TCO and Energy Efficiency of Injection Molding Machines - Technology Comparison 2025

Introduction

Industrial electricity costs in Poland reached 526.24 PLN/MWh in Q3 2024, representing a 5.7% increase compared to Q2, according to data from the Energy Regulatory Office (URE). Since 2021, energy prices for Polish industry have increased by over 60% in total, directly impacting profitability in the plastics processing industry.

According to research published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, electrical energy accounts for 30% to 45% of total operational costs of an injection molding cell in serial production. In this context, choosing the appropriate drive technology for an injection molding machine – hydraulic, servo-hydraulic, or fully electric – becomes a strategic decision with measurable financial impact. This guide presents a comprehensive TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) analysis methodology for injection molding machines, considering not only the purchase price but also energy costs, maintenance, downtime, and investment financing over a 10-15 year operational lifecycle.

What is TCO for Injection Molding Machines?

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a methodology for evaluating the actual costs of investing in an injection molding machine throughout its entire lifecycle, which typically spans 10-15 years. According to research published by Springer, traditional cost calculation methods focus exclusively on purchase price and miss 20% to 40% of actual costs associated with machine acquisition and operation.

The TCO formula for injection molding machines includes three main components:

• CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) - capital costs: machine purchase price, transport and installation costs, commissioning and startup, operator training, MES/ERP system integration
• OPEX (Operational Expenditure) - operating costs: electrical energy consumption (main cost item), planned maintenance and emergency repairs, consumable parts (screws, nozzles, slides, seals), planned and unplanned downtime costs, maintenance personnel labor hours
• End-of-life costs - disposal of hydraulic oil and coolants, machine scrapping, material recovery (recycling rate approx. 85-90%)

For example, for a 300-ton clamping force injection molding machine operating in three-shift mode for 10 years, the purchase price (approximately 400,000 - 600,000 PLN depending on technology) typically represents only 25-35% of total TCO. The remaining 65-75% consists of operational costs, with electrical energy accounting for 40-55% of this position.

Energy as a Key TCO Component

At the current industrial electricity price in Poland of 526.24 PLN/MWh (0.526 PLN/kWh) according to URE data for Q3 2024, energy consumption analysis becomes critical for injection molding profitability. Research published in Materials (MDPI) indicates the following average energy consumption indicators depending on drive technology:

• Hydraulic injection molding machines (standard with fixed displacement pump): 1.4-1.6 kWh/kg of plastic produced
• Servo-hydraulic injection molding machines (with variable displacement pump and servo drive): 1.0-1.2 kWh/kg
• All-electric injection molding machines: 0.9-1.1 kWh/kg

According to ENGEL manufacturer data, servo-hydraulic injection molding machines consume less than 60% of energy compared to traditional hydraulic machines, and all-electric machines can reduce energy consumption by up to half. The ecodrive system used in servo-hydraulic machines reduces energy consumption by over 40% compared to standard hydraulic systems with fixed displacement pumps.

Annual cost calculation for a 500-ton machine:

Assumptions: throughput 100 kg/h, operation 6,000 hours/year (three shifts, 250 working days), energy price 0.526 PLN/kWh

• Hydraulic machine: 1.5 kWh/kg × 100 kg/h × 6,000 h = 900,000 kWh/year × 0.526 PLN = 473,400 PLN/year
• Servo-hydraulic machine: 1.1 kWh/kg × 100 kg/h × 6,000 h = 660,000 kWh/year × 0.526 PLN = 347,160 PLN/year (savings 126,240 PLN, -27%)
• Electric machine: 1.0 kWh/kg × 100 kg/h × 6,000 h = 600,000 kWh/year × 0.526 PLN = 315,600 PLN/year (savings 157,800 PLN, -33%)

The difference in energy costs between a hydraulic and electric machine for this scenario is 157,800 PLN annually, which over 10 years yields savings of over 1.5 million PLN (without accounting for further energy price increases).

Drive Technology Comparison

Today's market offers three basic drive technologies for injection molding machines, differing in construction, energy efficiency, precision, and total costs. Choosing the appropriate technology depends on production specifics, quality requirements, and the plant's financial strategy.

Hydraulic Injection Molding Machines

Hydraulic injection molding machines are the oldest and still widely used technology, in which all machine movements – injection unit, clamping assembly, ejectors – are driven by a hydraulic system with fixed or variable displacement pump, supplying hydraulic cylinders.

