Comments on: FACTORS YOU MUST CONSIDER WHEN PURCHASING A NEW VMC http://www.fabricatingandmetalworking.com/2012/01/factors-you-must-consider-when-purchasing-a-new-vmc/ Magazine Tue, 15 May 2012 22:00:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bill Howard http://www.fabricatingandmetalworking.com/2012/01/factors-you-must-consider-when-purchasing-a-new-vmc/#comment-17687 Bill Howard Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:33:54 +0000 http://www.fabricatingandmetalworking.com/?p=26446#comment-17687 Dan, Thank you for your feedback. I’m glad to see that this article has sparked an interest. You bring up a great point about energy costs. With an average national energy cost of approximately 6.81 cents per kilowatt-hour, manufacturers in areas such as New England where energy costs could be nearly 13 cents per kilowatt-hour would be wise to take this cost into consideration (http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state.php). The way we see energy costs fitting into the equation is dependent upon machine usage. With a more powerful spindle, manufacturers can effectively reduce cycle times, and inherently the amount of energy required to complete a process. Given a machine with the desired qualities that were highlighted in this article, the cycle time savings could be anywhere from 30-50 percent, dramatically reducing energy consumption and costs. Also factor in the overall operational cost savings of up to $35,000 that was referenced in the article and the higher power spindle becomes an even greater value. As a rough estimate example – when comparing 20 HP (14.914 kW rating) and 33.5 HP (24.98 kW rating) spindles over 2,000 hours per year, the kW hours per year will be 29,828 and 49,960 respectively. In an area such as New York, these figures calculated at 12.62 cents per kilowatt-hour would translate into energy costs of $3,764.29 for the 20 HP spindle and $6,304.95 for the 33.5 HP spindle – a considerable difference of $2,540.66! However, if we take into account an average cycle time savings of 30 percent with the 33.5 HP spindle, the kW hours per year is then reduced to just 34,972. This in-turn minimizes the energy cost difference to just $649.17. As a result, a manufacturer would be spending an additional $650 in energy costs, but gaining up to $35,000 in overall cost savings. While that was somewhat of a simplified example, I hope it helps explains why our thinking didn’t address this issue. Again, thank you for your feedback and insightful observation. Please feel free to call or e-mail me if you would like to discuss our cost evaluations in more detail. -Bill Howard- William.Howard@makino.com (513)573-4408 Dan,

Thank you for your feedback. I’m glad to see that this article has sparked an interest. You bring up a great point about energy costs. With an average national energy cost of approximately 6.81 cents per kilowatt-hour, manufacturers in areas such as New England where energy costs could be nearly 13 cents per kilowatt-hour would be wise to take this cost into consideration (http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state.php).

The way we see energy costs fitting into the equation is dependent upon machine usage. With a more powerful spindle, manufacturers can effectively reduce cycle times, and inherently the amount of energy required to complete a process. Given a machine with the desired qualities that were highlighted in this article, the cycle time savings could be anywhere from 30-50 percent, dramatically reducing energy consumption and costs. Also factor in the overall operational cost savings of up to $35,000 that was referenced in the article and the higher power spindle becomes an even greater value.

As a rough estimate example – when comparing 20 HP (14.914 kW rating) and 33.5 HP (24.98 kW rating) spindles over 2,000 hours per year, the kW hours per year will be 29,828 and 49,960 respectively. In an area such as New York, these figures calculated at 12.62 cents per kilowatt-hour would translate into energy costs of $3,764.29 for the 20 HP spindle and $6,304.95 for the 33.5 HP spindle – a considerable difference of $2,540.66! However, if we take into account an average cycle time savings of 30 percent with the 33.5 HP spindle, the kW hours per year is then reduced to just 34,972. This in-turn minimizes the energy cost difference to just $649.17. As a result, a manufacturer would be spending an additional $650 in energy costs, but gaining up to $35,000 in overall cost savings.

While that was somewhat of a simplified example, I hope it helps explains why our thinking didn’t address this issue. Again, thank you for your feedback and insightful observation. Please feel free to call or e-mail me if you would like to discuss our cost evaluations in more detail.

-Bill Howard-
William.Howard@makino.com
(513)573-4408

]]> By: dan k http://www.fabricatingandmetalworking.com/2012/01/factors-you-must-consider-when-purchasing-a-new-vmc/#comment-17093 dan k Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:31:41 +0000 http://www.fabricatingandmetalworking.com/?p=26446#comment-17093 One thing never mentioned or considered is that Horsepower is not free. The higher the Horsepower, the more electricity the machine consumes. In some parts of the country with very high electrical rates, that can add a lot to overall operating costs. I am not so sure the savings from higher horsepower machines could offset the increased utility costs over a year's time. There is no free lunch. Dan Kliegel Kliegel Machine Company, LLC Big Flats, NY One thing never mentioned or considered is that Horsepower is not free. The higher the Horsepower, the more electricity the machine consumes. In some parts of the country with very high electrical rates, that can add a lot to overall operating costs. I am not so sure the savings from higher horsepower machines could offset the increased utility costs over a year’s time. There is no free lunch.

Dan Kliegel
Kliegel Machine Company, LLC
Big Flats, NY

]]>