OpeningSlide

Energy Reduction in Pumps & Pumping Systems Objective

Peerless Pump Company

Energy Reduction in Pumps & Pumping Systems Objective

When you have successfully completed this workshop, you will understand and be able to discuss :– How the efficient use of pumps helps maximize power

utilization– The ways in which power is consumed in different

applications– Potential savings available through energy conservation

relating to pumps and pumping systems– Pump economics relating to operating costs and

purchase costs of pumps– The seven possible opportunities for savings in energy

costs of pumps and pumping systems

Energy Evaluation of Pumping Systems

Total System Evaluation (TSE)Life Cycle Costs for Pumping SystemsPower Smart ProgramsPumping Assessment ToolPump System Life Cycle Reduction

“Pump Systems Matter”

A New Educational Initiative Led by HI and a Coalition of the Willing, Focused on:

ENERGY SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES & LCC

Manufacturing in the United States

Economic Vitality of Manufacturing – Rising health care costs – Tort litigation– Reducing regulatory burdens and costs– Rapidly rising energy costs

External costs add a 22% cost disadvantage to US manufacturers....

offers solutions in areas of energy savings & total LCCRef.: Manufacturing In America/U.S. Dept. Of Commerce & NAM

Projected Energy Use in U.S.

Total U.S. Energy Production vs. Consumption: 2000-2020

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Qu

adr

illio

n B

tu p

er

year

Total U.S. Production

Total U.S. Consumption

Source: Energy Information Administration projections

CriticalGap

Sources: EIA 2001, 1998 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey; U.S. DOE 2002, Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Mining Industry

Major Energy-Intensive Industries

Energy Consumption (Trillion Btu)

Petroleum

Chemicals

PaperPrimaryMetals

Food Processing

Nonmetallic Minerals

Tobacco/BeveragesFurniture

Leather Machinery and ComputersTransportation

Fabricated Metals

Textiles/Apparel

Plastics/Rubber

ElectricalPrinting

Miscellaneous1

10

100

1000

10 100 1000 10000

En

erg

y In

ten

sity

(T

ho

usa

nd

Btu

/$ G

DP

)

Most Energy-Intensive Industries

Industrial Energy Intensity vs. Energy Consumption

Mining

7.6

6.3

6.2

8.6

4

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Billion kwh/year

Manufacturing$1.4 Billion/yr

Municipal Wastewater$150-300 Million/yr

U.S. Industrial Pump Systems

Other

Petroleum Refining

Pulp & Paper

Chemicals Sewage Lift StationTreatment Facilities

Energy Savings Opportunity

Reference: Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment, DOE, 1998

Focus of US DOE, EPA and NGOs: Energy Savings

Pumping systems account for nearly 20% of the world‘s electrical energy demand

and range from 25% to 50% of the energy usage in certain industrial plant

operations

Warning: Pumps are now on their RADAR screens!

VFD $3.3B/yr

Power Smart relating to Pumps

8% losses associated with friction1% losses due to bearings20% losses due to throttling6% due to motor inefficiencies18% losses to misapplied pumps, not matched to systems

Studies of Proper Pump Selection in

Matching Pumps to the System Head Curve

They take 10% more time to designThey generally result in 10% savings in first costThey generally demonstrate 50% savings in the first 5 year LCC

Frictional Systems

When a VFD can replace a control valve generally show 54% savings in operationBased on 5 year LCCControl valve option costs $70,000VFD option cost is $32,025Savings realized is $38,267

Oil Seal vs. Lab Seals

100 pumps with 200 contact oil sealsEnergy costs of $0.07569/kWh8766 hours per yearFriction costs to run these pumps with contact oil seals is $19,507/yr

Energy Savings: Just Part of the Picture

Energy costs can be a significant expense to users.

It has not been easy, however, to motivate users to make investments for energy-savings alone.

Focusing on pumping systems creates a unique opportunity for HI & its members to change the business dialogue – from initial cost to total LCC.

Pump Systems Matter will begin this long-term process to change behaviors in the marketplace while creating new business opportunities for members.

