CASE45 · Manufacturing · Big-data utility optimization
Finding remaining utility opportunities in an already efficient semiconductor plant
Demand, supply, temperature, pressure, flow, valves and unit dispatch are examined together to find small recurring imbalances after conventional optimization has already been applied.
01 · CASE ANALYSIS
The challenge after obvious waste is removed
The source described an already high-performing utility operation. Repeating generic equipment-replacement recommendations would miss the need to investigate finer operating relationships.
The working question is why comparable utility demand sometimes produces different energy inputs.
02 · CASE ANALYSIS
Read relationships rather than isolated tags
Compare flow with active-unit count, valves with load, setpoints with service demand and equipment combinations with UPI.
Candidate improvements include supply-demand balance, load sharing, setpoint and control-logic changes, efficient equipment priority and maintenance of poor performers.
| Utility group | Annual cost (KRW thousand) | Potential rate | Savings (KRW thousand/year) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site A: chiller group A | 668,753 | 9.7% | 64,626 |
| Site A: chiller group B | 1,651,000 | 3.9% | 64,826 |
| Site A: compressors | 948,167 | 3.0% | 28,445 |
| Site B: chillers | 6,773,158 | 3.0% | 206,264 |
| Site B: compressors | 4,003,024 | 6.7% | 269,881 |
| Reported total | 14,044,102 | Approximately 4.5% | 634,042 |
03 · CASE ANALYSIS
Potential distribution
At site A, potential rates were 9.7% for chiller group A, 3.9% for chiller group B and 3.0% for compressors. At site B, they were 3.0% for chillers and 6.7% for compressors.
A higher potential rate signals a priority for checking assumptions, not a guaranteed achievable saving.
04 · CASE ANALYSIS
Combined proposal economics
The detailed source table gives annual cost KRW 14,044,102 thousand and expected savings KRW 634,042 thousand/year, approximately 4.5%.
The rounded site subtotals are approximately 4.8% and 4.4%. Detailed item savings differ from the reported aggregate by KRW 1 thousand due to source rounding; retain the original aggregate.
| Step | Operating output |
|---|---|
| Matched-demand comparison | Identify repeatable performance gaps |
| Equipment/control investigation | Explain staging, setpoint and balance differences |
| Constraint review | Maintain production and utility service |
| Rule implementation and M&V | Confirm repeatable adjusted savings |
05 · CASE ANALYSIS
Make analysis operational
Inventory earlier measures, define service and meter boundaries, find matched-demand performance gaps, investigate controls and turn reproducible improvements into operating rules.
Verify outcomes with a baseline adjusted for production, cooling demand, weather and compressed-air demand. CASE14 discusses the related proposal; it is not an extra independent portfolio.
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