July/August 2000

IN THIS ISSUE

Second Round of Plant-Wide

Assessments Could Lead to Improved

Performance for Seven More Sites . . . . 1

Guest Column: Selling an Energy 

Project to Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Selling the Systems Approach to 

Steam Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

BestPractices Tools: Use the 

Right Tools! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Performance Optimization Tips: 

Selling, with Humility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Energy Matters Extra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Coming Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ISSUE FOCUS: 

Selling an Energy-Efficient 

Project to Management

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA

ERICA

M

A BestPractices PUBLICATION ON IMPROVING INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY

OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL 

TECHNOLOGIES • 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

www.oit.doe.gov 

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpratices

In response to the second round of solicitations, DOE’s Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) recently named seven industrial

companies to receive cost-shared funding

for plant-wide, energy efficiency opportunity assessments that each plant will conduct with their assessment teams. These

seven bring the total to 13 awards made by

OIT since initiating the plant-wide assessment program last year. Six other projects

are either under way or have been completed as a result of the first round of awards

made in late 1999.

The new awardees are:

■ Akzo Nobel Chemicals of Morris, 

Illinois

■ Anchor Glass Container Corporation 

of Warner Robbins, Georgia and 

Jacksonville, Florida

■ Appleton Papers Incorporated of West

Carrollton, Ohio 

■ Metlab Company of Wyndmoor, 

Pennsylvania

■ Paramount Petroleum of Paramount,

California

■ Utica Corporation of Whiteboro, New

York

■ Weyerhaeuser of Longview, Washington

The companies submitted proposals to

OIT through a competitive solicitation held

in April 2000. Each proposed a plan for a

cost-shared assessment that could guide

their plants to substantial energy and cost

savings, improved productivity, reduced

waste, and enhanced global competitiveness. OIT will share up to half the cost, or

Second Round of Plant-Wide Assessments Could Lead to

Improved Performance for Seven More Sites

(continued on page 2) ©

Petroleum, pulp and paper, and chemicals are among the industries represented

by the latest seven companies to receive

OIT plant-wide assessment awards.

A 10-step blueprint for efficient

steam, see page 4.

PIX03222 Photo courtesy of Donald Meadow, TAPPI Journal
2 Energy Matters, July/August 2000

ENERGY MATTERS

is published bimonthly by the

U.S. Department of Energy’s

(DOE) Office of Industrial 

Technologies. 

Information contained in the

newsletter can be reproduced

without permission provided due

acknowledgement is given (the

U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Energy Matters newsletter) and 

a copy of the publication is 

supplied to the editor.

■

EDITORIAL BOARD

Rob Boteler, representing 

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

Lynda Butek, representing 

Electrical Apparatus Service 

Association

Don Casada, OIT BestPractices

Program

Keith Davidson, Onsite Sycom

Energy

Bob Gemmer, U.S. DOE,

Process Heat

Glenn Hahn, Spirax Sarco

Fred Hart, U.S. DOE, Steam 

Challenge

Chris Hunter, Johnson & Johnson

Roy Jones, representing

Compressed Air and Gas Institute

Aimee McKane, OIT

BestPractices Program

Rick Payton, Rockwell 

Automation/Reliance Electric

Bill Stafford, Technical 

Association of the Pulp and 

Paper Industry

Chuck Whelan, DuPont

■

COMMENTS? 

Contact: 

Julia Oliver, DOE, at 

(510) 637-1952, or e-mail

julia.oliver@oak.doe.gov

Michelle Mallory, 

Energy Matters Editor, at 

(303) 275-3627, or e-mail 

michelle_sosa-mallory@nrel.gov

1617 Cole Blvd., MS 1713

Golden, CO 80401

up to $100,000, with each site to conduct

the assessments, which will evaluate energy

efficiency opportunities in areas such as:

■ Electric motor systems

■ Steam systems

■ Compressed air systems

■ Combined heat and power systems

■ Process heating systems

■ Process modifications

■ Adoption of emerging technologies

In addition to the cost-shared funding,

each site will gain benefits such as national

recognition and access to the whole range

of OIT’s emerging technologies, tools, and

resources.

