Is something wrong with the first generation PEM technology?

When PEMs came out our founder was in the emission testing business. It was his company's job to test PEMs for accuracy when doing a yearly RATA. What he discovered was that once he told the PEM provider what the correct emission numbers were, his company was told to hold off doing the RATA until the PEM could be reworked. After a few days the RATA was begun and the PEM passed (and the PEM provider bragged about the results). 

But both he and environmental managers knew something was wrong, so many environmental managers replaced their PEMs with expensive CEMs.

What are the inherent flaws in PEMs?

The problem with any statistical algrorithm is that they are accurate if:

• You have lots of data to build a model
• You test accuracy over a long period od time

But this creates two problems

• Plants are forced to run many different operating conditions they do not want to run in order to get the needed data
• The yearly RATA is too short a duration to assure accuracy

THE FOUR MOST EXPENSIVE HIDDEN COSTS IN MONITORING EMISSIONS CONTINUOUSLY.
1. First generation PEMs require a very large amount of data to build their models. The cost of stack testing bills are a fraction of the cost plant operations incur. Your facility will be forced to run operating conditions that interfere with efficiency and production quotas. Our next generation PEM overcomes those costs.
 2. CEMs decrease sustainability by consuming electricity at the plant site and indirectly from  all the equipment and manpower needed to create the monitoring system. PEMs uses just 3% of the amount consumed by a CEM.

3. CEMs safety issues are self evident. Not only must your company have another person on site but the installation of the system requires dangerous work at the top of a smoke stack.

 4. Installation time working with contractors is time your staff uses that interferes with     their main job. CEMs take 3 months, a first generation PEM takes 6 weeks and PEM60 takes   28 days