members.
RESULT: 75.4
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Lakeland Dairies (Bailieboro)
69
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
70.0
100
65.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Improvement
>
in EnPI expected, through
continual improvement in process
technology and systems.
>Cleaning
>
systems and process control
will conserve resources and reduce plant
downtime.
>Scope
>
of management information systems
will support setting targets and monitoring
consumption.
TARGET: 70.0
69.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Some
>
milk powders produced in 2012
had slower drying rates that negatively
affected EnPI.
>New
>
tertiary treatment filtration including
UF and RO operated throughout 2012,
negatively affecting EnPI.
RESULT: 69.2
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Largo Foods Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
101.0
100
104.8
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>CHP
>
plant installation in 2013.
>VSD
>
and dynamic control.
>Continued
>
improvement through
ISO 50001.
TARGET: 101.0
103.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>ISO
> 50001 system in place.
>Energy-efficient
>
lighting installation towards
end 2012.
>Lean
>
Six Sigma projects on kettle line gas.
RESULT: 103.3
2013
Baseline year: 2009
LEO Pharma
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
105.0
100
112.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>With
>
several energy efficiency initiatives
plus running CHP for full 12 months, good
reduction in EnPI in 2013 expected.
>Very
>
full programme of energy projects
running this year; benefits noted where
these were completed.
TARGET: 105.0
113.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Following
>
introduction of CHP in April 2012,
EnPI reduced; further reduction expected in
2013 with whole-year running, along with
other ongoing energy-reducing projects.
RESULT: 113.0
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Liffey Meats Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
90.0
100
98.7
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Projects
>
below, implemented in 2012
with SEAI support through Better Energy
Workplace grant. Savings will be realised
in 2013, and verified by new M&T system
installed in 2012.
>Diffuse
>
aeration in effluent treatment
plant, VSD installed on LT refrigeration
compressor, heat recovery on compressed
air and refrigeration, upgrade of fat plant
control and equipment.
TARGET: 90
111.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Reduction
>
in number of cattle killed in 2012
had adverse affect on EnPI.
>Several
>
energy saving projects completed
towards end 2012; improvements will not
be evident until 2013.
RESULT: 111.2
2013
Baseline year: 2009
Lisheen Mine
70
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
90.0
100
78.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Strong
>
efforts to maintain energy savings
achieved in previous years, through
continuous monitoring and implementing
more controls on main users: conveying,
fixed underground pumping and
ventilation.
>Continued
>
upgrading of control of auxiliary
pumps and fans. Improved process
control and installation of VFDs have led to
improved efficiency in process plant.
TARGET: 90.0
85.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Strong
>
efforts to maintain energy savings
achieved in previous years, through
continuous monitoring and implementing
more controls on main users: conveying,
fixed underground pumping and
ventilation.
>Continued
>
upgrading of control of auxiliary
pumps and fans. Improved process
control and installation of VFDs have led to
improved efficiency in process plant.
RESULT: 85.9
2013
Baseline year: 2000
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Masonite Ireland
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
85.0
100
60.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continued
>
use of Lean Six Sigma tools
to improve overall efficiency of process;
modest improvement in overall plant
efficiency expected in 2013, and thus
improved EnPI.
>Options
>
being examined to reduce energy
consumption of heat energy plant during
periods when plant is not in production.
TARGET: 85.0
88.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Building
>
products market going through
difficult time internationally; this has
affected plant output, with operation of
plant to match demand and consequent
increase in EnPI.
>Electrical
>
energy side has been stable but
big increase in wood energy EnPI value
as heat energy plant cannot be stopped
on non-manufacturing days as this would
cause unacceptable maintenance problems.
RESULT: 88.2
2013
Baseline year: 2001
Meadow Meats
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
82.0
100
97.4
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
efficiency continues to be
high priority.
>New
>
projects identified through energy
audits being implemented in 2013.
TARGET: 82.0
86.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>KPIs
>
reviewed monthly by site
management team.
>Energy
>
Master Plan (EMP) completed
for 2012.
RESULT: 86.3
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Medite Europe Limited
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Production
>
output.
>New
>
technology.
>Equipment
>
upgrade.
>Improving
>
monitoring system.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
150
100
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Equipment
>
upgrade.
>New
>
technology.
>Energy
>
trend analysis.
RESULT: 100.0
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2012
Merck Millipore Ltd
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>This
>
is the first year reporting in this format
so there is nothing to trend the EnPI against.
Since it is a multi-product site, it is difficult
to select a perfect EnPI.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
150
100
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>EnPI
>
based on feet of filter membrane used
as this is used over multiple products. This
is the first year reporting on the existing
facility and products so there is nothing to
compare against.
