30 minute read
Waste to energy | panel discussion
L–R: Christopher Voyce,John Bradley, Gayle Sloan and Preet Brar
Waste to energy
Key points:
• it is important for industry to adhere to the waste management hierarchy and consider the role that waste to energy can play as part of an integrated approach to waste and resource recovery policy • private sector investment relies heavily on policy certainty and there is a clear role for government in setting the regulatory framework within which commercially viable projects can come to market, and • community acceptance is crucial to the success of large-scale waste to energy facilities, and proponents need to spend time building their social licence to operate.
Panellists:
► John Bradley, Secretary, Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning ► Preet Brar, Chief Financial Officer, Veolia ► Gayle Sloan, Chief Executive Officer, Waste Management Association of Australia
Moderator:
► Christopher Voyce, Executive Director, Infrastructure, Utilities and Renewables, ANZ, Macquarie Capital
Pre-panel address
Christopher Voyce (CV): It’s a very interesting time in the waste sector, with significant policy changes in China revealing our reliance on export markets for recycling. These changes have impacted local operators and councils. States have been required to provide significant financial assistance to both councils and operators in the transition to process more recycled materials locally. That’s been an interesting crisis in that section of the market, not really 100 per cent germane to waste to energy, but what it has done is raise awareness and interest in the waste sector. It has helped in identifying the potential opportunities for investment in economic and environmental infrastructure.
One area where we lag behind our global peers is in the provision of waste to energy facilities. However, recent developments have indicated that we are making progress. There are a number of waste to energy facilities in development in Western Australia, a number going through the environmental approval process here in Victoria, and a recent announcement in relation to a new facility in Queensland.
Australia produces around 60 million tonnes of waste each year – around 55 per cent is recycled and about 40 per cent, or 27 million tonnes, goes to landfill. We recover energy from less than four per cent of the waste that’s generated. If you compare that to other countries where energy recovery is somewhere between 30 and 50 per cent of waste generated at the municipal level, there’s significant potential upside and investment opportunity in the waste to energy sector.
Step back for a second to think about how waste to energy could fit into the overall policy framework for how we deal with waste. Most jurisdictions rely on a version of a waste hierarchy in ranking the relevant treatment of waste, with waste avoidance and re-use being at the top and landfill down the bottom. Energy recovery and recycling have been somewhere in the middle. One of the key policy challenges for Australia will be how we balance increased recycling rates with the introduction of waste to energy.
In terms of providing the incentive for higher uses in the waste hierarchy, several state governments have instituted waste levies, which are charged in addition to the gate fee for disposal of waste at landfill. Recently, Queensland which removed its waste levy in 2014–2015, just passed legislation to reinstate a waste levy from early next year.
Relative to our global peers, Australia does okay in terms of recycling, with New South Wales performing best. It also has the highest waste levy at around $140 per tonne. But where we lag significantly is in the recovery of energy from waste. The OECD average for municipal waste is around 48 per cent recovery through recycling and 30 per cent from energy recovery. Denmark, which is the leading light in terms of waste to energy, has very little waste going to landfill: around one to two per cent.
Christopher Voyce
CV: Gayle, what does the waste management and resource recovery sector in Australia look like and how does waste to energy fit in?
Gayle Sloan (GS): It just shows how waste has changed. It’s no longer something that we ignore and forget about. Waste is a $15 billion industry. We employ 50,000 people nationally, and there’s something like 15,000 infrastructure sites across Australia.
We don’t talk about waste, we talk about resources. We are actually managing resources and if I have my way, we’ll be the next resource boom in Australia because of what we actually take out of the ground and use as resources. Our goal is to reuse those resources and comply with the waste management hierarchy. Our goal is to recycle, so China bringing us to the forefront is a great opportunity to have that conversation with the public and explain what we’re trying to do.
