competitive solicitation—usually for a period of 5 years. The most recent awards, issued in September 2011, resulted in the selection of 24 schools. Over the life of the program, more than 50 universities have participated as IACs and they have trained more than 3000 students.
IAC Assessment Process
The assessment begins with the IAC team conducting a survey of the eligible plant, followed by a one or two day site visit in which the team takes engineering measurements as a basis for assessment recommendations. The team then per- forms a detailed analysis for specific recommendations with related estimates of costs, performance and payback times. Within 60 days, a confidential report, detailing the analysis, findings and recommendations of the team is sent to the plant. In six to nine months, the team lead follows up with the plant manager to verify recommendations that have or will be implemented. Overall savings calculations are determined by adding the estimated savings values for each of the imple- mented recommendations.
Assessment Results
Since 2010, the IACs have conducted between 300–400 assessments per year. On average, each manufacturer identi- fied about $140,000 in potential annual energy savings and implemented more than one-third of these within the first year of the assessment. The average payback period for recommen- dations that were implemented following an IAC assessment was 1.2 years. Since 1981, over 16,000 IAC assessments have resulted in nearly $5.9 billion in energy savings and close to 28 million metric tons in CO2 emissions reductions.
IAC/SME Collaboration
Beginning in 2013, the US Department of Energy an- nounced a five-year collaboration between the IACs and SME. The objectives of this collaboration are to enhance the training experience of both IAC and SME students; enhance the conduct of the assessments by incorporating more pro- cess improvement recommendations; and lastly, to increase the implementation rate of energy saving recommendations made by the IACs. Because of their focus on manufacturing processes, SME students are ideally suited to collaborate with facility management to construct a business case for making the necessary investments to implement energy efficiency and process improvements. Additional benefits include:
Students on an IAC assessment confirm Energy Use Read- ings associated with an industrial pumping system.
As the collaboration just completed its first year, the results were limited to a subset of pilot schools. Nonetheless, three IACs (Oregon State, Tennessee Tech, and UMass) have com- pleted a total of 11 joint assessments addressing both energy efficiency and productivity-related improvement opportunities. On average, the value of identified opportunities exceeded $160,000 per assessment. Both SME and the IACs anticipate significantly expanding the scope of this innovative collabora- tion during the coming year. ME
December 2013 |
ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com 79
• Promoting SME and IAC students to develop senior design capstone projects or graduate-level research projects based on follow-up efforts with manufacturers;
• Increasing opportunities for reverse internships (e.g., utility employees and others spend time with the IACs);
• Creating affiliations for the IACs with other professional societies that also work with SME (ASME);
• Encouraging IAC students to join SME; • Encouraging SME student chapter members to look at IAC employment opportunities;
• Creating possible affiliations with Manufacturing Exten- sion Partnership and SME student chapters;
• Providing additional resources to small and medium- sized manufacturers through SME, without additional infrastructure at the Energy Department (e.g., direct links to SME Education Foundation, SME Technical Community Networks, Manufacturing Education and Research, Lean to Green); and
• Expanding the number of industry partners reached by the IAC program.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84