RESULT: 100.0
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2012
71
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Micro-Bio Ireland Ltd
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Main
>
DC rectifiers being replaced to
improve capacity and efficiency.
>Anodes
>
and cathodes being re-coated in
2013 (a periodic activity).
TARGET: 67.0
150
100
67.0
50
0 ’95
’12
67.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Quality
>
of the raw material and the cell
efficiency.
>Cell
>
efficiency.
RESULT: 67.0
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Microsoft
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
94.0
100
79.6
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Replacement
>
of chillers.
>Ongoing
>
BMS analysis and maintenance.
>Ongoing
>
sub-meter analysis and feedback.
TARGET: 94.0
96.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Optimisation
>
of HVAC and BMS control
setpoints.
>Optimisation
>
of data and plant room
cooling.
>Replacement
>
of obsolete BMS and upgrade
of VRV control system.
>Sub-meter
>
installations.
>Conversion
>
to ISO 50001.
RESULT: 96.1
2013
Baseline year: 2012
Microsoft Datacentre (Grangecastle)
150
100
131.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>DB5
>
being built and planned to be
operational in Q2 2014. This will increase
power consumption at site.
>Energy
>
efficiency was key part of design of
DB5, which will be 100% free-air-cooled.
>Operating
>
PUE design for DB5 is 1.25.
TARGET: 131.1
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Dublin
>
Data Centre is growing and adding
additional server capacity. DB4 became
operational in Q4 2012; based on 100% free
air cooling and optimised design.
>Dublin
>
Data Centre is at forefront of energy
efficiency, with design PUE of 1.25.
RESULT: 100.0
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Molex Ireland
150
100
120.0
75.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Prolonged
>
cold season.
>New
>
products being developed.
>Under-used
>
equipment due to low
demand.
TARGET: 120.0
136.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Compressors.
>
>Lighting.
>
RESULT: 136.4
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2008
72
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Monaghan Mushrooms Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
95.0
100
87.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continued
>
projected increase in production.
>Completion
>
of phase 2 tunnels in Carbury.
TARGET: 95.0
95.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Start-up
>
costs for additional 8 tunnels
in Carbury.
>Refurbishment
>
of ice plant, Monaghan.
RESULT: 95.8
2013
Baseline year: 2008
MSD Ireland (Brinny)
200
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
72.0
100
124.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Production
>
volumes projected to
decrease in 2013.
>Aggressive
>
energy reduction plan for 2013
will reduce consumption.
TARGET: 72.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Slight
>
increase in electricity and gas
consumption due to increased use of
production buildings and thus increased
production volumes.
>Increase
>
in consumption tempered by
energy performance improvements
achieved by site energy team.
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 1995
MSD Ireland (Carlow)
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
63.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Site
>
Energy Management Policy signed off
by plant manager.
>Site
>
energy management standard
operating procedures being drafted;
implementation by last quarter.
>Cooling
>
tower projects approved and 100%
implemented by year end.
>Chilled
>
water project approved and 66%
implemented by year end.
TARGET: 63.1
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Energy
>
management programme started
mid-2012.
>Preliminary
>
energy audits carried out.
>Large
>
volumes of water losses uncovered
through auditing, management programme
introduced.
>Projects
>
identified on chilled water
generation and distribution and cooling
tower water system.
RESULT: 100.0
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2011
MSD Ireland (Rathdrum)
400
300
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
162.0
200
196.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Electricity
>
and gas usage will increase
slightly in 2013 due to production plan
and newly installed equipment. Higher
production volumes causing EnPI to
improve.
>Liquid
>
nitrogen usage will reduce
dramatically in 2013 due to major
investment project completed in
December 2012.
TARGET: 162.0
167.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Waste-heat
>
recovery equipment performed
well in 2012; helped to reduce natural gas
usage from network.
>Strategic
>
capital project to achieve 80%
reduction in liquid nitrogen usage was
completed in December 2012.
>Collaboration
>
between all 5 MSD Ireland
manufacturing sites stepped up, which will
deliver long-term benefits through sharing
of best practices.
RESULT: 167.6
2013
Baseline year: 1995
73
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
MSD Ireland (Swords)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
75.5
100
84.3
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>EnMS
>
is generating effective capital and
non‑capital projects and initiatives to save
energy and water on a continuous basis in
line with Lean methodologies.
>Aggressive
>
energy reduction targets at
business unit level will be set and tracked
using new M&T system.
>Projects
>
focus will remain largely on grey
utilities with site-wide initiatives to improve
operational and production efficiencies.