We don’t want to send things to landfill. We want to take resources and use them repeatedly to create a circular economy in Australia. We see waste to energy as something just above landfill. We don’t see it high up the hierarchy. It is leakage from a circular economy in the sense that once we burn it, we can’t use it again. Waste to energy is absolutely better than landfill because we create energy rather than methane and leachate, and it’s something that I think has a place in our industry. It’s debatable what the place is and the size and extent of it.
In Europe, there’s a prevalence of these facilities because there isn’t the same adherence in some countries to the waste management hierarchy. There’s a real risk that we’ve created facilities that need feedstock when we should be taking those resources and using them over and over again, rather than burning them.
We’ve got to find a balance in Australia as to where waste to energy fits in. We do have 30 facilities currently in Australia, but you get energy in many ways, including from organics. It’s a really interesting time for us, but it’s really important that we get it right.
CV: Preet, you’re the Chief Financial Officer of Veolia here in Australia. Veolia operates a range of different assets including landfills, waste to energy and sorting facilities. What are the different types of waste to energy technologies and how do they compare?
Preet Brar (PB): When we talk about waste to energy, there are a number of technologies and treatment solutions that are captured. Anaerobic digestion is one and we do have facilities in Australia that are doing that. You can also look at refusederived fuel as waste to energy. The attention and debate is mostly around the incineration waste to energy model. We saw the proposal recently about Remondis seeking to build a $400-million facility in Queensland.
In terms of the incineration waste to energy model, there are a few different technologies. There is the mass burn incineration model, and then there is gasification and pyrolysis. The latter types, in our view, are unproven technologies and most of the facilities in Europe are the incineration type. It’s a proven technology and when we are having the debate, we have to keep in mind which type of waste to energy model we are talking about.
CV: John, perhaps you have a perspective on that as well?
John Bradley (JB): In Victoria, the way we’re thinking about our waste hierarchy is well reflected in the comments that Gayle made. There’s certainly an opportunity for waste to energy to play its part, but the worst waste to energy facility is not a better outcome for the community, in terms of environmental hazards and risks, than an appropriately regulated landfill facility. We’ve seen a lot of improvements in the quality of our landfill systems in recent years. There is now a fair amount of methane capture occurring at those landfill facilities, but no-one wants to see an increase in waste going to landfill.
When we look at the growth projection in waste, volumes are projected to increase by about 60 per cent over the next 30 years. In Victoria, we’re recovering about two-thirds of our waste, which is a strong performance. The area where we’ve got a gap now is around organics, with about 1.5 million tonnes per annum going to landfill. That’s a lost opportunity.
When we think about the portfolio of potential waste to energy technologies, it’s a question of where are the gaps in our achievement of resource recovery and the waste hierarchy? And what role does waste to energy have to play? We think there are some prospective opportunities. We’re certainly seeing local governments in Victoria leaning into some of those opportunities, and there are various discussions going on now with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) around potential works approvals.
CV: Given some of the challenges, what’s the most appropriate way for these projects to come to market? Several proposals have been market-led proposals. Do you see a role for government in the procurement of those projects or do we leave it to industry to decide?
JB: It’s a fast-moving space and there’s been record development, particularly around landfill methane gas capture. Some of our water entities are active in relation to organics in waste to energy through commercial organic streams.
The job of government is to develop an integrated waste and resource recovery policy framework, particularly a circular economy framework. That’s something we’ll be releasing soon. That should set the policy framework within which resource recovery occurs and projects can come forward, if they’re commercially viable. We’re trying to avoid an environment where there is confusion of economic signals to market actors.
GS: Waste is a funny industry because no-one wants to deal with it, but we’re very regulated by government. We’re a bit halfpregnant because government tells us what diversion targets we’ve got to reach by state. Government focuses actively on the household sector, which is less than 25 per cent of waste. For the remaining 75 per cent we’ve got diversion targets. So, we’ve got to do both. The market has to understand that this is the diversion target we’ve got to hit in the future, so this is the type of technology we need to see rolled out, and government needs to provide the planning certainty to do it.
