In this innovation project, we have implemented a model for extracting and disseminating knowledge from ongoing projects, called the triple-loop model. This model involves a learning expert participating as an observer to identify new knowledge that emerges from the collaboration between technical experts. This knowledge is then extracted from the project and converted into insights that can be shared with other technical experts while it is still relevant.
The project brings together leading experts in electricity and energy from several stakeholders:
When designing the measurement system, where we used ABB's ABB Ability Energy Manager system, several disciplines had to collaborate to understand which meters were needed and where they should be placed. It was important to avoid unnecessarily high costs for expensive equipment while ensuring that no important components were missed that could render the analysis results unusable.
Key individuals in the project included:
They worked together to ensure a cost-effective level of measurement that could identify deficiencies in the system's power quality.
Although it is becoming increasingly common to digitize buildings to measure energy consumption, knowledge about power quality is often lacking. There is a knowledge gap to overcome. Power quality is an important part of energy efficiency and can be very valuable for property owners to measure. It becomes especially cost-effective if this data can be collected simultaneously when installing equipment to measure energy consumption.
The project will continue for another year but has already successfully tested a model for extracting knowledge in technical projects within advanced digitalization. This demonstrates how knowledge can be quickly disseminated among technical experts while it is still relevant. An important lesson to share is that there is a significant knowledge gap regarding using digitization projects to also evaluate savings in power quality. The project is funded by VINNOVA and is led by Luleå University of Technology and CDT, with partners including Skellefteå Municipality, Skellefteå Kraft, and ABB.
Here you can meet four of the project participants, who have all answered what the project has contributed from a learning perspective, what needs to be developed in future projects, and what technical insights they have personally gained from the project.
Professor,Head of Subject, Electrical Power Engineering, Luleå University of Technology
Product Specialist, ABB
Business Unit Manager, Products and Services, Skellefteå Kraft
Sustainability Manager, Property, Skellefteå Municipality
SARAH RÖNNBERG
New knowledge is the most important aspect from Luleå University of Technology’s focus in the project, says Sarah. The opportunity to gain a holistic view of where the sources are, where and what draws the most power, and where the bottlenecks are in a real environment is the strength of the project. We can then take this knowledge into many research projects when planning how we conduct research. We get answers to questions such as how much reality we need in our models to be able to draw conclusions on a real level.
What has been both good and frustrating is that this is a project with many stakeholders – academia, industry, public sector – and it’s great fun. However, we don’t always speak the same language – we think about the same things but describe them differently, which can create confusion. It may also be that within academia, we stick too much to theory, while others focus on practice, meaning we don’t seek each other out as much, even though both theory and practice are ultimately needed. Research projects are conducted in one way, and practical projects in another – but primarily, we too rarely talk to each other. This makes this type of project particularly educational. It’s both challenging and very beneficial.
The project has been delayed because the measurement data has been delayed, meaning we researchers have not progressed as far with the technical study. We have, of course, conducted several tests, but only now are we beginning to conduct tests with live data. We have one year left of the project time, and even though the project ends, our work does not end with it.
I have gained a lot of new insights through the project; for example, I’m surprised at how oversized the campus is. I have also understood how many different skills and knowledge areas you need to get such a measurement project up and running, plus that I personally need a lot of input to be able to do this properly.
LARS HJELMBERG
What was new for me in this project was creating an electrical diagram based on an existing structure. We usually create the structure from the beginning. There is a difference between new construction and existing structures; this is a lesson I take with me. At the beginning of the project, the entire project group gathered and looked at the existing structure, and I felt that many hoped I could tell them where and which measurement points should be read, but that’s not quite how it works. It’s the person who will benefit from the measurement data who has to decide where and how many measurement points are needed. At that moment, we realized that a consulting firm needed to be involved to conduct a proper analysis from the start. This was a lesson for everyone, I think; it’s not that simple, and an analysis is required to achieve the desired result.
It is important to involve the right people in the project who take on a heavier workload and ensure everything gets done. They must be the ones who really want this. In this project, the researchers have had the greatest need, but the responsibility for setting up the measurement points has rested with the municipality. They may not have the same need and desire, which should be considered in a similar project.
The project has also provided insights beyond the expected areas. We have seen that certain things consume large loads, even though this is neither intended nor necessary. If we were to do a similar project, the analysis should have been done before the project started; this is an important lesson. We still managed it in the project, partly thanks to a fantastic electrician who came in later. He was very skilled, which was very valuable for the project. A more specific budget would also have made things easier, as the ordering time was delayed because it was not entirely clear how the meters would be financed.
Personally, the project has made me more efficient. I have learned how the process works and can prepare better, which means that when I’m on-site in the project to contribute my parts, it goes much faster since I could prepare a lot at home.
PATRIK SUNDBERG
I would say that the project contributes more to the public than to Skellefteå Kraft, maybe not to the general public, but to other stakeholders, property companies, and so on, as we hope to visualize how we can share the resources we have. The project result has two advantages. The first advantage is that you realize the possibilities of energy efficiency; this part is very inspiring. The second major advantage is that we can realize densification projects, essentially a continuation of the first advantage. If you see gaps and weaknesses, you can fill them in and free up energy and power for other establishments or expansions.
It is still a bit too early to say exactly what the project has contributed beyond the benefits it should provide. We haven’t progressed far enough in the project yet; after all, there is still a year left.
I have a vision where I hope we end up. I want a simple model where you can graphically see what it looks like today, but if we take action in building A, it will have a consequence of how much energy efficiency we free up, and if we take action in building B, we get a different result. I want a valuation model because, as a property owner, you have limited funds to optimize energy efficiency, and you should be able to assess and see, "Where do I get the most value for the money?" The benefit can be different; for one, it may be to reduce their electricity network fee, for another, to lower their baseline consumption, and for a third, to add a new wing to their factory. In the back of our minds was the establishment of Pågen's large bakery outside Lund, which could not be carried out due to power shortages, and we wondered if we had had a tool like this project aims to deliver, could we have solved it then?
We can take another example that we calculated. A solar power production that would obviously have a certain production and the owner of the solar park would have a certain consumption of the electricity.
RICKARD JONSSON
What we have learned so far in the project correlates with what we anticipated in the application. For example, with analysis tools and simulations, we can ensure that we make wise and accurate decisions. There are two main advantages: firstly, that we can see our consumption and how we might change it to reduce costs and possibly even reduce the power demand by managing peak loads, and secondly, energy efficiency. The idea behind the systems is that we should be able to work systematically in a simplified way, making the right decisions and wise choices.
Of course, we have worked with various tools and energy efficiency before, but the difference now is that we are collaborating with academia and industry, which brings new insights and lessons, both positive and negative. When working alone, decisions are made much faster and the process is clearer, but on the other hand, you miss out on the knowledge that researchers, Skellefteå Kraft, and ABB possess. This is clearly an advantage. It's also useful to learn that clarity and structure are important in the work so that everyone has the same goals. Working in a research project is different from running our own projects because it becomes a bit unclear. Different questions arise compared to usual. Research has its own demands and needs, and we as property owners might have other needs, which leads to significantly more questions.
I may not have gained any completely new insights, but during the project, new questions have arisen for many property owners and others. For example, there is generally greater focus on data management, open data/data exchange, in the industry. This has emerged as an important industry issue, and it's more difficult than one might think. The main reason is that so many parties are involved, making it complicated. It has been very helpful to have the side project that Marie Dahlblom from ABB has led and discussed in some of our meetings. It has been very interesting to see how they work on integrating learning into the processes. It's both enjoyable and educational to gain insights beyond what we engineers usually have on our agenda.