Energy Efficiency Programs August 23, 2010
description
Transcript of Energy Efficiency Programs August 23, 2010
Energy Efficiency ProgramsAugust 23, 2010
Presented by: John Rees, PE, CEMEric Soderberg, PE, CEM
Dr. Herb Eckerlin, PEKevin Martin, MBA
Presentation to 406 Class
Herbert M. Eckerlin, PhD, PEProfessor, DirectorPhone: 919.515.5227E-mail: [email protected]
Kevin Martin, MBAStrategic Energy ManagerPhone: 919.515.0903Cell: 919.996.9978E-mail: [email protected]
John D. Rees, PE, CEMEnergy Extension SpecialistPhone: 919.515.9436E-mail: [email protected]
Eric W. Soderberg, PE, CEMEnergy Extension SpecialistPhone: 919.795.1114E-mail: [email protected]
Stephen D. Terry, PhD, PEExtension Assistant ProfessorPhone: 919.515.1878E-mail: [email protected]
Energy Program Technical Staff
MAE Energy ProgramsAssessment ProcessEnergy Systems AnalyzedSurvey Procedures and ResultsComments and Questions
Industrial Assessment Center
(IAC)
Energy Management Program
(EMP)
Funded Federally by
US Department of Energy (DOE)
Serving Manufacturers Energy bills typically from
$100k to $3 million Will serve larger as well
Service Territory North Carolina Southern Virginia Northern South Carolina
Funded by
NC State Appropriation
Reports to
NC Energy Office
Businesses Served Manufacturers Commercial Governmental Institutional
No size restrictions
Service Territory State of North Carolina
Save Energy
Reduce Waste
Improve Productivity
Train next generation of “Energy Engineers”
Energy Program Objectives
;
Preliminary Information & Consultation Onsite Preliminary Energy Diagnostic Survey (PEDS) Identification of areas for Potential Savings
Targeted System Survey Survey of Existing Equipment Measurement & Data Gathering Interview O&M personnel Identification of opportunities Savings and Cost Analysis Report Client Review of Report
;
Data Analysis & Reporting ROI, simple payback, life cycle costing Cost to benefit analysis, NPV, IRR Full report delivered
Implementation Follow-up & Additional Assistance Follow-up calls and assistance Continued assistance as needed
The purpose of a Preliminary Energy Diagnostics Survey (PEDS) is to evaluate plant operations from an energy perspective, to identify and prioritize energy saving opportunities, and to recommend targeted energy surveys for equipment that offer the greatest potential for energy savings.
Purpose of aPreliminary Energy Diagnostics Survey
Boilers Lighting Compressed Air HVAC Systems Chillers and Cooling Towers Motors & Pumps Preventative Maintenance Steam Systems & Steam Traps Process energy systems
Systems targeted during aPreliminary Energy Diagnostics Survey
Air Compressors and Air DryersThere are 3 air compressors. There is one
common air dryer.Compressors: Manufacturer: Ingersoll-Rand Model: SSRXFE200-25 Serial: FF1274U97151 Type: Rotary screw Horsepower: 200 hp Rating: 1,100 cfm Operation: 116 – 125 psig
ChillersThere is one water cooled chiller:
Manufacturer: Carrier Model: 30HXC106R--661KA Serial: 2307Q07525 Service: Cooling water for molds Operation: Setpoint is 48° F
Monthy Electrical Energy Consumption and Cost
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