TARGET: 75.5
79.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Returned
>
to decreasing energy usage trend
in 2012, coupled with a >30% increase
in production volumes compared with
2011 due to Kaizen-driven efficiency
improvements and better shutdown energy
management.
>Focus
>
primarily on HVAC optimisation
projects and water reduction activities
in 2012.
RESULT: 79.4
2013
Baseline year: 2005
Novartis Ringaskiddy Ltd
200
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
12.0
100
11.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Glycol
>
system will be reviewed and altered
to ensure better control in system.
>High-energy
>
systems will be studied to
see if control can be improved for better
efficiency.
TARGET: 12.0
12.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Gas
>
saving of 12% compared to 2011 due to
improvements to various systems and new
systems installed to generate steam from
alternative sources.
>Electricity
>
consumption increase of 4% in
comparison to 2011.
>Solvent
>
segregation going to liquid vapour
incinerator. High calorific-value solvents are
leading to more heat being recovered for
use on site.
RESULT: 12.3
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Nypro
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
93.5
100
70.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Operational
>
optimisation of compressed
air using EED methodology undertaken
through replication project initiative, which
identified opportunities for improvement.
>Improved
>
operational control for SEUs.
TARGET: 93.5
93.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>EED
>
methodology now integrated
into design of all new production and
process lines.
>Lifecycle
>
cost analysis undertaken for all
new facilities plant and equipment.
RESULT: 93.5
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Organic Lens Manufacturing
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
70.3
100
70.6
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Improved
>
productivity allowing equipment
to run more economically.
>Improve
>
energy awareness and education
among employees.
>Process
>
and facilities improvements to
deliver energy improvements.
TARGET: 70.3
70.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Improvements
>
in process and BMS
management.
>Implementing
>
Lean initiatives.
>Increase
>
in production.
RESULT: 70.6
2013
Baseline year: 2007
74
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
P&G Manufacturing Ireland Ltd (Newbridge)
150
100
69.6
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
67.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Focus
>
on sustainability; corporate targets for
reducing energy output.
>Production
>
ownership for energy
use/output.
TARGET: 67.0
56.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Focus
>
on sustainability; corporate targets for
reducing energy output.
>Production
>
ownership for energy
use/output.
RESULT: 69.6
2013
Baseline year: 2009
P&S Civil Works Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
98.4
100
97.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Weather
>
conditions in early 2013 and
possibility of similar end to year will
affect EnPIs.
>Continuity
>
of sales and sporadic production
will be a factor for 2013 EnPIs.
TARGET: 98.4
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Extreme
>
winter conditions had major affect
on dewatering energy usage.
>Lack
>
of continuity in orders and abnormal
spread of product requirements required
unscheduled production which resulted in
inefficient energy use.
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Pfizer (Newbridge)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
60.0
100
70.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Reduction
>
in air changes in some
production areas and out of hours shut
down in technical spaces.
>Use
>
of free cooling in IT and tech spaces in
one production department.
>Compressed
>
air operational control
introduction and leak management
program.
>Chilled
>
water optimisation program.
TARGET: 60
65.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Amalgamation
>
of all utilities in one Central
Utilities Building (CUB).
>Reuse
>
of CHP low-grade heat into
production building for space heating.
>Introduction
>
of HVAC operational
control tools.
>Installation
>
of VFDs on major HVAC systems.
RESULT: 65.5
2013
Baseline year: 2009
Pfizer Biotechnology (Grange Castle)
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>HVAC
>
maintenance.
>Increased
>
production.
TARGET: 35.2
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
35.2
12.0
50
44.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Reduction
>
in the air change rates of
qualified spaces.
>Increased
>
activity associated with future
capacity expansion.
RESULT: 44.3
2013
Baseline year: 2009
75
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (Little Island)
200
182.0
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
42.9
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Due
>
to the introduction of new process
methods, the EnPI will be adversely affected.
>An
> increase in the proportion of electrical
consumption with respect to gas will also
cause an adverse affect to the EnPI.
TARGET: 182.0
41.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Production
>
at lower level than in 2011,
but much of background services still
required, resulting in higher EnPI value.
>Reduction
>
in both electricity and
gas consumption, however, due to
work undertaken as result of energy
management programme.
RESULT: 41.3
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2000
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (Ringaskiddy)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
133.0
100
92.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>EnPI
>
expected to disimprove in 2013 due
to change in product mix, but to continue
implementing energy saving projects.
>Further
>
optimise HVAC, encompassing
room air-change rate optimisation.
>Concept
>
study being carried out, which will
reduce carbon footprint.
>Continued
>
leveraging with tools of
right‑first‑time and technology and
innovation techniques.
TARGET: 133.0
67.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>During
>
2012, the production activity
increased slightly, resulting in a marginal
improvement in EnPI.