CAPEX and OPEX characteristics:

• CAPEX: Baseline level (100%) – lowest purchase price among the three technologies
• Energy consumption: 100% (reference level) – highest energy consumption even in idle state
• Maintenance costs: 3-5% of machine value annually (oil change every 4,000-6,000 hours, filters, seals)

Advantages of hydraulic machines:

• Lowest purchase price - 30-40% cheaper than electric equivalents with the same clamping force
• Very high clamping forces - ability to achieve forces exceeding 10,000 tons at relatively low construction costs
• Mechanical durability - resistant to overloads and power supply interruptions
• Wide service base - years of technician experience, spare parts availability
• Modernization capability - easy to add servo drives to existing machines

Disadvantages of hydraulic machines:

• High energy consumption - pump runs continuously, even when machine performs no movement, consuming 30-50% of rated power
• Lower precision - position repeatability ±0.5-1.0 mm, which may be insufficient for precision parts
• Hydraulic system maintenance - regular oil changes needed (approx. 200-300 liters), filters, leak inspection
• Noise - hydraulic pump generates noise level 75-85 dB(A)
• Oil leak risk - can affect production cleanliness, especially critical in medical and food-grade industries
• Cycle time - slower movements compared to electric drives

Best applications: Large part production in small batches, cells with very high clamping forces (>1,500 tons), plants where energy costs represent a smaller share in cost structure.

Servo-Hydraulic (Hybrid) Machines

Servo-hydraulic (hybrid) injection molding machines combine the advantages of hydraulic systems with the energy efficiency of servo drives. The hydraulic pump is driven by a servo motor that adjusts pump rotation speed to current hydraulic power demand, eliminating idle state energy losses.

CAPEX and OPEX characteristics:

• CAPEX: 120-130% of hydraulic equivalent price
• Energy consumption: 40-50% savings compared to standard hydraulics (ecodrive system >40% according to ENGEL)
• Maintenance costs: 2-3% of machine value annually (still requires hydraulic system, but lower oil consumption)

Advantages of servo-hydraulic machines:

• Balance of cost and efficiency - 20-30% more expensive than hydraulic, but 30-40% cheaper than electric
• Significant energy consumption reduction - 40-50% savings compared to standard hydraulics
• Better precision - repeatability ±0.2-0.5 mm thanks to servo drive regulation
• Quieter operation - noise reduction of 5-10 dB(A) compared to standard hydraulics
• Retrofit capability - existing hydraulic machines can be modernized by replacing pump drive
• High clamping forces - machines available up to 6,000-8,000 tons

Disadvantages of servo-hydraulic machines:

• Still requires hydraulic maintenance - oil changes, filters, though less frequently than standard hydraulics
• Service complexity - requires knowledge of both hydraulics and servo drive electronics
• Don't eliminate leak risk - hydraulic system still present in machine

Best applications: Medium and high-volume production, plants modernizing machine parks with limited budget, applications requiring balance between clamping force and energy efficiency.

All-Electric Injection Molding Machines

All-electric injection molding machines use servo motors to drive all machine axes through mechanical transmissions (ball screws, timing belts). They completely eliminate the hydraulic system, offering the highest precision, repeatability, and energy efficiency.

CAPEX and OPEX characteristics:

• CAPEX: 140-160% of hydraulic equivalent price
• Energy consumption: 50-70% savings compared to standard hydraulics, 5-10% compared to servo-hydraulics (according to TopStar Machine up to 80% vs old hydraulic)
• Maintenance costs: 1-2% of machine value annually (no hydraulic oil changes, less frequent inspections)

Advantages of electric machines:

• Highest energy efficiency - energy consumption only during movement, no idle losses
• Precision and repeatability - positioning ±0.01-0.05 mm, speed control ±0.1%
• Production cleanliness - absence of hydraulic oil eliminates product contamination risk, critical for medical and food-grade
• Faster cycle times - dynamic servo motor movements can reduce cycle by 10-30%
• Quiet operation - noise level 60-70 dB(A), 15-20 dB(A) less than hydraulics
• Minimal maintenance - no hydraulic oil changes, hydraulic filters, cylinder seals
• Long life - MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) 8,000-12,000 hours vs 3,000-5,000 h for hydraulics
• Industry 4.0 compatibility - easy integration with monitoring systems, full process parameter traceability

Disadvantages of electric machines:

• High purchase price - 40-60% more expensive than hydraulic equivalents
• Clamping force limitations - economically available up to approx. 1,500-2,000 tons (higher forces require very expensive designs)
• Specialized service - requires knowledge of power electronics, servo drives, CAN-bus diagnostics
• Environmental sensitivity - servo drives require stable temperature and low humidity

Best applications: Medical industry (ISO 13485), food-grade, electronics, automotive (precision parts), high-volume production where energy costs and cleanliness are critical, clean room manufacturing.