Plant-Wide Perspective Gets Noticed 

When considering the proposals of 15

companies, OIT focused on those that

mapped out a comprehensive, plant-wide

method for increasing energy efficiency

and reducing environmental emissions.

The seven companies selected made clear

their plans to adopt best-available and

emerging technologies using state-of-theart tools and information, process engineering techniques, and best practices for

operational, plant support, and process

systems.

Other Plants Could Benefit

While only some companies receive costshared funding from each round of assessment solicitations, many other companies

stand to benefit from the results. These assessments will be completed over the next

12 months, and then OIT will compile and

publish profiles of each assessment to

serve as examples for other plants. The

idea is that other facilities will take note of

the awardees’ experiences and successes

and move to adopt and implement similar

efficiency measures. ●

ABOUT THE AWARDEES

The seven companies to receive cost-shared, plant-wide assessments fall within the

scope of OIT’s Industries of the Future (IOF) initiative, which focuses on the country’s

most energy-intensive industries. Working with OIT and partnering with resource and

equipment suppliers, engineering firms, and others, these sites are moving toward a strategy to increase their plants’ energy efficiency and improve environmental performance.

AKZO NOBEL will assess energy consumption and the potential for new energyefficient technologies in a surface chemistry plant.

Anchor Glass Container Corporation plans to assess major end uses of steam, motors,

cogeneration, and heat recovery at two glass container plants.

Appleton Papers, Inc.’s plan is to assess all energy systems and address pollution prevention and process improvements at a paper mill.

Metlab Company will measure and monitor energy usage in all major energy-consuming equipment and select efficiency improvement techniques and equipment in a

metal heat-treating plant.

Paramount Petroleum will focus on thermal efficiency opportunities (an assessment of

the electrical usage was previously completed) including combined heat and power opportunities.

Utica Corporation will look at all plant energy use in its forging plant from power and

fuel costs to process applications.

Weyerhaeuser Company will examine the use of steam, water, and thermal energy at

an integrated pulp and paper mill using the Successive Design Methodology (SDM).

Ready for Round Three

The next plant-wide solicitation will begin this

fall. To find out more, provide your name, company, and address to Mitch Olszewski by e-mail:

zmo@ornl.gov, or fax to (865) 576-0493 (e-mail

is preferred). Also, watch for more details in the

September issue of Energy Matters and on Energy

Matters Extra at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

explore_library/emextra. Plan to apply or reapply for this cost-shared opportunity. 

Plant-Wide Assessments Could Lead to 

Improved Performance

continued from page 1
Energy Matters, July/August 2000 3

Guest Column

Selling an Energy Project 

to Management

By Steve Bolles, Energy 

Services Manager, Woodard & Curran,

Concord, NH

We have all been

there. We attend

training workshops

or read an article on

reducing energy use

and get some great

ideas to install variable speed drives,

improve equipment controls, adjust

processes to reduce peak demand, or

maybe reduce fan speeds or temperatures

during the evening hours.

You take the initiative and do some data

collection, savings calculations, and obtain

cost estimates from equipment vendors or

contractors. You figure you have a winner

at a 2-year simple payback and you will

get a round of applause at the next management meeting. 

What happens next is typical at many

facilities.

After your presentation, the operations

manager indicates that the proposed new

energy-saving equipment will burden his

group with the need to learn new technology and could affect system reliability. The

maintenance manager adds that he heard

that a similar project has caused all sorts of

problems at the facility down the road and

was a maintenance nightmare. Another

manager points out that they may change

the process in the future and would rather

wait until this issue gets resolved before

proceeding. He also mentions that this project is not in the capital budget this year.

What went wrong?

Developing a successful energy project

begins with laying the groundwork to support the project. Ideally, it starts with a facility reward program that has a system for

pursuing cost-savings projects and compensating employees for their efforts. However, most of the time the effort is

accomplished by a motivated individual

who takes pride in his job and is inspired

by what other facilities have done. To overcome the obstacles that are often encountered, the following “pre-presentation

tasks” are recommended to increase your

success rate.