There’s around 51 million tonnes through construction and demolition (C&D), and commercial and industrial (C&I) waste that government doesn’t procure. The C&I sector is where the big opportunities are for bespoke waste to energy facilities.
The regulatory regime needs to support it, but we’ve also got to be sure the market stacks up, because that technology is not cheap and it’s not something you build in a year or two. You’ve got to have long-term certainty.
CV: Preet, do you see enough private-sector appetite for investing?
PB: The appetite is there. It’s quite market-led at this stage. I don’t think it’s a question of appetite from the private sector to be in this space. It’s more a question of certainty from a planning and policy perspective. The regulations are vague and unclear when dealing with the residual waste that comes out of such facilities.
Take bottom ash, for example – some of the product still needs to go to landfill. I believe the current regulatory environment basically aligns with the waste incineration directive (WID) for Europe to comply with the air pollution standards. There is a lot of uncertainty in that space and it makes it commercially difficult to get these proposals to a stage where you can seek funding.
CV: Do you think that the key regulatory and policy settings are in place here in Victoria or in other jurisdictions?
JB: It’s a work in progress. We need to continue reviewing standards, particularly as new technology is adopted. Some of the models around pyrolysis will take us to new places in terms of the need for the regulatory framework to evolve. When we look at the rigour of the EPA’s current environmental regulatory framework around air, noise and dust levels – issues that speak directly to the social licence of waste to energy proposals in local communities – the framework is reasonably robust in Victoria.
The EPA has three works approvals in front of it now, including Victoria’s first significant waste to energy proposal, a project around 220 megawatts in scale. That assessment process is underway. The message from us to the sector is to make sure that they take the community with them and manage that local social licence in an assertive way.
CV: What do you think the industry can do to generate social licence for the development of these facilities?
GS: We must take a long time to do these in order to do them well. If there’s any infrastructure anyone doesn’t want in their backyard, it’s waste. We have to spend a lot of time engaging with the community. We’ve had a facility in Western Sydney that didn’t do that, and we saw the consequences of that. Equally, we’ve just had approved in Western Australia and the Northern Territory a subterranean hazardous waste facility. That consortium spent three years purely on social licence.
We are long-term infrastructure that needs long-term planning and community acceptance. Remondis, while it announced its proposal recently, started consulting with the adjacent community in January this year. It is critical for any infrastructure project to take the community with you.
PB: Social licence is one of the biggest barriers to these facilities. There is still a lot of misinformation around air pollution and emissions with the facilities, as well as issues such as whether there is energy recovery or not associated with it, and what happens with the residual products.
The social licence phase is at the front of everyone’s mind. As you start to engage with these facilities, community engagement and education need to start years ahead of construction. Even within an organisation you can have quite contrasting views on the same topic. It gives you a sense of what the public is going to be feeling about a facility in their backyard.
It is something that differentiates landfill from waste to energy. In the last 20 years, landfills have moved away from urban areas and are located out of sight. Whereas to maximise the benefits, waste to energy facilities are mostly within urban districts, and that means the social licence becomes very important.
GS: One of our biggest challenges is urban encroachment. The irony is that the cities are the ones that create the waste, and we’re not very good at planning for where we put the infrastructure. The Greater Sydney Commission recently released its strategy for the growth of Sydney and mentioned waste once. How do you plan for this infrastructure where the waste is and keep that encroachment? It’s really challenging to get the planning regime right for us to build these facilities in an economically viable way.
JB: When we’re looking at the kind of rates of growth in Victoria, particularly in Greater Melbourne, we’re conscious of two issues. One is the challenges of securing sites for landfill in a growing urban environment, but also resources in terms of quarries. Those kinds of finite opportunities become more difficult in a fast-growing place. One of the things we see in the waste to energy proposals that achieve strong social licence at an early stage is the direct involvement, or a close working relationship, with local government.
CV: Where waste to energy has been successfully adopted– for example, in Japan – policy says that if you generate waste within your municipal area, it needs to be dealt with in that area. This leads to a lack of space for landfill, but also a need to deal with it in the area. Do you see a change in attitude like that being driven by the community?
