|
| For sure down time is zero efficiency and zero productivity.
In theory a high efficiency motor should have better longevity because it will operate cooler and so cause the insulation to age more slowly.
Cost can't help but be higher for the high efficiency motor and likely won't save enough energy on a corn dryer used one month a year to pay the extra cost in less than 30 years.
Green legislation may require higher efficiency motors even if the total life energy savings won't be as much as the added cost, but one way to make that legislation work is to not allow the sale of what is now "normal" efficiency motors for any application. One has to remember legislators don't pay for green and they can't compute either. Perhaps the true green solution is to hire those legislators for $1 a day to shovel grain saving on electric energy consumption. I bet after the first hour they would b ready to admit that any motor efficiency would beat their muscle power.
That bad math already shows in fluorescent lamps. The standard 40 watt and 96 watt HO are outlawed because of bad efficiency (so the legislation says), yet CFL are encouraged, though the efficiency of CFL is lower than the old standards. Though CFL are a great deal more efficient than incandescent lamps and even where they last only 1000 hours, I'm finding them saving a couple times energy cost over what it cost to buy them.
Gerald J. | |
|
Corn Dryers 1 verses 3 phase
