Energy Assessments and Savings Opportunities in Industrial Facilities Presentation to Devens Eco-Efficiency Center Dragoljub (Beka) Kosanovic, Ph.D. University of Massachusetts Amherst Director, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Assistant Research Professor, Mechanical Engineering March 2, 2018
Agenda • Introduction to energy efficiency • Identifying efficiency opportunities • Industrial Assessment Center • Common findings and opportunities in industrial facilities • Case studies • Other programs Food and beverage businesses Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Partnership • Q&A 2
Benefits of Energy Efficiency • Reduce operating costs • Reduce emissions • Reduce maintenance costs Upgraded equipment Better controls or more efficient operation • Improve work environment or customer experience Light quality Temperature control, comfort • Earn utility incentives/rebates or other grants 3
Identifying Efficiency Opportunities • External assessment • Internal suggestions or “treasure hunt” • Equipment vendors • All of the above! 4
Why Have an External 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 5
Industrial Assessment Center • National program sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy, CEERE serves New England • Free in-depth assessments to help reduce energy and resource costs Electricity & all fuels (natural gas, oil, propane, etc.) Water Waste Productivity • Key eligibility criteria Manufacturing or water/wastewater treatment facility Annual energy bills $100,000 - $2.5 million 6
Industrial Assessment Center • 800 assessments by UMass since 1984 • Recommendations include Equipment replacement Installation or reprogramming of controls Maintenance procedures • Average assessment 3 recommendations implemented $61,000 annual cost savings 1.5 year average payback period 7
Assessment Process • Collect and review utility bills • Site visit Meet with staff Tour facility Collect data • Analysis • Report with detailed recommendations within 60 days • Determine incentive eligibility, plan & implement 8
Common Findings & Opportunities • Utility bills Tax exemption Power factor penalty Multiple accounts Late fees 9
Common Findings & Opportunities • Refrigeration and process cooling Install automated controls – variable frequency drives to adjust motor speed to load Optimize sequencing of equipment Replace old, inefficient equipment carrier.com 10
Common Findings & Opportunities • Ovens and process heating Add insulation Clean and tune boilers Recover heat from oven or boiler exhaust Maintain steam traps rocklandbakery.com 11
Common Findings & Opportunities • Compressed air systems Adjust pressure setting Repair leaks Eliminate unnecessary uses of compressed air Increase storage Replace old, inefficient efficiencyvermont.com equipment 12
Common Findings & Opportunities • Lighting Upgrade equipment Install or optimize controls – occupancy sensors, daylight sensors, timers efficiencyvermont.com 13
Common Findings & Opportunities • Combined heat and power / cogeneration Joint generation and use of electricity and thermal energy High efficiency, increased reliability, reduced energy costs May be combined with district heating or microgrids Power Plant 94 32% efficiency Electricity units Fuel (Including T&D) CHP 100 30 Fuel unit 75% units s efficiency 56 Onsite Boiler Heat Fuel units 80% efficiency 45 units Total Total Efficiency Efficiency ~ 50% ~ 75% 30 to 55% less greenhouse gas emissions 14
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 15
Case Study – Philips Recommendations Annual Savings Implement. Payback Recommendation Energy Cost Cost Period Electricity (kWh) 182,994 $20,825 1 Reduce exhaust on scrubbers during off hours $20,400 7 months Natural 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 Electricity (kWh) 14,575 $1,659 4 Implement temperature setback in the office $1,000 1 month Natural 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 Electricity (kWh) 3,518 $400 11 Turn off the paint area exhaust fan $100 1 month Natural Gas (MMBtu) 52 $679 Electricity (kWh) 767,281 $87,318 - Total Natural Gas (MMBtu) 1,828 $24,526 - 6 months Total - $111,844 $55,743
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 1 • 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 17
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 2 Metering of air compressor power 140 120 100 Power (kW) 80 60 40 20 0 Tue 6 AM Wed 6 AM Thu 6 AM Fri 6 AM Sat 6 AM Sun 6 AM Mon 6 AM Compressor 1 Compressor 2 Compressor 3 Compressor 4
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 2 • 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 19
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 5 • 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 20
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 6 Valves observed during site visit 21
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 6 • 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 and higher efficiency, can adjust to 70% flow and use only 34% of full power Annual savings $10,000 22
Case Study – Philips Recommendation 6 Comparison of power used with throttling vs VFD 100% 90% Percent of Full Power [%] 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Full Flow [%] with VFD Throttling
Case Study – Philips Results • 7 of 12 recommendations implemented or in progress • Annual cost savings $102,000 • Implementation cost after utility incentives $31,000 • Payback period 4 months 24
Case Study Air ircraft Component Manufacturer • 130 employees • 32,000 square foot facility • Annual energy costs $347,000 • Implemented 8 of 9 recommendations Apply for tax exemption on energy bills Reduce air compressor pressure to required level Reduce exhaust from oven Use cooling tower rather than chiller to provide water for process whenever possible Use variable frequency drive to control cooling water supply pumps, rather than throttling • Annual cost savings $40,500 or 12% • Implementation cost $29,000 • 8 month payback 25
Case Study – Commercial Bakery ry • 90 employees • 22,000 square foot facility • Annual energy costs $444,000 • Implemented 9 of 9 recommendations Improve compressed air system Insulate steam pipes Install a heat exchanger to use oven exhaust to preheat combustion air Upgrade lighting and install occupancy sensors Upgrade to a recirculating air handling unit • Annual cost savings $83,500 or 19% • Implementation cost $159,000 • 1.9 year payback 26
Sustainability in Food & Beverage Businesses • Joint initiative with UMass Lowell and federal/state agencies • Support food and beverage businesses in making energy/environmental improvements and reducing operating costs • Free interactive workshops, tours, webinars, technical assistance 27
Recommend
More recommend