GS: One of my favourite topics is the proximity principle that the European Union and Japan have legislated. This is the idea that you should manage your waste close to the point of generation. New South Wales has a proximity principle, but due to the Section 92 Constitutional issues, it’s allegedly unconstitutional. This needs to be addressed, because we need certainty in the market, certainty of input and certainty of levy so that we can invest.
We don’t want waste moving around the country. There is currently medical waste being transported from Western Australia to Victoria. If the public knew that, they’d be appalled. We should be managing our generation of waste close to where we are. We need a national proximity principle.
CV: Is there a role for the Commonwealth Government in terms of providing national leadership around these issues?
JB: There is. There has been recent agreement between State and Federal Ministers to review the national waste strategy. That’s something where waste to energy will have a role to play as part of the broader agenda. It is critical to adopt an integrated approach to waste and resource recovery policy, rather than having a bespoke solution for waste to energy.
GS: The Government is currently reviewing the national waste strategy. The Federal Government doesn’t really get us – it’s trying, but it’s a challenge. The states are the regulators, but we’re a market and we need market development. We need to think about how we use our products and resources, and we need to value recycled content to drive demand. The Federal Government is still unsure of how they can get into our space. We’re running this very much as an economic argument as opposed to an environmental one. If we recycle 10,000 tonnes, we create 9.2 jobs. If we landfill that amount, it’s 2.8 jobs.
It’s an absolute no-brainer that we need to see waste as a resource. We should decouple ourselves from global markets and create investment in secondary manufacturing in Australia. We have good examples of that, such as Visy, which is an integrated supply chain with paper and plastic. We need more to be done and the public needs to think about buying recycled-content products in Australia. That’s where demand and investment will come from. The Federal Government needs to play a coordination and leadership role in creating a circular economy in Australia.
PB: The Commonwealth definitely has a role to play, certainly around extended producer responsibility. It’s going to be very hard to push some of those initiatives at a state level.
CV: I think there’s a huge challenge as we transition the waste and resource recovery sector to being more sustainable. I’m quite optimistic about the prospects for waste to energy. We’ve got a couple of projects in Perth and some projects going through the EPA’s process in Victoria, and of course the recent announcement in Queensland. There is growing support.
For investment in environmental infrastructure, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. Do you have some closing comments around waste to energy and its potential here?
JB: If it seems like you’re hearing the dampeners being put on waste to energy in Victoria, that’s not our perspective. We’re trying to bring the community with us to maintain that social licence. If the community thinks it’s an industry that’s being propped up for its own purpose through government measures, that’s when we’ll struggle to maintain their confidence. There is a lot of waste and resource recovery institutional infrastructure in Victoria to try to support a good resource recovery sector.
In Victoria, we’ve got waste and resource recovery groups that help to aggregate municipal waste and put that to market in order to stimulate market opportunities. This is a sector that is ripe for market opportunities – whether that is in resource recovery in the circular economy, or in waste to energy facilities.
GS: Waste to energy has a role in the investment, but it’s one part of a whole spectrum to invest in. We’ve just seen an organics facility announced in Victoria that is $400 million worth of investment. There are so many opportunities to invest in this sector to create jobs. Waste to energy is just one of many opportunities that we have right now.
PB: When we are looking at waste to energy, we have to look at resource recovery first. With waste to energy, we are looking at the red bin. You’ve got your yellow bin for recyclables, which have to go through the highest use. That starts with extended producer responsibility to reduce what’s going in the bin to start with. You’ve also got the green waste and the organics, and we need to extract as much as we can. When it goes to landfill it creates adverse environmental outcomes through landfill gas.
When you look at the red bin, that’s where the efforts need to be. How can we reduce organics from that bin and what do you do with the rest of your bin? Do you continue to put it in landfill where you still have challenges that come with leachate and landfill gas? Or do you look to shift to waste to energy? That will require education and clarification. We need to take the public with us, that will be part of that social licence.