>Increased
>
ownership and accountability,
through EnMS expansion and integrating
energy usage review into daily production
meetings, in each operational area.
RESULT: 67.4
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Phillips 66 Whitegate Refinery Ltd (formerly ConocoPhillips Whitegate Refinery Ltd)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
126.0
100
108.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Reduce
>
spillback on compressors by fitting
modified pistons.
>Re-engineer
>
and install new furnace
damper to reduce O2 giveaway.
>Install
>
new twisted tube bundle exchanger
to increase heat transfer duty.
TARGET: 126.0
113.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Crude/HFO
>
exchangers cleaned to increase
heat transfer and reduce energy costs.
>Improved
>
furnace tuning programme.
RESULT: 113.3
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Queally Group Naas
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
94.6
100
93.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Proposals
>
being drafted to change lighting
in cold stores from 400W to 110W LED type.
>Implementation
>
of ISO 50001 aiding in
identifying sustainable solutions.
>Poorly
>
insulated tanks and cooking
processes will be reinsulated.
>Special
>
investigations being carried out on
refrigeration and steam generating facilities.
TARGET: 94.6
87.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>One
>
of the cooking process facilities was
upgraded and new efficient pots installed.
>Centralised
>
steam generating plant
reconfigured.
>Lean
>
principles implemented on various
cooking processes to remove energy waste.
>Additional
>
sub-metering added to site
energy monitoring system, allowing greater
energy consumption transparency.
RESULT: 87.3
2013
Baseline year: 2009
76
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Quinn Cement Ltd
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Development
>
of alternative fuels
programme to substitute 45% of
fossil‑fuel use.
>Progression
>
on EnMS to ultimately achieve
ISO 50001 accreditation.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
150
100
97.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Another
>
tough year in construction
sector affected efficiency because of high
baseload requirements; so EnPI remained
above base year.
>Current
>
objectives and targets have
timescale of over one year, so little
improvement in 2012 EnPI.
RESULT: 97.9
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline reset: 2008
Recordati
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
85.0
100
59.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Better
>
understanding of energy usage
during unmanned periods through
improved energy monitoring.
>Improve
>
structure and organization of a site
wide Energy team.
TARGET: 85.0
87.3
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Staff
>
highly committed to reporting energy
saving opportunities.
>Production
>
and Quality departments to
work together, challenging established
procedures to implement energy saving
measures.
RESULT: 87.3
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Roadstone Wood Group
200
100
150.0
150
165.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Focus
>
on compressed-air and lighting
requirements, with awareness campaigns.
>Increased
>
emphasis on fuel monitoring in
mobile plant and equipment. Data obtained
will be used for training.
>Ongoing
>
emphasis on verification audits in
line with ISO 50001 requirements.
>Monthly
>
analysis of compressed-air
requirements will continue.
TARGET: 150.0
149.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Volumes
>
down again in 2012, emphasising
need to reduce baseload. Carry-through
electrical charge cost increases are raising
total unit costs.
>Over
>
20 energy reduction projects
implemented in 2012, resulting in reduction
of over 2.2 million kWh.
>All
> factors affecting energy requirements
during times of non-operation were
reviewed.
RESULT: 149.5
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2007
Roche Ireland Ltd
600
200
0 ’95
’12
2012
355.0
400
417.8
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Challenge
>
for 2013 is to maintain energy
consumption at constant level despite
increase in activity of about 8%.
>Energy
>
management programme focused
on operation efficiencies for each unit
operation.
TARGET: 355.0
394.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Gas
>
consumption of incinerator continues
to be a significant driver in energy
consumption.
>Provision
>
of utilities consumes about 65% of
site electrical requirements.
RESULT: 394.7
2013
Baseline year: 1995
77
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Rosderra Meats (Edenderry)
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
93.3
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Implementation
>
of ISO 50001.
>Implementation
>
of air-leak management
system.
TARGET: 93.3
95.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Lighting
>
projects completed to reduce
electrical load.
>Optimisation
>
on refrigeration plant.
RESULT: 95.1
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2011
Rosderra Meats (Roscrea)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
97.0
100
84.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Implementation
>
of ISO 50001.
>Completion
>
of M&T system will help
identify further areas where savings can
be achieved.
TARGET: 97.0
103.5
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increased
>
use of on-site heat
recovery systems.
>Implementation
>
of revised energy reporting
system has helped identify where energy
savings can be achieved.
RESULT: 103.5
2013
Baseline year: 2011
RUSAL Aughinish
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
72.7
100
74.4
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Ongoing
>
heat recovery improvement
programme to reduce energy.
