Energy Efficiency Programs August 23, 2010 Presented by: John Rees, PE, CEM Eric Soderberg, PE, CEM Dr. Herb Eckerlin, PE Kevin Martin, MBA Presentation.

Energy Efficiency ProgramsAugust 23, 2010

Presented by: John Rees, PE, CEMEric Soderberg, PE, CEM

Dr. Herb Eckerlin, PEKevin Martin, MBA

Presentation to 406 Class

Energy_Group@ncsu.edu

Herbert M. Eckerlin, PhD, PEProfessor, DirectorPhone: 919.515.5227E-mail: eckerlin@eos.ncsu.edu

Kevin Martin, MBAStrategic Energy ManagerPhone: 919.515.0903Cell: 919.996.9978E-mail: kevin_martin@ncsu.edu

John D. Rees, PE, CEMEnergy Extension SpecialistPhone: 919.515.9436E-mail: john_rees@ncsu.edu

Eric W. Soderberg, PE, CEMEnergy Extension SpecialistPhone: 919.795.1114E-mail: eric_soderberg@ncsu.edu

Stephen D. Terry, PhD, PEExtension Assistant ProfessorPhone: 919.515.1878E-mail: sdterry@ncsu.edu

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)