CASE14 · Manufacturing · Chillers and compressed air
Finding residual utility opportunities in an already efficient semiconductor plant
A proposal examines relationships among utility demand, supply, staging, setpoints and equipment performance after common operating improvements have already been implemented.
01 · CASE ANALYSIS
Operating challenge
The facilities already operated their utilities at a relatively high performance level. Additional opportunities required examining interacting variables rather than relying on a single equipment change or setpoint adjustment.
Demand-supply balance, load sharing, flow, temperature, pressure, valves, control logic and equipment combinations were considered together.
02 · CASE ANALYSIS
Proposal basis and site priorities
Two production sites had combined annual utility costs of approximately KRW 14.04 billion. The proposal estimated approximately KRW 634 million/year, or 4.5%, in further improvements.
Site B was prioritized because its larger utility cost and approximately KRW 476 million/year expected benefit gave it greater project significance. Rollout to other sites was proposed after verifying performance.
| Site | Annual utility cost | Expected rate | Expected saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site A | Approximately KRW 3.27 billion | 4.8% | KRW 158 million/year |
| Site B | Approximately KRW 10.78 billion | 4.4% | KRW 476 million/year |
| Combined | Approximately KRW 14.04 billion | 4.5% | KRW 634 million/year |
03 · CASE ANALYSIS
Optimization approach
The plan begins with field surveys, calibration of existing instruments, supplementary metering and data integration. Monitoring and data-quality validation support real-time performance diagnosis.
Operating measures include matching supply to production demand, balancing parallel equipment, selecting efficient units, reducing unnecessary bypass or concurrent operation, improving weak equipment and optimizing setpoints/control logic within process requirements. Operator training supports continued improvement.
04 · CASE ANALYSIS
Measurement and verification
At the priority site, the cooling proposal estimates 3.0% and KRW 206 million/year, while compressed air estimates 6.7% and KRW 270 million/year. These are pre-implementation expectations.
Verify against baselines incorporating production, cooling/airflow demand, weather and operating units. The report does not establish a confirmed 4.5% field saving or demonstrated AI performance.
| Utility | Annual cost | Expected rate | Expected saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chiller system | KRW 6.77 billion | 3.0% | KRW 206 million/year |
| Compressed air | KRW 4.00 billion | 6.7% | KRW 270 million/year |
05 · CASE ANALYSIS
Engineering lesson
When obvious improvements are exhausted, coordinated operating relationships can still identify opportunities. The proposal must remain distinct from results obtained after implementation.
APPLY TO YOUR SITE
Connect your operating data to an actionable energy strategy.
Discuss the measurement boundary, data quality, operating constraints and verification approach for your facility.
Discuss your project All English cases