WP6-Brochure-E4 brochure - ELA European Lift Association.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly Lack of capital when choosing equipment 0 5 10 15 20 Lack of capital when choosing equipment /components (retrofit) don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly 0 5 10 15 20 Budgeting laws hinder choice of efficient technology /public investors don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly 0 5 10 15 20 don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly Changing energy prices affect economic rentability 0 5 10 15 20 Competition against safety and comfort don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly 0 5 10 15 20 Technology vulnerable to disruption of operation don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly 0 5 10 15 20 don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly Increasing need for repair and maintenance 0 5 10 15 20 Training requirements technical personnel don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly 0 5 10 15 20 Broken promises regarding savings potentials don't know mostly sometimes never /hardly 0 5 10 15 20 Figure 7‐2. Overview of ratings of barriers to energy efficiency for lifts and escalators. Highest ratings are marked in red, lowest in green. The graphs show the frequencies of item ratings. Respondents were asked to assess whether a barrier from our list is true 1) never or only in very few cases, 2) in some cases 3) in most cases. An additional category is introduced which corresponds to the number of respondents who did 96
not rate an item. Reasons for non‐rating were various, e.g. respondents stating they did not have any knowledge on a certain topic or not providing clear answers. The barriers that were rated to be most relevant are coloured red, those least important, green. These highlights provide a homogeneous picture: barriers to energy efficiency – from the point of view of the experts surveyed – are mainly due to lack of information and transparency regarding energy consumption of equipment (cf. operators not monitoring energy costs, decision‐makers not aware of energy consumption) and split incentive issues in relation to bounded rationality (cf. energy costs not paid by decision‐maker, investment more important than life‐cycle costs, components would be more efficient if operators had more transparency). Risks and uncertainties play a minor role, as shown by the green highlights, while capital issues received middle‐range ratings. However, the items on lack of capital in new installations and retrofit were also those which are based on the lowest number of ratings, i.e. nine and ten respondents respectively did not provide a rating. Information and transaction costs In general, ratings indicate that, in the experience of the experts interviewed, it is not common that operators of lifts or escalators regularly monitor the energy consumption of their equipment. In most cases, no technical appliances are installed that would enable regular monitoring; thus the energy consumption of lifts and escalators cannot be separated from other equipment, e.g. lighting, automatic doors. This is seen as related to the fact that individuals choosing equipment as well as operators and users are not aware of the energy consumption of the equipment. Due to a low degree of awareness, no measurement devices are installed – and due to missing data, individuals do not become aware of potentials to increase the energy efficiency of their installations. Information on energy‐efficient technology is, however, not regarded as especially difficult to obtain. Main sources of information that were identified by the respondents are, however, the manufacturers and their sales representatives. Thus neutral sources of information are missing or insufficiently known. 5 The experts emphasised that the knowledge provided by sales representatives is usually restricted to the technology used by their company and that energyefficient technology is sometimes too new to be fully understood, even by company representatives. Additionally, clients are seen as usually having little knowledge themselves, and thus do not inquire about relevant data. Split incentives and bounded rationality Split incentives between general contractors, owners of installations as well as those paying for the energy consumption of installations are also seen as a barrier hindering energy efficiency for lifts and escalators. The costs of energy consumption are usually paid by inhabitants – in the residential sector – who are not necessarily the owner of the building. Additionally, buildings including a lift or escalator are often erected by a general contractor for 5 For example, in Germany, neutral information may be obtained from notified bodies. 97
Page 1 and 2:
E4 ENERGY EFFICIENT ELEVATORS AND E
Page 3 and 4:
Contents 1 Introduction ...........
Page 5 and 6:
1 Introduction Means of vertical tr
Page 7 and 8:
2 Lift and Escalator Technologies T
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 2‐3. Configuration of Gear
Page 11 and 12:
Some manufacturers have gone even f
Page 13 and 14:
• Conventional hydraulic units do
Page 15 and 16:
[2] Sachs, H., “Opportunities for
Page 17 and 18:
High efficiency motors are typicall
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3‐3. Effect of load on pow
Page 21 and 22:
If the linear motor is mounted on t
Page 23 and 24:
3 Phase AC input 50 Hz AC/DC Conver
Page 25 and 26:
preventing the car from falling. Ty
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 3‐14. Regenerative operati
Page 29 and 30:
occupied by lift support systems. A
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 3‐19. Possible configurati
Page 33 and 34:
After the introduction of relay log
Page 35 and 36:
It is evident that the way lifts ar
Page 37 and 38:
When combined with hall call contro
Page 39 and 40:
of the torque of the 1:1 roping sch
Page 41 and 42:
times as quickly as a 720 mm sheave
Page 43 and 44:
LEDs are also a very efficient solu
Page 45 and 46: • Car electronics • Light curta
Page 47 and 48: The major cause of energy consumpti
Page 49 and 50: 3.9 Efficient Escalators and Moving
Page 51 and 52: These bearings feature optimised in
Page 53 and 54: 4 Market Characterisation As part o
Page 55 and 56: Figure 4‐2. Lift Distribution acc
Page 57 and 58: The next three figures show the lif
Page 59 and 60: 5 Results of the Monitoring Campaig
Page 61 and 62: the lift, but does not include addi
Page 63 and 64: Where, E standby Standby Energy use
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5‐4 shows a typical cycle
Page 67 and 68: Figure 5‐6. Travel cycle consumpt
Page 69 and 70: Figure 5‐9. Measured standby powe
Page 71 and 72: Figure 5‐12. Annual Energy consum
Page 73 and 74: Figure 5‐16. Annual Energy consum
Page 75 and 76: Figure 5‐19. Annual electricity c
Page 77 and 78: 6.1.1 Determination of the average
Page 79 and 80: Where, P mech E cycle η system h v
Page 81 and 82: 6.2. Electricity consumption of lif
Page 83 and 84: 6.3. Estimation of potential saving
Page 85 and 86: The results show that overall savin
Page 87 and 88: 6.5. Estimation of Savings Potentia
Page 89 and 90: Identification of stakeholders and
Page 91 and 92: Table 7‐1. Categories of stakehol
Page 93 and 94: esults were presented and discussed
Page 95: We also asked which stakeholder inf
Page 99 and 100: Further barriers We asked responden
Page 101 and 102: Raising awareness Setting a standar
Page 103 and 104: Further topics This section address
Page 105 and 106: The scope of the present study is o
Page 107 and 108: Table 7‐4. Energy efficiency: Spe
Page 109 and 110: 10 Check system architecture Ropes
Page 111 and 112: 17 Avoid stalled motor door operato
Page 113 and 114: 24 Switch off other lift components
Page 115 and 116: passenger arrives. However, an addi
show all

WP6-Brochure-E4 brochure - ELA European Lift Association.

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

Delete template?

Save as template?