1. Get support from a key member of

management before pursuing energy 

projects.

The most successful facility energy evaluations and projects begin with a commitment from management that reducing

energy is something they are serious about

and are willing to invest time and resources

in. Without management’s commitment,

great energy-saving projects may sit on the

shelf for years. It may seem obvious that

some of these projects should be pursued

immediately, but without

support or recognition from

management, the extra

work and added responsibility may not be worth it

to some individuals. 

Support from management should also include

defining an acceptable

cost/benefit ratio and

identifying sources to fund

the project. Ultimately, financial parameters to

evaluate larger projects

using a life cycle cost

analysis should also be included.

2. Include input from key department

staff personnel before presenting to

management. 

Discussing projects with key maintenance

or operations staff provides insight into issues that can be resolved early by modifying the project to accommodate concerns

or to include features that will help solve

their existing problems. Use case studies to

show staff how similar projects were successfully implemented and to help them

reach the comfort level needed to accept

new technology, or even better, to enthusiastically support the project.

3. Begin with simple projects to increase

your chance of success.

Having several small “low-tech” projects that show measurable savings builds

management’s confidence in cost-saving

projects. One of their greatest fears is having “egg on their face” after approving an

expensive energy-saving project that does

not deliver the projected savings. This is especially important when considering new

technologies. Facilities that have started

with small energy-saving projects that have

measurable results have found themselves

in the enviable position of getting fast approval for future cost-saving projects.

4. Bring in outside support to validate

your recommendation.

On several occasions when I have been

asked to do an energy analysis at a facility,

the operator has described to me exactly

what needs to be done to reduce energy

use, and provided the data needed to calculate the savings and costs. It is clear that

the operator only needed me to validate the

idea or fill in a few missing details to sell

the project to management. Technical or financial assistance often is available through

electric utility programs or equipment suppliers. Be sure to contact the local utility to

determine what potential financial incentives are available to improve your project’s

cost effectiveness. DOE BestPractices software such as MotorMaster+ and Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT) can also

provide support for savings calculations. 

5. Plan for the unexpected.

Project savings are often scrutinized

more than the estimated cost during the

initial project development. However, for a

successful project, the cost effectiveness

depends on both figures equally. The old

adage that a project will take “twice as

long and cost twice as much” can apply

when a project includes new technology,

sophisticated controls, or will be interfaced

with existing equipment. Cost estimates for

potential projects should include the

method of project delivery (in-house project implementation, design-build, designbid-build, or even design-build-operate),

hard numbers from equipment suppliers,

engineering, and time for meetings, startup, and troubleshooting. A 20% contingency on top of firm numbers may be

appropriate for some projects.

(continued on page 5) ©

Before presenting an energy project to management, lay the

groundwork to support it. 
4 Energy Matters, July/August 2000

By Christopher Russell, Alliance to Save

Energy, Washington, DC 

Suppose you are planning to present a

steam efficiency idea to management. Let’s

say you have developed a comprehensive

upgrade package for your steam distribution system—including traps, valves, insulation, and monitoring controls. You have

done the math and know the project will

result in respectable cost savings—something that will definitely be on the minds of

financial decision-makers. 

Will management see your proposed

project as a diversion of investment capital

away from direct production assets? Or

will they instead understand how your proposal adds to the firm’s primary corporate

needs, including productivity, plant reliability, and cost containment?

Steam systems are crucial to many industrial operations, but they often suffer

from poor maintenance when companies

prioritize direct production over “support”

functions like facility maintenance. It might

be a good idea to focus your efforts on convincing the financial decision-makers that

diligent steam system maintenance is a

consistent and predictable expense, while

the costs associated with poor maintenance

are unpredictable and potentially catastrophic.

Now, thinking in terms

of a systems approach,

your pitch to management

would be that the company consider the steam

system’s entire function—

generation, distribution,

end-use, and recovery—

not just the boiler. This,

you can say, ensures that

plant operations are a coordinated process, and not

subject to random or counterproductive measures.