Feb09
Mar09
Apr09
May09
Jun09
Jul09
Aug09
Sept09
Oct09
Nov09
Dec09
Jan10
Ele
ctr
ica
l E
ne
rgy
Us
ag
e,
kW
h
0
7,500
15,000
22,500
30,000
37,500
45,000
52,500
60,000
67,500
75,000
82,500
90,000
Ele
ctr
ica
l C
os
t, $
$
Total kWh
Total Electrical Cost
Electrical Use and Cost for an Industrial Facility – Data collected for a Preliminary Energy Study
Water Consumption and Cost
Consumption Water Costs Sewer Costs Total
Billing Month
Cubic Feet
GallonsCost of
first 50 ccf
Cost of ccf >50
Water Min
Charge
Total Water
Charges
Sewer Usage Cost
Sewer Min
Charge
Total Sewer
Charges
Water + Sewer
Charges
Jan 08 23,178 173,395 $169 $549 $24 $741 $1,014 $33 $1,046 $1,787
Feb 08 17,211 128,755 $169 $369 $24 $561 $753 $33 $785 $1,346
Mar 08 22,348 167,185 $169 $524 $24 $716 $978 $33 $1,010 $1,726
Apr 08 18,597 139,124 $169 $411 $24 $603 $813 $33 $846 $1,449
May 08 18,933 141,638 $169 $421 $24 $613 $828 $33 $861 $1,474
Jun 08 30,898 231,148 $169 $782 $24 $974 $1,351 $33 $1,384 $2,358
Jul 08 30,839 230,707 $169 $780 $24 $972 $1,349 $33 $1,382 $2,354
Aug 08 36,754 274,957 $169 $959 $24 $1,151 $1,608 $33 $1,640 $2,791
Sept 08 23,124 172,991 $169 $547 $24 $739 $1,011 $33 $1,044 $1,783
Oct 08 16,273 121,738 $169 $340 $24 $532 $712 $33 $744 $1,277
Nov 08 12,570 94,036 $169 $229 $24 $421 $550 $33 $582 $1,003
Dec 08 12,644 94,590 $169 $231 $24 $423 $553 $33 $586 $1,009
Totals 263,369 1,970,263 $2,022 $6,142 $283 $8,446 $11,520 $392 $11,912 $20,358
Monthly Averages 164,189 $169 $512 $24 $704 $960 $33 $993 $1,696
Water & Sewer Use and Cost for an Industrial Facility Data collected for a Preliminary Energy Study
Monthy Water & Sewer Consumption & Cost
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
225,000
250,000
275,000
300,000
Jan08
Feb08
Mar08
Apr08
May08
Jun08
Jul08
Aug08
Sept08
Oct08
Nov08
Dec08
Wate
r U
se, G
allo
ns
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
Wate
r &
Sew
er
Co
st,
$$
Water UseTotal Charges
Summary of Recommendations:The NCSU Energy Management Program (EMP)
recommends the following: Compressed Air Study Convert T12 task lighting to T8. Explore the
possibility of replacing the 8 ft. T12 fixtures with single fixtures containing two 4 ft. T8 lamps.
Consider a Chiller and Cooling Tower Study. Consider a Motor Study
Typical Existing Lighting – T12 Fluorescent
Typical Lighting in an Industrial Facility – 400 Watt Metal Halide
Fixture quantities by type Fixture Wattage Lighting level in Footcandles Maintenance issues Electrical Rates
No. RecommendationTotal
Annual Savings
Labor Cost
Material Cost
Instal-lation Cost
Disposal Cost
Total Cost Incl.
Disposal
Simple Payback (Years)
kW Saved
Annual kWh Saved
1T12 to T8 Ballast & Lamp Replacement
$8,964 $10,161 $10,161 $20,321 $2,321 $22,642 2.5 20 98,178
2T8: 32W to 25W and Low Wattage Ballast
Installation$20,197 $27,443 $27,443 $54,886 $7,900 $62,785 3.1 30 221,214
Totals $29,160 $37,604 $37,604 $75,207 $10,221 $85,428 2.9 50 319,392
Table 1. Savings and Payback for Recommendations 1 & 2
Table 2. Savings and Payback with Utility Incentives
No. RecommendationTotal
Annual Savings
Instal-lation Cost
Disposal Cost
Total Cost Incl.