A significant educational effort, including outreach is required

Protecting the Pump Industry

Avoid federal & state government regulations.

EU: Labeling of pumps & requirements for energy efficiency of pumps (EcoDesign).

Canada: Minimum pump efficiency for under 5hp pumps.

New U.S. Energy Bill & increasing focus by Fed & States on sustained high cost of energy.

Work with government vs. be regulated by them.

Why don’t most customers use Life Cycle Costing?

We wrote the book on Pump Life Cycle Cost…...Now What??

Conflicting Issues -- What To Do?

Communication -- Money Speaks

Top Levels Of The LCC Tree

LCC = Acquisition Costs + Sustaining Costs

Acquisition costs and sustaining costs are not mutually exclusive -- find both by gathering correct inputs and identifying cost drivers.

Life CycleCost Tree

Acquisition Costs Sustaining Costs

Easy to Obtain Difficult to Obtain

Which Pumping Equipment To Buy?

Capital Case #Acquisition

CostVendor Condition

Case 1 64,241$ A Variable speed 4pole-belt Expensive Case 2 65,841$ A Variable speed 4pole-gear

Case 3 56,341$ A Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill backCase 4 57,941$ A Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill backCase 5 64,938$ A Variable speed 8pole-direct driveCase 6 41,350$ B Variable speed 4pole-beltCase 7 42,950$ B Variable speed 4pole-gearCase 8 33,450$ B Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill backCase 9 35,050$ B Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill backCase 10 41,314$ B Variable speed 8pole-direct driveCase 11 36,241$ C Variable speed 4pole-beltCase 12 40,063$ C Variable speed 4pole-gear

Cheap Case 13 28,686$ C Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill backCase 14 32,463$ C Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill backCase 15 38,538$ C Variable speed 8pole-direct drive

Cost Models - NPV’s Will Be Negative

Choose Least Negative NPV

Capital Case # VendorProcess Damage

Electrical Cost

OverhaulRoutine Maint Cost

Annual Cost

(Except Yr 14)

Annual Cost (Yr 14

Motor $)

Case 1 A 9,073$ 8,181$ 6,645$ 3,000$ 26,899$ 29,399$ Expensive Case 2 A 9,073$ 7,805$ 6,645$ 2,500$ 26,023$ 28,523$

Case 3 A 9,073$ 12,610$ 10,945$ 3,000$ 35,628$ 38,128$ Case 4 A 9,073$ 11,891$ 10,495$ 2,500$ 33,959$ 36,459$ Case 5 A 9,073$ 7,668$ 6,645$ 2,500$ 25,886$ 30,286$ Case 6 B 18,145$ 8,624$ 5,881$ 3,000$ 35,650$ 38,150$ Case 7 B 18,145$ 8,211$ 5,881$ 2,500$ 34,737$ 37,237$ Case 8 B 18,145$ 13,338$ 10,181$ 3,000$ 44,664$ 47,164$ Case 9 B 18,145$ 12,584$ 10,181$ 2,500$ 43,410$ 45,910$ Case 10 B 18,145$ 8,019$ 5,881$ 2,500$ 34,545$ 38,945$ Case 11 C 18,145$ 8,641$ 6,830$ 4,250$ 37,866$ 40,366$ Case 12 C 18,145$ 8,227$ 6,830$ 3,750$ 36,952$ 39,452$

Cheap Case 13 C 18,145$ 12,823$ 11,130$ 4,250$ 46,348$ 48,848$ Case 14 C 18,145$ 12,095$ 11,130$ 3,750$ 45,120$ 47,620$ Case 15 C 18,145$ 8,036$ 6,830$ 3,750$ 36,761$ 41,161$

Typical Annual Costs

NPV ’s -- Life Time CostsThe Winning Case Has An

NPV Advantage of +$63,412

NPV Case #Acquisition

CostNPV Vendor Condition

Case 1 64,241$ (180,012)$ A Variable speed 4pole-beltCase 2 65,841$ (177,328)$ A Variable speed 4pole-gearCase 3 56,341$ (213,658)$ A Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill backCase 4 57,941$ (207,301)$ A Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill back