You might add that the real

link between steam efficiency and corporate goals

is the dollars-and-cents impact that efficiency provides. Everyone—from the

boardroom to the worker on the plant

floor—can appreciate efficiency efforts better if the benefits are expressed in financial

terms. Finally, the total-system framework

is a practical way to simultaneously engage technical, managerial, and behavioral 

resources, all of which are necessary to

maximize the value of steam efficiency. 

A 10-Step Blueprint for Efficient Steam

What management must envision is that

the rewards derived from steam efficiency

require a dedication

of resources. To

maximize technical

dimensions, it will

take human knowhow and initiative.

The process must

have top-level support to get started

and involvement

from personnel at all

levels to attain an

optimized steam system.

Use the 10 steps

below as a blueprint for mobilizing technical, behavioral, and managerial resources

to achieve steam efficiency.

1. Identify your options. Inventory the

components of the steam system and

the services they provide. Survey the

system’s energy usage. Recognize opportunities to standardize hardware applications, especially steam traps,

valves, and other consumable items. This allows you

to know the system, its

limitations, and the demands made on it. Standardization reduces the

complexity and expense of

inventory control and

helps to avoid the cost and

disruption of hardware

misapplication.

2. Prioritize the options.

Start by pursuing the options that provide the

largest ratio of benefits to

costs. This allows implementation to proceed in

phases. The returns from

one phase generate savings that pay for the next phase. Phases

also allow facility managers and staff to

progress on the learning curve.

3. Determine a dollar impact for the best

options. Use the findings of the system’s

energy survey and potential energy savings to calculate the concurrent dollar

savings. Include metrics such as avoided

net expenses (or net contribution to operating income), return on investment

(ROI), and payback. The expression of

efficiency savings as dollars and cents is

a common denominator that will be

well understood by facility managers,

staff, and top management. 

4. Ensure support

from above and

within. Top management should assure

the plant manager

that it has the resources it needs to

pursue efficiency implementation. Management should also

communicate the expected effort, benefits, and rewards for

the maintenance staff. These actions ensure buy-in and motivation at all levels.

5. Train staff and offer incentives for

achieving results. Establish criteria that

link results to staff accomplishments.

Training is critical. Incentives greatly assist in achieving the staff buy-in. 

6. Develop a maintenance discipline. Use

the system overview from the energy

survey to prepare a schedule for testing,

verification, and replacement. This becomes the driver of maintenance duties

and discipline and is a tool for planning

inventory purchases and labor use.

7. Monitor operations. Put into daily practice the schedule of maintenance duties. Empower staff to follow this

program. Records generated through

diligent maintenance eventually pay for

themselves and “fingerprint” conditions

that precede system failures. 

8. Demonstrate results. Record and

demonstrate to top managers the savings

and related benefits brought by the efficiency implementation. For example,

document net savings on fuel expenditures. Use financial measures such as

ROI to illustrate the impact. Account for

indirect savings. These results show benefits such as increased productivity and

avoided downtime, avoided health and

safety costs, and emissions compliance. 

9. Reward those who make the results

possible. Reward staff for generating

positive results. Bonuses, awards, and

Selling the Systems Approach to Steam Efficiency

Involvement at many levels—technical,

managerial, and behavioral—helps a plant

achieve steam system efficiency. 

Present the total system 

approach to steam efficiency

and its plant-wide benefits.

(continued on page 5) ©
Energy Matters, July/August 2000 5

recognition help to retain staff and ensure the continued capture of efficiency

opportunities. 

10. Share the news. Document and report

savings to top management and directors. Demonstrated savings from steam

efficiency will resonate positively with

the company decision-makers and

shareholders.

Understanding the potential for savings

might give management the incentive to

embrace steam efficiency. The total system

approach is a fundamental means to identify and prioritize efficiency opportunities

and implement measures. The 10-step

blueprint offered here is a tool for organizing the technical, behavioral, and managerial roles that make implementation

effective. While the focus here is steam efficiency, these might also be the steps for

implementing the systems approach plantwide. ●

Contact Christopher Russell at:

crussell@ase.org.

BestPractices Tools

Selling Your Project to 

Management? 

Use the Right Tools!

How can you persuade management to invest in your energy- or cost-saving project?