Disposal
Potential Utility
Incentive
Net Cost with
Incentive
Simple Payback
with Incentives
Simple Payback without
Incentives
1T12 to T8 Ballast & Lamp Replacement
$8,964 $20,321 $2,321 $22,642 $5,922 $16,720 1.9 2.5
2T8: 32W to 25W and Low Wattage Ballast
Installation$20,197 $54,886 $7,900 $62,785 $14,472 $48,313 2.4 3.1
Totals $29,160 $75,207 $10,221 $85,428 $20,394 $65,034 2.2 2.9
Savings and Cost Summary from a Lighting Report
POTENTIAL ANNUAL ESTIMATED PAYBACK ANNUAL SAVINGS RECOMMENDATION SAVINGS COST (YEARS) KW KWH MMBTU
Lower System Pressure $ 12,063 $ 1,000 0.1 37 150527 493
Drain Timers $ 1,480 $ 3,000 2.0 3 21092 69
Leak Remediation $ 6,429 $ 700 0.1 17 84814 278
Air Turbine Mixers $ 8,435 $ 6,000 0.7 21 114396 377
Double Diaphragm Pumps $ 1,703 $ 0 N/A 4 22589 75
Pneumatic Vibrators $ 1,703 $ 900 0.6 4 22589 75
Blow-off $ 2,627 $ 2,500 1.0 7 35407 119
Flexible Film Print Vacuum $ 3,252 $ 600 0.2 6 48310 159
TOTAL SAVINGS POTENTIAL ANNUAL ESTIMATED OPERATING CORRECTION PAYBACK ANNUAL SAVINGS COST COST (YEARS) KW KWH MMBTU CURRENT $ 191,750 $ N/A N/A 477 2599087 8512 RECOMMENDED $ 129,070 $ 14,700 N/A 322 1761420 5766 REC. SAVINGS $ 62,680 $ 14,700 0.3 155 837668 2746
Fifteen Day Compressor Load Monitoring
Full Load Current 96 amps 34 amps
Percent of Operating Time 59.5% of total 40.5% of total
Average Horsepower during Periods of Operation 62.3 HP 5.9 HP 56.5 HP
Observed Peak Horsepower during Operation 88.9 HP 24.2 HP 64.7 HP
Annual Cost to operate 24 Hours/Day $30,558 /year $2,872 /year $27,686 /year
Monthly Cost for 24 Hour/Day Operation $2,546 /month $239 /month $2,307 /month
75 HPCompressor
25 HPCompressor
Difference
Estimated Energy Savings, Cost Savings, and Payback
RecommendationAnnual Savings
Estimated Cost
Simple Payback
Years
kW Decrease
kWH Savings
Replace 75 HP Compressor with 25 HP Unit
$24,917 $20,000 0.80 38 332,229
Flue Gas Analysis O2, CO, CO2
Stack EfficiencyOperating/Maintenance Issues Dirty Heat Exchange surfaces Scanner failure Temperature control
Hot Water Boiler Survey
Date ________________________ Company _____________________ Location _________________________ 1. What is operating pressure? _________________________________________________ 2. What is leaving water temperature? ___________________________________________ 3. Is water temperature constant or variable? ______________________________________
If it varies, what determines the temperature? ____________________________________ 4. What type of hot water boiler is it?
Cast iron sectional ______________________ Number of Sections _________________ Fire tube ___________ Fin tube water tube _
5. Is stack temperature measured? ______ Is there a hole for stack temperature gauge? _____ 6. Are boiler conditions logged by hand or trended in software? _______ How often? ______
7. Is return water temperature measured? ________________________________________
Does the boiler operation require a lot of make-up water? _________________________ Is the make-up water measured? _____________________________________________ What is the source of make-up water? _________________________________________ Do you have a chemical water treatment company check the water quality (i.e. dissolved oxygen, hardness, etc.)? ____________________________________________________ Do you have any water side problems in the hot water boiler? Is the hot water a circulating system? _________________________________________________________________
8. Do you have the boiler tuned regularly? _________ If so, how often? ________________ Do you have the boilers cleaned regularly? ________ How often? ___________________
9. Do you have oil atomization? ________________________________________________ 10. How many oil storage tanks do you have? _________ What size? ____________________
Are they dedicated to a particular boiler? __________ Above or below ground? _________
11. Do you have fuel oil additives? ________ What type? _____________________________
For what purpose? _________________________________________________________ How much & at what intervals? _______________________________________________
12. From an operational point of view, what are the boiler’s operating states: High/Off,
Off/Low/High, modulating? ________________________________________________
13. What are your most serious problems?
Manufacturer Fuel
Model No. Serial No.