>Installation
>
of new feed water heater
will improve performance and reduce
energy costs.
>New
>
operating configurations when key
equipment is offline will further improve
performance.
>In
> 2012 design work completed for 2 new
gas-fired boilers, vendor order placed.
TARGET: 72.7
73.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Heat
>
recovery upgrade programme in
digestion area continued to improve steam
efficiency. Performance in Q3 was best ever
achieved and is new benchmark.
>Programme
>
to replace obsolete 3.3
kV motors with high-efficiency units
continued. In 2012 two fixed-speed 900 kW
motors installed.
>Calciners
>
converted from fuel oil to gas.
This reduced CO2 emissions.
RESULT: 73.7
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Sanmina-SCI
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
114.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Increased
>
Production Output &
earned hours.
>Additional
>
production lines & shifts in
operation.
>Additonal
>
Cleanroom Installation.
TARGET: 114.0
100.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Energy
>
Awareness for employees and
production areas.
>Encourage
>
energy conservation outside
of production hours (for machines, office
lighting & equipment).
RESULT: 100.0
2013
Baseline year: 2012
78
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Servier (Ireland) Industries Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
58.4
100
62.4
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Increase
>
in production.
>Increase
>
in use of third cycle shift.
TARGET: 58.4
63.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Production
>
activity – volume and mix
increased. Additional third shift. These
would offset savings.
>HDDs.
>
>Two
>
additional production rooms
commissioned (8kW extra fan power +
heating and cooling requirements).
RESULT: 63.6
2013
Baseline year: 2009
Silver Hill Foods
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
83.0
100
69.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Training
>
and maintaining awareness with
all employees.
>CIP
> in place to highlight areas for focus, to
become more efficient or make savings.
TARGET: 83.0
85.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Continuous
>
improvement programme
(CIP) identified key areas for energy
efficiency projects.
>Ongoing
>
energy monitoring and reporting
to senior management maintains focus
on energy reduction and awareness
throughout company.
>Annual
>
energy training with all employees
maintains awareness.
RESULT: 85.7
2013
Baseline year: 2007
Taconic
400
300
200
48.7
100
0.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Due
>
to changes in process 2 SEUs –
thermal oxidiser and coating machine
– are no longer operating, resulting in
energy savings.
>LPG
>
replaced by natural gas, resulting
in improved energy performance and
cost savings.
>More
>
efficient operation of premises.
TARGET: 48.7
52.6
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Energy
>
savings and increased operational
efficiencies.
>Financial
>
savings.
>Better
>
overall management of facility.
RESULT: 52.6
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 2010
Takeda Ireland Ltd (Bray)
200
150
157.3
100
85.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Air
> handling units.
>Boilers.
>
>Lighting.
>
TARGET: 157.3
185.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Chillers.
>
>Boilers.
>
>Air
> handling units.
>Compressors.
>
>Process
>
equipment/lighting.
RESULT: 185.8
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
2013
Baseline year: 1999
79
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Takeda Ireland Ltd (Grange Castle)
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
3.0
50
30.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Change
>
from single-shift plant to 2-shift
plant, with increased product output.
>Production
>
output has increased almost
five-fold from 2011 to 2012; plans to
increase almost four-fold from 2012 to 2013.
>More
>
structured EnMS implemented,
resulting in reduction in energy consumed
by some SEUs.
TARGET: 3.0
8.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increase
>
in production output in 2012.
>Site
>
has transitioned from R&D Facility to
bulk manufacturing facility.
RESULT: 8.0
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Tech Group Europe Ltd (Dublin)
150
100
50
0 ’95
’12
Baseline reset: 2010
75.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Working
>
to improve chilling efficiency.
>Continue
>
energy savings through Lean Six
Sigma programmes.
>Add
>
further heat recovery from
compressors.
TARGET NOT SPECIFIED
96.4
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Work
>
on air handling and removal of
cooling tower as part of 2012 drive.
>Continued
>
investment in energy-efficient
injection moulding machines and
equipment.
RESULT: 96.4
2012
2013
Prior data
Temmler Ireland Ltd
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Electrical
>
baseload reduction.
>Boiler
>
Banking.
RESULT: 42.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Installation
>
of a Biomass Boiler will have a
positive effect on our EnPI.
>Sequencing
>
of Major Electrical loads will
also improve energy efficiency.
TARGET: 45.9
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
45.9
31.4
42.5
50
2013
Baseline year: 1996
Tesco Ireland Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
58.0
100
58.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Continued
>
focus on reducing energy
consumption to meet carbon reduction
target of 50% by 2020, using 2006 baseline.
>Innovative
>
projects will be rolled out in
2013, focusing on smarter fridge and
lighting control systems and using LED
lighting systems.
