Pulp Paper & Logistics


FINNING UK 13 ANDRITZ


not only cuts costs, but can also drastically reduce a site’s carbon emissions.


Fuel and cost savings CHP can reduce industrial users’ primary fuel use by up to 30 per cent (ref 6), but exact financial savings depend on various factors. These include the system’s reliability and long- term quality, as well as external pressures such as the cost of natural gas. Of these variables, site size is the most influential – larger plants may require more energy, meaning a bigger CHP system is needed. Yet economies of scale mean that as a CHP plant’s size increases, its capital, installation and operation costs per kW of energy generated all fall (ref 6). Such savings can be substantial.


For example, while most industrial plant owners saw energy costs rise by more than 120 per cent over the past decade, CHP users’ prices rose by less than half this figure (ref 7). Indeed, more than 20 UK paper and pulp production sites have since adopted CHP, which now generates a significant proportion of the energy used in


of more than 80 per cent – in comparison, coal and gas-fired plants struggle to exceed 40 per cent (ref 5). This pronounced increase in efficiency massively reduces overall energy costs. Due to the power-hungry


nature of the pulp and paper industry, these reductions often hugely impact the manufacturer’s bottom line. Furthermore, paper mills are uniquely placed to take advantage of CHP systems, as any biomass produced as waste during the pulping process can be used to fuel the system. This


September/October 2017


the sector (ref 8). It is highly recommended that those considering installing a CHP system on-site should carry out an energy audit beforehand. Many large companies, such as Finning, employ experts who can carry out this service, identifying what options are available and how much you could save.


Prioritising quality When specifying a CHP system, reliability and quality are vital and must be prioritised. Though CHP systems are eligible for some government subsidies, payments and tax relief, this is only possible if the system is certified as ‘Good Quality.’ In order to meet this standard,


the system must be able to deliver significant savings compared to conventional energy generation, and have an electrical efficiency that exceeds 20 per cent.


Long-term thinking Even with the help offered by these incentives, it cannot be denied that a new CHP system is a substantial investment. The majority of paper mills will be looking at up-front costs of


Nigel Thompson


several hundred thousands of pounds, with seven-figure sums quoted for larger sites and more advanced technology. When faced with these costs, it is tempting and understandable to look for ways to limit up-front spending by buying a cheaper, but often less efficient and reliable, system. However, while this short-term thinking may lessen the impact on this year’s budget sheet, the system’s long-term total cost of ownership needs to be taken into account. Assuming a standard 20-year lifespan for a system, maintenance costs will eventually dwarf any up-front spend and can cost a business a significant 4


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