Do your homework and take advantage of

BestPractices tools and resources. Before

presenting your ideas, gather as much information as possible about the project’s

potential benefits. Obtain cost estimates

and calculate productivity gains and energy

costs savings. It also helps to provide examples of successful projects that are similar

to yours. Explore the BestPractices Web site

at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices to find

many sources that can help you make your

case. Below are some of those sources.

Software and Databases

You can find information about or

download software and databases to help

you find savings potential through efficient

system management. For example:

■ ASDMaster assists users in the proper

application of adjustable speed drives

(ASDs). The software is available for purchase from the Bonneville Power Association. Learn about its features and how

to order it on the BestPractices web site. 

■ 3E Plus calculates the optimal thickness

of industrial insulation. 

■ The popular MotorMaster+ energy-efficient motor selection software makes it

easier for you to manage electric motordriven systems by allowing comparison

of repair vs. replace options, savings

analysis, and storage and retrieval of

testing and maintenance data.

■ Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT)

software helps industrial users assess

the efficiency of pumping system operations. 

■ The Industrial Assessment Center (IAC)

Database contains efficiency recommendations made to small and mid-size

manufacturers by 30 university-based

IACs. 

Learn more about these software and

database tools on the BestPractices Web

site by selecting Software and Databases.

Case Studies

Review BestPractices case studies to select any that may be similar to your project. Find out what other companies and

municipalities have done to make energy

savings improvements and how they have

done it. Include them in your presentation

to demonstrate that there are proven technologies currently being applied in successful projects. To find BestPractices case

studies, select Explore our Library on the

BestPractices Web site.

Technical Publications

Access a wide range of technical information on buying, maintaining, and assessing industrial systems and components.

You’ll find helpful “how-to” publications

such as technical fact sheets, tips sheets,

and handbooks, as well reports that provide

an overview of energy efficiency opportunities. The collection of technical publications is accessible when you Explore our

Library on the Best Practices Web site. 

Remember, the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Clearinghouse is another way

to access industrial energy efficiency materials. The Clearinghouse’s knowledgeable staff

provides answers to technical questions on

topics such as motors, steam, and compressed

air systems. Contact the Clearinghouse 

at (800) 862-2086 or visit www.oit.gov/

clearinghouse. ●

6. Present your project.

Projects can be presented as standalone efforts or as part of a comprehensive

energy project with multiple recommendations developed from a facility energy

study. Ultimately, each project should be

presented in a 1- to 2-page project profile

called an energy conservation measure

(ECM). Projects can also be identified as

operational measures (OM) when minimal

investment is required, or energy supply

measures (ESM) when cogeneration or rate

schedule changes are pursued. The project

profile typically includes a brief description of the project, implementation steps,

and a project cost and savings summary. It

is also important to include or make available more in-depth calculations, equipment cut sheets, and cost spreadsheets. 

These steps represent a sample of what

you can do to increase your success rate to

move an energy project forward. Additional data collection, financial analysis,

development of a performance contract request for proposal, and savings monitoring

and verification may also be needed to

fully develop a project. ●

Steve Bolles is an energy consultant with

Woodard & Curran in Concord, NH, and is

a PSAT workshop speaker for DOE. He

specializes in working with municipalities

and industry to reduce energy costs at

water and wastewater facilities. Contact

him at sbolles@woodardcurran.com.

MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION SHINE

By following the steps above, your proposed energy project could gain the edge

with management. After all, you have

taken the time to assess an opportunity for

improvement and gather the technical details that support the idea. Now take the

time to polish your skills for a presentation

that helps you connect with your audience and sell your idea. To help you prepare for that face-to-face meeting with the

corporate decision-makers, check out the

feature article “So You’re Giving a Presentation” on Energy Matters Extra at www.

oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/explore_library/

emextra. Take some tips on how to deliver

an impeccable presentation and convey

your idea with confidence. 

