CEMS vs PEMS is our unbiased real world comparison of both these technologies. We are in a unique position to do a realistic comparison because we as system integrators provide both CEMS & PEMS to our clients.
To summarize, while PEMS can be used in most applications, it can’t be used in incinerators & coal fired equipment, hence such installations only require hardware based CEMS.
Here is a quick comparison of CEMS vs PEMS i.e. Hardware based Continuous Emissions Monitoring System vs Software based Predictive Emissions Monitoring System:
| CEMS (hardware) | PEMS (software) |
| Approved by EPA of most countries e.g. USA, UK, Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia | Approved by EPA of most countries e.g. USA, UK, Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia |
| Higher capital cost | ~50% Lower capital cost |
| Higher operating cost | ~90% Lower operating cost |
| High maintenance cost | Low maintenance cost |
| Requires new hardware | Doesn’t require new hardware |
| Older technology | Newer technology |
| Requires frequent calibration | Requires yearly calibration |
| Large spare parts inventory | No spare parts required |
| High manpower requirement | Low manpower requirement |
| Not affected by total process change | Process change requires model update |
| Accurate over entire range of operation | Accurate over mapped range |
| Suitable for quality control | Not suitable for quality control |
| Suitable for incinerators | Not suitable for incinerators |
| Suitable for all types of fuel | Not suitable for coal fired equipment |
| Upto 16 weeks installation time | Upto 6 weeks installation time |
This CEMS vs PEMS comparison covers the main differences between these two systems.
CONCLUSION
Both systems have their own pros & cons. PEMS can’t replace a CEMS in all situations. But in most situations PEMS is the more economical choice and hard to beat.
Please contact us in case you are interested in exploring PEMS for your site:
