Energy Assessments and Savings Opportunities in Industrial - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• f 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

• 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

Industrial Assessment Center

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

• Refrigeration and process cooling
• Install automated controls – variable

frequency drives to adjust motor speed to load

• Optimize sequencing of equipment
• Replace old, inefficient equipment

Common Findings & Opportunities

carrier.com

10

• Ovens and process heating
• Add insulation
• Clean and tune boilers
• Recover heat from oven or

boiler exhaust

• Maintain steam traps

rocklandbakery.com

Common Findings & Opportunities

11

• Compressed air systems
• Adjust pressure setting
• Repair leaks
• Eliminate unnecessary uses
• f compressed air
• Increase storage
• Replace old, inefficient

equipment

efficiencyvermont.com

Common Findings & Opportunities

12

• Lighting
• Upgrade equipment
• Install or optimize controls –
• ccupancy sensors, daylight

sensors, timers

Common Findings & Opportunities

efficiencyvermont.com

13

• 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

Common Findings & Opportunities

14

30 to 55% less greenhouse gas emissions

Fuel

100 unit s

CHP

75% efficiency Total Efficiency ~ 75%

Fuel Fuel

30 units

Power Plant

32% efficiency

(Including T&D)

Onsite Boiler

80% efficiency 45 units

Electricity

Heat Total Efficiency ~ 50% 94 units 56 units

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

Recommendation Annual Savings Implement. Cost Payback Period Energy Cost 1 Reduce exhaust on scrubbers during off hours Electricity (kWh) 182,994 $20,825 $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 4 Implement temperature setback in the office Electricity (kWh) 14,575 $1,659 $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 11 Turn off the paint area exhaust fan Electricity (kWh) 3,518 $400 $100 1 month Natural Gas (MMBtu) 52 $679 Total Electricity (kWh) 767,281 $87,318

• 6 months

Natural Gas (MMBtu) 1,828 $24,526

• 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
• f fan speed to 50% during off hours
• Reduced electricity consumption by fans and gas use for space heating
• Annual savings $48,000

17

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

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

Case Study – Philips Recommendation 2

19

• 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,
• ngoing maintenance required to minimize leakage
• Annual cost savings $6,000

Case Study – Philips Recommendation 5

20

Valves observed during site visit

Case Study – Philips Recommendation 6

21

• 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

Case Study – Philips Recommendation 6

22

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

Case Study – Philips Recommendation 6

• 7 of 12 recommendations implemented or in progress
• Annual cost savings $102,000
• Implementation cost after utility incentives $31,000
• Payback period 4 months

Case Study – Philips Results

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

• perating costs
• Free interactive workshops, tours,

webinars, technical assistance

27

Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Partnership

• Training program operated by CEERE, sponsored by Eversource and

National Grid

• 1-2 day sessions on a variety of topics
• Compressed air systems
• Data centers
• HVAC
• Labs
• Lighting control systems
• Small business efficiency opportunities

28

Beka Kosanovic 413-545-0684 kosanovic@umass.edu www.ceere.org facebook.com/UMassCEERE Twitter: @UMassCEERE

Contact me to discuss how we can assist your business

• r connect you to the appropriate resources

29