Best Case 5 64,938$ (176,160)$ A Variable speed 8pole-direct driveCase 6 41,350$ (200,896)$ B Variable speed 4pole-beltCase 7 42,950$ (198,041)$ B Variable speed 4pole-gearCase 8 33,450$ (235,861)$ B Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill backCase 9 35,050$ (231,427)$ B Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill backCase 10 41,314$ (195,989)$ B Variable speed 8pole-direct driveCase 11 36,241$ (206,774)$ C Variable speed 4pole-beltCase 12 40,063$ (205,821)$ C Variable speed 4pole-gear

Worst Case 13 28,686$ (239,572)$ C Fixed speed 4pole-belt w/CV spill backCase 14 32,463$ (236,869)$ C Fixed speed 4pole-gear w/CV spill backCase 15 38,538$ (203,869)$ C Variable speed 8pole-direct drive

Watch out for the lure of the cheap first costs.You may not be able to afford it!

Power

Brown field

Green field opportunity

ANSI

Opportunity: Brown & Green Fields

The Brown field is great opportunity because we have not had the tools to attack this market. Green Field markets, while

smaller, represent a significant savings opportunity…

The Market is Ripe!

Most people feel the payback period is too long…Others feel if they try really hard they will only save 2-4% on their cost of energy…

“Pump Systems Matter” will address these concerns…

Transforming the Market for Pumps and Pumping Systems

Educate customers: buy right not cheap. Create educational tools, case studies and build

national & regional awareness. Pump Systems Matter initiatives will support HI

members & expands market opportunties through education efforts.

HI has been building relationships, resources and tools for several years – but PSM recognizes that much more work has to be done.

HI’s Role with the U.S. DOE

The Hydraulic Institute is both a Charter Partner of the Motor Challenge Program and several years ago became an Allied Partner with the U.S. DOE. HI created “Seven Ways to Save Energy” video training HI involved with the early development of the Pump Systems Assessment Tool (PSAT), developed by the US DOE and offered two training classes in 2004. Recently HI has set up three Advisory Committees to the U.S. DOE to review PSAT ’04 upgrades, DOE tip sheets, case studies and guides on pumps & pumping systemsThe “pumps” section of www.pumps.org, includes “energy savings” guidance, tips, US DOE case studies and tools, including downloadable versions of PSAT software for the benefit of users and non-government organizations.

One Increasingly Popular Tool = PSAT

Checklist used as first screen to identify large energy consumers

Second screening uses PSAT software & operating data to determine system operating efficiency and energy consumption

Comparison made with optimal system indicates potential energy and cost savings

Result is to identify those few systems (on the order of 10 out of 1000s of pumps systems) that offer the greatest potential benefits

PSAT Qualified Training offered by HI and U.S. DOE in October

Other Industrial Market Transformation Programs

Motors: EPACT ’92 – Federal legislation: min. efficiencies Motor Decisions Matter - CEE & NEMA NEMA Premium – Led by NEMA, responing to threat of

EnergyStar labelling by CEE (Utilities) & EPA

Compressors: Compressed Air Challenge – organized by U.S. DOE

Added New Service Dimension to Industry Steam:

Steam Challenge – organized by U.S. DOE

Why Market Transformation?

The government has told us we can either architect our own future or have legislators do it for us .

After addressing most other consumer and industrial products pumps & pumping systems are on the radar screen .

The motor industry faced the same prospects. At first it did not take a leadership role and had to deal with Federal mandates. Recently added NEMA Premium.

US pump manufactures can create an advantage or find themselves at a significant disadvantage if we fail to take a leadership role. To lead or follow?

HI Market Transformation

Transform the owner/operator and contractor from focusing on lowest first cost to total LCC.

Develop new educational materials, tools and awareness.

Change the owner/operator and contractor from buying cheap to buying right.

Create new business opportunities for the pumping industry – new product, new service & approaches.

We need to engage others in this process to create friends and allies with influence in states & markets.

