Jump to content

Somar International


Somar International

Recommended Posts

Many comments have been posted on this forum regarding our company and its Powerboss products. With a view to assisting readers of this forum to gain a more balanced view of our company and products, we have composed a comprehensive response which, due to its size, can be viewed here.

 

This response gives access to downloadable test reports, case studies and accreditations.

 

We trust this information will prove useful to those evaluating the opportunities within the energy saving market.

 

Best regards

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

My only response is to emphasize what Somar has pointed out in their response: Due Diligence is paramount. That means doing your homework before accepting any point of view, from a forum posting OR a manufacturer's advertising piece. Keep in mind that almost all opinions expressed by someone trying to sell something to you are inherently biased, Somar's response is no different. This is not to be construed as a judgement call, just a statement of fact.

"He's not dead, he's just pinin' for the fjords!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

I also believe the information posted by Somar will prove useful to anyone interested in pursuing a distributorship. My only concern is that it may be precived by some (including myself) to be a personal attack on Mark, and on that note I would ask that the people of Somar reconsider some of the comments made. No where in Marks paper do I find a reference to Somar or any other manufacturer of energy saver products for that matter. In fact I cannot recall any information posted by Mark that makes reference to a product manufacturer or brand that can aslo be considered to derogatory.

 

My best guess is that Marks examples of payback period are based on information available at the time he wrote his paper, and whilst things have changed significantly since then, it is the calculation process that is important for anyone conducting due diligence, not the stated values of cost per kWhrs, or the cost of the product etc. It is reasonable to expect that anyone reading that paper would immediately recognise that these values will vary from region to region and from year to year.

 

I also suspect the reason why Marks example of payback period are based on the energy saver aspect alone, is because at the time of writing those marketing energy saver products tended to focuss on that aspect alone, and not the cost benefits achieved through the soft start feature and/or any other feature the product may have posessed.

 

To my way of thinking the manner in which Mark presents his 'payback period' information is not dissimilar to the approach adopted by Somar for presenting information. For example, Somar states that "savings of up to 40%" can be achieved. I don't see any significant difference between that and the "payback period will be 4.5 years" etc. Both statements are based on certain criteria being true. Both statements are not true for all installations. Both statements require due diligence on the part of the reader.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

While I do not propose to debate the Somar response in detail, I would like to comment on one paragraph in particular.

 

"We sent Mark an example of a Powerboss installation on a 100hp Bucket Elevator (See PDF in downloads section), to demonstrate just how good the savings and payback can be in certain situations. To date Mark has found no fault with the data but claimed that the customer would be better off with a high efficiency motor. We sourced a 100hp high efficiency motor on the Baldor website going for over $10,000; 8 times the price of the Powerboss installed in this example. That means this motor would need to save 8 times as much energy as Powerboss to deliver only the same result (which we propose is not possible)"

 

What Somar have not stated is that I indicated to them that although I did not see anything wrong with the figures they could only be true if the motor was severely overfluxed.

 

My comments were:

"The particular motor in your example is well over fluxed. This means that it's life will be significantly shortened. The use of an energy saving device will reduce the iron flux when the motor is at light load only, any period of time when it is loaded, the flux will be high. If a high efficiency motor was used, the losses will be lower all the time, not just at light load, and the losses at light load will still probably be lower than the over fluxed motor with the energy saver. The net result is that the energy saving will be higher with a high efficiency motor than with an over fluxed motor and energy saver."

 

I got prices from local suppliers for the PowerBoss and a replacement motor.

The quoted price for a replacement motor in NZ was $NZ3640 and the price for the PowerBoss was $NZ7695.

The replacement motor has a lower iron loss and will save energy under all load conditions and would yield a saving of 145% - 180% of the savings quoted for the PowerBoss.

I believe that an increase in energy savings of 50% or more at a cost of half of the energy saver by changing the motor, gives a payback advantage of better than 2 : 1 and is therefore a better result.

 

The bottom line, is check the costs and calculations for your application based on local prices.

 

Best regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...