TCO Calculation Methodology Step-by-Step

Proper TCO calculation for injection molding machines requires a systematic approach considering all cost components over the machine's entire lifecycle. Below we present a five-step methodology recommended by researchers from TU Chemnitz (Springer).

Step 1: Define production parameters

Define actual machine operating conditions:

• Annual operating hours (typically: 2,000 h for one shift, 4,000 h for two shifts, 6,000 h for three shifts)
• Production throughput in kg/h (dependent on part weight and cycle time)
• Average cycle time in seconds
• Average part weight in grams
• Planned machine operational period (10-15 years)

Step 2: Calculate annual energy consumption

Formula: Annual energy (kWh) = SEC × Throughput (kg/h) × Operating hours (h/year)

where SEC (Specific Energy Consumption) is the unit energy consumption in kWh/kg characteristic for the given technology (hydraulic: 1.4-1.6 kWh/kg, servo-hydraulic: 1.0-1.2 kWh/kg, electric: 0.9-1.1 kWh/kg)

Annual energy cost = Annual energy (kWh) × Energy price (PLN/kWh) × Loss factor (1.05-1.10)

Step 3: Maintenance and servicing costs

• Planned maintenance: Hydraulic 3-5% value/year, Servo-hydraulic 2-3%, Electric 1-2%
• Consumable parts: Screw (replacement every 8,000-15,000 kg processed plastic: 8,000-25,000 PLN), nozzle (every 10,000-20,000 kg: 2,000-5,000 PLN), hydraulic oil (only hydraulic/servo-hydraulic, every 4,000-6,000 h: 200 l × 15-25 PLN/l = 3,000-5,000 PLN), oil filters (every 1,000-2,000 h: 200-800 PLN), seals (every 2-3 years: 5,000-15,000 PLN)
• Service labor hours: Average 100-200 h/year × technician hourly rate (150-250 PLN/h)

Step 4: Downtime costs

According to Deloitte report, unplanned downtime costs the manufacturing industry $50 billion annually, and poor maintenance strategies can reduce plant productivity by 5-20%.

Formula: Downtime cost = (Downtime hours/year) × Cost per hour downtime

where: Downtime hours/year = Operating hours/MTBF × MTTR

• MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures): Hydraulic 3,000-5,000 h, Servo-hydraulic 5,000-8,000 h, Electric 8,000-12,000 h
• MTTR (Mean Time To Repair): average 4-8 hours depending on parts availability and service competence
• Cost per hour downtime: Lost production + fixed costs = typically 2,000-10,000 PLN/h depending on industry

Step 5: Net Present Value (NPV)

To account for time value of money, discount future cash flows:

NPV = -CAPEX + Σ [(Annual savings - Annual OPEX) / (1 + r)^n]

where: r = discount rate (typically 5-8% for industrial investments), n = operating year (1 to 10-15)

Example calculation for 500-ton machine, 3 shifts, 10 years:

Scenario A: Hydraulic

• CAPEX: 450,000 PLN
• Energy: 473,400 PLN/year
• Maintenance: 18,000 PLN/year (4%)
• Downtime: 30,000 PLN/year
• TCO 10 years (no discount): 5,664,000 PLN

Scenario B: Electric

• CAPEX: 650,000 PLN
• Energy: 315,600 PLN/year (-33%)
• Maintenance: 9,750 PLN/year (1.5%)
• Downtime: 12,000 PLN/year (-60%)
• TCO 10 years (no discount): 4,023,500 PLN
• Savings vs hydraulic: 1,640,500 PLN (29%)
• Payback period: 27 months

Tederic DE/NE: Efficiency in Practice

TEDESolutions, as an authorized partner of Tederic, offers two product lines optimized for energy efficiency and low TCO for the Polish market.

Tederic DE Series (all-electric):

• Specific energy consumption: 0.92-1.05 kWh/kg depending on model and application
• Clamping force range: 80-650 tons (models DE880 to DE6500)
• Energy Monitoring system: integrated real-time energy consumption monitoring with MES/ERP data export capability
• Positioning precision: ±0.02 mm for injection axis, ±0.05 mm for clamping
• Maintenance intervals: 2x longer than hydraulics (major inspection every 8,000-10,000 h)
• Certifications: CE, ISO 9001 compliance, Industry 4.0 system integration ready

Tederic NE Series (servo-hydraulic):

• Energy consumption reduction: 45% compared to standard hydraulic machines
• Clamping force range: 120-2,000 tons
• Pump servo drive: automatic pump output regulation in 0-100% demand range
• Retrofit capability: older Tederic machines can be modernized by replacing drive with servo system
• Price and performance balance: 35-40% lower purchase price than DE series while maintaining 40-45% energy savings vs hydraulics

Case: Automotive supplier, 12-month comparison

An automotive component manufacturer in Lower Silesia replaced an 800-ton hydraulic machine with a Tederic DE880 model in July 2023:

• Before modernization (hydraulic): Energy consumption: 156,000 kWh/year (0.526 PLN/kWh = 82,056 PLN/year), Unplanned downtime: 84 hours/year, Maintenance costs: 16,500 PLN/year
• After modernization (Tederic DE880): Energy consumption: 81,000 kWh/year (42,606 PLN/year, -48%), Unplanned downtime: 18 hours/year (-79%), Maintenance costs: 7,200 PLN/year (-56%)
• Total annual savings: 39,450 PLN (energy) + 33,000 PLN (downtime, assuming 500 PLN/h) + 9,300 PLN (maintenance) = 81,750 PLN/year
• Investment: 630,000 PLN (DE880) - 180,000 PLN (old machine buyback) = 450,000 PLN net
• Payback period: 450,000 / 81,750 = 5.5 years → actually 28 months (thanks to 35% FENG grant)

Additionally, the plant recorded a 12% reduction in scrap rate thanks to higher process repeatability and OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) increase from 73% to 86%.

Maintenance and Downtime Costs

Maintenance and unplanned downtime costs represent a significant item in TCO calculation for injection molding machines, often underestimated when making investment decisions. According to Deloitte's "Predictive Maintenance and the Smart Factory" report, predictive maintenance can reduce maintenance planning time by 20-50%, increase machine availability by 10-20%, and lower overall maintenance costs by 5-10%.

Maintenance cost structure by technology:

Hydraulic machines:

• Annual costs: 3-5% of machine value
• Main items: Hydraulic oil change (every 4,000-6,000 h, approx. 200 l × 20 PLN/l = 4,000 PLN + labor), oil filters (every 1,000-2,000 h, 4-6 changes/year × 300 PLN = 1,200-1,800 PLN), cylinder seals (every 2-3 years, set 8,000-15,000 PLN), leak inspection and oil level (weekly, 2 h/month × 12 × 180 PLN = 4,320 PLN)
• Example: For a machine valued at 450,000 PLN annual maintenance cost: 13,500-22,500 PLN

Servo-hydraulic machines:

• Annual costs: 2-3% of machine value
• Main items: Oil change (every 6,000-8,000 h, less frequently than standard hydraulics), servo drive service (every 2 years, encoder control, fan replacement: 3,000-5,000 PLN), remaining items as with hydraulics but at longer intervals
• Example: For a machine valued at 550,000 PLN annual cost: 11,000-16,500 PLN

Electric machines:

• Annual costs: 1-2% of machine value
• Main items: No hydraulic oil changes (biggest savings), ball screw lubrication (every 3 months, grease 500 PLN/year), bearing inspection and replacement (every 5-7 years, set 5,000-8,000 PLN), servo drive service (every 2-3 years, 4,000-6,000 PLN)
• Example: For a machine valued at 650,000 PLN annual cost: 6,500-13,000 PLN

Downtime costs – MTBF/MTTR analysis:

McKinsey "Prediction at scale" research shows that predictive maintenance can reduce machine downtime by 30-50% and increase machine life by 20-40%.

• Hydraulic machines: MTBF 3,000-5,000 h, MTTR 6-10 h (hydraulic system failures, leaks, valve damage)
• Servo-hydraulic machines: MTBF 5,000-8,000 h, MTTR 4-8 h (less frequent failures, but servo drive service requires specialists)
• Electric machines: MTBF 8,000-12,000 h, MTTR 3-6 h (fewest failures, but electronic diagnostics more complex)

Cost per hour downtime – industry benchmark:

According to Siemens' "True Cost of Downtime 2024" report, unplanned downtime costs the world's 500 largest companies $1.4 trillion annually, representing 11% of their annual revenues. In the automotive industry, downtime cost is $2.3 million per hour.

• Automotive industry (critical parts for assembly line): 5,000-15,000 PLN/h
• Packaging and FMCG (high-volume production): 3,000-8,000 PLN/h
• Medical and electronics (small batches but high margins): 2,000-6,000 PLN/h
• General production: 1,000-3,000 PLN/h

Sample calculation for machine operating 6,000 h/year:

• Hydraulic: 6,000 h / 4,000 h (MTBF) = 1.5 failures/year × 8 h (MTTR) = 12 h downtime × 4,000 PLN/h = 48,000 PLN/year
• Electric: 6,000 h / 10,000 h (MTBF) = 0.6 failures/year × 4 h (MTTR) = 2.4 h downtime × 4,000 PLN/h = 9,600 PLN/year
• Savings: 38,400 PLN/year

Financing and Investment Support

The high purchase price of electric and servo-hydraulic injection molding machines (20-60% higher than hydraulic) can be an investment barrier, especially for the SME sector. However, Poland offers numerous financial support programs facilitating machine park modernization toward energy-efficient technologies.

1. European Funds for Modern Economy (FENG) 2021-2027

The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) manages the FENG program, which has a budget of 36.6 billion PLN, including 4.36 billion PLN allocated for Green Industry and energy efficiency. For purchasing energy-efficient injection molding machines, available programs include:

• Action 1.4 "Green Industry": Grants up to 50-70% of eligible costs for SMEs (depending on company size and location)
• Eligible costs: Purchase of new energy-efficient machines, robots and peripherals, energy monitoring systems, energy audits
• Requirement: Demonstrate energy consumption reduction of minimum 20-30% compared to current state

2. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) - Credit with repayment grant

BGK offers programs supporting energy transformation and industry digitalization:

• Energy transformation loan: Preferential interest rate (WIBOR + 1-2%), repayment grant up to 25% of credit amount
• Maximum amount: Up to 100 million PLN, typically 500,000 - 10 million PLN for machine park modernization projects
• Credit period: Up to 15 years with grace period up to 2 years

3. NFOŚiGW and KAPE - Energy efficiency programs

The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management offers support for initiatives reducing energy consumption in industry:

• "Energy efficiency in industry" program: Preferential loans with partial forgiveness (up to 20%) upon achieving planned energy savings
• Condition: Energy audit confirming minimum 20% savings potential

4. Tax relief for robotization and automation (CIT/PIT)

According to Ministry of Finance regulations, until the end of 2026, entrepreneurs can deduct an additional 50% of eligible costs incurred for robotization and automation:

• Scope: Purchase of industrial robots, cobots, injection molding machines with autonomous cell automation
• Mechanism: Deduction of 150% of eligible costs from CIT/PIT tax base
• Example: Purchase of Tederic DE880 electric machine with robot for 750,000 PLN → deduction 1,125,000 PLN → at CIT rate 19% tax savings 213,750 PLN

5. Operating lease with energy savings consideration

Most leasing institutions offer calculations considering future energy savings as additional creditworthiness security:

• Lease payment: Typically 20-30% of machine value annually for 4-5 years
• Tax benefit: Full deductibility of lease payments as income costs
• Example: Machine 650,000 PLN, 5-year lease, payment 11,000 PLN/month, energy savings 13,000 PLN/month → effective net cost 0 PLN (financial neutrality from first month)

Combining instruments - optimal financing path:

Example for 650,000 PLN investment (Tederic DE + robot + peripherals):

• FENG grant 35%: -227,500 PLN
• BGK credit 50%: 325,000 PLN (preferential interest)
• Own funds 15%: 97,500 PLN
• Robotization relief (CIT tax effect): 50% × 650,000 × 19% = 61,750 PLN return
• Effective net cost for company: 97,500 PLN + credit costs - 61,750 PLN = approx. 50,000 PLN

See also our detailed guide on financing investments in Tederic machines, where we discuss all available programs and application schedules for 2025.

Case Study: Machine Park Modernization

Client profile

Medium-sized packaging manufacturer for cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries in Wielkopolska region. The plant had 8 hydraulic injection molding machines with clamping forces of 250-800 tons, operating in three-shift mode, 6,000 hours annually. Main products are flip-top packaging, jars, threaded closures.

Business challenge

• Energy costs: Represented 35% of production costs (1.2 million PLN annually for 8 machines)
• Customer requirements: Growing ESG requirements from international cosmetics corporations (Scope 3 carbon footprint reduction)
• Quality: Part weight repeatability problems (±2-3%) with hydraulic machines
• Downtime: Average 120 hours/year unplanned downtime for 8-machine park

Solution – Phased modernization with Tederic DE and NE

In cooperation with TEDESolutions, an 18-month modernization plan was developed:

• Phase 1 (months 1-6): Replacement of 2 least efficient 500-800 ton machines with Tederic DE550 and DE880 (all-electric), applications requiring highest precision (threaded closures, thin-walled parts)
• Phase 2 (months 7-12): Modernization of 3 medium-size 300-400 ton machines to Tederic NE350 and NE450 (servo-hydraulic), high-volume production of standard packaging
• Phase 3 (months 13-18): Modernization of 2 machines 250 tons to Tederic NE280, leaving 1 hydraulic machine as backup

Investment financing

• Total investment value: 3.8 million PLN (7 new machines + robots + peripherals + MES integration)
• FENG grant (Action 1.4): 1.33 million PLN (35%)
• BGK credit with repayment grant: 1.9 million PLN
• Own funds: 570,000 PLN (15%)
• Robotization relief (CIT effect over 3 years): approx. 360,000 PLN

Results after 24 months of operation (comparison 2023 vs 2025)

Electricity:

• Before: 2,280,000 kWh/year (8 hydraulic machines), 1,199,280 PLN/year at 0.526 PLN/kWh
• After: 1,323,000 kWh/year (7 DE/NE machines + 1 hydraulic backup), 695,898 PLN/year
• Reduction: 42%, savings 503,382 PLN/year

Maintenance costs:

• Before: 96,000 PLN/year (12,000 PLN/machine × 8)
• After: 52,500 PLN/year (average 7,500 PLN/machine for DE/NE)
• Reduction: 45%, savings 43,500 PLN/year

Unplanned downtime:

• Before: 120 h/year, cost 480,000 PLN (assuming 4,000 PLN/h)
• After: 28 h/year, cost 112,000 PLN
• Reduction: 77%, savings 368,000 PLN/year

Production quality:

• Scrap rate: from 2.8% to 1.2% (-57%)
• Part weight repeatability: from ±2.5% to ±0.3%
• Customer complaints: 68% decrease

OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness):

• Before: average 71%
• After: average 87%
• Increase of 16 percentage points

Return on investment analysis:

• Total annual savings: 503,382 (energy) + 43,500 (maintenance) + 368,000 (downtime) = 914,882 PLN/year
• Net investment after grants and reliefs: 3,800,000 - 1,330,000 (FENG) - 360,000 (CIT relief) = 2,110,000 PLN
• Simple payback: 2,110,000 / 914,882 = 2.3 years (28 months)
• NPV (10 years, 6% discount): +4.8 million PLN
• IRR (Internal Rate of Return): 38%

Client quote (Production Director):

"The modernization with TEDESolutions exceeded our expectations. Initially we were concerned about the high purchase price of electric machines, but after accounting for grants, tax reliefs, and especially actual operational savings, the return came faster than planned. The biggest surprise was quality improvement – reducing scrap by half means hundreds of thousands of zloty annually. Plus our ESG audits with customers became significantly easier when we can demonstrate 42% energy consumption reduction."

ROI Calculator and Energy Audit

Proper calculation of return on investment (ROI) for purchasing an energy-efficient injection molding machine requires considering many variables. TEDESolutions has developed a calculation methodology that can be applied independently or with free consultation from our experts.

Key input parameters for ROI calculation:

• Production parameters: Machine clamping force (tons), annual operating hours (1-shift: 2,000 h, 2-shift: 4,000 h, 3-shift: 6,000 h), average throughput (kg/h), average cycle time (s)
• Operating costs: Current electricity price (PLN/kWh - check invoice), cost of downtime hour at your plant (PLN/h), maintenance technician hourly rate (PLN/h)
• Current vs planned technology: Type of current machine (hydraulic / servo-hydraulic / electric), machine age (years), considered new machine technology
• Financing: Grant availability (FENG, RPO), preferential credit possibility (BGK), robotization relief (yes/no), operating lease option

Calculation scenarios - example for 500-ton machine:

Conservative scenario (pessimistic):

• 2-shift operation (4,000 h/year)
• Stable energy price for 5 years (0.526 PLN/kWh)
• Energy savings: 40% (hydraulic → electric)
• Downtime reduction: 50%
• No grants, commercial credit financing
• Payback: 4.5 years

Realistic scenario (most likely):

• 3-shift operation (6,000 h/year)
• Energy price increase 3% annually
• Energy savings: 50%
• Downtime reduction: 70%
• FENG grant 35%, robotization relief
• Payback: 2.5 years

Optimistic scenario:

• 3-shift operation + Saturdays (6,500 h/year)
• Energy price increase 5% annually
• Energy savings: 60% (old hydraulic → new electric with ecodrive)
• Downtime reduction: 80% + OEE improvement by 15 p.p.
• FENG grant 50% (SME zone B), BGK credit with grant, CIT relief
• Payback: 1.8 years

How to conduct self-audit of machine park energy consumption:

• Step 1: Collect energy meter data for each machine for last 12 months (if no submeters, request temporary measurement for 2 weeks typical production)
• Step 2: Calculate SEC (Specific Energy Consumption) = kWh consumed / kg plastic produced
• Step 3: Compare with benchmarks: SEC > 1.5 kWh/kg → urgent modernization, SEC 1.2-1.5 kWh/kg → modernization economically justified, SEC < 1.2 kWh/kg → machine relatively efficient
• Step 4: Calculate annual energy cost for each machine and sum for entire park
• Step 5: Estimate potential savings when replacing with electric/servo-hydraulic technology (40-60% reduction for standard hydraulics)

Free energy audit with TEDESolutions:

If you're planning machine park modernization, contact TEDESolutions experts to schedule a free 30-minute energy audit. Our specialists will help:

• Analyze energy bills and production data
• Calculate exact savings potential for your plant
• Prepare ROI calculation for specific Tederic DE/NE models
• Advise on optimal financing path (grants, credits, leasing)
• Plan modernization phasing to minimize production disruptions

Summary

TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) analysis is an essential tool when making investment decisions regarding injection molding machine purchases. In the face of electricity prices exceeding 526 PLN/MWh in Poland (Q3 2024) and accounting for 30-45% of injection molding cell operating costs, choosing energy-efficient drive technology ceases to be an option and becomes a strategic necessity.

Key takeaways from the guide:

• 50-70% energy savings - all-electric injection molding machines consume 50-70% less energy than traditional hydraulics, yielding savings of 150,000-200,000 PLN annually for a 500-ton machine in three-shift operation
• TCO includes hidden costs - traditional methods focusing on purchase price miss 20-40% of actual costs related to operation, maintenance, and downtime
• Polish energy prices demand action - 60% increase from 2021-2024 (to 526.24 PLN/MWh) makes energy efficiency investments more profitable than ever
• ROI typically 24-36 months - accounting for FENG grants (35-50%), robotization tax reliefs, and preferential BGK credits, return on investment in electric machines occurs in 2-3 years
• Tederic DE/NE proven in practice - Tederic DE electric series achieves SEC 0.92-1.05 kWh/kg, while servo-hydraulic Tederic NE reduces consumption by 45% at 35-40% lower purchase price than DE
• External financing available - FENG programs, BGK credits with repayment grants, NFOŚiGW loans, and robotization relief (50% CIT deduction) can cover up to 70% of investment cost
• ESG requirements drive change - CSRD directive will encompass 3,600+ companies in Poland by 2026, requiring carbon footprint reporting and energy efficiency investments

The decision to modernize machine parks toward electric and servo-hydraulic technologies is an investment not only in reducing operating costs but also in long-term competitiveness, compliance with growing ESG requirements from international customers, and readiness for further energy price increases. As the case study presented in the article shows, a packaging plant achieved 42% energy consumption reduction, 77% downtime decrease, and investment return in 28 months.

If you're planning machine park modernization or want to thoroughly analyze the profitability of replacing old hydraulic machines with energy-efficient technologies, contact TEDESolutions experts for a free energy audit and ROI calculation for your plant. As an authorized partner of Tederic, we offer comprehensive technical consulting, support in obtaining grants and financing, and full service and training for Tederic DE and NE series.

See also our articles on predictive maintenance of injection molding machines, financing investments in Tederic machines, and sustainable production in plastics processing.