DOE & EPA interests in energy-saving: now pumps.

“Pump Systems Matter”

The first market transformation initiative set-up and organized by a U.S. trade association.

A program consistent with recommendations made by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) to the HI Board of Directors.

A program that embraces the “systems” efforts of the US DOE, builds positive relations DOE & EPA & minimizes chances of unwanted regulations or labeling.

Our best chance to create new demand for pumps and pumping systems in the U.S.

“Pump Systems Matter” Organization & Funding

Majority of funding to come from other stake-holders, but a fee schedule will allow all interested parties to play.

Majority of HI member companies funding per sliding scale (see schedule). See Charter Sponsor Commitment Agreement – sent to all members under separate cover

Establish a new educational foundation for purpose of soliciting funding: a new 501(c)(3) organization.

Leadership and decisions to be shared with key sponsors and funding organizations (stake-holders).

ACEEE Report to Board & MT Committee

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy retained by HI Board to guide

Possible Types of Stake-holders

Pump Industry OEMs: Pump Companies & Suppliers

Market Transformation Organizations: Utilities, State & Federal Government

End-users: Fortune 100 with major plants and multi-plant locations

Government Agencies: US DOE, US EPA, Manufacturing Extension Partnership of US DOC

Engineers and Consultants – top companies

Repair and Service Organizations

Sales and Distributors: Direct, Reps and Distributors

Related Manufacturers: Motors, Seals and Piping

Other Related Associations

Independent Systems Consultants; Finance Orgs & ESCOs

PSM Potential Stake-holders

DOE – US Department of EnergyNEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency AllianceNYSERDA – New York State Energy Research & Development AdministrationPG&E – Pacific Gas & ElectricSCE – Southern California EdisonSDG&E – San Diego Gas & ElectricSMUD - Sacramento Municipal Utility DistrictECW – Energy Center of WisconsinIEC – Iowa Energy CenterNEEP – Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

PSM Potential Stake-holders

DOC NIST/MEP –National Institute for Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NASEO - National Association of State Energy OfficersASERTTI - Association of State Energy Research and

Technology Transfer InstitutesIndustry Associations (Market-specific):– AIChE – American Society of Chemical Engineers– TAPPI – Technical Association for the Pulp & Paper Industry– AWWA – American Water Works Association– WEF – Water Environment Associations– ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineers– AMWA - Association of Municipal Water Authorities– AMSA - Association of Municipal Sewage Authorities

Next Steps

National Pump Systems Educational Initiative:

“Pump Systems Matter” start-up plans:

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats Pump Sytems Matter Program Brightens our Future

Move markets to buying right, not cheap Move customers to buying based on Life Cycle

Costing/TCO, including energy costs Customers change the way they buy pumps

and pumping systems An Educated Customer & Market for Pumps &

Systems Creates new sales, service and support

opportunities for all pump cos. & suppliers Creates new educational information for all Discourages government mandates & labelling

Funding Sources

HI Members: Charter Partners:Peerless/LaBour Pump

Other Stake-holders: Charter Partners

Leadership vs. Control

DOE & Other Stake-holder Interest & Activity Level is Increasing with pumps and pumping systems– Policy will be Created With or Without HI

Historic HI Engagement opportunity with DOE & NGOsHI Can Influence Policy, but Cannot Control– 25+% Funding Stake = Significant Influence

Initiative & Organization Design = Significant InfluenceCommitment & Risk Taking = Significant Influence Important to engage as many HI members as possible as Charter Partners = Significant Influence

Pump Systems Matters Tools

Sale of the following HI products and services :– Pump Life Cycle Cost Guide: $125.00 ea.– Variable Speed Pumping Guide: $95.00 ea.– Fundamentals of Pumping Course: $299.00 ea.– Energy Savings in Pump Systems Video: $299.00

ea.New HI Products & Services created: particularly e-Learning, Guidebooks & Workshops.Certification role for HI (CEUs) will be explored: non-dues revenue to co-sponsor courses.