Guest Column

continued from page 3

continued from page 4
6 Energy Matters, July/August 2000

Performance

Optimization Tips

Selling, with Humility

By Don Casada, 

OIT BestPractices Program

A Question of “I

Don’t Know” 

I was recently involved in a test given

to several engineers,

all of whom I regard

as knowledgeable,

sharp folks. One of

the questions was multiple choice. Of the

four available choices, three had numerical

values. The fourth possible answer, “I don’t

know,” which was the correct one, was selected by only four of twenty-one engineers. Afterwards, several said that they

would have selected an answer like “Insufficient information given” if that had been a

choice. Clearly, there was a psychological

barrier to saying, “I don’t know.”

Has Humility been Humbled in this Hour?

In a culture where values trump

virtues,1 when “I am the greatest” appears

to have displaced “I am meek and lowly,”

and where self-esteem has moved beyond

the noble idea of individual dignity and

run amuck, has humility been hastened to

the hinterlands? 

I thought it would be useful to critique

this present age by showing how humility

was a commonly practiced virtue in ages

past. But I found that my perspective, as is

often the case, was narrow and limited

(had to throw in a little humility of my

own, so you’d think I knew what I was

talking about). Human nature is, as always—human nature.

“There are some things which men confess with ease, and others with difficulty.”2

So said Epictetus, a first-century Roman

stoic philosopher, in referring to the fact

that we are more apt to acknowledge certain personal traits that carry generally negative connotations than others. Lack of

understanding is one trait we are particularly not apt to confess, Epictetus noted.

“What does humility have to do with

Performance Optimization, let alone the

theme of this issue of Energy Matters, Selling an Energy Efficiency Project to Management?” you might ask. 

Let me, in turn, ask you: Why are you

interested in energy efficiency and performance optimization? Perhaps one of the

following fits:

a. You’ve convinced yourself that global

warming is both factual and manmade.

b. You take the position that stewardship

of resources is simply commonsensical.

c. The boss told you to. 

d. You’re in it because there’s a buck to be

made.

Truth be told, several of the responses fit

most of us. Regardless of your underlying

principles and ultimate goals, let me try to

convince you that humility is a critical

virtue in the pursuit of performance optimization and energy efficiency.

Honoring Humility

William J. Bennett’s volume on virtues3

included the writings of many on basic

virtues, such as self-discipline, work,

courage, and honesty. Humility was not a

named virtue, but I argue that it both

weaves its way through and springs from

other virtues, if they are practiced at their

highest levels. Let’s talk about humility in

the context of two of Bennett’s virtues and

energy efficiency.

Humility and Courage

First, consider courage. If I were listening to a presentation in the presence of

competitive peers, and something was covered that I didn’t understand, which attribute would give me the courage to ask a

question—humility or pride?

One of the most difficult challenges that

many of us face is recognizing our need for

help and then seeking it. There are many

energy-saving ideas conceived by engineers

that fail to get funded (or even worse, are

funded and then fail to deliver the promises

made) because somewhere along the way,

critical information or perspective was

missed. On page 3 of this issue, Steve Bolles

uses an example where an energy-saving

proposal is rejected because of the failure to

talk with operations and maintenance about

historical experiences and practical considerations. It takes courage borne on the

wings of humility for an engineer to ask an

operator or maintenance mechanic for advice. In Steve’s example, humiliation could

have been avoided by a little humility.

Humility and Honesty

Second, consider honesty. Humility is a

natural consequence of an honest and mature assessment of ourselves. 

To sell an energy-saving project, detailed technical data, sophisticated cost

analyses, polished presentations, and confident manners certainly help. But demonstrated successes are the best assets we

have, not only in selling the project, but

also in identifying the opportunity to begin

with. Those successes can be personal

and/or collective.