Type of Draft Date Manufactured
Firing Rate Low Mid High
Flue Gas Analysis
O2 %
CO2 %
CO ppm
NOx ppm
Temperatures
Ambient Air °F
Stack °F
Stack Efficiency %
Excess Air %
Water °F Water/Steam Pressure
Boiler Gas Rating MBh Boiler Oil Rating MBh
Burner Manufacturer Burner Model / Serial
Burner Ratings
Operating hrs/year
Facility/ Boiler
Boiler Mfgr/ Model
Size Fuel Year Firing Rate
Stack Temp
O2 in Flue Gas
Sta
ck L
oss
Eff
icie
ncy
CO in
Flue Gas, ppm
Low 444 °F 3.8% 81.0% 15 Buckland Elementary No. 1 Boiler
Weil McLain/ BL-1086-
SW
2,520 MBh
No. 2 Fuel Oil
1982 High 584 °F 2.8% 78.0% 11
Low 480 °F 8.8% 75.8% 31 Buckland Elementary No. 2 Boiler
Weil McLain
2,520 MBh
No. 2 Fuel Oil
1982 High 700 °F 2.9% 74.1% 34
At your next boiler tuneup, discuss the relatively high excess air level on Boiler No. 2 at low fire to determine if the air/fuel ratio can be leaner at low fire.
Boiler No. 1 currently operates more efficiently at low fire than Boiler No. 2 (this may be corrected after burner tune-ups have been performed). Consequently, Boiler No. 1 should be operated when low fire operation is required.
Tune boilers to operate most efficiently at the firing level where they operate most frequently.
Install stack thermometers in the stack to monitor flue gas temeperature.
Use portable flue gas analyzer to measure O2 in flue gas every 6 months (at typical operating loads).
Install gas meters on the individual boilers and track individual boiler fuel usage on a monthly basis.
Consider reducing steam pressure. Lower pressure in 5 psi increments and allow boiler to operate at the reduced level for several days to determine if the system operates acceptably.
Consider installing economizers to heat boiler feedwater.
HVAC, Chiller, and Cooling Tower Surveys
Systems Encountered:
•Small Commercial•Large Commercial•Small Industrial•Large Industrial
Previously shown Air
Cooled Chiller
viewed from Above
Industrial Air Handling System
Industrial Water Cooled Chiller
Industrial Cooling Tower
Cooling Tower Cell Membrane
Industrial Heat Exchanger (HEX) & Air Cooled Chiller
Industrial Heat Exchanger (HEX) & Air Cooled Chiller
Process in a Forging Plant
Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water Treatment System
End Product of a Forging Plant
End Product of Bottling Plant
2005 IAC Assessment $250,000 annual savings $560,000 implementation
cost, 2.3 year payback
Recession activity Company grew market
share due to greater efficiency
Company expanded into new world markets as others retracted
Some recommendations applied corporately Additional $920,000
worldwide savings
Local plant expanded New product line added New line and 50 new jobs
without incentive
Campus Greenhouses Detailed lighting survey
$112k implementation cost $38k leveraged incentives $17k annual energy savings 4.4 year simple payback
▪ Maintenance savings further shorten payback
Boiler tuning▪ Boiler was short cycling
Helping NC Bottom Line Currently working with:
School districts Community Colleges Military facilities Cities Counties Towns
Saving Energy Comprehensive and targeted surveys Demand Side Management (DSM) Energy bill analysis
Reducing Waste and Pollution Landfill and water issues Carbon footprint calculation
Additional Technical Assistance Strategic Energy Planning Assistance with proposals Measurement & Verification
Improving Productivity Process and systems review Additional resources (IES)