Other Stake-holder Funding Contributions

According to the ACEEE Report the Program Plan for PSM is the vehicle for building a case for each “stake-holder” to participate.Need to determine levels that are appropriate to the size of other stake-holders & their regional & program interests in pumping systems.The Compressed Air Challenge had a $30K/year contribution from each co-sponsor for three years.Co-funders, as Charter Partners, become part of the organizing committee & help recruit other stake-holders.

Inviting Your Participation in PSM

Becoming a Charter Partner of “Pump Systems Matter” demonstrates your intent to be a player & benefit accordingly

By becoming a Charter Partner you can:– Have a seat at the organizing table and planning mtgs.– Help set priorities and plans and shape PSM direction – Ensure that your interests are represented– Network with other Non-government organizations,

utilities, users and other stake-holders– Ensure that you are informed and involved– Be listed on the PSM web site & have access to

products and services at Charter Partner discounts

What You’ve Been Sent

Action Requested – What Next?

Enroll members of your staff in the upcoming PSAT Qualified Specialist Training class– details in “members” section of www.pumps.org

Thank You!

– Bill Adams, Flowserve (co-chair)– Bill Taylor, ITT Industrial Products Group (co-chair)– Dave Brockway, Intelliquip – Joseph Gaul, Taco– Pat DePalma, ITT Fluid (Bell & Gossett) – Rich Heppe, Emerson – U.S. Motors– Al Huber, Patterson Pump Company – Joe Kozuch, Curtiss-Wright EMD– Jim Kvas, GE Industrial Systems– Mike McNamara, Sta-Rite– Richard Niiranen, Sulzer Pump (USA)– Pete Noll, Peerless/Labour– Trey Walters, Applied Flow Technology– David Wathier, Iwaki-Walchem– Michael Weigl, Burgmann Seals

“Pump Systems Matter”

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Pump Performance

Total System Evaluation

Meeting the Energy Challenge

Peerless Energy Evaluation DepartmentP.O. Box 7026Indianapolis, IN 46206Tel: 317-925-9661

Total System Evaluation

A program to help liquid system designers and operators evaluate energy cost of pumps.TSE is dynamic working tool to assist you in meeting this challenge

Total System Components

Pumps are usually selected for maximum operating efficiency at a given design point- many times this rating is based on a long term design basisThe system head curve and the pump curve must be developed so that you can measure the various flows and operating time at each flow at various intervalsIn constant speed pumps this variation in flow is accomplished by adjusting valves in the system which increases the friction head- creating wasted energyThis wasted energy can be saved by matching pump performance to actual system requirements

– Changing impeller diameters– Changing the motor/pump RPM

Affinity Laws

Flow varies directly in proportion to the speed change ration or impeller diameter changeHead varies by the square of the speed change ratio or the impeller diameter changeBHP varies by the cube of the speed change ratio or the impeller diameter change

Evaluation Data

When comparing the energy requirements of variable speed pumps and constant speed pumps, three factors must be considered:– Flow variations in the system– Head requirements for the various flows– Flow/time relationship (load profile)

Flow Variation

The first step in making a pump energy comparision is to determine maximum and minimum system flows.Enter these values in the “System Flow” section of the Power Comparison Data Form

Head Requirements

The second step is to determine the individual pressures which exist in the total system head; friction head and constant head– Friction Head: is the pressure required to overcome resistance to

flow in the system piping and fittings– Constant Head: is the pressure necessary to satisfy any requirement

of the system which does not vary with system flow changes, such as static head, delivery pressure, and differential pressure./

Enter friction head and constant head values in the “System Head” section of the Power Comparison Data Form

Load Profile

The relationship of time and flow is called the load profile. In most existing systems, hours of operation at various flows can measured and recorded. In systems being designed, the load profile must be calculated or estimated.Determine the number of flow conditions and hours of operation at each flow and enter the values in the “Load Profile” section of the Power Comparison Data Form.

