SPECIAL REPORTS 40 HYDRAULICS & PNEUMATICS June 2026 www.hpmag.co.uk poorly aligned drivetrain, a chain drive running at the wrong tension, or a pump that has been manually throttled to restrict flow. Fraser Lynch of Westin Drives made exactly that point: “We went out, fitted an inverter and an energy-efficient motor — then noticed the pump was manually valved off to restrict flow. Just opening that valve saved far more than anything we’d just done.” That quote recounting a job at a quarry captures the problem neatly. A pump had been running against a partially closed manual valve, which was essentially throttling the flow and wasting energy continuously. Opening the valve after installing a VSD cost nothing and delivered savings that eclipsed the entire investment made in new equipment. It is a dramatic example, but the underlying lesson is widely applicable. System efficiency, which considers the performance of the motor, the driven equipment, and the entire transmission path together, is what actually determines your energy bill. Nameplate efficiency is a starting point, not a destination. The budget disconnect There is a structural reason why sub-optimal decisions keep being made, and it has little to do with technical ignorance. It comes down to how budgets are allocated. In many organisations, engineering departments are responsible for procurement and maintenance, but energy costs sit in a completely separate budget, often managed by facilities or finance. The engineer tasked with replacing a failed motor is measured on capital expenditure, not on kilowatt-hours saved. Their incentive, therefore, is simply to source a compliant replacement at the lowest purchase price. Andy Patten of ADC Electricals pointed this out during the government review: “Engineering departments don’t really have that much interest in what the efficiency ratings are or the energy savings, because ultimately that doesn’t come out of their budget. Their focus is simply on what their budget is and how much the unit costs.” The consequence is predictable. The most energy-efficient option is rarely selected at the point of purchase, because the person making the decision will never see the return. It is one of the most persistent and underappreciated barriers to energy efficiency improvement in industrial settings. The fix requires organisational change as much as technical change. Equipment owners and asset managers who can align procurement decisions with whole-life energy costs, whether through internal charge-back mechanisms, life-cycle cost analysis tools, or simply ensuring that energy managers have a seat at the procurement table, tend to make consistently better investments. Where the real gains are Experts involved in the review were consistent on another point: for most motors currently in service, the incremental gains from moving up another efficiency class are becoming marginal. The easy wins from motor design have largely been captured. As Andy put it, the industry has: “reached the peak where it’s a lot of money to spend to save a fraction of a percent.” The better opportunities now lie elsewhere. There are three Are you leaving money on the table? Drawing on expert interviews conducted as part of the UK Government’s Post-Implementation Review of the Ecodesign Regulations for Electric Motors and Variable Speed Drives, Thomas Marks, Director General at the Association of Electrical and Mechanical Trades, outlines why an automatic motor upgrade might be missing the point, and explains what your alternative options are. Picture the scene. An engineering team at a processing facility decides it is time to modernise. They identify a motor running below current efficiency standards, procure a shiny new IE4-rated replacement, install it correctly, and duly record a compliance win. Job done. Or is it? According to industry experts consulted as part of a government-backed review of the UK’s Ecodesign Regulations for electric motors and variable speed drives (VSDs), that scenario plays out on sites across the country — and it routinely leaves the biggest energy savings untouched. The motor gets upgraded, but the system it sits in does not. The message from those closest to the technology is clear, and it is one equipment owners would do well to hear: focusing narrowly on motor efficiency ratings is, at best, an incomplete strategy. At worst, it can be an expensive distraction. The blinkered upgrade The efficiency classification system for motors — running from IE1 through to IE5 — has undeniably driven improvements in the products entering the UK market. Regulations have successfully phased out the least efficient motors, and the difference between, say, an IE2 and IE3 motor represents a meaningful reduction in running costs for many applications. But specialists in the field are increasingly vocal that chasing the next efficiency class on the motor nameplate can lead operators to miss the larger picture. As Johnathan McNamee from Hayley 24/7 explained: “the whole concept of going from IE2 to IE3, or three to four, can be a little bit blinkered. Sometimes people don’t look at the whole system enough.” The point is not that motor efficiency standards are irrelevant because they are not. It is that the motor is just one component in a wider mechanical system, and often not the one with the most room for improvement. The gains from a motor upgrade can be dwarfed by a number of issues, such as an inefficient gearbox, a Thomas Marks, Director General at the Association of Electrical and Mechanical Trades
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ0NzM=