Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Industrial Assessment Center Program
• Sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy, CEERE serves New England
• Free assessments to help reduce energy and resource costs Electricity & fuel (natural gas, oil, propane, etc.)
Water
Waste
Productivity
Cybersecurity
• Key eligibility criteria Manufacturing facility within SIC 20‐39
or water/wastewater treatment facility
Annual energy bills between $100,000 and $2.5 million
Energy Efficiency Benefits
• Reduce operating costs
• Reduce emissions
• Reduce maintenance costs
• Improve work environment or customer experience Light quality
Temperature control, comfort
2
Why Have an Energy Assessment?
• Fresh set of eyes• Technical expertise• Metering tools
• Impartial advice
• Confidential
• Identify new savings opportunities• Quantify the savings potential for ideas you have• Compare options for upcoming equipment purchases
• Prioritize opportunities• Documentation to help earn project approval or utility incentives
Assessment Process
• Collect and review utility bills Understand baseline use
Determine utility rates
• Site visit Meet with staff
Tour facility
Collect data
• Analysis
• Report with recommendations
Evaluating Energy Projects
• Project economics
Energy savings
Cost savings
Implementation cost
Other savings or costs
• Emissions reduction
• Other benefits or challenges
3
Evaluating Energy Projects – Definitions
• Power or demand
Rate of electricity consumption, Watts or kW
Typically billed for the peak 15 minute interval in the billing period
• Electricity consumption
Electric energy used over a period of time, Watt‐hours or kWh
Billed for total consumption during the billing period, sometimes at
varying rates depending on time of day
• Electricity = power x time
Running a 20 W lightbulb for 1 hour uses 20 Watt‐hours
Evaluating Energy Projects – Definitions
• Marginal cost of electricity
Price for the last unit used
Doesn’t include fixed costs
Usual lower than average cost
Generally best to use for calculating project savings
• Simple payback periodpayback [years] = implementation cost / annual cost savings
Sample Recommendation TableRecommendation
Annual Savings Implement.
Cost
Payback
PeriodEnergy Cost
1 Reduce exhaust on scrubbers during off hoursElectricity (kWh) 182,994 $20,825
$20,400 7 monthsNatural Gas (MMBtu) 1,035 $14,159
2 Turn off air compressor at night Electricity (kWh) 212,716 $24,207 $1,000 1 month
3 Reduce speed of anodizing NO2 fan during off hours Electricity (kWh) 174,066 $19,809 $3,330 2 months
4 Implement temperature setback in the officeElectricity (kWh) 14,575 $1,659
$1,000 1 monthNatural Gas (MMBtu) 525 $6,864
5 Repair compressed air leaks Electricity (kWh) 73,575 $8,373 $2,400 3 months
6 Install VFD on pumps in aqueous washers Electricity (kWh) 60,242 $6,856 $24,500 3.6 years
7 Reduce the compressor pressure Electricity (kWh) 22,889 $2,605 $500 2 months
8 Turn off wash line pumps when conveyor belts are off Electricity (kWh) 22,706 $2,584 $1,000 5 months
9 Reduce temperature in washer tanks Natural Gas (MMBtu) 122 $1,597 $500 4 months
10 Insulate pipes and condensate tanks Natural Gas (MMBtu) 94 $1,227 $1,013 10 months
11 Turn off the paint area exhaust fanElectricity (kWh) 3,518 $400
$100 1 monthNatural Gas (MMBtu) 52 $679
Total
Electricity (kWh) 767,281 $87,318 ‐
6 monthsNatural Gas (MMBtu) 1,828 $24,526 ‐
Total ‐ $111,844 $55,743
4
Metering Tools
• Multimeter Spot measurement of voltage, current, power factor
Metering Tools
• Temperature, humidity, light loggers Log measurements over time in programmed intervals
Metering Tools
• Power loggers Log measurements over time in programmed intervals
5
Metering Tools
• Airflow meter Spot measurement of air velocity, temperature and humidity
Metering Tools
• Combustion analyzer / boiler tester Spot measurement of boiler exhaust temperature, operating efficiency
Metering Tools
• Thermal imaging camera Takes photographs that show the temperature of surfaces
6
Case Study
• 326,000 square foot Philips Lighting facility in Fall River, Massachusetts