Data for Evaluation

In addition to the completed Power Comparison Data Form, an accurate system head curve and simple sketch of the piping system must be made.Also, provide performance curves for the existing pumps that are to be considered in the energy evaluation

Final Evaluation

With the above completed items and energy evaluation can be done.The evaluation will include recommendations for equipment and comparative operating costs.Through TSE you will be able to make the final evaluation of pumping equipment which bests fits your cost-benefit-functionality requirementsPeerless Pump Professionals are ready to help you meet the energy challenge through Total System Evaluation

Pumping System with Problem Control Valve

Situation: the fluid control valve fails due to erosion caused by cavitation. The valve fails every 10-12 months at a cost of 4,000 euros, USD per repairCurrently the control valve operates between 15-20% open and with considerable cavitation noise from the valveIt was discovered that the pump was oversized: 110m3/h(485gpm) instead of 80m3/h(350gpm), this represented in a larger pressure drop across the control valve than originally intended

Four Options for Consideration

A: A new control valve can be installed to accommodate the high pressure differential

B: The pump impeller can be trimmed so that the pump does not develop as much head, resulting in a lower pressure drop across the current valve

C: A variable frequency drive (VFD) can be installed, and the flow control valve removed. The VFD can vary the pump speed and thus achieve the desired process flow

D: The system can be left as it is, with a yearly repair of the flow control valve to be expected

Associated Costs

Cost of a new control valve that is properly sized is 5,000 euro(USD)Cost of trimming the pump impeller is 2,250 euro(USD)The energy cost is 0.08 euro(USD) per kWh and the motor efficiency is 90%The process operates at 80m3/h for 6,000hours/yrThe annual routine costs for maintenance of this type of equipment is 500 euros(USD) and a repair costs 2,500 euros(USD) every second yearThis project has an 8 year lifeThe interest rate for new capital projects is 8% and inflation is 4%

Summary

By trimming the impeller to 375mm (Opt B), the pump’s head is reduced to 42.0m (138ft) at 80m3/h.This drop in pressure reduces the differential pressure across the control valve to less than 10m (33ft), which better matches the valve’s original design pointThe resulting annual energy cost with the smaller impeller is 6,720 euro or USD per year.It costs 2,250 euro or USD to trim the impeller. This includes the machining costs as well as the cost to disassemble and reassemble the pump

Variable Frequency Drive on Water Supply System for

Energy Savings

•Existing System•Description•Energy Savings Opportunities•Data Collection

•Design and Savings Calculations•VFD Pump Curves and System Requirements•Business Case•Verification and Conclusion

Variable Frequency Drive on Water Supply System for Energy Savings

250 hp50 hp

150 hp

RecirculationTo Distribution

Existing System - Description

Pressure Set Point = 130 psi (300 ft TDH)

Average Flow Requirement = 1000 gpm

Existing System - Description

Energy Savings Opportunities Reduce Pressure Set Point

130 psi

100 psi

Original Pressure Set Point

Allowable Pressure Set Point95% of Operating Year

Theoretical Savings

130 psi

1,680 gpm1,000 gpmOriginal Pump Output

Average System Demand

Theoretical Savings

Energy Savings Opportunities Eliminate Dump Valve

Chart Recorder – Pressure, Flow North, Flow South

Flow and Pressure data was gathered over a one year period and entered into a table to create a flow/pressure demand profile

Total Flow Hours % year Nom HP Total USG784 129 1.47% 150 6,068,160 1664 7 0.08% 200 698,880 816 32 0.37% 150 1,566,720 1648 19 0.22% 200 1,878,720 2000 19 0.22% 200 2,280,000 2880 7 0.08% 300 1,209,600 1632 168 1.92% 200 16,450,560 1504 168 1.92% 200 15,160,320 1408 168 1.92% 150 14,192,640 1216 168 1.92% 150 12,257,280