CV: The opportunity is perhaps a bit broader than just waste to energy. For the infrastructure investment community, it is an area that’s worthy of much further study.
John Bradley – Secretary, Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
Mr Bradley is the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in Victoria. He has previously served as Director General of the Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet, and Director General of the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management.
Until September 2017, he served as CEO of Energy Networks Australia – the peak body representing Australia’s electricity transmission and distribution and gas distribution businesses. Mr Bradley has also held senior positions with the Queensland Water Commission and the Western Australian Office of Energy.
He previously advised the International Monetary Fund and held several board directorships.
Mr Bradley has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Queensland and a Master of Business Administration from the Queensland University of Technology.
Preet Brar – Chief Financial Officer, Veolia
With a Master of Business Accounting and more than 10 years in business management, Ms Brar’s passion for sustainable solutions and the circular economy is evident in the way she runs her business. A creative thinker with shrewd business skill, Ms Brar fosters and develops these same qualities in the people around her.
Ms Brar has been with Veolia for 14 years across multiple business units. In her current role as Chief Financial Officer, she establishes the strategic, growth and performance expectations and is accountable for the region’s overall financial performance. Ms Brar is a staunch believer in a circular economy and leads a team that has delivered a circular model of innovative resource management, supporting economic growth while saving our valuable resources. Gayle Sloan – Chief Executive Officer, Waste Management Association of Australia
Ms Sloan is an arts and law graduate from the University of Adelaide. She spent many years working for the New South Wales Attorney General’s Department before moving into the Attorney General’s Ministerial Office in 1998, and then the New South Wales Police Minister’s Office in 2000.
Following this time in state government, Ms Sloan worked as a Director in a number of New South Wales councils, primarily looking after service delivery and assets. She developed and delivered a number of waste management contracts on behalf of councils, as well as managing environment and regulatory departments, including rangers and compliance officers.
After three years of being a stay-at-home mum, Ms Sloan returned to work in 2012 at Visy. In November 2015, she joined the Waste Management Association of Australia as Chief Executive Officer.
Christopher Voyce – Executive Director, Macquarie Capital
Mr Voyce has been an Executive Director in Macquarie Capital’s Infrastructure, Utilities & Renewables industry group in Australia and New Zealand since September 2015, after returning from 11 years as a Senior Director with Macquarie Capital in the United States.
Mr Voyce has more than 20 years’ experience advising corporates, governments and investors on infrastructure mergers and acquisitions, project financing and project development. He has closed over $50 billion in infrastructure financings, fund raisings and acquisitions for a range of clients in the power, utilities, transportation and social infrastructure sectors in Australia, Asia, Europe and North America.
Australia’s largest cities are facing a period of sharp growth that will put great pressure on the country’s infrastructure. ‘The National Australia Bank (NAB) has a very clear strategy about being the leading infrastructure bank in Australia,’ says General Manager, Resources, Infrastructure and Government, Corporate & Institutional Banking, NAB, Connie Sokaris. ‘That is really based on the role of making leading infrastructure plays in key growth strategies across the nation, including delivering to increasing populations in a number of growth corridors like Greater Western Sydney.’
The growth is expected to be intense. Infrastructure Australia predicts that in the next 30 years, Australia’s population will increase by 11.8 million people – the equivalent of adding a city the size of Canberra each year for the next 30 years. About three quarters of the growth will occur in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
Head of Infrastructure, Specialised and Acquisition Finance for NAB, Stephen Land says the bank is focusing not only on ‘being an expert’, but is also looking to change people’s lives. ‘A key thing with infrastructure is to provide a service to increase people’s wellbeing rather than just a hard asset – which may be how it’s been seen historically. The community is playing a larger role in having a say, not only on the structure delivered, but also on how it is delivered.’
Sokaris also advocates this focus on the service provided, rather than a hard asset. ‘Rather than talking about a toll road, for example, we talk about how to get people to work and home again more quickly. We consider how we can do that within 30 minutes from the city, rather than thinking about the project in isolation. Then, we look at how it ties into the broader aims that government and private enterprises are trying to achieve. The key is thinking about infrastructure services as a system that needs to be connected. To do this, we need to take a customercentric view of infrastructure.’