TARGET: 58.0
60.7
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>On
> track to reduce energy consumption to
meet carbon reduction target of 50% by
2020, using 2006 baseline.
>This
>
is being achieved by focusing on
retrofitting estate with low-energy
technologies, driving good energy
housekeEnPIng and optimising energy
performance of stores.
RESULT: 60.7
2013
Baseline year: 2007
80
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Thermo King Europe
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Other
>
savings will be generated from action
plans throughout site.
TARGET: 38.1
150
100
0 ’95
’12
2012
38.1
38.4
50
37.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>In
> 2012, site gained ISO 50001 accreditation
– first site in Ingersoll Rand Climate
Solutions to do so. Site also reduced
absolute energy consumption by 5%
compared to 2011.
>New
>
clear roof lights installed over factory
floor in 2012, resulting in more natural light
and increased thermal performance.
>In
> 2013, site will begin to use new pretreatment and painting process.
RESULT: 37.9
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Transitions Optical Ltd
150
100
76.8
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
82.7
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Expected
>
reduction in number of lenses
manufactured will negatively affect overall
energy efficiency.
TARGET: 82.7
74.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Focus
>
on industrial ovens. Reducing exhaust
rates from plant-wide ovens.
>Reduction
>
of process water in plant.
Extensive recycling of RO and DI water.
RESULT: 76.8
2013
Baseline year: 1998
UCB Pharma Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
50.0
100
49.5
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Key
>
energy reduction projects
implemented, resulting in kWh
consumption saving. Existing production
plant was started up, which resulted in
energy increases.
>Overall
>
plan is to continue driving energy
cost-saving projects while implementing
new products.
TARGET: 50.0
58.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Central
>
Energy Reporting – standard reports
being obtained from Plant SCADA.
>Continue
>
to implement energy saving
initiatives as identified in Resource
Management Plan.
>Use
>
skeleton lighting both internally and
externally during periods of little to no
personal occupancy of bespoke buildings
and areas.
RESULT: 58.2
2013
Baseline year: 2009
United Fish Industries Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
96.0
100
100.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>No
> improvement expected in 2013, but as
plant is being reconfigured from 2014, step
change from 2015 is expected.
TARGET: 96.0
96.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Large
>
boilers were being lit just for heating
oil during summer when there is little
production, taking over 4 hours to warm
up, so steam generator was installed for low
steam demand days.
>Factory
>
is fed with high-pressure water
from booster system which had not been
analysed from energy perspective for
some time. VSDs fitted to vary speed while
maintaining set pressure.
RESULT: 96.2
2013
Baseline year: 2008
81
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Vistakon Ireland
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
59.0
100
72.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Energy
>
projects cancelled due to
production constraints. Some energy
projects progressed well this year – and are
planned for completion in Q4 2012.
>New
>
production lines installed; expected
increase in electricity and gas import
in 2013.
TARGET: 59.0
73.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Increase
>
in production put pressure on
electricity and gas usage.
>Number
>
of lenses produced as part of
product development which are not
included in EnPI but required energy to
manufacture.
RESULT: 73.9
2013
Baseline year: 2005
Vodafone
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
103.3
100
105.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Plan
>
to roll out LED lighting to all retail
shops by end March 2014.
>Target
>
energy reduction for 2013 is 10%.
TARGET: 103.3
114.8
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>LED
>
lighting installed in 10 shops in 2012 as
part of shop redesign.
>Measured
>
savings from this initiative show
12% reduction.
RESULT: 114.8
2013
Baseline year: 2008
Wellman International Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
88.7
100
88.4
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Plan
>
to replace a number of process water
pumps throughout factory with more
efficient ones.
>Detailed
>
CHP study will be completed in
2013 to assess potential for this technology
to be used on site.
TARGET: 88.7
89.1
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Old
> mercury vapour and fluorescent lights
replaced in 10 areas with induction lighting
to increase efficiency; occupancy controls
installed to switch off lights when areas
not in use.
>Air
> meters installed on 6 Denseveyor
material transporting vessels. Adjustments
made to optimise performance. Energy
saving of 5%, giving payback of 1.5 years on
investment.
RESULT: 89.1
2013
Baseline year: 1995
Western Proteins
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
87.6
100
87.0
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Investment
>
in R&D has led to identification
of heat recovery potential capable of
powering thermal needs in abattoir
together with new methods of using
organics in waste water. Plan to develop this
potential.
TARGET: 87.6
88.0
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Site
>
continues to develop and investigate
new ways of reducing energy. Energy
is part of site KPIs and is monitored and
reported weekly. Strong focus on energy
and continued R&D to find new ways to
retain competitiveness in challenging
environment.