Flow Demand Profile

35%

13%

<5%

130 psi

Flow Demand Profile

2nd Pump Starts

Original Operation

VFD Pump Curves and System Requirements

86%

81%75%

63%

60 Hz

54 Hz

50 Hz

46 Hz

49 Hz1450 rpm850 gpm @ 230 ft72 hp

100 psi Set Point

2nd PumpNot Req’d 99% of year

Design and Savings Calculations VFD Pump Curves & System Requirements

Business Case – Original Base CaseJanuary to December 2000

Pump(s) hours kVA kWh Energy $ Demand $

150 hp 8,299 137 964,501 $ 20,447 $ 1,138

200 hp 392 180 60,026 $ 1,273 $ 1,499

250 hp 37 222 6,973 $ 148 $ 1,845

300 hp 32 263 7,162 $ 152 $ 2,191

Max kVA 180 Demand $ 17,986

kWh 1,038,66

1 Energy $ 21,872

Total $ 39,858

Design and Savings Calculations

FLOW RANGE HOURS kVA kW kWhr Energy $

Demand $

500-600 249 47 45 11181 $ 237 $ 393

601-700 1061 54 51 54518 $ 1,156 $ 450

701-800 3058 61 58 178472 $ 3,784 $ 511

801-900 1220 65 61 74848 $1,587 $ 537

901-1000 380 68 65 24687 $ 523 $ 569

1001-1125 1044 73 70 72855 $ 1,545 $ 611

1126-1250 759 79 75 56918 $ 1,207 $ 657

1251-1500 525 87 83 43361 $ 919 $ 723

1501-1750 362 99 94 34085 $ 723 $ 825

1751-2000 33 120 114 3762 $ 80 $ 998

2001-2500 37 141 134 4960 $ 105 $ 1,174

2501-3000 26 172 164 4260 $ 90 $ 1,435

3001-3500 6 203.8 194 1162 $ 25 $ 1,696

max kVA 99 kWh 565,06

9 Annual

Cost $

21,727

With VFD and Demand Profile

Before Installation $ 40,000After Installation $ 22,000Annual Savings $ 18,000

Project Cost $ 65,000

Simple Payback 3.6 Years

Incentive Value * $ 26,000Net Project Cost $ 39,000

Simple Payback w/ Incentive* 2.2 Years

Design and Savings Calculations – Business Case

* Manitoba Hydro gives technical assistance and financial incentives to qualifying projects that reduce domestic demand and energy.

Energy Reduction:Energy Reduction:First Year kWh Savings x $ 0.0375 First Year kWh Savings x $ 0.0375

Demand Reduction:Demand Reduction:Summer kW Savings x $ 18Summer kW Savings x $ 18Winter kW Savings x $ 135Winter kW Savings x $ 135

Incentive Cap:Incentive Cap:- Energy savings calculation- Energy savings calculation- 50% Total Project Cost (up to $ 250,000)- 50% Total Project Cost (up to $ 250,000)

- Payback to 1.5 Years- Payback to 1.5 Years

Technical assistance Technical assistance and funding grants for and funding grants for feasibility studies are feasibility studies are also available.also available.

Some energy savings projects require financial incentives to make the business cases more attractive. Typical rates are $5.401 per kVA

and $0.02119 per kWh.

Reduced domestic demand allows greater guaranteed contracts for export which help keep the domestic rates low.

QUESTIONS???

Energy Savings

Power Smart relating to pumps

· 8% losses due to friction· 1% losses due to bearings· 20% losses due to throttling· 6% losses due to motor inefficiencies· 18% losses to misapplied pumps, not matched to systems

Overall only 47% of the energy consumed is put to useful work

Energy & Maintenance Costs· 70% of the energy production in industrialized countries drive electric motors· 70% of electric motors drive pumps, compressors, fans· Pumped systems account for 20% of the world’s electric energy demands· Energy and maintenance costs during the life of a pump system is usually at least 10-30X its purchased price· Just over 1/3 of the motor population accounts for almost 2/3 of the energy

Motor Energy by Application looking at Pumps only

· Chemical 26%· Paper 31.4%· Metals 8.7%· Petroleum 59%· Food 16.4 %· Other 19%

Potential Savings for Pump Systems by Application:

· Paper 4,728 Gwh· Chemical 5,676 GWh· Petroleum 4,627 GWh· Metals 1,155 GWh

Life Cycle Costs Example 1:

Pump Initial Cost 14%· Installation 9%· Energy 32%· Maintenance 20%· Operating 9%· Downtime 9%· Environmental 7%

Life Cycle Costs Example 2

· Pump Initial Cost +/- 5%· Installation +/- 15%· Energy +/- 40%· Maintenance-(parts & labor) +/- 40%

Survey Results

75% of all engineered pump systems are estimated to be oversizedA 200hp motor, operating 6000 hours, cost $60,000/year to operate

Pump Economics

– In continuous running applications, it cost more to operate a pump for one year than it does to buy the pump

– In some cases, a twenty percent reduction in operating costs can pay for the cost of a pump in little over a year’s time, as in the following example:

• Pump cost = $9,000• Operating cost + $39,000/year• 20% savings = $7,800/year• Payback = ($9,000/$7,800) x 12 months = 14 months

Municipal Sector

A lot of work has been done in the municipal sector, when looking at pump stations;One example had a 100Hp pumps operating in an old system, they added 30Hp pumps and should an overall yearly savings of 23-43%. Pleasenote that while energy savings are significant, in many cases the maintenance savings are at least that of energy and most times more. The overall payback is 1.6-1.9 years on these type projects.

Survey Results

Based on a US DOE report they find that 75-122 KwH per year can be saved by optimizing motor driven pump systems. This translates into a potential savings of $4-6B/year.Report can be found at www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/

The freebies at this site are:· Optimum pipe sizing and reducing pumping costs with nomographs for optimum pipe sizing· Pump System Assessment Tool (software)· A sourcebook for industry, improving pumping system performanceStudies for proper pump selection and doing a better job of matching the pumps to the system have the following results:· They take 10% more time to design· They generally result in 10% savings in first cost· They generally demonstrate 50% savings in the first 5 year LCC

Process Pump Efficiency

A rule of thumb regarding efficiencies and wear bands is the following:For every 0.001inch wear in a wear band beyond the factory setting, the pump is losing between 1.5-2.0% efficiency points.Therefore a 0.004inch wear in a wear band would mean the pump has lost somewhere between 6-8% efficiency points.A typical centrifugal pump with a 10 inch impeller at 3550 rpm would develop 340 ft in head at about 1300 gpm, with a 78% efficiency the rated BHP is 143 BHP. Based on continuous operation at $0.10/Kwh the electric bill for a year would be $93,450.Based on 0.004 inch wear, the efficiency would be 70-72%, which translates into rated BHP of 159 HP, with an annual energy bill of $103,906. This results in wasted energy of over $10,000 a year.Larry Bachus ISBN# 1856174093, Know and Understand Centrifugal Pumps

TSE- Review of What Can Be Done

Design System so that Head Requirements are kept to a Minimum– Minimize capacity– Reduce process pressures– Lower outlet tanks’– Use siphons– Reduce nozzle velocities– Use larger pipes– Use lower loss fittings– Eliminate throttle valves– Computer software programs help greatly in the analysis of piping systems

Avoid Adding Safety Margins to Allow for Wear– If wear does occur, it may be more cost-effective to replace impeller wear rings after a period

of time than to suffer the increased energy cost resulting from an oversized pump.Select the Most Efficient Pump TypeUse Variable Speed Drives to Avoid Losses in Throttle Values and Bypass LinesConsider using Two or More Pumps when Dsigning New InstallationsUse Pump0s as Turbines to Recover Pressure EnergyMaintain Your Pumps, Piping and Accessories in Like New Condition

.

Cl

Peerless Pump Company2005 Dr. M.L. King Jr. Street, P.O. Box 7026,

Indianapolis, IN 46207-7026, USATelephone: (317) 924-7378 Fax: (317) 924-7202

www.peerlesspump.com

LaBour Pump Company901 Ravenwood Drive, Selma, Alabama 36701

Ph: (317) 925-9661 - Fax: (317) 920-6605 www.labourtaber.com

A Product of Peerless Pump Company Copyright © 2005 Peerless Pump Company