\chapter{Conclusion}
\textit{You can here be more specific and technical than in the abstract, and even refer to specific
equations, Figures or Tables in the report.} \\
Include further work in this section.

The amount of air leaking into the flue gas between the two \ce{O_2}-measurements are calculated to be 32\% of the resulting mixture of air and flue gas. This number might be even higher if combustion takes place between the two points of measurement as discussed in Section \ref{sec:discussion}. 
There is a heat loss associated with having the cooler air leaking in and reducing the amount of heat that can be recovered. This heat loss and corresponding economic loss is calculated (subjected to a few harsh assumptions discussed in Section \ref{sec:discussion}) to be 1.42 MW and 496000 NOK/month respectively.

The indirect loss from having Boiler6 being constrained below rated capacity is considered the most important economic loss, because the assumptions behind this calculation are more reasonable. The economic loss was calculated to be as much as 8.57 MNOK for the year from 3.june 2017 - 2.june 2018. During only two weeks in the winter of 2018, the economic loss was estimated to be 1.49. These numbers provide good arguments for repairing the all the leaks that causes this. An alternative to fixing the leaks is to invest in a larger flue gas fan, so that this no longer is a bottleneck.

In addition to the economic loss resulting the leaks, the economic loss from having the shunt pump operating at its maximum capacity was also estimated to be 131 000 NOK/month. Even though this might be an exaggerated sum, simply turning off the pump is a very cheap remedy to avoid this loss. It is recommended that the shunt pump be turned all the time, except for when the fuel has a high sulfur content. 





