Energy Management Case Studies - Nissan North America Inc.

Energy Management In Manufacturing

Richard Russell, P.E.Sr. Energy EngineerNissan North America

Nissan’s Commitments To Improving Energy Performance

Cost ReductionOn Energy Spend

Nissan Green Program 2016

ENERGY STAR® Certification

Of Plants

DOE Better Plants

Smyrna, TN Decherd, TNCanton, MS

Nissan Americas HeadquartersFranklin, TN

Smyrna, TN

Canton, MS

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

2012201120102009200820072006

2012201120102009

Top 25% Energy Efficiency Certifications

Use the Energy Program Assessment Matrix to evaluate your current practices.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines.assess_energy_management

Energy Management SystemsENERGY STAR® Guidelines For Energy Management Matrix

Energy Management Systems ISO 50001

ISO 50001 Energy Management System Model

Energy Policy

Energy Planning

Implementation & Operation

Checking

Monitoring Measurement

& Analysis

Nonconformities, Corrective &

Preventive Action

Internal Audit Of The EnMS

Management Review

Smyrna, TN Decherd, TNCanton, MS

Smyrna Vehicle Manufacturing PlantConditioned Space Area 5.5 MM SqftProduction Capacity 550,000 Vehicles Per YearEnergy Sources Typical Annual UseElectricity 220,000 MWHNatural Gas 650,000 MCFCoal 12,000 Tons

VehiclesOut

StampingStamping

BodyTruck Paint

Car Paint

Trim

Plastics – Fascia Paint

Rolled Steel

FrameAssy

Modern Vehicle Assembly Plants Are ComplexAssemblages Of Individual Plants

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12

Total Energy

Total Production

Smyrna Manufacturing Plant Monthly Energy Use & Production 2005 To Present

MM

BTU

/Month V

ehic

les/M

onth

Base Line PeriodCY 2008

Baseline Year

Smyrna Manufacturing Plant Regression Model Study Of Energy Consumption

Prod

uctio

n Vo

lum

e (To

tal)

Prod

uct M

ix Ca

r

Prod

uct M

ix Tru

ck

Heat

ing

Degr

ee D

ays

Cool

ing

Degr

ee D

ays

Aver

age

Hum

idity

Aver

age

Tem

pera

ture

Electricity ● ● X X 0.870 0.000 E = 2.93 x (Prod) +127.08 x (CDD) +93617Electricity ● ● ● X X 0.880 0.00056 E = 2.134 (Car) + 3.786 (Truck) + 138.3 (CDD) + 98947

Gas ● ● X X 0.920 0.000 G=2.326 x (Prod) +84.732 x (HDD) -27486Gas ● ● ● X X 0.930 0.00005 G=1.68 x (Car) +3.111 x (Truck)+79.261 x (HDD) -20852Coal ● 0.323 ● 0.689 ● 0.642 ● X X 0.920 0.000 C=-0.188 x (Car) -0.254 x (Truck) +46.091 x (HDD)+19568Coal ● X X 0.910 0.000 C=46.091 x (HDD)+19568

Not Evaluated X

P value <0.2 ● AppliedP value >0.2 ●

ModelsMultiple

Regression F-Test

DataEnergy Source

Parameter Evaluated

Multiple Regression R square

Smyrna Vehicle Plant

CY 2008

Model Testing - Analysis Of Relevant Variables

7.2%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Mar-12

Performance To Commitment To Achive SEP Certification 5% Qualifing ThresholdSmyrna Mfg Plant InScope Electricity Gas & Coal Consumption

Base YearCY 2008 EnPI =0

Silver

Gold

Platinum SEP Silver=>5%

Performance Results

Annual Savings MMBTU – By Source Bottom-Up Analysis

Electric Power 104,867 72,101Natural Gas 52,078 51,139Coal 93,174 5% Threshold 91,052

Total 250,119 173,091 < 214,292

Bottom-Up Sanity Check

Top 5 Projects Bottom-Up Analysis

1 Cascade Air & Dry Line Booth Controls Paint System 2 2 Boiler Flue Gas O2 Management & Insulation Projects3 Compressed Air Management – Stamping Plant4 Motor Speed Reduction – E-coat Circulation Pumps Paint System 15 Improved Start-up & Shutdown Procedures Paint System 1

Top 5 – 82%

5 Things

New Value – Assigning the Paint System 2 E-Coat Ovenas our first Significant Energy Use, led to a better understandingof its operation and the development of new relationshipswith maintenance, engineering and production.

Value - Process Understanding &

RelationshipsE-Coat Oven SEU (Significant Energy Use)

1

Value -Finding Hidden Waste

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Nov-09 May-10 Nov-10 May-11 Nov-11 May-12

Forecast Electricity (MWH)

Actual Electricity (MWH)

EnPI 12 Mo Moving Avg

Smyrna Boiler HousePredicted Vs. Actual Performance -

Electric Power Use Base Period Calendar Yr 2010MWH/MoEnPI

Based on control charts created using the EnPI tool, a re-examination of management practice at our central chiller plant identified cost savings that could be achieved without investment!

This program implemented 11 months ago has delivered a total of $67,000 savings.

2

3 Validation Of Savings

30% Reduction In Energy Intensity 75% Of Conditioned Paint

Booth Air To Be Recycled To Reduce Energy Use

4 Support For Management Commitments

Are We Going To Meet Our Targets?

SEP processes and tools aid in forecasting, documenting and verifying results. Third party verification builds confidence in measured improvements – on the shop floor, the executive suite and the equities market.

5 Design & Procurement

Did We Consider How This Equipment Or New Process Will Impact Our Energy Use, Consumption And Efficiency?

Energy Engineers Are Now Approvers On Shopping Baskets Over $50,000!

Value of Management Systems

• Method For Documenting & Tracking Cost Savings

• Provides Third Party Verification & Rigorous Measurement &Verification

• Public Recognition Of Savings

• Future Monetization Of Operational Improvements