Taking this wider perspective on infrastructure involves having a good relationship with government. ‘When the government formulates policies, there is a certain amount of market sounding that is carried out directly and indirectly through various advisers,’ says Land. ‘We actively participate in those market soundings. We provide feedback, not only on the process but also on the bankability of these projects.’
Sokaris says that local funds and global equity funds are involved in the current infrastructure pipeline for Australia. ‘Our role has changed over the last few years. Previously, it was government that had the responsibility to ensure that community engagement was being looked at.
‘But if you actually think about infrastructure as a service, or a way to improve quality of life, then that really falls on ourselves – not only as funding providers but also, with our key clients, making sure that the process is proceeding in a way that allows the community to have strong buy-in to the plan.’
Land says that it is necessary to support the key systems around infrastructure projects. ‘We are not only talking about limited recourse financing of hard infrastructure assets, but also about supporting the contractors – whether for a small or large business, offshore or onshore; or whether it is providing the working capital facilities and bonding. A lot of these things are subcontracted.’
Taking a national perspective on the powerful role of infrastructure and its broader impacts to ensure that
Stephen Land Connie Sokaris
projects support the key economic drivers of Australia is another aim for NAB, says Sokaris. ‘How is that delivered? Number one: from a banking perspective, we have really strong capabilities that enable us to execute on our plan.
‘We also understand the amount of investment and liquidity coming in from outside the banking sector, and we can play a really key role in intermediating that.
‘We engage with both government and industry, so that we are playing a role in shaping some of that thinking –
not exactly how to prioritise projects, but how infrastructure can be delivered in the best way for consumers and also in the best way for government.’
Land says that the funding sources are becoming more diverse, which is a welcome development given the need for capital. ‘We are now seeing institutional investors getting involved in that space, which helps to provide liquidity. It means greater viability for larger and larger projects.’
Capacity constraints are appearing because of the scale and number of projects.
‘That is not just in terms of handson tools and machines to dig up ground. It is also around the financial side,’ Land says.
‘We are not just lending to big projects; it is much more about supporting everyone all the way through – from the sole contractor through to these large, offshore businesses – to help build an infrastructure pipeline. The bank has a big part to play, given our position; we are supporting the evolution. It is a long-term play.’
Land adds that there is growing international interest in the Australian infrastructure market. ‘We are going to see more and more offshore businesses that will do their own research and have more money to put into infrastructure. We speak to them regularly and update them on what is happening in the Australian market and where the opportunities are.’
The fund flows are going in both directions. ‘It is not just pension funds coming into Australia to invest; we are also seeing some of Australia’s capital going offshore to invest in projects and infrastructure offshore,’ says Sokaris.
‘So, for us, it is really being able to help Australian clients deliver on their own strategy. It is another key to being able to really drive a strong infrastructure culture within the organisation.’ ♦
Information the key to Australian energy transformation
If knowledge is power in an uncertain world, then RPS’ information-first approach to infrastructure is a powerful force in the search for answers to Australia’s ‘energy question’.
With so many competing forces at work in the energy sector, information-led project strategy and technology-driven data analysis are our best weapons in the fight to balance complex engineering requirements, increasing generation demand and environmental constraints, says RPS Managing Director for Energy Murray Burling.
‘RPS makes infrastructure easier for clients by acquiring, managing and providing practical project insights. We work with infrastructure proponents to measure and assess opportunities through a variety of lenses – environmental, commercial and social – which ultimately helps to accelerate Australia’s transition to more sustainable energy solutions.’
Recognising the importance of data in determining the viability of options that are new to Australia – such as offshore wind farming – RPS has invested significantly in technologies that make understanding wind resources and projecting energy yield easier and more reliable for offshore project developers.
