They are considered simple standard components – and yet are often chosen without much thought: steam traps. But if you only look at the purchase price, you will end up paying more in the long run. Why it is worth to have a closer look at total operating costs.
In industrial environments, it is often the smallest components that play the most decisive role – steam traps are no exception. Although they appear inconspicuous, they have a significant impact on the efficiency, safety and cost-effectiveness of steam systems.
However, when deciding for or against a particular type of trap, the purchase price is often the main factor for many companies. But this says little about the actual long-term operating costs – and these tell a very different story.
Multinational companies often use terms such as ‘responsibility’, ’sustainability’ and ‘environmental policy’ in their marketing materials. In practice, however, economic considerations usually dominate: profitability and returns for shareholders are the main focus. This conflict between short-term profit and sustainable improvement is widespread. Studies show that the average investment horizon for companies worldwide has shortened by about one year over the past ten years. This favours decisions that are strongly oriented towards initial buy prices – at the expense of long-term efficiency and sustainability. All too often, this also applies to the purchase of steam traps.
Why many companies stick with mechanical steam traps
Mechanical steam traps are deeply ingrained in the mindset of many steam system operators. The familiar cycle of checking, evaluating, repairing or replacing is considered standard practice. This routine is rarely questioned – even if alternative technologies, such as Venturi orifice steam traps, could be more efficient and require less maintenance in the long term.
Another obstacle to switching is inventory management: most plant operators have extensive stocks of mechanical steam traps and the associated spare parts. Due to design differences – whether due to bimetal components, bellows or float elements – parts are not compatible between different types or manufacturers. Switching to a new system would mean writing off existing stock and building up new spare parts inventories – a decision that is often avoided for economic reasons.
This creates a vicious circle: mechanical steam trap are installed, spare parts are available, processes are well established – and this is precisely what prevents many companies from considering more efficient alternatives.
The true operating costs of mechanical steam traps
When purchasing mechanical steam traps, many users are unaware that their actual total operating cost cannot be reliably calculated. This is because they are wear components – their service life can vary greatly and depends on the type of application for which they are used.
The reality is that the operating costs of mechanical traps are largely unknown. If a trap is used in a high-load process, it can undergo thousands of operating cycles per month – and be defective after just one year. In a lower load process, on the other hand, which only undergoes a few hundred operating cycles per month, the service life can easily be three to four years.
As already mentioned, the cycle of inspection, evaluation, repair or replacement is standard for mechanical traps. Two scenarios illustrate the long-term cost differences. In the first scenario, which assumes a ten-year cycle, the traps would have to be inspected and replaced every year.
Scenario 1: High load – service life 1 year, lifecycle period 10 years
- Year 1: Acquisition costs + installation costs + inspection costs + replacement costs + reinstallation costs
- Years 2–10: Annual repetition of the same expenditure
→ Total costs = Year 1 costs × 10
The second scenario also assumes a ten-year cycle and a service life of four years:
Scenario 2: Low load – service life 4 years, Lifecycle period 10 years
- Year 1: Acquisition costs + installation costs + inspection costs
- Years 2–4: Annual inspection costs
- Year 5: Inspection costs + replacement costs + reinstallation costs
- Years 6–8: Repeat the cycle from years 2–4
- Year 9: Inspection costs + replacement costs + reinstallation costs
- Years 10: Repeat the cycle from years 2–4
These illustrations show that operating costs can vary dramatically depending on the process application and number of operating cycles. Without reliable performance data on the actual service life, there is a financial exposure an economic risk – which often only becomes apparent years after the investment decision has been made.
Net present value analysis: Venturi steam traps vs. mechanical traps
Unlike mechanical traps, Venturi orifice steam traps are not wear components – they operate continuously throughout the entire service life of the system. The resulting costs can be calculated as follows:
- Year 1: New purchase price + installation costs + inspection costs
- Year 2: Inspection costs
- Years 3-10: Repeat year two indefinitely
In view of these figures, the decision in favour of a steam trap system should not be based solely on the purchase price. A sound economic analysis – for example, using the net present value (NPV) – takes into account all relevant life cycle costs and benefits and enables a comprehensive assessment.
The net present value is calculated as follows:
NPV = PV (savings) – PV (investment costs)
- PV (savings): Includes the present value of energy savings, lower maintenance costs and operational efficiency gains.
- PV (investment costs): Includes purchase, installation and all other one-off costs associated with changing the system.
- A positive net present value indicates that the investment will generate economic added value over its lifetime.
Practical example: Comparison over 15 years
Over a 15-year period, the total cost for mechanical traps would be:
→ Potential savings: €3,750 per unit over 15 years
Not all decision-makers have financial expertise. Instead of complex methods such as NPV or IRR, a simple pay back model often works well in practice:
Amortisation period = investment / annual savings
This usually results in:
• < 2 years, often < 1 year
• This clear short pay back makes decision-making much easier.
Why a higher initial investment makes sense
A key advantage of Venturi orifice steam traps is their long-term cost-effectiveness. Although the initial investment costs are higher than for mechanical traps, they often pay for themselves within a year thanks to significantly reduced maintenance and energy costs over their entire service life.
Added to this are their maintenance-free operation and high reliability: since Venturi orifice steam traps have no moving parts, maintenance is minimal. This not only reduces ongoing maintenance costs but also reduces unplanned downtime – a significant advantage in continuously operating systems.
Venturi orifice solutions also excel in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability. Because the operating principle separates steam from the condensate eliminating steam leaks, they significantly improve energy efficiency. At the same time, steam consumption is reduced. On average, steam savings of approx. 10% are achieved. These savings not only have an impact on operating costs, but also on the CO₂ footprint and regulatory compliance. Venturi orifice steam traps therefore, contribute directly to sustainability goals and regulatory requirements.
English (UK) 
Deutsch