There are nuclear power plants in France, transmission is limited in Scandinavia, there is little wind in the Atlantic, Germany is short of gas, and Poland is short of coal. Energy market analysts have been predicting the current situation for at least several years. We are talking about electricity shortages and the resulting astronomical prices per MWh.

So what is more important – cheaper energy or lower energy consumption?

Contrary to appearances, the lack of energy is not alien to our industry. I first encountered him in 2010, when I participated in the construction of a hypermarket in the outskirts of the city far to the east – beyond the Urals. The client was faced with the choice of building the most efficient cooling installation with full heat recovery or resigning from the investment as a whole. I have had such limitations regularly since then, and I believe my readers will too. However, it was only a local phenomenon, not significantly affecting the energy price.

In my opinion, your biggest advantage by standing up for the tender – an ace up your sleeve, is not meeting the requirements of EU regulations or ecology (otherwise right), but reducing the demand for electricity and enabling the client to carry out his investment. As I wrote above, we already have experience in this.

Meanwhile, astronomical energy prices. They should be treated as an additional leverage for our offer, giving faster payback for flooded system, heat recovery, hot glycol defrost, etc.

According to my calculations, most energy improvements today have a payback time of well below four and sometimes even around two years. There is no point in looking for such fast payoffs elsewhere!