A clearer view on energy outsourcing and partnerships

Surely the focus for industrial companies is to create a product that is as good as it can possibly be in terms of performance, costs and sustainability. They want to portion out their investments to succeed in this. Problem is that when the product is in focus, the energy and water systems are not. At least, mostly not. In my opinion they might even be inefficiently built, often having mainly supply security as a guiding criteria.

This hurts an engineer’s heart – but more importantly it should hurt a businessman’s heart!

In times when business is good and sales are blossoming, these inefficiencies are seldom obvious, maybe not even noticeable. But even then, my belief is that energy and water infrastructure shouldn’t cost – and shouldn’t consume – more than it needs to. Certainly not just because it isn’t a priority.

Fact is, the costs are not higher just because you cooperate with an external partner, quite the opposite. Otherwise, nor the above mentioned or other companies who are outsourcing their energy systems, should be doing just that. Few areas can provide such a direct return on investment, as new energy systems and improvements to existing systems. Global dairy cooperative Arla saves 40% of its earlier energy consumtion at its plant in Vimmerby and can also add 20% extended production capacity when partnering with Adven. Finnish food producer Apetit cuts energy use by 33% and and Viking Malt, one of Europes larger malt producers, found 65% of its energy need covered by its own waste streams when partnering with Adven and so on… Sustainability and business walk hand in hand.

The cost savings that come with outsourcing to energy transition experts are big enough for both parties to substantially gain from. Not to mention the relief for the industry in question of not having to bother about maintenance, energy shortage or unplanned downtimes. Even more important; look at the environmental benefits in reduced emissions, water savings or circularity and energy efficiency. Such progress are well-suited in your environmental report or in an application for a new environmental permit.

In a way this is true. If the industry has the skills, experience, resources and time, it would certainly be able to save lots of money from improving its energy systems. Still, this argument often blocks the transition from happening at all! By the end of the day, the right knowledge, money and time are rarely assets the industries have enough on their own.

I visited lots of industrial sites in Sweden during the 90’s and gave suggestions for more efficient energy systems. The response was often a clear “yes”. The construction was something they wanted to do, but on their own. When returning to the same sites today, not much has changed. The investments usually never happened, the clever system was never built and they never realized their savings.

Running an energy plant with solid fuels is often as complicated as running the main production – and is it really worth investing large sums in something that has not been assessed as core business? If only to save some extra money, besides the amount you already would save partnering with an energy expert?

We build in redundancy in our collaborations, both physically and in the contractual terms. We enter the partnership with shared goals. We find common ground in all the developments to be done and we set incentives together. Instead of losing control, you will have one less thing to worry about. And ususally even better control, since the follow up of the energy efficiency is part of our business.

It’s not necessary to be an expert on everything and it’s better to start your energy transition today than in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. Actually, changing your mindset is indeed a development of its own. Doing that could also serve your future energy supply.

Read more:

Adven’s partnership model Energy as a Service®

Industrial partnerships and services

Ongoing transitions

All partnership stories