16.06.2013 Views

1. Introduction - Firenze University Press

1. Introduction - Firenze University Press

1. Introduction - Firenze University Press

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

sufficient diversity of the ideas in terms of disciplines and also meant that the less likely ideas could<br />

be filtered out before rating all the ideas.<br />

Given the 7 technical experts, the longest possible list was 49 options. Because some solutions were<br />

selected twice or more, this resulted in a shorter list of 39 ideas. These ideas were rated on a number<br />

of ranking criteria.<br />

The chosen ranking criteria were:<br />

magnitude of the (expected) energy saving<br />

exergy level of the energy saving<br />

a qualitative estimate of the required investment<br />

the influence on the operation of the production process<br />

the extent of modifications needed within the process<br />

the timeframe in which the solution is expected to be technically feasible.<br />

Rating based on the ranking criteria was done by discussing the merits of the solutions within the<br />

entire project team. The scoring possibilities and criteria are given in Table <strong>1.</strong> Note that the<br />

quantitative units need to be different for each study, as these savings are clearly not possible for a<br />

smaller plant.<br />

Table. <strong>1.</strong> Schematic overview of the ranking criteria<br />

Magnitude (expected) energy saving<br />

2MW<br />

Exergy level (expected) energy saving<br />

0 3 6 9<br />

Heat (100°C) Electricity and gas<br />

Required investment (e stimate)<br />

3 6 9<br />

2.000 k€<br />

10 7 4 1<br />

Influence on operation of production process<br />

Positive (more stable) No influence Slightly more complex Loss of robustness<br />

13 10 7 4<br />

Extent of modifications needed within the process<br />

Easy modifications Slight modifications Significant modifications Major modifications<br />

10 7 4 1<br />

Time horizon within which the solution can be implemented<br />

Direct (10 years<br />

10 7 4 1<br />

Each ranking criterion had a weight factor accompanying it. In this way the ranking criteria can be<br />

matched to the company’s strategy. The magnitude of the expected energy saving for example had a<br />

higher weight factor than the timeframe in which the solution is expected to be technically feasible,<br />

i.e. long-term solutions with big energy savings would be rated higher than short-term solutions<br />

with mediocre energy savings. The weight factors varied from 1 to 5. The score for each criterion<br />

was multiplied by the weight factor. All scores were added up to find the best scoring solutions.<br />

Based on available capacity and similarity of solutions, the twelve highest ranking ideas were<br />

elaborated into business case.<br />

291

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!