At the personal level, if an individual

has previously predicted and then produced energy savings, a level of trustworTHOUGHTS ON KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, AND HUMILITY

GENIUS MAY HAVE ITS LIMITATIONS, BUT STUPIDITY IS

NOT THUS HANDICAPPED. —ELBERT HUBBARD

KNOWLEDGE COMES, BUT WISDOM LINGERS. —LORD TENNYSON

THE TROUBLE WITH THE WORLD IS THAT THE STUPID ARE COCKSURE

AND THE INTELLIGENT ARE FULL OF DOUBTS. —BERTRAND RUSSELL

IF WRITTEN DIRECTIONS ALONE WOULD SUFFICE, LIBRARIES WOULDN’T

NEED TO HAVE THE REST OF THE UNIVERSITIES ATTACHED. —JUDITH MARTIN

BEFORE GOD WE ARE ALL EQUALLY WISE—

AND EQUALLY FOOLISH. —ALBERT EINSTEIN

KNOWLEDGE IS PROUD THAT HE HAS LEARN’D SO MUCH; 

WISDOM IS HUMBLE THAT HE KNOWS NO MORE. —WILLIAM COWPER

I DON’T KNOW. —THE SIMPLE AND THE WISE

(continued on page 7) ©
Energy Matters, July/August 2000 7

thiness is gained. Many can predict, but

few can produce without help from others.

Although it takes the courage of humility to

ask for help, our likelihood of success is

much greater when we do. And isn’t a

product that matches the promise the ultimate demonstration of honesty? 

At the collective level, we must insist

on honest technical exchange. If we’re interested in furthering energy efficiency, we

need to write corroborating remarks about

accurately presented information and critique that which misleads. A spirit of humility helps us recognize that in our individual successes, we are indebted to basic

truth revealed by others. Repayment of that

debt requires that we promote dependable

information and refute bogus claims.

Humility: A Harbinger of Success

Ironically, in the case of the quiz mentioned earlier, saying “I don’t know” was

the best indicator of who in fact did know.

Three of the four individuals who correctly

answered “I don’t know” answered every

other question correctly, and the fourth

missed only one, a success rate that was

much higher than the average.

The moral of this anecdote is that humility just may be the preeminent indicator

of success. ●

E-mail Don Casada with questions or comments at: doncasada@icx.net. 

1 Forget Values, Let’s Talk Virtues, column by George

Will, May 25, 2000.

2 The Discourses, Epictetus 3 The Book of Virtues, William J. Bennett, Simon &

Schuster, 1993.

continued from page 6

Letters to the Editor 

Energy Matters welcomes

your typewritten letters and

e-mails. Please include your

full name, address, organization, and

phone number, and limit comments to 200

words. Address correspondence to:

Michelle Mallory, Letters to the Editor

NREL, MS 1713

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

E-mail: michelle_sosa-mallory@nrel.gov

We publish letters of interest to our readers

on related topics, comments, or criticisms/corrections of a technical nature.

Preference is given to letters relating to articles that appeared in the previous two issues. Letters may be edited for clarity,

length, and style.

To the Editor: 

After reading Don Casada’s article in

the March/April 2000 edition of Energy

Matters, I have two questions:

1. You mentioned it was the 4th in a series of articles. How can I receive copies of

the other three articles?

2. What was the equation used to determine the head, given the pressure and distance that the gauge is located above the

fluid level?

James D. Kirsch, Manager of Engineering

High Plains Power, Inc.

Thermopolis, Wyoming 

Don replied: 

To answer your first question, you can

view or download previous versions of

Performance Optimization Tips from 

Energy Matters Extra at www.oit.doe.gov/

bestpractices/explore_library/emextra. 

Second, the calculation of pump head

is defined in the July 1999 article (the 2nd

in this series).

From a practical standpoint, with ambient temperature water (i.e., specific gravity

of 1.0), the pressure component of the

head is (discharge pressure – suction pressure) times 2.31.

The value 2.31 is a conversion factor to

go from psig to feet of head, and is developed as follows:

In this case, the discharge pressure is 68

psig and suction pressure at the water surface is 0 psig, so the differential is 68 – 0 =

68 psig. Multiplying 68 times 2.31 ft/psi

gives 157 ft. Adding the 3-foot elevation

difference between the suction and discharge pressure reference points gives a

combined pressure and elevation head of

160 ft. 

What is left to account for is the difference in velocity head, V2 ÷ 2g, at the suction

and discharge. To get that, we need velocity,

which we can get from the flow rate.

