![[Translate to Englisch:]](/fileadmin/_processed_s3/1/3/csm_Walzauftraganlage_mit_UV_Trockner_bbf18cfe0f.jpg "[Translate to Englisch:]")
In his column, Philip Berger, Head of Application Technology at Robert Bürkle GmbH, highlights a topic that is becoming increasingly important for many companies in the wood and furniture industry: How can production processes be made more sustainable while also saving costs?
Making production processes more sustainable and reducing running costs at the same time - what long seemed like a paradox is increasingly becoming a strategic directional decision in the minds of those responsible in industrial companies.
Sustainability and cost optimisation are increasingly going hand in hand when considering industrial processes. The most sustainable product is usually the one with the lowest material and energy consumption in the manufacturing process. This also saves costs in production - a ‘no-brainer’ in today's decision-maker jargon.
In industry, it has been shown that an additional efficiency-enhancing function or an optimised design of production systems usually quickly brings economic benefits for the end producer. As a plant manufacturer, it is crucial to continuously provide technological progress and at the same time be able to demonstrate the added value of a higher investment.
There is a simple principle in the often complex amortisation calculations and sustainability considerations: Every per cent of material savings automatically improves the sustainability balance of the end product and simultaneously reduces the cost of material usage. In the long term, any fossil materials that are still required must be replaced by materials based on renewable raw materials. The less of these materials are required, the more favourable the production process remains.
One example in the coating process is the automatic control of the application quantity in the roller application process. Sensor systems continuously monitor the amount of paint applied and feed the measured values back to the application machine in real time. If the application quantity runs in one direction, the dosing device is readjusted fully automatically so that the target value is reached again - the usual upward safety tolerance can be saved. Savings of 10-20% of the total quantity are the rule here and not the exception. This process is made possible by the development of appropriate sensor technology and the higher degree of automation of the machine.
It is often more difficult to gain an overview of the cost recovery point for energy savings. There is great potential here, but also crucial questions: Do I produce a significant proportion of the required energy myself at low cost or do I have to rely on expensive energy purchases with fluctuating prices? Will the costs for the materials used possibly increase because energy-saving process adjustments place higher demands on the material or will operating processes change, temporarily leading to higher costs? A current topic in the industry is the switch from mercury vapour lamps to LED technology in the curing of UV-curing coating systems. Depending on the application, the savings potential is up to 50 % of the energy previously required. However, depending on the application, the photoinitiators used in the coating must be adapted to the changed emission spectrum of the LED module, which can lead to changes in coating costs. In addition, the final surface hardness cannot be achieved with the LED wavelengths currently available. A combination with other curing technologies is necessary.
The evaluation of energy savings through adjustments to the production process can only be considered holistically and is often a complex task for manufacturers. It is worth bringing together experts from the plant manufacturer and the process material supplier. Together, a worthwhile, customised solution can be found.
It is easier to make decisions on machine and control technology efficiency improvements that result in a measurable amount of energy savings through many small adjustments in the overall balance. The corresponding additional costs can be quantified and compared with the energy savings. A return on investment is often achieved in the short term.
Systems for regenerating braking energy, the most efficient generation of drives, the most targeted switching on and off of process consumers such as UV LED lamps for paint curing - correctly implemented, such improvements do not change the existing production process, but reduce energy consumption in the long term. Mastering such optimisations on the basis of the latest technological possibilities is the mark of a competent mechanical engineer.
Most technical solutions that lead to an optimisation of the use of materials and energy and thus make the entire production process more sustainable have one thing in common: they require a corresponding investment and therefore initially cost money. However, an overall assessment usually leads to the result that the investment in the new technology pays off and the production process becomes more sustainable AND more cost-effective in the long term.
And so it seems almost paradoxical not to invest in more sustainable production processes in order to save costs. - A ‘no brainer’ can quickly become a ‘no brain’.
Philip Berger is responsible for application technology at Robert Bürkle GmbH and deals with the optimisation of surface processes in the wood and furniture industry on a daily basis. The sustainability of a production process is now regularly the most important target parameter.
He and his team test production processes at the technology centre at Bürkle's headquarters in Freudenstadt.
Deutsch
English US