>Corrective
>
actions being followed through
from energy audit carried out during period.
RESULT: 88.0
2013
Baseline year: 2000
82
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
Section Four – Results and Targets
Wyeth Nutritionals Ireland (formerly Pfizer Nutrionals Ireland)
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
98.5
100
97.1
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>Lower
>
volumes in 2013 will again have
negative impact on site EnPI.
>Improved
>
operational control of HVAC
systems will lead to improved energy
efficiency.
>Many
>
ISO 50001 principles applied to
energy management practices in 2013.
TARGET: 98.5
99.9
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>Output
>
volumes reduced, which had
negative impact on site EnPI.
>Control
>
modifications carried out on
refrigeration system in 2012 to increase
efficiency and measure COSP.
RESULT: 99.9
2013
Baseline year: 2007
Xerox (Europe) Ltd
150
50
0 ’95
’12
2012
38.0
100
57.9
Factors Influencing 2013 Target:
>New-product
>
energy efficiency.
>Development
>
of raw material
specification to specifically address energy
efficiency impact.
>Changing
>
product mix.
TARGET: 38.0
54.2
Factors Influencing 2012 Results:
>New-product
>
energy efficiency
improvement.
>Investigation
>
of impact of raw material
variability on energy efficiency.
RESULT: 54.2
2013
Baseline year: 2005
Non responding members list
Covidien (Mulhuddart)
Johnston Mooney and O'Brien
Abbott Vascular Devices Ireland Ltd
Cuisine de France Ltd
Kerry Ingredients & Flavours (Charleville)
Analog Devices BV
Dawn Meats Ltd (Ballyhaunis)
MSD Ireland (Ballydine)
Bausch & Lomb Ireland Ltd
Diageo Ireland (Dundalk)
Musgraves
Britvic Ireland
Dunnes Stores
Nutricia Ireland Ltd
Cara Partners
Element Six Ltd
Premier Periclase Ltd
Celtic Linen
Glanbia Consumer Foods Ltd (Inch)
Sonoco Plastics (APT Ireland)
Cognis Ireland Ltd
Helsinn Birex Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Tegral Building Products
College Proteins Group
Irish Cement Ltd
Teva Pharmaceuticals Ireland
83
Actual
EnPI
Period of
missing data
Actual
EnPI
Target
EnPI
5
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
ABOUT
SEAI
The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland,
was set up by the Government in 2002 as
Ireland's national energy agency to play a
leading role in transforming Ireland into
a society based on sustainable energy
structures, technologies and practices.
84
Section Five – About SEAI
Our Mission
To play a leading role in transforming Ireland into a society based on
sustainable energy structures, technologies and practices.
Our Key Strategic Objective
Energy efficiency first
Implementing strong energy efficiency actions that radically reduce
energy intensity and usage.
Low carbon energy sources
Accelerating the development and adoption of technologies to exploit
renewable energy sources.
Innovation and integration
Supporting evidence-based responses that engage all actors,
supporting innovation and enterprise for our low-carbon future.
Our Roles
> Supporting Government decision-making through
advocacy, analysis and evidence
> Driving demand reduction and providing advice
to all users of energy
> Driving the decarbonisation of energy supply
> Raising the standards in sustainable energy
products and services
> Building markets based on quality, confidence
and proven performance
> Fostering innovation and entrepreneurship
> Improving the coherence of Irish energy
research and development
SEAI Funding
SEAI is financed by Ireland’s EU Structural Funds Programme
co-funded by the Irish Government and the European Union.