• 200 employees
• Ongoing work on energy and water efficiency, toxics reduction
• 2014 assessment by UMass
Energy Presentation Video.wmv
Continuous Improvement to use the least amount of Energy and other Natural Resources at our site and in our Manufacturing Processes
Results to date:99 % Reduction in VOC emissions (From 130 Tons per year to .489 Ton)70 % Reduction in the Use of Toxic Chemicals (From 557 Tons per year to 168 Tons)63 % Reduction in the Use of Water (From 251 K GPD to 68 K GPD)66 % Reduction in the Use of Electricity (From 10 M Kwh’s per year to 3.4 M) Continued focus to increase our Recycling Rate (From 58 % in 2013 to 82 % as of 2016 Q4)
Fall River has received several recognition rewards including: Recognition from the Massachusetts State Senate, Massachusetts House of Representatives and the Toxic Use Reduction Institute at the University of Massachusetts for collaboration with the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance
“Making Massachusetts a Safer Place to Live and Work“
Philips Fall River Sustainability
7
8
Current Energy Reduction / Custom Incentive Project with Utility National Grid
Reduction of off Hour BASE LOAD of 300‐400 kWh
i.e. two projects with incentives from N Grid as custom Projects reduced usage by 484,000 kwh’s, 11.3 % of our annual usage by reprogramming compressors and installing Timed VFD’s on scrubbers. Savings of 80k/yrwith only 19k out of pocket after incentives of 31 k from National Grid
Philips ‐ Fall River, MA Interval Data Analysis
Findings & Recommendations
• Reduce exhaust when production isn’t operating Exhaust fans needed to vent air out of the production area, were running at full speed continuously
Installing new motors with variable frequency drives allowed reduction of fan speed to 50% during off hours
Reduced electricity consumption by fans and gas use for space heating
Annual savings $48,000
Findings & Recommendations
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Tue 6 AM Wed 6 AM Thu 6 AM Fri 6 AM Sat 6 AM Sun 6 AM Mon 6 AM
Power (kW)
Compressor 1 Compressor 2 Compressor 3 Compressor 4
Metering of air compressor power
9
Findings & Recommendations
• Turn air compressors off when plant isn’t operating Meter data showed a compressor running during off hours
Compressor management tool needed to be reprogrammed
Annual savings $24,000
Findings & Recommendations
• Repair leaks in compressed air distribution system Meter data showed significant energy use at night to feed leaks
A typical plant loses about 20% of its compressed air through leaks, ongoing maintenance required to minimize leakage
Annual cost savings $6,000
Findings & Recommendations
Metering of office temperature
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu
Temperature (F)
10
Findings & Recommendations
• Program thermostats to set back when areas aren’t occupied Meter data showed office temperature around 70 degrees throughout the week
Existing thermostats needed to be reprogrammed
Annual savings $8,500
Findings & Recommendations
Valves observed during site visit
Findings & Recommendations
• Improve controls on pumps To get needed flow rate, flow was throttled by partially closing valves
Meter data showed pumps operating at 88% of full power, which corresponds to 70% of maximum flow for a throttled valve
Installing variable frequency drives (VFDs) provided better control, can adjust to 70% flow and use only 34% of full power
Annual savings $10,000
11
Findings & Recommendations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of Full Power [%]
Percent of Full Flow [%]
with VFD Throttling
Comparison of power used with throttling vs VFD
Assessment Summary
• 7 of 12 recommendations implemented or in progress
• Annual cost savings $102,000
• Implementation cost after utility incentives $31,000
• Payback period 4 months
• Assessment experience
Benefits and challenges
Decision making process
Lessons learned
Recommendations
Lauren Mattison Ron Westgate
[email protected] [email protected]
413‐545‐0651
www.ceere.org
