In ear­lier posts I wrote about “Define”, “Mea­sure” ‚  “Analyze” and “Improve” as part of Lean Six Sigma’s DMAIC cycle. The example I used in these previous posts showed that our office is not energy efficient, but an analyze phase showed us why, and the improve phase let us implement solutions to waste less energy.

The control phase of Lean Six Sigma ensures that results are monitored over a longer phase, and that the responsibility to maintain or improve results is given to a process owner as part of his or her usual daily duties.

It is preferable that automatic reporting systems are used, usually as part of an existing controlling system. This lets process owners see if the improvements are sustained and allows for corrective action if changes to the desired results are seen. However if automated systems cannot be used, a task of manually collecting data periodically can accomplish a similar continuity. Actually, in my experience it can be very powerful if  a person collects data, puts it into a monitoring sheet visible for everyone, and captures measures to ensure that the improvements stay on target. I used “Flag Map” systems very successfully, as they also emphasize ownership to maintain improvements.

One other thing: The control phase is the last step of a Lean Six Sigma program. If successful do not forget to celebrate and thank the participants for their achievements. After all you want to en a program like that on a positive note, as usually one successful program spawns a serious of other improvement activities that can really make a difference for organizations.

Do you want to know more about how to start and organize an improvement program? — Please contact me!

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

In 1998 researcher at the ETH Zurich released a vision of a society consuming only 2000 Watts around the clock (48 kWh a day). The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (ifeu) released an interesting table comparing today’s energy usage in Germany to these targets.

I did not look up actual energy consumption numbers for the US, but it is save to say that we use much more energy per person in the U.S. than they use in Germany.

Now, if you look at the numbers in detail it becomes very clear that reducing energy consumption to the 2000 Watt level means significant changes to our live style. Say good bye to a single family home, a Hawaii vacation, and cities built into the dessert. So, I am not so sure if a 2000 Watt society can be accomplished.

But is the 2000 Watt target a reasonable objective?

I don’t think so. The problem we have is that we consume the wrong form of energy. Per definition, fossil fuels — the mainstay of our energy consumption — are limited and will be used up at a certain point in time.  But let’s look at it from a different perspective:

The sun (our only real source of energy) radiates about 1.37 kW per square meter to the outer atmosphere of our earth. Looking at Germany, about 800 kWh reach the ground per square meter and year. If we also say that we use a solar cell with an efficiency of 15% the typical German could generate about 120 kWh per year and square meter. So, to generate usable electric energy each German would need about 440 square meter solar collectors to satisfy all his current energy needs (6000 Watts around the clock). That sounds a lot, but not out of reach.

The 2000 Watt target would reduce the necessary area to 146 square meters. So, that would make things easier.

However, once we add hydro power, wind, other renewables, and assume increases in energy efficiency of devices, homes and cars, the total shift to renewable is not out of the question using technologies that are available today!

So, what should the target be? Reducing our energy consumption or changing where we get our energy from? Well, it should be both, and we should start to switch now!

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

There are many new wind projects under way, in the US and world wide.

What is said to be the world largest wind energy project is started in California’s Mojave Desert. Once completed as planned, the Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC) will have the ability to generate 1,550 MW. Project proponents also claim that 3,000 jobs will be created. $1.2 billion are said to be injected into the local economy in Kern County, California.

Meanwhile in British Columbia, Canada, BC Hydro acquired about 3,300 GWh/year of clean energy.  Six wind power projects account for almost half of the clean energy, 434 GWh/year from Tumbler Ridge project by Capital Power Corp., 237 GWh/year form Meikle Wind project, and the rest from four smaller ones.

Portugal, EU, seems to be more than one step ahead. An initiative to reduce Portugal’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, started 5 years ago, shows results. In 2010, almost 45% of Portugal’s electricity will come from renewables. Land based wind power is deemed to be potentially competitive with fossil fuels this year, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. And land based wind power generation  has expanded seven fold within 5 years.

But as you  can see, wind energy still has no price advantage when compared to energy generated by fossil fuels. The US average residential retail price for electricity was 11.75 cents in April 2010. This price to consumers includes a majority of electricity generated by conventional not renewable means. Wind project “Cape Wind”, Massachusetts, reportedly sold its proposed electricity for 18.7 cents per kWh to National Grid. This premium for renewable energy leaves the door wide open for critics of alternative energy and proponents of oil, gas and coal.

There is no silver bullet. Costs of renewable energy generation might come down, but as long as we do not include environmental costs into all forms of energy, renewable energy will stay to have a price disadvantage compared to fossil fuels.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Today I read a report by Bloomberg Businessweek that the Senate climate bill, which aims to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 17 percent from the 2005 level by 2020, could cut U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by $452 billion , and cost the average household $206 annually from 2013 to 2035.