85
SEAI – Large Industry Energy Network – Annual Report 2012
Members List
Covidien (Mulhuddart)
Abbott Ireland Diagnostics Division
Creganna
Abbott Ireland Ltd (Cootehill)
Cuisine de France Ltd
Abbott Ireland Ltd (Longford)
Dairygold Co-op Society
Abbott Vascular Devices Ireland Ltd
Danone, Macroom
AbbVie Ireland
Dawn Meats (Grannagh)
Allergan Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Dawn Meats Ltd (Ballyhaunis)
Amgen Technology (Ireland)
Depuy (Ireland) Ltd
Analog Devices BV
Diageo Bailey's Global Supply
Arigna Fuels
Diageo Ireland (Dundalk)
Arkil Ltd
Diageo Ireland (Kilkenny)
Arvato Digital Services Ireland
Diageo Ireland (St James's Gate)
Astellas Ireland Co Ltd (Dublin)
Diageo Ireland (Waterford)
Astellas Ireland Co Ltd (Kerry)
Donegal Meat Processors
Aviva Stadium
Dunnes Stores
Bank of Ireland
eBay-PayPal
Bausch & Lomb Ireland Ltd
Edenderry Power Ltd
Baxter Healthcare SA
Eircom
BD Medical
Elan Pharma
Becton Dickinson & Company Ltd
Electrical and Pump Services Ltd
Boliden Tara Mines Ltd
Element Six Ltd
Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd (Clonmel)
Eli Lilly SA
Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd (Cork)
EMC Information Systems International
Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd (Galway)
Fournier Laboratories Ireland Ltd
Bristol-Myers Squibb (Cruiserath)
GE Healthcare Ireland
Bristol-Myers Squibb (Swords)
Genzyme Ireland Ltd
Britvic Ireland
Glanbia Ballitore
BT
Glanbia Consumer Foods Ltd (Inch)
Bulmers Ltd
Glanbia Drogheda
Cara Partners
Glanbia Ingredients Ltd (Ballyragget)
Carbery Milk Products Ltd
Glanbia Ingredients Ltd (Virginia)
Celtic Linen
GlaxoSmithKline Ltd (Cork)
CG Power Systems
GlaxoSmithKline Ltd (Dungarvan)
Charleville Foods
Glen Dimplex
CITADEL100 Datacentres Ltd
Google Ireland
Citi
Green Isle Foods (Gurteen)
Cognis Ireland Ltd
Green Isle Foods (Longford)
College Proteins Group
Green Isle Foods (Naas)
Connacht Gold Ltd (Shannonside)
Green Isle Foods (Portumna)
Connolly's Red Mills
Gypsum Industries Ltd
Covidien (Athlone)
Helsinn Birex Pharmaceuticals Ltd
86
Hewlett-Packard (Manufacturing) Ltd
Nypro
HJ Heinz Frozen & Chilled Foods Ltd
Honeywell Turbo Technologies
Organic Lens Manufacturing
IBM
P&G Manufacturing Ireland Ltd (Newbridge)
P&S Civil Works Ltd
Intel Ireland Ltd
Pfizer (Newbridge)
Interxion Ireland Ltd
Pfizer Biotechnology (Grange Castle)
Irish Cement Ltd
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (Little Island)
Irish Pride (Ballinrobe)
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (Ringaskiddy)
Irish Pride (Taghmon)
Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd
Johnston Mooney and O'Brien
Kepak
Kerry Foods Ltd (Shillelagh)
Kerry Ingredients & Flavours (Charleville)
Kerry Ingredients & Flavours (Listowel)
Kostal Ireland GmbH
Kraft Foods Ireland Ltd (Dublin)
Kraft Foods Ireland Ltd (Kerry)
Kraft Foods Ireland Production Ltd (Tallaght)
Lakeland Dairies (Bailieboro)
Largo Foods Ltd
Phillips 66 Whitegate Refinery Ltd
Premier Periclase Ltd
Queally Group Naas
Quinn Cement Ltd
Recordati
Roadstone Wood Group
Roche Ireland Ltd
Rosderra Meats (Edenderry)
Rosderra Meats (Roscrea)
RUSAL Aughinish
Sanmina-SCI
Servier (Ireland) Industries Ltd
Silver Hill Foods
LEO Pharma
Sonoco Plastics (APT Ireland)
Liffey Meats Ltd
Taconic
Lisheen Mine
Takeda Ireland Ltd (Bray)
Masonite Ireland
Takeda Ireland Ltd (Grange Castle)
Meadow Meats
Tech Group Europe Ltd (Dublin)
Medite Europe Limited
Tegral Building Products
Merck Millipore Ltd
Temmler Ireland Ltd
Micro-Bio Ireland Ltd
Tesco Ireland Ltd
Microsoft
Microsoft Datacentre (Grangecastle)
Molex Ireland
Monaghan Mushrooms Ltd
MSD Ireland (Ballydine)
Teva Pharmaceuticals Ireland
Thermo King Europe
Transitions Optical Ltd
UCB Pharma Ltd
United Fish Industries Ltd
MSD Ireland (Brinny)
Vistakon Ireland
MSD Ireland (Carlow)
Vodafone
MSD Ireland (Rathdrum)
Wellman International Ltd
MSD Ireland (Swords)
Western Proteins
Musgraves
Wyeth Nutritionals Ireland
Novartis Ringaskiddy Ltd
Xerox (Europe) Ltd
Nutricia Ireland Ltd
87
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland
Wilton Park House, Wilton Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
T. +353 1 8082100
F. +353 1 8082002
[email protected]
www.seai.ie
The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland
is partly financed by Ireland’s EU Structural
Funds Programme co-funded by the Irish
Government and the European Union.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement