FROM THE FIELD
June 2005
Knocking Down Ongoing Costs

Get around the industry at all these days, and immediately you see the single, overriding hot topic is ongoing costs.

Energy is huge part of that, of course. Federal legislators have dodged the subject, but voluntary programs like the EPA’s Energy Star standards for refrigeration, fryers, steamers and hot holding cabinets are blooming. And states are taking energy seriously. California, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey—all heavily populated—are among states that have passed energy laws impacting certain kitchen equipment such as refrigeration and signage. Several other states presently are considering similar standards. 

Water usage, too, is under a microscope. We’ve written often about the cheapest, best fix in the world, a low-flow pre-rinse nozzle. If you want to buy a $50 item that immediately saves you a bare minimum of $300 a year, this is the magic bullet. And EPA is considering expanding its Energy Star program to address water consumption in such things as warewashers.  In the meantime, several manufacturers have already introduced low-usage models that cut water and heating-energy costs by a thousand dollars per year or more.

ASTM tests reveal that competing equipment items can have an energy spread of 2:1 or even 3:1.

On the third-party research front, engineering groups are going after ongoing costs like medical researchers trying to stop a plague. A soon-to-be-published study by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers will truly blow away the industry with new findings on kitchen ventilation. ASHRAE Research Project 1202-RP, “Effect of Appliance Diversity and Position on Commercial Kitchen Hood Performance,” will present some astounding data on how moving equipment a matter of inches fore or aft can change capture and containment flow rates by 25% or more. And when combined with aerodynamic tweaks like side panels, the numbers jump that much again. The minute the document is cleared for public consumption, we’ll bring you a story that will stun you.

Meanwhile, the American Society for Testing and Materials continues to grow its portfolio of standardized test methods for testing performance and efficiency of foodservice equipment. To date, ASTM has ratified tests for some three dozen categories of equipment, test methods mainly developed and performed by the Food Service Technology Center in San Ramon, Calif. These tests are worth their weight in gold, too, often revealing that competing equipment items have an energy spread of 2:1 or even 3:1. What’s that mean in dollars? In many categories, the energy difference can be thousands of dollars over a five-year life. If the item lives longer, the savings are bigger.

The most stubborn piece of the puzzle will be to figure out maintenance costs. The North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers’ lifecycle costing task force is trying to develop lifecycle cost formulae as we speak, but the maintenance component will be the doozie. Operators, even the most sophisticated ones, haven’t tracked it. Manufacturers only track what goes on during warranty periods. Commonality of parts and the availability of non-OEM parts mean parts data don’t help.

Until service agents start funneling trackable, after-warranty maintenance data to the factories, you might have to start tracking yourself. But the answers will come—one way or another.

Brian Ward
Chief Editor