Utilising floating light detection and ranging (floating LiDAR), the firm’s latest meteorological and oceanographic (MetOcean) innovation allows RPS specialists to measure wind speed and turbulence at turbine height with less impact, less cost and higher accuracy at sea.
‘International markets are already reaping the benefits of offshore wind at scale, and through our support for projects like the London Array in the United Kingdom, Empire Wind in the United States and a whole host of onshore wind clients here in Australia, RPS has refined the methodologies and technologies we use to deliver project design and development solutions,’ Burling explains.
‘There is a significant opportunity for offshore wind development in Australia, but as this type of generation is a new frontier for the local industry to cross, it’s vital that investors have reliable data to objectively assess potential benefit against perceived risk.’
RPS information has helped to drive the explosion in large-scale solar development across Australia in recent years, too. For example, the firm’s planning and environmental specialists have assisted RATCH Energy to capitalise on infrastructure and land lying idle, following the decommissioning of Collinsville’s coal-fired power plant in North Queensland.
RPS Managing Director for Energy, Murray Burling
With actionable insights on everything from development applications to environmental impacts and transmission network connections, RATCH is expecting to complete the 42.5-megawatt solar array with capacity to power up to 15,000 homes later this year.
RPS prepared all planning and environmental approvals for the 205-hectare site, undertook an indepth visual impact assessment and even contributed information that helped secure $9.5 million in funding for the project under the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)’s large-scale solar round in 2016.
‘Collinsville is just one example of how quality information and strategic advice can help Australia’s energy sector to capitalise on infrastructure opportunities successfully and sustainably,’ says Burling.
‘We’re passionate about helping more project proponents take the leap into renewables, while reaping the rewards of investment in next-generation infrastructure.’ ♦
Expand your possibilities with advanced energy meters
Energy metering is at the core of understanding your energy consumption, and provides you with a smart way to manage and improve your use with accurate information. NHP is pleased to bring a new range of advanced energy meters to the market for all your measurement needs.
Energy metering provides highaccuracy monitoring
The newly released NEMO 96EA from NHP provides high-accuracy monitoring of energy and power measurements, ensuring that you have all the important information required to identify consumption trends and any power quality issues. Take corrective actions quickly, whether they are to assist in improving uptime or reducing energy bills.
The NEMO 96EA captures critical events, such as voltage dips, interruptions, sags and swells, flickers, rapid voltage changes, and total harmonic distortion (THD) analysis with individual harmonic analysis up to the 40th harmonic, providing valuable insights into the power quality on site.
Featuring eight megabytes of built-in memory, which allows the storage of up to 3000 events, as well as energy consumption and real-time variables, the NEMO 96EA includes Modbus RTU communication as standard for remote monitoring. This modular power analyser integrates with digital and analogue input/output (I/O) modules for the complete energy management solution.
Raise the bar with NHP’s advanced energy meter
NHP is pleased to bring to the local Australian and New Zealand markets the Conto D6 energy meter, expanding the possibility for energy metering.
Ideal as a sub-meter for installation within switchboards and panel boards, the Conto D6 energy meter is a threephase, four-wire direct-connect meter for current measurements up to 100 amps, delivering accurate and reliable measurement.
Designed for customer flexibility, this lightweight and compact product features quick and seamless installation with DIN rail mounts, easy-to-access sealable terminals and an intuitive user interface, reducing installation and set-up time.
Unlock hidden insights with advanced metering technology
Further broadening NHP’s comprehensive energy management product portfolio, NHP introduces the Carlo Gavazzi WM50 branch circuit energy meter, ideal for monitoring individual loads and critical equipment.
Utilising the TCD12 split core CTs, which are also perfect for retrofitting applications, the WM50 can monitor up to 96 current channels for single-, two- and three-phase measurements, providing granular insight into energy usage at each circuit at a greatly reduced measurement cost per channel.
Perfect for applications in powercritical environments such as hospitals, data centres, food storage and industrial production systems, this scalable device can be integrated easily with accessory modules that expand its control and communication capacity. ♦