I do  not want to discuss the merits of the Senate climate bill in its current state — if there are merits at all, but I cannot wonder if we are really measuring the right things.

The problem that I see is that GDP calculation measures and weighs everything the same way, without accounting for effectiveness. A simple example: After we change a power generating process  to use less coal to put the same amount of energy into the grid, GDP goes down. Being more efficient means a negative impact on GDP. Because we consume less, even if we get a better outcome.

GDP rewards waste. Once we increase waste, GDP goes up. This is totally contradictory to any lean management approach, where we try to reduce waste to get more efficient, and where we measure the output of a process by its effectiveness.

To do more with less is sane, responsible and should be rewarded. Measuring the wrong things punishes otherwise useful initiatives. Should we not come up with other metrics than plain GDP to make sure we go into the right direction?

Your thoughts?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

A new study issued by the German “Umweltbundesamt” comes to the conclusion that Germany should be able to switch energy production to 100% renewable sources within 40 years. Interestingly the head of the agency, Jochen Flasbarth, states that this is doable with technology that is available today. Building the necessary infrastructure would need decisive action and investment money.

One shortcoming of the study is that they do not include a quantitative cost — benefit analysis. Jochen Flasbarth is quoted “he feels on the save side, as the cost of the switch to alternative energy should be less than the cost of climate change.”

Here is my take: Switch to alternative energy can not come fast enough. Any economy that acts on a well thought out master plan to make the switch could very well be the leader in a wide range of energy technologies and reap economical and ecological benefits. Studies that concentrate on technological feasibility are very well, but not sufficient. There has to be a convincing business case that shows that this switch is beneficial so that  investors and entrepreneurs will invest. The German Umweltbundesamt would be very well advised to augment their study with cost — benefit scenarios and to come up with firm recommendations to the political leadership in Germany. It is very likely that other institutions like the European Union or other sovereign governments could take up the ball and advance the move away from a fossil economy to a sustainable economy.

Leaves me to wonder what the decision maker in our country will be able to do. Looks like any energy plan is stuck in the same old politics between the major parties as so many other things are stuck today. Will the US Administration and Congress be able to come up with a plan to lead us to a sustainable future? I do not hold my breath just yet, looks like climate change, Gulf oil spill and the huge amount of money for fossil fuel paid to foreign countries is not enough to initiate meaningful change.

Your thoughts?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

In a press release today Google is said to lead the charge against tougher energy efficiency standards for data centers. Google? Is this not the company touting green initiatives and trying to not be evil?

It is worth to dig a little deeper into this issue. Data centers house tons of heat producing computer equipment, and in order to run reliably data centers need a lot of cooling. Data centers consume lots of energy, on the one side to power computer equipment to generate heat (okay, they consume energy to process data and generate heat as a by-product), and on the other side to cool down the stuff. Our lean trained minds would gear our efforts to reduce the heat in the first place, thus saving energy to drive the computers and saving energy by using less cooling. And in all fairness manufactures and data center owners try to go that route.

Back to topic: An organization dubbed ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) proposed amendments to its efficiency standard for buildings dealing with cooling for data centers. Google, and executives from companies like Microsoft, Nokia, Amazon, and others charge that these standards prescribe how to do cooling (the method), as opposed to setting goals that need to be achieved regardless of the method used. ASHRAE is said to mandate certain equipment. The method (equipment) prescribed may not always be the most efficient or most effective. And the mandate does not accommodate innovations that could be much more environmentally friendly.

Here is my take: As an organization with the power to regulate, set goals and criteria. Let innovative engineers come up with the best methods how to accomplish these goals. Prescribing methods might be good for a few equipment manufacturers, prescribing (reasonable) goals will have a much more powerful impact in reducing power consumption in data centers.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Wherever you stand on the global warming debate, one thing is indisputable: Carbon dioxide content in the earth’s atmosphere increased over the last 100 years by more than 25%. And again, wherever you stand on the global warming debate, it should be clear that such a change in CO2 does trigger changes. Whether you think that the earth will get warmer or cooler does not matter for today’s consideration, it is sufficient to accept that there will be a change. And changes either cost or save money.

Economists and scientists across the world are trying to put a price tag (or earning tag) on impacts of changes in the earth’s CO2 Content. I find it pretty interesting to look at some results.

There is one study that combines 88 estimates of the marginal costs of carbon dioxide emissions gathered from 22 published studies. They combined the results to form a probability density function. According to their numbers the cost of emitting carbon dioxide (as calculated per tonne Carbon) shows the mean as $104/tC, and the 95 percentile $446/tC.

A different study calculated the following numbers (Yohe, 2007): Average value of $43/tC with a standard deviation of $83/tC.

These numbers are interesting in itself, however there are two striking things I can take away: There is a cost impact when emitting CO2. However the actual amount of this cost is highly uncertain.

At the end of the day we currently do not know the actual cost of emitting Carbon Dioxide. Okay, does this mean we should wait and see and do nothing? I don’t think so!

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos

Last weekend my kids tried to count the pieces of litter they spotted while we were driving down 280 from San Francisco to San Jose. They counted at a frantic pace, but had to give up pretty soon: There were way too many pieces of garbage.

Back at home they did a quick we web-research and found the following statement: “You can walk one mile along an average highway in the U.S. And see over 1,400 pieces of litter!”. Wow. How does the litter get there? Do we Americans really throw junk out of our cars without any regard to our environment?

On the same site they found the following statement: “The average household throws away 13,000 separate pieces of paper each year. Most is packaging and junk mail.”

Well, I did not substantiate if the numbers above are correct, but it does not really matter if they are off. You can see with your own eyes that there is way too much garbage littering our streets. And that we receive way too much junk mail and buy stuff with exorbitant packaging.

Here is what we agreed on in our family:

• We switch from paper bills to electronic bills where possible.
• We will pay more attention to the products we purchase and will prefer the ones that come in lighter packaging.
• We will definitely not throw stuff out of our car windows.

These are of course very small steps, but reducing waste by paying more attention on how we do stuff is a lean approach. That we will try to step up our recycling efforts is also positive, however lean tells us it is better to avoid waste than to recycle waste.

Do you have some waste reducing actions planned too?

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (I did not even know that such an administration exists) the United States as a whole consumed almost 100 Quadrillion Btu energy in 2008. There you have it, 100 Quadrillion Btu!!!

All right, small problem here. What does this mean, 100 Quadrillion Btu? I mean this sounds like a lot. I guess if I ask my 9 year old son he would say that this is almost as much as a googleplex of something, more or less.

Let’s analyze:

Quadrillion: According to wikipedia a Quadrillion is used in the U.S.A. as a number with 15 zeros, ergo 1,000,000,000,000,000.

Btu = British Thermal Unit = The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at the temperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

Am I the only one having a problem to understand just how much 100 Quadrillion Btu are?

I know I bore you, but I need to know:

1 BTU = 0.000293 KWh (kilowatt hours), that means that in 2008 the US used about 29,300,000,000,000 KWh energy. Assuming we had a little less than 300 Mio Americans it means per capita usage of about 10,000 KWh energy.

Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is roughly 1.368 KW per square meter, and doing the math I come to the conclusion that America’s per capita energy usage is equivalent to the energy that our sun delivers to 0.002 square meter on top of our atmosphere.

That’s a tiny area and doesn’t sound like much.

Maybe our problem is how we produce the energy? And as long as we are not able to produce energy in a sustainable manner it might be a good idea to reduce our energy usage as much as we can!

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos

In 2003 scientists proposed ideas for green engineering. Based on work done to articulate principles for green chemistry, Anastas and Zimmermann developed principles for “Green Engineering”.

I do like the pragmatic approach inherent in these principles. I think it is worth to look at these principles:

12 Priciples For Green Engineering:

1. Inherent Rather Than Circumstantial
   Designers need to strive to ensure that all materials and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible.
2. Prevention Instead of Treatment
   It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed.
3. Design for Separation
   Separation and purification operations should be designed to minimize energy consumption and materials use.
4. Maximize Efficiency
   Products, processes, and systems should be designed to maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency.
5. Output-Pulled Versus Input-Pushed
   Products, processes, and systems should be “output pulled” rather than “input pushed” through the use of energy and materials.
6. Conserve Complexity
   Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investment when making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition.
7. Durability Rather Than Immortality
   Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal.
8. Meet Need, Minimize Excess
   Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions should be considered a design flaw.
9. Minimize Material Diversity
   Material diversity in multicomponent products should be minimized to promote disassembly and value retention.
10. Integrate Material and Energy Flows
    Design of products, processes, and systems must include integration and interconnectivity with available energy and materials flows.
11. Design for Commercial “Afterlife“
    Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial “afterlife.”
12. Renewable Rather Than Depleting
    Material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting.

If you are in the market to buy a new product, it is quite interesting to look at a product through the green engineering lens. While many design features are hard to evaluate just looking at a product, some can be seen quite easily and are able to influence purchasing decisions. So, how does the iPhone fare, the Prius, or the simmer pan available at Williams-Sonoma?

Still, the sarcastic side in me needs to mention that certain products land on the wrong side of principle #7 “Durability rather than immortality”. I got too many products lately that stop to function way too soon. A little bit more “immortality” would be appreciated!