Ignoring the velocity head component

for the first iteration, we read 2400 gpm

from the reference curve at 160 ft (pressure

plus elevation heads). In a 12-inch diameter discharge header, 2400 gpm corresponds to almost 7 ft/sec. The velocity

head at 7 ft/sec is:

The velocity at the water level in the

suction tank is essentially 0, so about a

foot of velocity head would have to be

added to the 160 ft. Iteration may be

needed to settle on the first estimate. To be

more accurate we should also estimate the

head losses from the pump discharge to the

discharge pressure measurement point and

account for them.

A pump head calculator is included in

free Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT)

software, downloadable from www.oit.

doe.gov/bestpractices/software_databases/

software.shtml. ●

ft

s = 0.8 ft

7 3

2 x 32.2 ft

s2

144 in2

ft2 ÷ = 2.31 62.3 lb

ft3

ft

psi

Take a look the at July/August edition of

Energy Matters Extra for more on selling an

energy-efficient project to management. In

addition to a feature that offers tips on

making an effective presentation, find

helpful resources on finance for nonfinancial managers and how to make your case

to managers from a business perspective.

Another highlight is “How to Avoid Taking a Bath on Energy Costs,” from the

American Water Works Association’s

Opflow magazine 25th Anniversary Edition. This article, named by Opflow as one

of its 12 best ever published, suggests how

municipal facilities can reduce the enormous cost of moving municipal water by

taking energy efficiency measures. We’re

proud to say that one of the article’s coauthors is Julia Oliver of DOE.

Visit Energy Matters Extra at www.oit.

doe.gov/bestpractices/explore_library/

exmextra. ●

EXTRA 
INFORMATION

CLEARINGHOUSE

Do you have questions about 

using energy-efficient process

and utility systems in your industrial 

facility? Call the OIT Information Clearinghouse for answers, Monday through

Friday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (EST).

Fax: (360) 586-8303, or access our 

homepage at www.oit.doe.gov/

clearinghouse.

HOTLINE: (800) 862-2086

DOE Regional Support Office 

Representatives

■ Tim Eastling, Atlanta, GA, 

(404) 347-7141

■ Scott Hutchins, Boston, MA, 

(617) 565-9765

■ Brian Olsen, Chicago, IL, 

(312) 886-8579

■ Gibson Asuquo, Denver, CO, 

(303) 275-4841

■ Julia Oliver, Seattle, WA, 

(510) 637-1952

■ Maryanne Daniel, Philadelphia, PA, 

(215) 656-6964

This document was produced for the Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE

national laboratory.

DOE/GO-102000-1080 • July/August 2000

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA ERICA

M

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper

containing at least 50% wastepaper, including

20% postconsumer waste

CAPTURING THE VALUE OF STEAM EFFICIENCY

■ September 15 in Charlotte, NC 

Call the OIT Clearinghouse at (800) 862-2086 for information.

FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEMS

■ September 7 in Yakima, WA

■ September 12 in Bend, OR

■ September 14 in Eatontown, NJ

■ September 27 in Boise, ID 

■ October 11 in Longview, WA

Call the OIT Clearinghouse at (800) 862-2086 for information.

PUMP SYSTEMS/PUMP SYSTEM ASSESSMENT TOOL WORKSHOP (PSAT)

■ September 11 in Louisville, KY, Pump Users Expo 

Call Vestal Tutterow at (202) 484-0884, ext. 108 for information.

4TH OIT EXPO: “GLOBAL COMPETITION: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS” 

■ February 19-21, 2001 in Washington, DC

Call the OIT Clearinghouse at (800) 862-2086 and watch for more information in upcoming issues of Energy Matters.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, CO 80401-3393

Bulk Rate

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 258

Golden, Colorado

BestPractices

The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT)

BestPractices initiative and its Energy Matters newsletter introduces industrial end

users to emerging technologies and wellproven, cost-saving opportunities in motor,

steam, compressed air, and other plantwide systems. For overview information

and to keep current on what is happening

office wide, check out the newsletter—The

OIT Times—at www.oit.doe.gov/oit-times.

Coming Events

To keep up-to-date on OIT training and other events, check the calendar regularly on

Energy Matters Extra at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/explore_library/emextra.